Since my previous blog also became a lightening rod for opposing views on astrology, I offer this one for the discussion of the topic. I have titled it Terrestrial Astrology: Science or Superstition? since the issue includes the idea that the astrology that the Plejaren are said to practice is far different, more advanced and accurate than our terrestrial version.
Hopefully some light can be shed that will be of value to all concerned.
UPDATE on earthquakes:
Well said Tony , its a very interesting topic , and you are also very correct in saying that it IS a science . How very true. The oldest medicine here too , also is , millions of years old and that is acupuncture . the Chinese are getting there also , but are missing quite a few pressure / nerve points that are yet to be discovered , but they are nearly there.Even though they did in NO way discover it.It was just ‘found” or re discovered from another race and handed down .
Kindest regards Wayne Anthony Sunter-Smith.
Yes, you are correct. We are moving deeper and deeper into the Age of Aquarius, in which many forms of true knowledge will be taught and revealed. Acupuncture/Acupressure is a true science that will be developed to it’s correct form as well.
If you are interested in Medicine, then you can do no better that to study Medical Astrology, which is the deepest understanding of the Human Body, as well as all other components of Humans.
Wow! “Medical Astrology”!
Scarey!
Do you also have “Oceanographic Astrology”?
Hey! “Psychiatric Astrology”???
“Magnetohydrodynamic Astrology”?
“Linguistic Astrology”?
“Dedrochronological Astrology”?
“Geriatric periodontics Astrology”?
I’m having too much fun. The fish art can wait. This can’t last!
Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world. It is not recognized by the scientific community as a science. In the west, Astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person’s personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the Sun,Moon and other Celestial objects at the time of their birth.
Throughout most of its history, Astrology was considered a scholarly tradition. It was accepted in Political and Academic context, it was also connected with other studies, such as astronomy, Alchemy, meteorology and medicine.
Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as a Pseudoscience because it didn’t demonstrate its effectiveness in controlled studies.
Shawn Carlson’s double-blind chart matching test, in which twenty eight astrologers agreed to match over 100 natal charts to psychological profiles generated by the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) test, is one of the most renowned tests of astrology. The experimental protocol used in Carlson’s study was agreed to by a group of physicists and astrologers prior to the experiment. Astrologers, nominated by the National Council for Geocosmic Research, acted as the astrological advisors, and helped to ensure, and agreed, that the test was fair. They also chose twentysix of the twentyeight astrologers for the tests, the other two being interested astrologers who volunteered afterwards. The astrologers, from Europe and the United States,helped to draw up the central proposition of natal astrology to be tested. Published in Nature in 1985, the study found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better than chance, and that the testing “clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis”.
In the West, political leaders have sometimes consulted astrologers. Louis de Wohl worked as an astrologer for the British intelligence agency MI5, after it was claimed that Hitler used astrology to time his actions. The War Office was “interested to know what Hitler’s own astrologers would be telling him from week to week”. In fact, de Wohl’s predictions were so inaccurate that he was soon labelled a “complete charlatan” and it was later shown that Hitler considered astrology to be “complete nonsense”.After John Hinckley’s attempted assassination of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, first lady Nancy Reagan commissioned astrologer Joan Quigley to act as the secret White House astrologer. However, Quigley’s role ended in 1988 when it became public through the memoirs of former chief of staff, Donald Regan.
There was a boom in interest in astrology in the late 1960s. The sociologist Marcello Truzzi described three levels of involvement of “Astrology-believers” to account for its revived popularity in the face of scientific discrediting. He found that most astrology-believers did not claim it was a scientific explanation with predictive power. Instead, those superficially involved, knowing “next to nothing” about astrology’s ‘mechanics’, read newspaper astrology columns, and could benefit from “tension-management of anxieties” and “a cognitive belief-system that transcends science”. Those at the second level usually had their horoscopes cast and sought advice and predictions. They were much younger than those at the first level, and could benefit from knowledge of the language of astrology and the resulting ability to belong to a coherent and exclusive group. Those at the third level were highly involved and usually cast horoscopes for themselves. Astrology provided this small minority of astrology-believers with a “meaningful view of their universe and [gave] them an understanding of their place in it.” This third group took astrology seriously, possibly as a “sacred canopy”, whereas the other two groups took it playfully and irreverently.
In 1953, sociologist Theodor W. Adorno conducted a study of the astrology column of a Los Angeles newspaper as part of a project examining mass culture in capitalist society. Adorno believed that popular astrology, as a device, invariably led to statements which encouraged conformity, and that astrologers who went against conformity with statement discouraging performance at work etc. would risk losing their jobs. Adorno concluded that astrology was a large-scale manifestation of systematic irrationalism, where individuals were subtly being led to believe that the author of the column was addressing them directly through the use of flattery and vague generalisations. Adorno drew a parallel with the phrase opium of the people, by Karl Marx, by commenting “occultism is the metaphysic of the dopes”
A 2005 Gallup poll and a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that 25% of U.S. adults believe in astrology.
regards
Dave
All you did was copy/paste mostly incorrect nonsense from Wikipedia and the Oxford dictionary. If you continue that type of activity, I for one, will not continue to converse with you.
He lies, Dave. Don’t let him shake you off. He said that to me too, but he couldn’t help himself, and took my bait!
He write, “mostly incorrect nonsense”. What?
As opposed to what, exactly?
Mostly correct nonsense?
No wonder his thinking is so flawed. He doesn’t even understand language!
“I am never negative.” Priceless.
Dyson,
A coward, I’m not, a fraud, I’m not, an intelligent man who will not converse with a loud-mouth, closed-minded, stubborn, idiot, I am. And I would say a few more things, but I do not want to offend Michael.
I was trying to stay outside of the conversation because I’m extremely busy, which may have contributed to compromised moderating on my part, and because I think the protagonists in the discussion should work it out themselves.
However, I will give some background as to my own interest in the subject. First, I discovered some time ago that I’m interested in vaious systems, which includes things like astrology, the I Ching (which I somehow memorized, for what it’s worth), the Meyers-Briggs personality typing, etc.
I got interested in astrology about 46 years ago when a cousin of mine stayed with me for a few days (he’s also “to blame” for my learning about the I Ching).
Now he seems to have somethin’ goin’ on with this astrology thing. Several years back I personally witnessed him find a young girl who was kidnapped (and presumed dead). He did it using his computer over a couple of days. He actually described the environment in which she was being held (a farm-like place with small animals, etc.) and that she had been kidnapped – and would be returned – by a family member.
It all turned out to be…true, which was all the more remarkable because he was in L.A. and the events took place in…Thailand. I witnessed this first hand and I also saw him find a missing object this way.
My daughter was surprised to come upon a chart he had done when she was something like 5 or 6, in which he correctly foretold the exact (and I still think highly unlikely) profession she would have and that she would work with me when she was older. Neither she nor I had even remembered him doing this.
Now my interest has mainly been in terms of wanting to know what influences may be present, positive or negative. Kind of like a weather report. And I can truthfully say that sometimes that info was not only interesting but contributed to my understanding about things in retrospect.
