Display posts from previous
Sort by

Chart Comparisons

1 by Tom
Those that sneak over to modern websites may have seen this. It was pointed out to me this evening, and I thought this might make an interesting if not downright challenging exercise. If the information given is correct, George W. Bush and Sylvester Stallone are astrotwins. Their birthdates are the same, July 6, 1946, and, according to the information given to me, they were born six minutes apart fairly close in geography.

George W Bush
July 6, 1945
7:26 am EDT
New Haven CT

Sylvester Stallone
July 6, 1946
7:20 am
New York, NY

I ran the charts using the above data on Solar Fire and it produced, not too surprisingly, angles that are about 3 degrees different, but planetary placements that are virtually identical. New York City just isn't that far from New Haven, Connecticut.

The challenge is how to predict the different paths their lives took when the charts are the same, assuming it can be done at all.

Stallone reached the top of his profession (as box office draw) at a young age, which is typical for actors. He was only 28 when the first Rocky movie came out. W was inaugurated President when he was 53, which is typical of Presidents. Do the angles make a difference? We'd have to look at directions, progressions, and solar arcs to see that.

What first struck me is that both men have difficulty speaking. Stallone has a partial facial paralysis that causes him to slur words. Bush's interviews are at times painful to watch as he struggles to get the words out.

I'd like to see some work done on these charts, but I ask that the Bush haters take their venom elsewhere. It contributes nothing to the astrology. Childish remarks about Rambo belong elsewhere, too. I think a chart comparison can be instructive, assuming the birth data for Stallone is correct.

I"m going to see if I can develop some kind of timline for each man and try to line that up with astrological hits. Anything else is welcome.

Tom

3 by Tom
I remember when Stallone was at his peak that people would talk about the fact that he had a high IQ, and yet people fight over Bush's intelligence.
This is the problem with doing the charts of politiicans; the subjective takes on a life of its own. I have no idea of what Sylvester Stallone's IQ might be much less the President's, but during the 2004 campaign a newscaster, I think it was Tom Brokaw, pointed out to John Kerry, after Kerry made a remark about Bush's intelligence, that according to military records, Bush's IQ score was higher than Kerry's.

I think we'd be better off sticking to verifiable events.

Tom

4 by ###
I suppose we should aim for accuracy, so I gotta do it: I?ve always seen Stallone?s time as 19:20 (7:20pm). That's how AstroDatabank has it. Same in Kevin Burk's book.

6 by TonyLouis
Tom,

Even though the charts are 12 hours apart, I still think it would be an interesting exercise to compare the two. Except for the Moon, the planetary placements are almost identical. Hence the planetary dignities and debilities are the same for both individuals. I think the only difference in dignities is the planetary terms of the Moon in each chart. This might allow us to test the Ptolemaic versus the Egyptian terms, which are quite different in Libra. The other significant differences are the angles, house cusps, and planetary placements in houses. A comparison of these charts would be an interesting test of Morin's theory of local determination.

Tony

7 by Tom
A comparison of these charts would be an interesting test of Morin's theory of local determination.
Exactly which is why I posted this idea in the first place. :wink: Good idea. I'll take a look and look at your mystery chart. I just got home from a week long road trip.

Tom
Last edited by Tom on Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

9 by Tom
Tom, I meant that it will be interesting to see what difference there is in the charts that might point to these two different perceptions by the public.
Public "perceptions" of politicians are not to be trusted much less be found in a chart of the politician. It is common practice to call the guy you disagree with "stupid," and question his IQ. Democrats, for example, have been crying wolf on this issue since Dwight Eisenhower who was President from 1952 - 60. He was stupid, Nixon was stupid, Reagan was stupid, George Bush I was stupid, and of course George Bush II is stupid. If Republican attitudes can be generalized, they seem to question the sanity rather than inteligence, of the opposition, viz Bill and Hillary are megalomaniacs, JFK never grew up, etc, It was routine for their enemies to question the intelligence of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill (who is probably spinning in his grave right about now).

On January 20, 2009, a new American President will be inaugurated and he or she will be a Republican or a Democrat and most assuredly, before the Bible used for swearing in has been put down, the opposition will say the new President is stupid.

A great example of "others' perception" can be found in the respective charts of G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Both have Mercury sextile Neptune. I've seen astrolgoers say in one chart that aspect indicates idealisim and in the other it indicates delusion. It doesn't matter what was said about whom; I think the point is self evident.

Finally what earthy difference does it make? A person's intelligence is what it is regardless of perception. I'm reminded of the story of the 6 college professors who were "debating" the answer to the question, "What is 2 + 2?" Three said it was 4; the other three said it was 6, so in order to reach a consensus, they agreed to say it was 5.

