Star Signs v Dancers

[JoC]

Here's something to upset the sceptics and intrigue the rest. It's from an astrology website:

"One other variable worth mentioning is that Bush was elected in 2000, a year in the 20-year cycle of Tecumseh's curse, which declared that U.S. presidents elected then would not complete their terms. In 1811, the Indian chief Tecumseh was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison. Legend has it he sent Harrison word that he - and "every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter [would] die" - as a reminder of the death of Tecumseh's people….United States President Harrison did die of pneumonia in 1841. And with only one exception, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 since that time have also died in office. This "curse" coincides with the astrological Jupiter/Saturn cycle, also a cycle of 20 years. The presidents who fell prey to the curse all were elected in years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoined in an earth sign. The lone president to survive the curse since 1840 has been President Reagan, whose 1980 election was preceded by Jupiter/Saturn conjoined in an air sign. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction was in an earth sign as it was with all of the presidents who did not complete their terms.

There are prayer groups in the U.S. specifically focused on protecting President Bush from the fate that befell the following presidents:

1840, William Henry Harrison—Died April 6, 1841 of pneumonia
1860, Abraham Lincoln—Assassinated April 14, 1865
1880, James Garfield—Assassinated July 2, 1881
1900, William McKinley—Assassinated September 6, 1901
1920, Warren G. Harding—Died August 2, 1923 from food poisoning
1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt—Died April 12, 1945, stroke
1960, John F. Kennedy—Assassinated November 22, 1963
1980, Ronald Reagan—Assassination attempt on March 30, 1981. Survived to serve two full terms as president.

...But a more dangerous time, from my perspective, is September/October of 2005, or Jan/Feb 2006, when Mars stations at 22°/23° Taurus, the exact degree of the 2000 Jupiter/Saturn conjunction."

Do we know what happened to the other presidents in between times? Be interested to find out if they were all ok until they'd left office, otherwise there are going to be cries of damn statistics and lies.

I think you're going to have to brace youself with this one Ash... (but based on earlier evidence I'd guess you can handle it!)

(Daresay you've looked into the Spear of Destiny too huh? That's an interesting one...)

[David Bailey]

Places, please, ladies and gentlemen...

"One other variable worth mentioning is that Bush was elected in 2000, a year in the 20-year cycle of Tecumseh's curse, which declared that U.S. presidents elected then would not complete their terms.

In 1811, the Indian chief Tecumseh was defeated in the Battle of Tippecanoe by William Henry Harrison. Legend has it he sent Harrison word that he - and "every Great Chief chosen every 20 years thereafter [would] die" - as a reminder of the death of Tecumseh's people….United States President Harrison did die of pneumonia in 1841. And with only one exception, all American presidents elected in a year divisible by 20 since that time have also died in office.

This "curse" coincides with the astrological Jupiter/Saturn cycle, also a cycle of 20 years. The presidents who fell prey to the curse all were elected in years when Jupiter and Saturn conjoined in an earth sign. The lone president to survive the curse since 1840 has been President Reagan, whose 1980 election was preceded by Jupiter/Saturn conjoined in an air sign. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction was in an earth sign as it was with all of the presidents who did not complete their terms.

OK, a few minor points:

• The curse missed Madison (who was President at the time, and lived to 85.
• It also missed missed James Monroe, the next person elected after Tecumseh's death (let alone any curse he could have placed while still alive)
• William Henry Harrison (also sometimes credited with defeating Tecumseh) was elected in 1840, gave the longest inaugural address on record in the pouring rain without his hat and coat, and died a month later of pneumonia; how strange...
• As you say, the presidents elected in 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940 and 1960 all died in office. But, so did the president elected in 1848, 1864 (Lincoln second time), 1896 (McKinley first time) and 1932, 1936 and 1944 (Roosevelt's other victories). Presidents who ultimately died in office were elected in 13 elections of the 54 so far (or more accurately of the 31 from 1840 to 1960), and seven of those thirteen elections happen to be neatly spaced. It's not a massive improbability.

