How skeptics de-test astrology

[idunno]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86365#86365

this thread has some interesting views on how Astrology is debunked. Pay particular attention to the posts by "Slayer" and "marty".

I generally agree with them

[idunno]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86365#86365

this thread has some interesting views on how Astrology is debunked. Pay particular attention to the posts by "Slayer" and "marty".

I generally agree with them

By the way «slayer» is a scientist as well

[idunno]

Here are the most interesting bits:

Read this joke. It's his criticism of Gunter Sach's brilliant Astrology File.

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/s-crit2.htm (http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/s-crit2.htm)

Basically, because Statistics has proven that Astrology works, he's taken it upon himself to disprove Statistics.

It is not neccesery when testing a hypothesis, to test every possible other factor, because there are infinate possible other factors.

You see, we will never get any respect from "Science" because to be honest, the moment that we are proved right, then that's the moment whatever method used is proved wrong.

Instead they'd rather rely upon subjective criteria like "feasability" which is a conservative method that is a subjective in character. It is funny how in the face of Evidence, they resort to the very methods they condemn Astrology for using.

Do not cut and paste entire posts from other forums.

[idunno]

typical. When facing hard questions or comments you hide in your ivory tower or make fun one at the time so you dont give a chance to the poster.

[godless dave]

Basically, because Statistics has proven that Astrology works

It has?

[Professor Yaffle]

It has?

Spoilsport! I was watching to see how long idunno would keep talking to himself.

[Pixel42]

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm222/Pixel42/Picard.jpg

[idunno]

Spoilsport! I was watching to see how long idunno would keep talking to himself.

no wonderr evryone scientists include tell me not to waste time with randi`s children

[David Wong]

Man this thread was doomed from the start.

[alfaniner]

Did you type all that just for us?

I doubt it.

[blutoski]

no wonderr evryone scientists include tell me not to waste time with randi`s children

"waste time with" or "waste time of"?

[Frankenstyle]

You cannot throw out the method simply because it proves results you didn't expect and don't want. If you start throwing out methods, you can disprove anything you happen to dislike.

It is a Creationist reasoning being used by the Sceptics here.

A) Astrology is wrong.
B) Therefore all methods that prove Astrology are wrong.
C) Therefore A is proven.


A: You can’t prove a negative.
B: Therefore I’m wasting my time here.
C: Therefore I want the last three minutes of my life back.

Don’t make me resort to writing Haiku’s up in here, ‘cause I’ll do it.

[fuelair]

I could swear the second link has the stuff being dismissed BY AN Asstrologer.

[Ersby]

Which parts of idunno's posts is he quoting other people? It's very confusing.

[Hokulele]

no wonderr evryone scientists include tell me not to waste time with randi`s children


Slayer may understand statistics, but he fails to understand the criticism of the study. He is making the flawed assumption that astrology works and therefor any patterning must be attributed to astrology. The critique explained this problem clearly (my bold).

(2) Because many effects exist in the data, we will observe variations no matter how the data are grouped, whether by tropical sign as in Sachs' case, or by sidereal sign, or by month, or by any other period we care to choose. If the fact that variations exist between individual groups were sufficient proof (which is what Sachs claims), I would be able to prove the effectiveness of all these groupings. Of course, as Suitbert Ertel has pointed out, if it could be shown that, of all possible groupings, the tropical signs produce the most significant results, this would be a good start towards establishing the reality of signs. It would not of course be proof, but it would be a good start. But Sachs is not aware of this basic requirement.


In other words, this study only examined the groupings as dictated by astrology which is in itself a poor assumption. Divide the data into any 12 groups (by calendar month, by lunations, by whatever the heck you like) and see if the differences attributed to astronomy are any stronger than those correlated by other types of groupings.

This study does absolutely nothing to further astrology.


ETA: Just for your information, us brainy types no longer hang out in ivory towers. What with the Endangered Species' Act and all, mother of pearl is now the tower of choice for the discriminating intelligentsia.

[Pixel42]

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf

Many tests of astrologers have been made since the 1950s but only recently has a coherent review been possible. A large-scale test of persons born less than five minutes apart found no hint of the similarities predicted by astrology. Meta-analysis of more than forty controlled studies suggests that astrologers are unable to perform significantly better than chance even on the more basic tasks such as predicting extraversion.

[Hokulele]

One really weird thing about the Sachs study is that they found people whose sun sign is Taurus are the worst drivers. Taurus? Seriously? The most patient, reliable, and pedantic personality type? The one most likely to play by the rules?

Astrology is bunk.