We might argue that we can get some sense of intelligence from the chart, but I have reservations about that. Nevertheless, we should be looking for the objective reality not what others think of that reality, much less what others think that reality is, and why they think it

However, if you insist, George W. Bush is highly choleric, the fire temperament. His Mercury is in a fixed sign on his ASC disposed by a 12th house Sun. 12th house planets have difficulty "getting out." The urgency he feels to express himself or get the words out is done through a fixed Mercury disposed by a 12th house Sun. The urgency overrides the fixity. Watch him during an interview or press conference, he acts as though he is trying to control the words rather than use them. Opportunists will cite his stumbling over words as a deficient IQ, as though difficulty speaking is part of the Stanford-Benet Intelligence scale (and therefore everyone who stutters must be stupid).

I seriously doubt that the chart of an individual is going to objectively show us why others think of him or her as they do especially a politician whose position on an issue is going to do more to determine that than is his personality or his intelligence.

Tom

10 by Tom
Tom, I meant that it will be interesting to see what difference there is in the charts that might point to these two different perceptions by the public.
Public "perceptions" of politicians are not to be trusted much less be found in a chart of the politician. It is common practice to call the guy you disagree with "stupid," and question his IQ. Democrats, for example, have been crying wolf on this issue since Dwight Eisenhower who was President from 1952 - 60. He was stupid, Nixon was stupid, Reagan was stupid, George Bush I was stupid, and of course George Bush II is stupid. If Republican attitudes can be generalized, they seem to question the sanity rather than inteligence, of the opposition, viz Bill and Hillary are megalomaniacs, JFK never grew up, etc, It was routine for their enemies to question the intelligence of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill (who is probably spinning in his grave right about now).

On January 20, 2009, a new American President will be inaugurated and he or she will be a Republican or a Democrat and most assuredly, before the Bible used for swearing in has been put down, the opposition will say the new President is stupid.

A great example of "others' perception" can be found in the respective charts of G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Both have Mercury sextile Neptune. I've seen astrologers say in one chart that aspect indicates idealisim and in the other it indicates delusion. It doesn't matter what was said about whom; I think the point is self evident.

Finally what earthy difference does it make? A person's intelligence is what it is regardless of perception. I'm reminded of the story of the 6 college professors who were "debating" the answer to the question, "What is 2 + 2?" Three said it was 4; the other three said it was 6, so in order to reach a consensus, they agreed to say it was 5.

We might argue that we can get some sense of intelligence from the chart, but I have reservations about that. Nevertheless, we should be looking for the objective reality not what others think of that reality, much less what others think that reality is, and why they think it

However, if you insist, George W. Bush is highly choleric, the fire temperament. His Mercury is in a fixed sign on his ASC disposed by a 12th house Sun. 12th house planets have difficulty "getting out." The urgency he feels to express himself or get the words out is done through a fixed Mercury disposed by a 12th house Sun. The urgency overrides the fixity. Watch him during an interview or press conference, he acts as though he is trying to control the words rather than use them. Opportunists will cite his stumbling over words as a deficient IQ, as though difficulty speaking is part of the Stanford-Benet Intelligence scale (and therefore everyone who stutters must be stupid).

I seriously doubt that the chart of an individual is going to objectively show us why others think of him or her as they do especially a politician whose position on an issue is going to do more to determine that than is his personality or his intelligence.

Tom

11 by MarkF
Tom,

I've heard this about planets in the 12th house having trouble "getting out" but like everything you have to look at a specific chart. I've been studying Lilly's example in book II of CA and his merchant friend had Jupiter in Sagittarius in the 12th ruling the 2nd house. Lilly uses this as a sign for wealth. I didn't understand this but Lilly says that one, because Jupiter is strong in his own sign, because it is the natural significator for wealth, and because it aspects the cusp of the 2nd house in this chart by a sextile, and becuase it rules Pisces which is intercepted in the 2nd house that these are signs of wealth. This chart also has the Sun, Mercury and Venus all in the 8th house too but instead of this being a sign of loss, Lilly uses it to show that the merchant will make money from his business partners and from inheritances.

So there are several ways that mitigate what looks like bad house placement. But sometimes, sure, you just lose and there's nothing you can do about it.
Mark F

12 by TonyLouis
Following up on the issue of essential dignities of the planets in the two charts, the only diffence is in the terms of the Moon.

Bush: Moon in 17th degree of Libra is in the terms of Jupiter (both Ptolemaic and Egyptian)

Stallone: Moon in 23rd degree of Libra is in the terms of Mercury (Ptolemaic) or Venus (Egyptian).

I'm not sure how to articulate the differences between the terms of the Moon in the two charts. The medieval and older texts often relate the terms of the sun and moon to the family background and to the appearance of the native.

In Bush's case, the Moon (his mother) did come from a wealthy, comfortable, privileged background (Jupiter).

I couldn't find much about Stallone's mother's background and don't whether Venus or Mercury would better fit his maternal heritage. Apparently when she was a young woman she was "a trapeze artist in a circus and a chorus girl in a nightclub. She also was a hairdresser." Once Sylvester achieved fame, she established a psychic hotline and wrote a book about astrology.

I'm interested in others' thoughts about the differences in the terms of the Moon in these two charts.

Tony
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”