I've taken these points from the thorough debunkingof this hooey, done by Nicholas Whyte.

He also convincingly refutes (to me) any astrological argument based on conjunctions - to quote one extract:

"But the conjunction theory just doesn't work as a convincing factor of causation, for the very good reason that in two cases of the unlucky seven, the President actually died before the conjunction took place. President William H. Harrison ... caught pneumonia and died on 4 April, nine and a half months before Saturn and Jupiter converged to kill him. And President William McKinley died on 14 September 1901, ten weeks in advance of the planetary alignment."

Finally, ignoring the whole "If curse did exist, why on earth choose such a weird one?" question, there's no 19th-century historical source for this story. None. Niente. Zip. Nada. In other words, someone made it up.

Even the urban legend itself is not consistent - sometimes it's Tecumseh, sometimes it's his half-brother Tenskwatawa.

This is maybe 20% of the arguments against this one - in other words, it's so ridiculous, arguing against it is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

Oh, and:

There are prayer groups in the U.S. specifically focused on protecting President Bush from the fate that befell the following presidents

There are just so many witty comebacks I could use to that one, it's hard to know where to start... But to be topical, when Pat Robertson isn't praying for the assassination of foreign leaders, he's praying for the non-assassination of his own? Good to know these religious leaders are so focussed on the violent deaths of democratically-elected presidents...

In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Places, please, ladies and gentlemen...


{big snip}


In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.

David, I really don't know how you manage to be so measured through all of this; I'd have lost my rag with that nonsense within about two sentences. Full marks to you, and double rep. were I allowed.

Storming stuff.

[David Bailey]

David, I really don't know how you manage to be so measured through all of this; I'd have lost my rag with that nonsense within about two sentences. Full marks to you, and double rep. were I allowed.

Storming stuff.

Ahh, you're just saying that because you want to be lead on Saturday.

But, to quote the great and wonderful Buffy:
Willow: How can you be so calm?
Oz: Long, arduous hours of practice.

I'm seriously tempted to make an argument for the mythology of Buffy being more consistent, plausible, believable and provable than astrology...

[JoC]

OK, a few minor points:

Well that answered my question, thankyou for making the effort.

In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.

Ever see that programme Heaven's Mirror, amazing what you can 'prove' by being selective with data. (I believed it of course).

[Graham]

I'm seriously tempted to make an argument for the mythology of Buffy being more consistent, plausible, believable and provable than astrology...

Oh, go on.....

[David Bailey]

Oh, go on.....

Well, you know my price...

[Ash]

In summary, if you look for coincidences, and no nothing about probability and causation, you'll find them.DavidJames

You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.
I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’: it’s like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are 2 sides of the same coin but people get them mixed up, even though you need a different kind of thinking for each one. It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking. (The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.

in other words, it's so ridiculous, arguing against it is like dynamiting fish in a barrel.

Of course it is….just like arguing against UFOs, ghosts, ESP, mediumship, the after-life etc...if you’re trying to compare apples and oranges…

He also convincingly refutes (to me) any astrological argument based on conjunctions - to quote one extract:

"But the conjunction theory just doesn't work as a convincing factor of causation, for the very good reason that in two cases of the unlucky seven, the President actually died before the conjunction took place. President William H. Harrison ... caught pneumonia and died on 4 April, nine and a half months before Saturn and Jupiter converged to kill him. And President William McKinley died on 14 September 1901, ten weeks in advance of the planetary alignment."

Astrology is a diagnostic tool, rather than the final word. When people have their Saturn return, for example, they go through a big change between 28-30 years of age. (This is connected with the orbit of Saturn around the birthchart which takes about 29.5 years.) So everybody isn’t going to have big changes at the same time-but will be susceptible/prone/open to them between those ages.