Of course I’ve noticed that despite the inaccuraies Meier states are burdening terrestrial astrology, there are references such as these from Meier and/or Christian:
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_154
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/meierv2p78-79&84-86&v3p12.htm
“Astrological impulses are a reality, but how they are gathered, judged
and implemented by a person is a VERY individual matter.” “… it’s
not the astrological aspects only that have an influence on one’s own
life; in fact, other factors are more important.”
“Astrology (the real one) is useful for knowing one’s character, or to
form one’s character, etc.”
“Astrology is not one of Billy’s main interest. A book that could be
recommended is one by Jane Goodman (“Sonnenklar” in German) Sol
Astrology in English?”
“Today’s astrology may explain some really general characteristics of
persons who are born under a certain sign. The horoscopes that are
published in the newspapers etc. are useless.”
Of course much is made in the material about Billy’s birthday (and time) and the birthdays of some of the earlier prophets were also under the sign of Aquarius, still granting that the Ps know far more about it than we do.
While I’m interested to see if future events can be foretold, again its the influences and patterns that personally interest me. I like to use EVERYTHING available to me to stimulate my mind, etc.
I think that Tony’s accurately described some of the influences, perhaps more than he has specific events.
Last year I told him that my intuition was that we WOULDN’T attack Syria when he was predicting it and I was right. I think he also foresaw Bush senior dying, which was a miss, along with a specific schoolyard shooitng as well.
Now, it’s BECA– — — USE I don’t want this to turn into any worshipful, religious kind of blog that I’m hosting this discussion. I think it can serve some good purposes (perhaps not yet perceived), if the participants grab the opportunity.
Yes, but to be totally fair, I have predicted some things accurately, like Nelson Mandela dying in 2013.
What about Britney Spears?
Wow. So you predict the year of death of obviously dying nonagenarians.
You amazing Tony. Please, take my money!
Like you predict the death of a 92 (ninety-two!) year old man (Prince Philip of the U.K.), in rapidly failing health, with an (understandable!) recent history of accelerating non-elective serious hospitalisations and, as recently as a few months ago, after rumours of cancer in the U.K. tabloid press denied by the Palace, he undergoes exploratory abdominal surgery(!) – they don’t do THAT sort of major general-aesthetic procedure on a man in his NINETIES lightly – and then just sew him back up and send him home. Um.
I didn’t have to work in hospital administration, in my 20’s when I developed an interest in medicine, to know what THAT means, and be aware of the blindingly obvious fact that predicting death by cancer in 12 months is a ridiculously simple probability calculation – if you can call “1+1=2” a “calculation”. Just out of interest, I looked up the actuarial tables for the chance of death of a HEALTHY man approaching his mid-nineties. Go do it yourself. Survival chances for a year are in the single figure percentage range. What a bold prediction. And read up on Larry King’s tragic medical history of congenital heart disease where his father died in his forties.
Michael,
That was very interesting information, and of course, I’m sure, all of it true. I could relate similar things that I have accomplished in my career, but I’m sure some people would think I was blowing my own horn. So, I’ll be patient, and wait and see how many of my prediction come true.
Astrology has many good usages, I hope we get a good turn out here.
“Astrology has many good usages”
Like comic relief.
“I hope we get a good turn out here.”
ME TOO! And I’m gonna HELP you, Tone, ol’ buddy. Don’t you worry/
🙂
I see it as nothing short of my DUTY as a creational manifestation of my natural barbarism.
Keep ’em coming. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
On October 1, 1632, the Inquisitor of Florence showed up at Galileo’s house with a summons to present himself to the Holy Office in Rome within a month. In despair, Galileo expressed regret for involving himself with the Copernican cause: “I curse the time devoted to these studies in which I strove and hoped to move away somewhat from the beaten path. I repent having given the world a portion of my writings; I feel inclined to consign what is left to the flames and thus placate at last the inextinguishable hatred of my enemies.” The fire left his belly. He declined urgings to escape to the Venetian territory and instead asked that proceedings against him be moved to Florence. His request was denied: the Pope insisted that the old man, weak and ill though he was, make the two-hundred mile wintertime journey to Rome.
On February 13, 1633, Galileo completed his twenty-three day trip to Rome and took up lodging in the Florentine embassy. It was not a good time. The Grand Duke reported that Galileo “for two nights continuous…cried and moaned in sciatic pain; and his advancing age and sorrow.” His only consolation during his stay at the embassy seemed to be that soon he would finally have a chance to defend his science and theology.
On April 8, Niccolini informed Galileo that he would stand trial before ten cardinals. A more difficult chore for Niccolini was to break the news to him that the merits of his case–as a practical matter–had been decided already; all he could do was submit.
Four days later, Galileo officially surrendered to the Holy Office and faced Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition, and his assistants. Firenzuola informed Galileo that for the duration of the proceedings against him he would be imprisoned in the Inquisition building. After putting Galileo under oath, the Commissary deposed Galileo concerning meetings he held with Cardinal Bellarmine and other church officials in 1616. Galileo seemed to have trouble remembering who might have been present with Bellarmine on that fateful February day seventeen years earlier, as well as exactly what restrictions–if any–had been placed upon him. Firenzuola told Galileo that he had been commanded to “neither hold, defend, nor teach that [the Copernican] opinion in any way whatsoever.” Galileo quibbled with the language–suggesting “I do not remember…the clause “in any way whatsoever”–, but accepted most of what the Commissary said. After a series of questions concerning the licensing of the Dialogue, Galileo signed his deposition in a shaking hand.
Three counselors to the Inquisition, driven especially by Galileo-hating Melchior Inchofer, prepared a seven-page evaluation of the Dialogue. The report concluded that in the book Galileo taught, defended, and showed that he held Copernican theory, and that–while claiming to discuss world models hypothetically–he gave the Copernican model “a physical reality.”
Weeks past as internal debates raged over what the Inquisitors should do with their old scientist. Finally, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, a moderating influence on the panel of ten judges deciding Galileo’s fate, persuaded the Commissary to meet with Galileo and convince him to admit error in return for a more lenient sentence. In a letter written by the Commissary (and not discovered until 1833), Firenzuola described his April 27 discussion with Galileo: “I entered into discourse with Galileo yesterday afternoon, and after many arguments and rejoinders had passed between us, by God’s grace, I attained my object, for I brought him to a full sense of his error, so that he clearly recognized that he had erred and had gone too far in his book.”
Some historians have seen Galileo’s decision to admit error as a “final self-degradation.” Others, including Giorgio de Santillana, have seen it as the only rational move open to him: “He was not a religious visionary being asked to renounce his vision. He was an intelligent man who had taken heavy risks to force an issue and to change a policy for the good of his faith. He had been snubbed; he had nothing to do but pay the price and go home. The scientific truth would take care of itself.”
The trial by the Congregation moved to its conclusion. Several of the ten cardinals apparently pushed for Galileo’s incarceration in prison, while those more supportive of Galileo argued that–with changes–the Dialogue ought to continue to be allowed to circulate. In the end, a majority of the cardinals–rejecting much of the Commissary’s agreement with Galileo–demanded Galileo “even with the threat of torture…abjure in a plenary assembly of the Congregation of the Holy Office…[and] then be condemned to imprisonment at the pleasure of the Holy Congregation.” Moreover, the cardinals declared, the Dialogue “is to be prohibited.”
