The 13 signs controversy is actually discrediting the astronomers (not the astrologers)!

The "12 signs" Zodiac as a "magnetic belt" around the Earth

There is something annoying about the "13 Signs" issue, which keeps popping up every now and then in the mainstream media. You see, over the last 25 years, I have been publishing articles that explain how the zodiacal signs are actually twelve and how they cannot be thirteen (or 14, 19, 27 or any other number, for that matter). I've now come to the conclusion that all of my attempts to explain have been futile because ever since the 13 Signs issue resurfaced recently (and made headlines for the umpteenth time) people all around me are rather acrimoniously asking me about it. 

At first, I figured it would be best to ignore this problem in hopes that it will ultimately fizzle out - as it has in the past. However, it appears that this time things are different. Astrology is taking a "double whammy" hit that is mostly the result of misinformation, and it is essential for us, the true (cultured) astrologers, to step in!

Fortunately or unfortunately, most individuals in my neighborhood are aware that I am interested in Astrology...So, in the last several days, I haven't been able to leave my house to go strolling or shopping without someone approaching me and confiding in me his/her confusion over the "thing." Yesterday, I went to my neighborhood kiosque to buy a magazine, and the kiosque guy (Stavro) told me, "You know Mr. Thomas, I am not a Leo anymore, I am actually a Cancer!" "That's nonsense, Stavro, you shouldn't pay attention to this stuff," I replied. "NASA isn't nonsense, Mr. Thomas," Stavro stated strongly. "Trust me, it is in this case," I informed him, and I walked away with the magazine but a thrill.

Stavro was like the 100th perplexed about his sign person that I met this week. NASA had told him that he is not anymore the sign he knew he was. I told him that that's nonsense. But ultimately, it was NASA's reliability against mine. And I am obviously loosing there big time...How on earth can I explain to an average person (with no astronomical background), in just a couple of minutes that NASA is wrong?

Apart from being an astrologer I am an amateur astronomer as well. I have several astronomy books in my bookshelves. And I have noticed that many of them are mentioning and even extensively elucidating the pivotal difference between a zodiacal sign and a constellation! Take for example the book “Astronomy” by James B. Keler (“Harpers Collins College” publisher - you may see its frontcover above). In page 52 of this book the author - who is a professor of astronomy - is stating:

“There is an important distinction to be made between the astrological signs of the zodiac and the astronomical constellations of the zodiac. The constellations are real star-groups that can be seen on any clear night. The signs are symbolic concepts that are locked to the vernal equinox. They were once aligned with the constellations, but no longer are because precession has moved them westward”!

It would be logical to assume that if we are provided with such a degree of clarification over the sign/ constellation distinction  in some popular astronomy book then this would be common knowledge to all the astronomers, a sort of a freshman's syllabus to them. But apparently it is not! To our utter astonishment even the prestigious NASA astronomers seem to ignore the most obvious and fundamental distinction between a zodiacal sign and a constellation (a distinction that apart from its astrological signification has an inherent astronomical value as well)! And lo and behold the all mighty NASA is now proclaiming that "the signs have shifted" and that "a new “sign” (Ophiuchus, which in reality is a constellation) has to be added in the zodiac"! Thus, according to NASA the zodiacal signs should be 13 from now on and not 12! But we know very well that NASA is talking about constellations and not signs and thus what it is proclaiming is not true at all!

Think for a moment: how good an astronomer may be when s/he is not possessing even that elementary level of astronomical knowledge pertaining to his/her own freshman's syllabus? You see, it sounds absolutely preposterous for a prestigious astronomer not to be aware of the fundamental sign vs. constellation distinction! Because, in the end, it is the astronomers, not the astrologers, who have been utterly discredited over the 13th sign controversy! !

Please dear astronomers try to be more scientific next time!

Thomas D. Gazis