So the presidents will be vulnerable around the conjunctions because they’re sensitive points.

there's no 19th-century historical source for this story. None. Niente. Zip. Nada. In other words, someone made it up.

There’s no official ‘white-man’ source…what about the Indian oral tradition? And legend can be confusing, misleading, mythic…but sometimes it can be based on truth. Whatever the merits of the story the pattern is actually consistent. The only exceptions are 1820 and 1980-and that’s when the presidents were elected around the Jupiter and Saturn conjunctions that were in a fire sign and an air sign. And the ones who died in office were elected around the conjunctions that were in earth signs. (The 1848 winner was the only other one to die in office…you can put that one down to probability.)

The 2000 winner was elected around the conjunction of an earth sign. Bush is vulnerable…

P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:

Regardless of what you believe this is a spiritual war ready to go full blown and the Creator of the heavens and the earth said to not dabble in astrology, nor with spiritualists, and the like…believe on Jesus Christ and recieve him as Lord and Savior before we get into the heat of the battle, Armegedon…

[David Franklin]

P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:
(quote deleted)

The lines you quote are not from the site author, but an email sent to him (and clearly marked as such). I find your use of them here misleading and unjustifiable.

[David Bailey]

I don't need rep, people - this one's on the house.

You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.

I feel a Gus "Count to infinity" moment coming on...

"Synchronicity" is a completely subjective phenomenon, following on naturally from our search for meaning in the universe we live in - we make connections where none exist between phenomena that have no external relationship, simply because we naturally look for patterns in everything.

I personally have found some meaning to life, but I'm not going to bang on about it, and I certainly didn't find it easily, quickly, or through an "Open mind to everything" approach. I had to work at it, doing this crazy thinking thing.

The specific "Tecumseh's Curse" post referred to a phenomenon which I personally believe to be less-than-massively improbable. I dunno the exact probabilities (David F, wanna give it a try?), but certainly it's way more likely than, say, the 5% level which mathematicians would class as "unlikely".

I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’:

Great, do I get to wear a uniform?

It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking.

If you think you can make progress in nuclear physics without imagination and, yes, poetry, you're nuts. I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism. I feel you want to put us all into "logical and boring" or "creative and interesting" boxes, and I profoundly disagree with such categorisation.

Humans are complex and comprehensive creatures, we're capable of simultaneous rationality and poetry. Or in other words, we're smart enough to fart and chew gum at the same time.

(The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.

I'd agree, but I'd also say this is an essential requirement for any progress in any field of study. Maths and logic only take you so far; I've never even implied otherwise.

Also, is it skeptic or sceptic? It's been worrying me...

Of course it is….just like arguing against UFOs, ghosts, ESP, mediumship, the after-life etc...if you’re trying to compare apples and oranges…

Out of interest, is there any "mystical" phenomenon you don't believe in? In other words, how high / low is your belief barrier? Obviously, it's lower than mine, but I'd like to know where you draw the line and say "Nahh, that's clearly loony territory".

Astrology is a diagnostic tool, rather than the final word. When people have their Saturn return, for example, they go through a big change between 28-30 years of age. (This is connected with the orbit of Saturn around the birthchart which takes about 29.5 years.) So everybody isn’t going to have big changes at the same time-but will be susceptible/prone/open to them between those ages.

Boy, it's not exactly a major test to predict that someone in a Western culture will have many life changes towards the end of their 20's - it's when lots of people settle down, get a house, get married, have kids... It's like saying they'll have life changes when they're 18. Colour me unsurprised, and skeptical as to the infuence of Saturn in all that.

There’s no official ‘white-man’ source

No; there's no source: no white written source, no Native American oral tradition, no black source, no green source. There's no mention of it anywhere until a (white!) book published in 1934. That's why I said there's no 19th century source. And yes, 19th century sources tend to have to be written rather than remembered, it being nearly 200 years ago.

And, just in case I was ambiguous, let me put it another way:
- THERE'S NO SOURCE.