The grand play ran its course, with the Pope insisting upon a formal sentence, a tough examination of Galileo, public abjuration, and “formal prison.” Galileo was forced to appear once again for formal questioning about his true feelings concerning the Copernican system. Galileo obliged, so as not to risk being branded a heretic, testifying that “I held, as I still hold, as most true and indisputable, the opinion of Ptolemy, that is to say, the stability of the Earth and the motion of the Sun.” Galileo’s renunciation of Copernicanism ended with the words, “I affirm, therefore, on my conscience, that I do not now hold the condemned opinion and have not held it since the decision of authorities….I am here in your hands–do with me what you please.”
On the morning of June 22, 1633, Galileo, dressed in the white shirt of penitence, entered the large hall of the Inquisition building. He knelt and listened to his sentence: “Whereas you, Galileo, the son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine…..” The reading continued for seventeen paragraphs:
And, so that you will be more cautious in future, and an example for others to abstain from delinquencies of this sort, we order that the book Dialogue of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict. We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure.
As a salutary penance we impose on you to recite the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. And we reserve to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting, or taking off, the whole or part of the said penalties and penances.
This we say, pronounce, sentence, declare, order and reserve by this or any other better manner or form that we reasonably can or shall think of. So we the undersigned Cardinals pronounce.
Seven of the ten cardinals signed the sentence.
Following the reading of the sentence, Galileo knelt to recite his abjuration:
….[D]esiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful Christians, this strong suspicion, reasonably conceived against me, with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me….
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Rome, in the Convent of Minerva, this twenty-second day of June, 1633.
I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured as above with my own hand.
Two days later, Galileo was released to the custody of the Florentine ambassador. Niccolini described his charge as “extremely downcast over his punishment.” After six days in the custody of Niccolini, custody of Galileo transferred to Archbishop Piccolomini in Sienna. In late 1633, Galileo received permission to move into his own small farmhouse in Arcetri, where he would grow blind and, in 1642, die.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html
Update:
As I predicted on Jan.1 and written in a post above. And there are more record cold temps coming to USA.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/01/07/weather-polar-vortex-cold/4354945/
At least 49 daily record lows were set across the country Tuesday morning, thanks to a fierce cold snap that’s bringing the coldest weather in decades to portions of the central, eastern and southern USA.
Bitterly cold air straight from the Arctic, courtesy of the polar vortex, will continue to shatter records through Tuesday and into early Wednesday …
Michael, you said, “Last year I told him that my intuition was that we WOULDN’T attack Syria when he was predicting it and I was right. I think he also foresaw Bush senior dying, which was a miss, along with a specific schoolyard shooitng as well.” That is all true, but one of the things that I have noticed is that many of my prediction happen later than predicted.
So, I still predict those three things to happen soon. Timing events is definitely the most difficult part of Predictive Astrology.
The “schoolyard” shooting will be in Gym or another athletic setting.
Thank you.
The various Branches of Astrology:
Natal Astrology
This is the best-known area of astrology, it deals with casting the horoscope for the person in question (referred to as: native), based on his date, place and time of birth. The chart casted is used to study the personal characteristics, strengths, weaknesses and talents of the native. The primary use of Natal Astrology is to show the various facets of a person’s nature, who they are, and how they are likely to react to certain situations. In this way, it is used as a tool for understanding one’s innate self and for self-development.
Predictive Astrology
This area concentrates on indicating the trends and developments in the future, but can also be used to study the past. The techniques used here vary from studying the Transits (todays movements of the heavenly bodies) to Planetary returns and Progressions (which deal more with developments over a longer span of time). All these techniques based on the movement of stars, the Sun, Moon, and planets at a given point in time (in the past, present or future) are applied against the backdrop of the natal chart, when predicting for individuals. Some predictive techniques are planetary returns and solar arcs.
Relational Astrology
This branch of Astrology is used to understand how any two natives relate to each other, or, in other words, how compatible they are. There are various techniques used to find this out such as Synastry: comparison of two natal charts, or Composite: a ‘natal’ chart of the relationship itself, which looks at the relationship as a separate entity. In both types, accentuation of the signs, and the houses, the heavenly bodies fall into, as well as the aspects between them, will reflect the compatibility and harmony between the two natives in question and their relationship with each other.
Horary Astrology
With this area of astrology the question takes center stage rather than the person asking it (called the querent). One of the most popular branches of Astrology. The chart is created for the moment, where the moment corresponds with the time the querent came up with the question. It is erected in the same manner as a birth chart, but leaves all birth details of the querent out of study.
Medical Astrology
This branch of Astrology uses the natal chart to study the basic physical and psychological constitution and health of the native. The heavenly bodies placements in signs and houses as well as the aspects they make with each other are indicative of certain physical and psychological strengths and weaknesses. Different signs of the zodiac are assigned different parts of the body, physiological processes, ailments and healing methods. Use of current transits in relation to the natal chart are reflective of certain indications of proneness to injuries, health problems and development of the native’s health in general.
Karmic Astrology
The study of this branch of Astrology rests on re-incarnation and the evolution of the spirit. Karmic Astrology sheds light on the connection between the native’s past life/lives and his present one, revealing the values and unfinshed tasks (karma) the native has brought into this life.
Mundane Astrology
The word ‘mundane’ comes from the Latin word mundus: “the world”. It is used to study the affairs surrounding a nation such as its past, present or future. It can tell us how a nation stands in relation to the worldly events developing around it, and about the affairs of the world in general.
Relocational Astrology
Such as Astro*carto*graphy, is location-based astrology, which uses the astrological method of relocating the chart for where the person lives at that time. It involves recalculating the chart using the new location, where the new chart shows what the native’s life would be in the new location. It is mostly used as a technique for individuals who want to move to a different place/country other than their birthplace and need to know how they would relate to that particular place as well as what events would take place there.
NOTE from the Moderatificator:
On this particular blog, which is actually more like a discussion forum for this topic, it’s important to first define what the real issue is. As I understand it, Tony says that astrology, specifically his astrology, is valid. He implies that it would meet the criteria of valid and accurate astrology as referenced by Meier and the Plejaren.
Dyson, and maybe others, are all over him for his position and his responses to being challenged, etc.
In my simple little world, I think that the issue can be resolved by applying certain standards, the same, objective, neutral, scientific ones that we’d apply to any claims. We needn’t behave like the prejudicial Skeptics, nor like true believers.
This means that the challenge has to be put to Tony to clarify exactly what he is claiming, which may be different than what we think or understand him to be claiming. He needs to be perfectly clear about it.
Tony has to respond, demonstrate and provide the evidence that will, when examined objectively, substantiate his claims. It’s up to the individuals to see how well they think he’s responded, how well the evidence stands up, etc.
It doesn’t require that all hell consume us. It isn’t a threat to the truth, to the spiritual teaching, the Creation itself, etc. It’s also unnecessary, and unacceptable, for things to get so out of hand, out of balance, out of perspective, full of ad hominem attacks that appear fanatical, rigidly absolutist and as impossibly close-minded as the position they are attacking.
I am reminded of a conservative talk show host with whom I mostly disagree but who pointed out that when people start calling their opponents things like Nazi’s, etc., they diminish both the serious evil of Nazism and their own credibility. Where can you go once you’ve attacked and shredded your opponent by equating him with those who participate in the worst evils of humankind? The same holds true here in terms of the kind of vitriol that has no place in a discussion about…astrology and its practitioners/proponents.