Whatever the merits of the story the pattern is actually consistent.

But if the story is bull, why even look for a pattern? Even if a pattern existed (which it doesn't), without some explanation for it you've got nothing to work on...

The 2000 winner was elected around the conjunction of an earth sign. Bush is vulnerable…

You're not going to get around me by raising my hopes up you know...

P.S. Your source, David, http://explorers.whyte.com/curse.htm, is not the most objective:

Possibly not - but that quote is, as David F said, a reply from, well, a nutter basically - the text at the top of that section saying "Postscript: On 3 May 2001, Laura Ramsey sent me an interesting email in response to this page:" was maybe a bit of a giveaway.

But because I'm nice, kind, and at one with the flow of the universe, I'll assume you missed that part of it, and this was a genuine mistake on your part.

(Another quote from The Nutter:
"My father had a prophetic dream about the assassination attempt. There was an elephant standing on a body of water and a beach to his right. The right side of the elephant was visible. On the beach were silouettes of break dancers and in the back ground that appeared to be cliffs, were actually condos. One of the guys on the beach got angry and hit the elephant so hard it put a hole in his left side. My brother interpreted it partially but full understanding came after the attempt on Reagans life."
That brightened up my day - I especially liked the break dancers...)

[JoC]

Also, is it skeptic or sceptic?

skeptic: US spelling of sceptic

Compact Oxford English Dictionary second edition, now where was I?

[El Salsero Gringo]

I have only a couple of things to say/ask after David's excellent post:

You’re right if we look at this thing rationally….but will everything fit neatly into your template? The universe has many patterns that you and I don’t understand…synchronicity, for example, works for many people, even though it’s completely illogical.

Firstly let me say that the fact that we don't understand the patterns is not a bone of contention between us. But we rational folk ask that the patterns show at the least some statistical significance rather than just the 'well it works for me' argument used by snake-oil peddlars and quacks througout the ages. Does the fact that it blatantly *doesn't* work for many people - and in lots of cases - ever make you think twice about it?

I think the skeptics always make a schoolboy error when they compare ‘science’ and ‘mysticism’: it’s like trying to compare apples and oranges. They are 2 sides of the same coin but people get them mixed up, even though you need a different kind of thinking for each one. It’s like a poet trying to understand nuclear physics, for example, without changing his mode of thinking. (The skeptics can’t seem to grasp this basic concept.) For organic thought you need to be able to combine ‘logic’ and ‘intuition’.

Can you go a bit further into why you claim it's two sides of a coin? David wisely makes the point (as I've tried to do in previous posts, but clearly failed) that intuition and logic are both needed in all fields. But if it's such a basic concept that thinking about the spritual needs a different kind of thinking (as opposed simply to the suspension of any kind of rational judgement) could you try to enlarge on that?

[JoC]

I don't need rep, people - this one's on the house.

That deserves some rep surely?

I personally have found some meaning to life

The forum obviously, you don't need to bang on about it...

Great, do I get to wear a uniform?

Please post some photos.

I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism.

Hope you're not putting words in anyone's mouth there! For what its worth, I wholly agree that many of us are far from being categorisable (made up?) as either a 'scientist' or an 'artist' (or whatever). Many people with scientific professions are ardent art lovers or artists (in the broadest sense) and many 'arty' people are equally fascinated by science for example. People of all leanings indulge in wondering where things came from, how things can be, what forces are at work that haven't been identified as yet etc etc etc...and explore spirituality in their way.

(But you have to admit that some people's brains a little better wired for certain types of thinking though, and maybe even that some people really are a little constricted in thought patterns...)

I blabbed on about Heaven's Mirror somewhere else but that was an example of how selective use of data (in that case ancient settlements orientations in relation to constellations in year zippety doo da if I remember rightly) could 'prove' a theory. A debunker showed that if you looked at the fuller picture and didn't select just the stars that helped your theory, then the whole thing looked a bit less convincing. That said I don't think the debunker could have proved the theory was wrong either, it really just made it less probable. You could maybe say the same for the dreaded presidents curse. Looking at the other data just makes it less probable but doesn't actually prove it to be false either, does it?

About historical documents too... well they're not necessarily anything like reliable either. Just about anything written down has been potential propaganda since history began, or is an interpretation from centuries later probably written for entertainment. (Why I dropped Medieval History after a year...what you mean it might not be true?????)

The cat said for me to stop now and have some medicinal fine wine after this awful week at work.

[JoC]

And by the way, cancer, scorpio and pisces are all front-runners which is just what you'd expect.

[JoC]

Does the fact that it blatantly *doesn't* work for many people - and in lots of cases - ever make you think twice about it?

Do you really have evidence against Ash's theories or do you just think her evidence isn't good enough?

You'll rip me to shreds but I'm put in mind of so many theorists, scientists etc who were shot down in flames, only to be proved right years later.

[David Bailey]

Wa-hey, come on then, you want some?

That deserves some rep surely?

Put it on the tab; at the moment I'm just trying not to do the ironing Dee's promised she'd do...

The forum obviously, you don't need to bang on about it...

See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughter. Discrimination, I call it.

Hope you're not putting words in anyone's mouth there!

Maybe - but I certainly feel Ash's very strongly arguing that there's little or no room for rationality in "intuitive" areas. Obviously, I'm inferring a lot, but any consistent world-view would seem to demand the opposite apply to "non-intuitive" areas. But then, maybe I'm being too left-brained in expecting consistency. I dunno, where's that ironing gone...

(But you have to admit that some people's brains a little better wired for certain types of thinking though, and maybe even that some people really are a little constricted in thought patterns...)

Absolutely. For example, us men are 5 IQ points cleverer on average than you girlz, for example

You could maybe say the same for the dreaded presidents curse. Looking at the other data just makes it less probable but doesn't actually prove it to be false either, does it?

To me, the main argument is not one about probability - simply because we can all argue about that, and because improbable things do indeed happen (just not as often as probable ones ).

The main argument is that someone made the story up, to glamourise this series of improbable events.

About historical documents too... well they're not necessarily anything like reliable either. Just about anything written down has been potential propaganda since history began, or is an interpretation from centuries later probably written for entertainment. (Why I dropped Medieval History after a year...what you mean it might not be true?????)

History is of course subject to constant re-interpretation and revisionism. But if there were a Native American curse, it seems strange that the Native Americans never told anyone about it. I'd imagine if I had a curse, which might work against my enemies, I'd damned well shout it from the rooftops.

So in the absence of any information to the contrary, one has to conclude that it just doesn't exist.

[Ash]

If you think you can make progress in nuclear physics without imagination and, yes, poetry, you're nuts. I resent your consistent implication that people who happen to work in scientific areas lack poetry, creativity or imagination. Or indeed that people working in creative areas lack discipline, rigour and pragmatism. I feel you want to put us all into "logical and boring" or "creative and interesting" boxes, and I profoundly disagree with such categorisation.DavidJames

I think you need to read the posts more carefully in future. Earlier on in the thread, for example, I made an observation but you thought I was making an argument-and Ducasi had to correct you. And I’ve already praised science-and said the best ones have imagination. So I obviously realize that that you need ‘logic’ and ‘imagination’ to achieve something.

What I’ve been trying to get across is that science is a bit handicapped when it comes to mystical phenomenon because it can have rigid parameters. Thinking will only take you so far when it comes to psychic stuff…you also need your feelings. That’s basically what I’m saying…I’m not trying to convert anyone-just highlighting the different approach you have to take-as I said: ‘apples and pears’.

They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…but over 90% of calls to the station praised it. A lot of the callers went beyond the placebo effect, and included a doctor and a nurse. The bottom line: it works for a lot of people-despite the science.