It isn’t living the teaching to cite it in order to use against one another.
Several years ago I asked Billy Meier what else I could specifically do to help make a difference in the world. His answer was basically, “Teach people to be…reasonable, to practice love, peace, freedom and harmony.” He didn’t quote chapter and verse from the teaching, nor suggest that I use any of it to bludgeon anyone over the head.
Now, I’m not in favor of sanitizing and whitewashing and pretending that there aren’t legitimate challenges and questions to be answered, mainly by Tony. And I will post those comments that contain such. I simply won’t post the comments that are so over the top that they come off with a kind of…religious fervor such as is antithetical to the teaching, as well as being a form of violence, Gewalt, against a fellow human being.
If anyone disagrees with a comment being held back, they can do a little self-editing if it’s obvious to them what the reason was, or challenge me on it. If I am the one who overreacted then that will be remedied of course.
I don’t have a horse in the pros or cons of astrology race. As I’ve said, I’ve seen its application be amazingly precise, accurate and useful. It’s the usefulness of these things that most interests me.
So, Tony needs to not only substantiate his claims that he’s got the correct astrology but also specify how it is useful, how it is to be applied, etc. And, as already stated, it will serve him well to not refuse to do so, as that puts an imminent expiration date on the discussion.
OK, Michael, let’s be fair, how would you have me substantiate my claims? In my opinion, no matter what I say, certain individuals will be doubtful, skeptical, closed-minded and generally act like idiots about my claims.
If it’s the question of knowing the exact birth time, I have already explained that I can correct any birth time with an in depth study of the charts involved, but of course some people will doubt that.
If it’s a matter whether anyone on Earth can develop the correct form of Astrology, I could explain how the various forms of today’s Earth Astrology are incorrect, using detailed Astronomical explanations that few would understand without serious study, and even then some would say, prove it to me.
So, again, I think the best way for me to prove myself, naturally, is to do readings for those interested, and to make some predictions that come true. The proof is in the pudding, right? Right.
I think I have proven myself to you to some extent, or you would not have me here on this very important blog.
You said,”As I’ve said, I’ve seen its application be amazingly precise, accurate and useful. It’s the usefulness of these things that most interests me.” So, you have witnessed a person on Earth use Astrology correctly and effectively, and you realize that it is a great science. So, it’s not Astrology itself that you are doubting, if you are doubting, it’s me. Therefore, allow me to prove myself my way. I think that’s fair.
Oh by the way, I must state that I’m not on this blog to prove myself, nor to prove the validity and usefulness of the science of the stars, but instead, I’m here to help those who would like to learn something about it, to share great knowledge, and allow them to benefit from it. I could easily walk away, and be quite happy without this blog, or trying to prove myself, or my career. I know for a fact, without a doubt, that I am a genuine Astrologer, and everything I say about it is a fact. I’m sure you understand what I’m saying. I certainly don’t feel that I have to prove anything to anyone. Actually, Astrology is a subject that one has to prove to his/her self through study and work, usually for years.
I enjoy helping others, and sharing truth, that is why I am here. And I have already stated my policy regarding dismissing impolite, disrespectful, skeptical, closed-minded, waste of time individuals from my conversations. That will not change.
Thank you.
Dear Tony,
You can substantiate your claims of accuracy by putting your money where your mouth is and producing evidence of your accuracy in a way which can be subject to logical analysis as opposed to just anecdotal evidence which can’t.
Don’t say “wait and see”. We did already in 2013.
ALL you got was 4%. And you predict the deaths of dying men in their 90s.
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tony-vasquez/
That is the evidence.
THAT is the ONLY demonstration you’ve made.
Salome.
This is insane. You’re starting to really worry me, Michael.
Michael, you write, “Tony has to respond, demonstrate and provide the evidence that will, when examined objectively, substantiate his claims.”
“Tony has to demonstrate his claims.”
He HAS, Michael. He HAS! (WHY can you not see that? What is your game?)
ABUNDANTLY! Tony DEMONSTRATED a 4% accuracy rate LAST YEAR for everything available to scrutinise. Are you listening?
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tony-vasquez/
(snip) [My haughtily ignored question to Pope Vasquez the Infallible]
This single webpage constitutes (aside of course from your many contributions here since last October or so) the entirety of your web footprint, in so far as I can ascertain.
Q: So – given that this, the only track record of yours that I can find anywhere, clearly proves (through your own work alone, not Stuart’s logical analysis thereof) that you are also undeniably abysmally wrong with your “corrected” Vedic/sidereal astrological predictions – 1.) how do you justify (as being “generous and helpful and never selfish and harmful”) advertising your line of work, here on your friend’s blog, as “accurate”, and 2.) in what way does this differ from plain old ordinary criminal fraud?
(snip)
What became of the Michael that used to eat his opponents for breakfast by the handful, on forums? Why did you seemingly go from extreme negative degeneration to extreme positive degeneration?
One doesn’t just cancel the other, you know, as easy as it would be for us if they did. It’s not like the Bafath’s occultists who are taught to do good and evil in equal measure, as a natural balance. So they do charitable works among the sick “kids” during the day and eat the healthy ones at night. So it all balances out.
Your false humanitarianism in the form of giving an astrologer oxygen on an official Meier site, in the name of balance, would be understandable if he could demonstrate, say, a 94% accuracy rate, but all he has EVER publicly demonstrated is a 4% rate, perfectly in keeping with your remark that it was “nonsense”, removed by you day before yesterday.
WHAT is going on here?
Salome.
So now it’s been pointed out (you would say again) to Tony that his claims of accuracy using astrology are grossly overstated, inaccurate, etc.The 4% figure is again presented.
No personal attacks, just a rebuttal to those claims. Okay, so it would seem that it would be incumbent upon Tony to credibly refute your conclusions, as based on your analysis of his evidence. And to do it without calling you any names either. He can either do this or he can’t. If he can then it goes on from there. If he can’t he may have to reevaluate his claims and confidence about them, as well as admit that he and they are wrong and unsubstantiated.
If we’re all committed to learning, we’ll deal with whatever lessons that come of this (and everything else in life).
As for what became of the guy who used to eat his opponents for breakfast, etc., etc. – I don’t consider either of you my opponents. I consider this an opportunity for people to do the very thing that I did, and still do, use to clobber my opponents with, i.e. insist on a steadfast, objective, self-honest examination of the facts and evidence. The fact that someone will be right, someone will be wrong, is an ongoing and sometimes alternating reality for everyone.
Neither this process, nor the participants, benefit from stonewalling, or from fanatical attacks. Nor from denial if one is cornered, or gloating and Gewalt, by one who is in pursuit of “saving” everyone from whatever evils one perceives others incapable of perceiving and/or defending themselves against.
Michael
Let us for just a minute think about the predictions of Tony the professional Astrologer which he claims will be true and his claims include a murder.
So because it’s your web site don’t you think you should notify the victim or inform the police?
What advice can you give a concerned reader?
How do you feel if somewhere on a web site some Astrologer has predicted your death?
Let us assume Tony and the “Great Science” is correct and the Murder is all over the news how do you think some of your readers would feel knowing the “Great Science” predicted it and they did nothing to warn the victim
Now these questions are pertaining to the “Great Science of Astrology” which is Tony so ardently defends?
Regards
Dave
Dave,
I think you’re referring to his prediction about the leader of N. Korea. I noticed and thought about that and viewed it as one of those things that I personally couldn’t do anything with. Of course Tony, as the source of that prediction, certainly could.
It seems like tabloids are often full of things that appear to warn of people’s demise, correctly or incorrectly, and I actually don’t like predictions of such things, including by old age, etc., just because it seems insensitive and unnecessary. I regret that those things were included in the debate, etc., apart from the fact that Dyson also showed how weak such predictions were when speaking about 90 year old people.
“European researchers say there is no evidence that astrology works. After surveying more than 15,000 people, the team of psychologists found that ‘in no cases did date of birth relate to individual differences in personality or general intelligence'”.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gasp-star-signs-are-nonsense/2006/04/27/1145861490053.html
“in NO cases” it unambiguously states.
The only people who don’t seem to know THAT already are delusional people like Tony and their innocent intellectually-challenged prey now being draw to Tony’s oxygenated flame here like dumb moths. This is absolutely SO WRONG anywhere CLOSE to Billy.
I have a funny true story from my twin sister, Dr. Alison Devine Nordström, who, back in the ’70s, once knew a professional astrologer. Having “corrected” the “erroneous” astrology by carefully including the exact LOCATION to the exact time of birth, he was evidently trying to ingratiate himself with sophistry and blandishments (sound familiar) for the purposes of an amorous adventure (she was a “hot babe”). Like the way Tony seems to want to just screw people. So this guy went off and did, for free, a detailed star-reading for her, and came back with all sorts of very Alison-specific stuff based on our (cesarean) birth time. Raised in rationalism, she let him talk, as he bent close over his impressively detailed charts. He excitedly told her that she was unique and special in wonderful ways too numerous to mention. She silently studied his chart, getting the timing right (she’s much smarter than me – right off the top of the IQ scale), turned to him and said, “So you’re telling me, that, based on my birth date and time (both our heads saw the light of day simultaneously when our mother’s womb was opened), there’s nobody else in the whole world who these readings could apply to?” He nodded in stern faux-sagaciousness, rubbing his mental hands together in anticipation of his immanent conquest and it’s associated carnal delights, and said, “Exactly”. She waited to let the tension build, and then asked, “What about my twins brother?”
She told me his deflation was absolute and unprecedented. He swept up his charts, turned on his heel and left in humiliated disgrace, something Tony hasn’t got the grace or style or brains or ethics or sanity to do for the quiet resolution of the truth he’s doing such a personal big job fighting against here among us who are on the other (winning) side of history.
Alison and I have always had profoundly different physical builds and personality characterises. We say in touch. We’re as different as different can be. The only thing we share is big brains, a love of language and ideas and social justice.
Cheers!
If my little typos bother you in my shared steams of consciousness here, that’s your problem, not mine. I don’t much care and think those who ARE bothered by them simply have their information-gathering priorities and methodologies all wrong and are incapable of taking in the vital broader view, distracted, as they seem to be, by inconsequential trivialities which merely express the conspicuous fact that I’m a regular human being, with characteristic weaknesses, who makes mistakes, keeps trying to do better, and recognises and accepts his natural fallibility and human limitations, instead of feigning omniscience and papal infallibility, demanding humble obeisance and blind unquestioning faith, confusing shadow for substance – the medium for the message – or, in Tony’s, case – schizophrenic delusion for immutable reality, pseudo-science for science, lies for truth, ignorance for knowledge, foolishness for wisdom, venal exploitation for selfless magnanimity and evil for good.
Salome.
You’re a closed-minded, pathetic, idiot!
Guys, can we be a bit more neutral, professional, etc., so that the essence of the issue can be addressed?
Michael, you know very well, he is the one attacking me. I will defend myself against anyone, I don’t care if it’s the Pope, President, or the
Dalai Lama. I suggest you stop him, he’s making a fool of himself.
Tony,
I’d like to reiterate my suggestion that you make some definitive statements as to your own claims, so that it is they, and not your person, that is attacked. But if you don’t respond to fair questions then it is you who is criticized, attacked, etc., and not the very material that you represent, etc.
So, to those who are directing their criticisms, attacks, etc., towards you, I would ask that you make your questions and challenges specific to what Tony is claiming. If you don’t think that his claims are clear to you, please request of him that he spell them out satisfactorily so that any discussion, questioning, challenging can be focused on them.
Thanks for the reply, MH.
“As for what became of the guy who used to eat his opponents for breakfast, etc., etc. – I don’t consider either of you my opponents.”
THAT’S exactly what worries me about you.
Unltil very very recently (two days ago), you seemed to know that earth “astrology” was – as the guy your represent tells us – “nonsense”, “drivel” impossible. So why is Mr. 4% NOT your opponent? You, of all people, being Billys official English rep.
I’m bewildered about this self harm you’re doing here, and wondering how long it has to continue.
I, for one, will NOT leave a 4% accurate star reader in peace who you’ve encouraged to run around here free telling everybody that he knows the Meier material better than I do and is right and Billy and the Plejaren are wrong, while simultaneously stating he agrees with everything Meier says.
And you see this as nothing to OPPOSE?
Walk me through it, Michael.
I try to choose my opponents and my battles carefully. I try not to savage people in the pursuit of the truth. Because I disagree with someone, and think I’m right, doesn’t make my opponent some form of human scum.
And usually the people who I do battle with have directly, intentionally initiated the battle with me. Wouldn’t it be nice if people who purport to be proponents of the same teaching, the same pursuit of truth could overcome their own shortcomings, be it pride, self-deception, psychic-emotional Gemalt, righteousness, etc.?
I see this as the time and place for Tony to deal openly and honestly with the inescapable reality of his own published track record so far. If it’s been misrepresented, etc., then he should say so and substantiate that. Whatever the case, hyper hysterical, aggressive attacks simply aren’t necessary and neither are derisive comments about those who pose the challenges.
Who hasn’t been wrong; who hasn’t wronged?
So you DO talk to yourself.
I see a Youtube sock-puppet satire on the horizon.
A musical comedy. It would be great fun and dead easy/cheap to put together and it would make you a household word overnight. Did you know that my old website scored sixteen million hits on one particular DAY, Tony? I have many friends, and I think almost all of them have the same dim view of your odious behaviour that I do.
And the contributions I’ve sent in which I’ve not seen posted can got onto Google Drive. I’ve already written them.
I’m playing for keeps.
“Guys, can we be a bit more neutral, professional, etc., so that the essence of the issue can be addressed?”
Michael, did you read this?
Dyson Devine says:
January 24, 2014 at 11:49 pm
Hi there again, Tony.
Thanks for all your very generous advice and guidance to me here, as well as your blunt personal assessments of me and my intelligence, character, personality, motives, etc. As you would (of COURSE!) naturally already well know and take full advantage of, Billy teaches that it’s always valuable and strengthening to be given the opportunity to deal with what he calls “adversarial forces”.
I guess you suspected that I might finally rise to the occasion. (Note to readers – Tony and I are NOT one individual, nor are we secretly working together as a team, even though I admit that it must look that way.) Just like you do for me, Tony, I almost always eventually take your bait once I decide it’s properly placed.