So there’s no point discussing synchronicity etc. because we’re talking different languages, in many ways. (I have explored this area for over 15 years, in a discerning way, and found stuff I’ve agreed and disagreed with-and changed my mind along the way.) We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[JoC]

Wa-hey, come on then, you want some?

My shredding of other people's work was not satisfying today for some reason so yes. I must have my quota.

Put it on the tab; at the moment I'm just trying not to do the ironing Dee's promised she'd do...

It's unlikely I'll ever get that tab cleared, just so's yoo no.

See - ESG waxes poetic, everyone sheds a tear. I try to, everyone sheds a tear of laughter. Discrimination, I call it.

You know that was a crocodile tear, only you really move me, truly, I'm welling up as I type and I can't discriminate having done electronic diversity training and being consequently programmed for, I mean against, discrimination.

Obviously, I'm inferring a lot

Maybe you both are, but I can't help thinking that you both know very well where the other is coming from, but why not I suppose...or am I assuming that everyone sees all as I do? (by the way what is this thing ironing of which you speak?)

Absolutely. For example, us men are 5 IQ points cleverer on average than you girlz, for example

Who devised the IQ test? (No really, i'm interested and you're bound to know!)

glamourise

There's no 'u'.

History is of course subject to constant re-interpretation and revisionism. But if there were a Native American curse, it seems strange that the Native Americans never told anyone about it. I'd imagine if I had a curse, which might work against my enemies, I'd damned well shout it from the rooftops.

Well they maybe did shout it from the rooftops and tell people about it, they just didn't write it down because they didn't dig that kind of thing. But I've already said my bit on what's written down...

So in the absence of any information to the contrary, one has to conclude that it just doesn't exist.

Sir, you deserve a whipping for this! Perhaps you should be considering it may exist until there is evidence that it does not. (I can't actually remember what 'it' is any more I confess, but nonetheless!) I am put in mind of a former lecturer's tale of woe as he tried to get his theories on black smokers published, years later and it's taken as read all the work he struggled to get recognised.

[JoC]

They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…but over 90% of calls to the station praised it. A lot of the callers went beyond the placebo effect, and included a doctor and a nurse. The bottom line: it works for a lot of people-despite the science.

I understand that homepathic remedies are available for pets, now surely they can't be sceptics or susceptible to placebo drugs!? A couple of Swiss scientists, pah! Plenty of currently accepted theories have been 'disproved' at some point in time. In fact probably any theory you care to choose will have been disproved by somebody...

[David Bailey]

I think you need to read the posts more carefully in future.

Quite possibly, don't we all...

And I’ve already praised science-and said the best ones have imagination.

Ah, patronisation.
But, assuming consistency (!), would you then also say that the best "creatives" also have rationality and logic? Or is it just a one-way street?

They were discussing homeopathy on Radio 2 today. Swiss scientists have disproved homeopathy…

Yes, that was an interesting study - surprising to me too, as I'd thought there was some validity in homeopathy. But, as I have an open mind on these things, I can indeed be swayed by a rigorous medical study about, well, medical practices.

Also, I don't believe they ever said they'd "disproved" homeopathy - they've simply conducted a study which suggests certain things. The Lancet was indeed quite gung-ho against homeopathy, but I've lost a lot of faith in the Lancet's authority over the past few years, it's got a bit too tabloid for my tastes.

The exact title of the BBC news item is "Homeopathy's benefit questioned". Note: questioned.

In fact, the article itself covers both areas, and there are indeed questions about it - I don't believe homeopathy has been conclusively disproved. Yet.

(I have explored this area for over 15 years, in a discerning way, and found stuff I’ve agreed and disagreed with-and changed my mind along the way.)

Well, I've explored it for about 2 weeks now, so you're ahead of me...

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I never imagined I'd change your mind, somehow. Or indeed answer any questions, or admit any glaring mistakes...