I wouldn’t want to disappoint anyone!
🙂
And I promise I’ll be as brief as I POSSIBLY can.
I have only one question, which I’ll preface with the below.
You write, on this thread, “My spiritual philosophy is to be generous and helpful and never selfish and harmful.”
That’s great, Tony! Me too! I wish more folks were like us in that regard! But of course, as you doubtlessly know already, it’s important to not only be deliberately harmful, but indeed pitiless (as Billy teaches) when confronting mendacity and fraud. Although I disagree about the degree of Gewalt you advise here: “When dealing with liars and defamers, one should never pull punches, nor hit with flowers, but instead, a mighty sword should be used to cut them to the ground.”
https://theyflyblog.com/mindboggling/01/07/2014/comment-page-1#comment-17202
I personally always strive for as much tact as possible, but – hey – each to his own, right? It takes all kinds.
You write, “I care about others MORE than myself, but I still care about myself, and do everything within reason.” (your emphasis)
That’s very reasonable and Christian of you, Tony, but I’m SURE that you know that Billy teaches quite the opposite about your chosen priorities of care. “If a human being therefore wants to live truly and fairly, then he/she has to consider and understand that the fulfilment of the duties to himself/herself is constantly and always the most important and foremost.” (section 52, Die Art zu Leben” (How to Live).
You continue, “Of course, everyone should receive fair payment for work done.”
Well, yes, it would be quite nice, but, happily, I’ve organised my life such that I work for free, being glad to live off my small (one-third of the lowest “poverty line”) government officer’s pension, no longer having to seek funds from other sources, as you do.
The following is my respectful and serious two-part question which I ask you now to please answer, in the spirit of me seeking help from you which you offer here, in fulfilment of my ongoing creational responsibility to strive to understand the empowering truth.
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tony-vasquez/
This single webpage constitutes (aside of course from your many contributions here since last October or so) the entirety of your web footprint, in so far as I can ascertain.
Q: So – given that this, the only track record of yours that I can find anywhere, clearly proves (through your own work alone, not Stuart’s logical analysis thereof) that you are also undeniably abysmally wrong with your “corrected” Vedic/sidereal astrological predictions – 1.) how do you justify (as being “generous and helpful and never selfish and harmful”) advertising your line of work, here on your friend’s blog, as “accurate”, and 2.) in what way does this differ from plain old ordinary criminal fraud?
Presumably you’re taking money from your many faithful clients over many years, who – if they DO trust you and remove all doubt, as you instruct them they must as soon as possible regarding your grossly misrepresented predictive abilities – would obvious suffer a great deal of personal HARM, and the only HELP would be to your swollen bank balance.
This is VERY puzzling to me, Tony, given your recently revealed unhappiness with the rest of your family/loved ones, who you describe here on Michael’s blog as being “too involved with their money”: “I have over 100 family members/loved ones in the S(an) F(rancisco) area, and over 200 in California, many of them live on the coast. Unfortunately, none of them will take the Meier material seriously. They are too involved with their money and having ‘fun’. So be it.”
https://theyflyblog.com/more-about-the-coming-san-francisco-earthquake/01/04/2014/comment-page-1#comment-17290
I know that you’ll probably just tell me again that I’ve completely misunderstood all this because I didn’t spend enough time thinking about it, but before you do this time, I want you to know that I’ve taken your advice, and I’ve been thinking about it for months, and particularly since my unanswered questions to you of last year, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5UahMPJ8Tc1b0tReC1DdVRlTmM/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks again, Tony, in respectful anticipation of your help with my question, and for your customary polite and respectful patience with me here.
In the spirit of immutable truth, and (as you say) lasting “peace [in wisdom] and brotherhood and sisterhood on this blog”.
Cheers!
Reply
Tony Vasquez – Professional Astrologer says:
January 25, 2014 at 4:03 am
Dyson,
Everything you said related to me is incorrect, and this is the last time I will converse with you, because I don’t think you are capable of understanding me.
Michael said the following in posts above:
“I got interested in astrology about 46 years ago when a cousin of mine stayed with me for a few days (he’s also “to blame” for my learning about the I Ching).
Now he seems to have somethin’ goin’ on with this astrology thing. Several years back I personally witnessed him find a young girl who was kidnapped (and presumed dead). He did it using his computer over a couple of days. He actually described the environment in which she was being held (a farm-like place with small animals, etc.) and that she had been kidnapped – and would be returned – by a family member.
It all turned out to be…true, which was all the more remarkable because he was in L.A. and the events took place in…Thailand. I witnessed this first hand and I also saw him find a missing object this way.
My daughter was surprised to come upon a chart he had done when she was something like 5 or 6, in which he correctly foretold the exact (and I still think highly unlikely) profession she would have and that she would work with me when she was older. Neither she nor I had even remembered him doing this.
Now my interest has mainly been in terms of wanting to know what influences may be present, positive or negative. Kind of like a weather report. And I can truthfully say that sometimes that info was not only interesting but contributed to my understanding about things in retrospect.
Of course I’ve noticed that despite the inaccuraies Meier states are burdening terrestrial astrology, there are references such as these from Meier and/or Christian:
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_154
http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/meier/gaiaguys/meierv2p78-79&84-86&v3p12.htm
“Astrological impulses are a reality, but how they are gathered, judged
and implemented by a person is a VERY individual matter.” “… it’s
not the astrological aspects only that have an influence on one’s own
life; in fact, other factors are more important.”
“Astrology (the real one) is useful for knowing one’s character, or to
form one’s character, etc.”
“Astrology is not one of Billy’s main interest. A book that could be
recommended is one by Jane Goodman (“Sonnenklar” in German) Sol
Astrology in English?”
“Today’s astrology may explain some really general characteristics of
persons who are born under a certain sign. The horoscopes that are
published in the newspapers etc. are useless.”
Of course much is made in the material about Billy’s birthday (and time) and the birthdays of some of the earlier prophets were also under the sign of Aquarius, still granting that the Ps know far more about it than we do.
While I’m interested to see if future events can be foretold, again its the influences and patterns that personally interest me. I like to use EVERYTHING available to me to stimulate my mind, etc.”
And:
“As I’ve said, I’ve seen its application be amazingly precise, accurate and useful. It’s the usefulness of these things that most interests me.”
What do you think about what Michael said, Dyson, IDIOT?
Tony Vasquez – Professional Astrologer says:
January 31, 2014 at 1:00 am
“Michael, you know very well, he is the one attacking me. I will defend myself against anyone, I don’t care if it’s the Pope, President, or the Dalai Lama. I suggest you stop him, he’s making a fool of himself.”
That, Tony, my dear sick brother, is why we should avoid being the way you are.
If you were more the way I am, you wouldn’t concern yourself with looking like a fool from time to time, because you’d know you weren’t a fool, quite the contrary.
But IF you ARE a fool, then you’d pretend that you weren’t and would defend yourself with pompous scorn, which is usually terrible for your customary victims where you come from, who identify with their egos like you. But not for me, since I identify with my spirit, and all the jejune, bitchy, snide, nasty words you try to stick on me merely bounce off and soil the very person who threw them. Since I’ve DELIGHTED to be judged by the entirety of my work.
How, in the name of all that’s righteous, you could manage to “live” (if I can call it that) is such a sterile protective bubble long enough to be a star-reader with a 4% accuracy rate for 34 YEARS, and not know THAT (that words you try to stick on me merely bounce off and soil you) – (I knew that before I could walk) – just absolutely bewilders me – unless you’re some mind-controlled zombie who’s “personality” (if I can call it that) was crudely downloaded into your skull sometime in 2012 when you gave Michael this:
“Michael, you know very well, he is the one attacking me.”
WAAA! MICHAEL, he HIT me! WAAAAAA! A WANT MY MOMMY!!!! WAAAAAAA!
Disgusting.
I don’t even know if you’re real. A friend sent me some photos he thinks must be you, found on line. Would you like to confirm or deny? Shall I refer folks here to them?
Semjase at the 10th contact
194. This truth of Creation and of the spirit, with which he is one, even directs his enemy’s hand that will rise against him, in such a way that it falls back to (the enemy) himself.
195. The spiritual one is protected and sheltered, and the whole nature is well-disposed toward him, and yes, even his enemies have to serve him in the end.
196. With their attacks, they cause the spiritual within him to unfold to even greater strength and power and to overcome all that is evil, vile and degenerated.
197. Ultimately, the enemies only contribute to the recognition of the truth and growth of those who think spiritually.
198. They wish evil, troubles and bad things to those who think spiritually; they are of the opinion that they could destroy them through critique, know-it-all manner, lies and defamation, through complaints and false teachings, through condemning and making a fool of him; however, they only cause damage to themselves, because their acting gives testimony of intellectual foolishness and ignorance, from which he who thinks spiritually learns even more and becomes even greater and more powerful in his spirit and consciousness.
199. Are such truths perhaps suggestions?
200. To claim this would be a delusion, because it is false.
201. It deals here with absolute truths.
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tony-vasquez/
Dear Tony, you ask,
“What do you think about what Michael said, Dyson, IDIOT?”
Now don’t tell me that there’s some OTHER poor guy with a name as funny as “Dyson”, except of course Jmmanuel’s grandson, “Dison”, and that dude on TV who sells vacuum cleaners? Couldn’t be ME. I’m no idiot. I enjoy playing the fool, sure, but I’m no idiot.
Oh, wait, when you wrote,”What do you think about what Michael said, Dyson, IDIOT?”, you meant it like the way I might mean this:”What do you think about what Michael said, Tony? (signed off as) DYSON” You must have just hit the comma key instead of the question mark key. Easy mistake. I make a lotta typos too.
Tony, in answer to your politely worded question … by the way, I’m glad you decided to converse again. It shows you’re not a reprobate. If we can ALL only talk in a spirit of peace and brotherhood, eschewing rancour and revenge, and not take our differences personally, war would end overnight. It’s only when the door is slammed, and discourse is made impossible, that I sometimes start an escalating series of loving contact initiatives which begins with a soft knock on the door, and can go to the point of physically removing your metaphorical dwelling a board at a time if I feel that’s the appropriate way to go. And sometime it does come to that, in my personal experience. So I’m glad you’ve decided to ask me this important question.
Billy says there’s magic.
Of course.
And my life is filled with it. Help and love comes to me from the most unexpected places at the most unexpected times. So does adversity and hate, of course, but Creation is neutral.
OM32:1692. “He who has many enemies also has much honour.”
Before you smile, it doesn’t mean that the number of enemies you have determines your honour. It’s the other way around, of course. One of your occult mates brags that he has “no living enemies”. Ha ha! He’d have no living friends! I can’t think of a more honourable person than Billy, who I know closely through his work – like I know you through yours – and he’s has 22 serious attempts on his life! How’s that for serious enemies? And he needs a (perfectly legal and licensed) arsenal of heavy-gauge firearms WAY bigger than mine!
Oh I do ramble on when conversing with people like you, my poor misguided brother!
As I said, Tony, in answer to your politely worded question:
As I’m sure you already know (joke) the Plejaren call Creation “die unlösbaren Rätsel”.
Oh, sorry, I unhesitatingly believed you without any doubt whatsoever when you told everybody that you know the Meier material better than I do, so I forgot that you’re illiterate.
:->
In English, it’s “the insoluble puzzle”.
If you weren’t a total fraud – not just some poor delusional wretch off the streets whose fevered imagination has made him believe that he is THE one and only scientific Astrologer (with a capital “A”) who in his 34 year career (no public evidence of which exists) has corrected astrology and made it a true and accurate science – I’d try to talk with you about Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, because your advanced mathematical acumen would allow you to relate to how it dovetails with what the Plejaren mean, and that gradual enlightenment might let some of that magic that is Creation enter you and help save you from the miserable material existence you are now so humiliatingly demonstrating is the WRONG WAY TO GO.
So when something “impossible” happens I smile and think, “Praise Creation”. I had my best ever a couple weeks ago the day the roads melted here and my little locality was named in the international news. True. Not a fire, just the Sun.
And I experience “impossible” things regularly. UFOs too. “High Strangeness”
Billy teaches that our consciousness, when aligned with Creation, effects all of nature – like, your surrounding weather. True. So he says. If FIGU chooses to deny that now, I’ll take it on the chin.
I think I’ve mentioned this one to Michael already. You might like it for the self-referential paradox it exhibits.
Being a died in the wool xteenth generation rationalist, I never put much truck in stuff like star reading and the i ching and such-like, but I studied astrology simply to try to see what was behind it and why so many ignorant and superstitious people seem to have some faith in it. Of course, if you read my translation I posted last week from Arahat Athersata, you’d know that the “secret scientists” (not you, mate. You’re Mr. 4%, remember?) keep (what’s left of) real astrology (currently evidently being taught by Billy to all who qualify – you wouldn’t, you can’t read – in his 25+ year long Spirit Lessons) under STRICT lock and key, so I’ve never ever questioned the efficacy and utility of PLEJAREN ASTROLOGY, which, since they aren’t faith-based, would be a true science. I question YOUR star-reading, Mr. 4%.
Hey. We’ve know each other for several months now, ever since you surfaced from NOWHERE, full grown (?) and gave Michael your ridiculously wrong 2013 “predictions”, so how about I drop the formalities and just call you “4”?
Anyway – my i ching story. I read up on its history. It was not impressive. Fools have been reading entrails, tealeaves, bumps on heads, you name it, from the dawn of time, and they fool themselves because they’re fools. But just because it’s foolish, it doesn’t mean that it can stop Creation. Nothing can. Because it’s all there is. And I think it guides sometimes using the things you give it. I said “sometimes”. So we got the info (a “book” in those days) and, with great anticipation, threw the i ching. We asked if there was anything to the i ching – should we pursue it? We got “THE ABYSS” Spoookeeee! (key theme from Twilight Zone). “Wow. Now waddawe do?” “Throw them again and ask the same question.” What did we get THIS time? “THE ABYSS”. I have a witness.
True. We accepted its advice and I’ve never done it again. I’ve also attended a séance.
THAT was interesting.
Get well soon, Tony.
Cheers!
🙂
First, I don’t agree with that 4% nonsense. Even in reference to the predictions you are referring to it was higher, but of course, that is a matter of opinion. I could present evidence to that effect, maybe I will, maybe I won’t. To me, it’s irrelevant because, idiot, wouldn’t agree with whatever I said, because he is ignorant of the truth concerning Astrology, and probably will never accept that truth, in my opinion.
Second, in my career, my accuracy rate is very high, and I prefer to let my current predictions speak for themselves. I have made many predictions that have come true in my career, and I will make more that come true in the future. I have no doubt about that.
Third, predictions are not the heart of the matter anyway, the heart is whether or not Astrology is a true science on Earth. I’m here to say that it is, and in time, will prove that to any open-minded person. I don’t care what anyone says or thinks about that statement who disagrees. Time will tell.
All closed-minded skeptics, doubters, haters, can stay away from me. I don’t owe them anything, and I will not spend my time trying to prove something that they will never accept.
Oh by the way, I didn’t see a comment from idiot, related to my post where Michael spoke the truth about Astrology. Why is that?
Thank you.
Hi again, Tony.
Aw, shucks! You DO love me after all! You’re calling me with your family name.
🙂
I had hoped that my contribution (January 31, 2014 at 5:24 am), which appeared just above the one of yours saying you hadn’t seen it, would have been seen as addressing at great length the material in Michael’s contribution, where I tried to explain that I’m the first to admit that spooky things can and do happen and uncanny coincidences and so on are one of the most fascinating parts of life. I just don’t put my FAITH in things very easily for which no logical proof can be achieved in a logically causal manner. Of course that wouldn’t really be all that significant if there was STATISTICAL evidence of accuracy, but – in your case, and you’re the one making the assertions of accuracy – all we’ve got is around (more or less) 4%. Not very trustworthy, I’d say. Lousy, actually.
Now I’m very pleased that I’ve been able to start the adult discussion, even though I do admit that I had to regrettably effect a rather gaping aperture in the side of your domicile which afforded me egress, but you seem unhurt, albeit still a little frightened. It’s OK. I won’t hurt you. I just want to talk, OK?
So, about this 4% figure. How about we all go back to the one and only thing you’ve ever done publicly since 1979 (!?!), and we’ll all examine your predictions’ track record for 2013? Shall we?
http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/tony-vasquez/
That way you can take all the space you need to explain where Stuart went wrong, and we can all then learn what YOUR accuracy percentage rate is, and how you arrived at it. Stuart, in spite of his unseemly and dogmatic recalcitrance about Billy – that’s understandable if not quite forgivable, since people have been terrorised since their earliest memories with agitprop about scary space aliens coming to eat our babies and make hybrids with our womenfolk, right? – astrology is not scary. So let’s ask him to engage with us here in a spirit of genuine scientific research. He SEEMS like a nice guy, so if you promise to be on your best behaviour, try to treat him with the respect that a fellow scientist deserves (he does have a doctorate in astrophysics, after all), then perhaps we can all work harmoniously, extending a hand in peace and fellowship to the Skeptibunkers, as it were, and finally get to the bottom of this once and for all. But I’m serious about you being open to scientific inquiry and not demanding blind faith and unhesitating belief of your claims. As I’ve tried (and failed) over the months to point out, the scientific method is actually the antithesis of your own, um, shall we say, “approach” to a determination of the truth, so you will, I’m afraid, have to be prepared to make compromises consistent with RECOGNISED statistical analyses, and so on. Are you willing? As a “scientist”?
Without trying to pre-empt your decision about bringing Stuart into your orbit (no pun intended) to revisit your predictions with us, I think it would be prudent for you to give us a ballpark figure on what YOU believe to be a reasonable accuracy rate before we all go further, OK? Not the explanations, just the final figure, so if you say maybe 99.9% or 4.5% we’ll know a bit more of how we might go with Stuart, OK? Reasonable?
It strikes me that, since there is always some debate as to whether someone is dead or not (… sorry … I’m having trouble removing my clown hat here …) as to the nature of your accuracy figure, we can all have a look at your work and decide what WE think, and maybe get a “consensus reality” tabulated by perhaps someone else here, other than Michael and me, who may have other things to do.
Maybe a believer and a skeptic? After all, 60 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong. Maybe an IT guy in the audience can organise some web poll? Formulate questions, etc. If that works we can hold a vote and find out whether, say, YOU’re right, or Billy & the Plejaren are, about the things you say the profoundly intellectually advanced extraterrestrials are mistaken about. Maybe Ptaah can assist? He is, after all a God of Wisdom, so between him and a Doctor of Astrophysics, maybe they’d be able to understand you. Perhaps you’d be prepared to get something in writing for them at least? Sort of a draft proposal for a collaboration? Early days yet.
I’m sure we all look forward to a reply in keeping with your self-described qualities.
And I promise to be good too. No hair-pulling. We’ll play nicely.
Cheers!
P.S. You wrote, “Astrology is a true science on Earth. I’m here to say that it is, and in time, will prove that to any open-minded person. I don’t care what anyone says or thinks about that statement who disagrees.”
Just this bit about proving things to us.
I know you don’t care what Billy says about this, but you also say you don’t disagree with him, so I thought I’d remind anyone here on this official Meier-related site, what Billy says about people like you who announce that they will now prove something.
Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 142, März 2007
Voice of the Aquarian Age, No. 142, March 2007
Der falsche Weg…
The Wrong Way…
See: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/The_Wrong_Way
Ok , I am in NO way any where near as literal as you guys , and dont really need to be to get a point across .Anyhow … Like everybody, i have my own truths , and expectations from like minded people who are on the path to the natural laws of creation . I have been an exploration driller for years working Throughout Australia , have seen and witnessed and HAVE witnesses from a Yeti (Cue, Western Australia)to Giant Ballbearings (size of standard room) and a fly as big as an orange , And Thylozines in Augusta (southern part of Western Australia (corroborated by the way)i have also visions that are of 100% accuracy (and haven’t discovered why as yet)Of which i could account over 20 serious predictive thingies, dreams , impulses ?. ALL of which were either in 5 mins time or 3 -5 weeks .My partner got so used to it she got me to write all of them down as they came to me. All came to fruition Unfortunately. I could not understand why they were ALL Negative . Death and Horror. I have also witnessed a beamship 10 meters in front of me with my partner in 1991. If you’d like specifics if your interested , just ask me about any of which you may be intrigued about. i was full bottle on the “overpopulation bomb” and used too and still do tell everybody at length on the effects its had and is having , WAY way b4 computers were around.I used to in the early 70s and 80s when i was attending school , always reading and gathering information about UFO’s and indeed the “coffee table “billy Meier book.(Although his name didnt strike a chord with me until about 8 years ago when i was impulsed to it.My beleif ! Not truth.I could type 1000 more pages here , but Like all things, i keep an open mind, …….But i also know Like Religion…….When i see Utter nonsense and crap about this astrology thing , particularly insulting my intellegence and others . Lets please stick to the goal of THE TRUTH in all of its Entirety Meaning And Cause and dismiss the things we ALL know is/are FALSE. Its like a bloody religion or cult to an earth human , UNLESS it is actually instructed /taught by the actual knowledge which NONE of whom have the capability of here on Earth. This isnt a Kindergarten at playtime.
Kindest regards .Salome Wayne Anthony Sunter-Smith Adelaide South Australia age 45 years born 16/07/1968