[idunno]

Astrology Sceptics have an approach to Evidence akin to a 7k years Creationist. If the Evidence doesn't support a claim, then dispute the Evidence. If you can't do that, throw away the methodology. It must be wrong if it disproves the True Sceptical Faith. And it is a Faith, it has all the parephranalia of a Faith, it has Priests, Symbols, Rituals, core dogmas.

To be very honest, Gauqulin and Gunter Sach's alone have proven the Astrological Hypothesis. To prove an entire Discipline, doesn't take much. Proving Astrology is different from proving that Astrologers are actually any good at it. That's why some Astrologers throw themselves into war alongside Sceptics in order to oppose Evidence for their own discipline, for often Astrology Research actually debunks some things Astrologers have been claiming.

It's like the latest Psuedo-Science that is supposed to debunk Astrology (I'm told it exists but I can't even seem to get it). They have been looking at people born at the same time and have come to the suprising conclusion they aren't in fact clones. They are different and individual. Astrology is not the only power at work in the Universe, nobody ever claimed that.

Of course if you get a bunch of people who are born at the same time and ask people if they are similar or different, then you will really be asking the question. How different and how similar? That is a subjective question, one that brings up questions of "how different". Expecially given that human judgements are affected by such things as Beauty, Race, Gender, Accent and so on, which are not Astrological in nature, nor are they really a valid basis for character.

It's one think to have 200 people who are all born on the 7th May and 5.23pm but 50% of them on average will be Female. This is a very major difference without accounting for all the others.

The way Sceptics work is by forever calling for Astrology to be Scientifically proven, and when it is (it doesn't take much), the only thing they can do is throw out the validity of the Methodology, precisely because it proves Astrology.

Do not post other's words as your own. The original is here (http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86365#86365).

[Locknar]

Spoilsport! I was watching to see how long idunno would keep talking to himself.I must confess, I was doing the same thing *lol*

Yet another astrology thread, filled with mis-understood science, lack of logic/reasoning, mis-applied science such as this:
Basically, because Statistics has proven that Astrology works <snip>

[Hokulele]

Astrology Sceptics have an approach to Evidence akin to a 7k years Creationist. If the Evidence doesn't support a claim, then dispute the Evidence. If you can't do that, throw away the methodology. It must be wrong if it disproves the True Sceptical Faith. And it is a Faith, it has all the parephranalia of a Faith, it has Priests, Symbols, Rituals, core dogmas.


If the evidence is crap, it should be disputed. If the methodology is crap (as I pointed out in my previous point), it should be thrown away. You have not said a single thing that could support either the evidence or the methodology. Why would a Taurus be a bad driver?

To be very honest, Gauqulin and Gunter Sach's alone have proven the Astrological Hypothesis. To prove an entire Discipline, doesn't take much. Proving Astrology is different from proving that Astrologers are actually any good at it. That's why some Astrologers throw themselves into war alongside Sceptics in order to oppose Evidence for their own discipline, for often Astrology Research actually debunks some things Astrologers have been claiming.


The discipline has not been proven in the least, as the both of the tests you cite have serious problems. How do you know that the correlation for the groupings listed is attributable to astrology (even slayer admits this is a problem)? How many other groupings were tested (none)? Astrologers have been fighting each other for centuries. You yourself called Vedic astrology bunk. Why?

It's like the latest Psuedo-Science that is supposed to debunk Astrology (I'm told it exists but I can't even seem to get it). They have been looking at people born at the same time and have come to the suprising conclusion they aren't in fact clones. They are different and individual. Astrology is not the only power at work in the Universe, nobody ever claimed that.


Then what good is astrology if it cannot predict anything about any individual?

Of course if you get a bunch of people who are born at the same time and ask people if they are similar or different, then you will really be asking the question. How different and how similar? That is a subjective question, one that brings up questions of "how different". Expecially given that human judgements are affected by such things as Beauty, Race, Gender, Accent and so on, which are not Astrological in nature, nor are they really a valid basis for character.


So again, astrology is useless.

It's one think to have 200 people who are all born on the 7th May and 5.23pm but 50% of them on average will be Female. This is a very major difference without accounting for all the others.


So? Have you seen studies correlating climate and dietary intake with the gender of developing fetuses? What on earth does this statement have to do with astrology?

The way Sceptics work is by forever calling for Astrology to be Scientifically proven, and when it is (it doesn't take much), the only thing they can do is throw out the validity of the Methodology, precisely because it proves Astrology.


No, the methodology is thrown out as it is extremely poor. Try reading the critique again and see the points made against the testing process. If you think the methodology is so strong, tell me, how exactly did the process account for the differences due to factors other than astrology, how did it determine that the astrological signs were the correct way to group the individuals, and how did it determine that astrological signs showed the strongest correlation to occupation, etc.?

[Locknar]

So again, astrology is useless.Truer words were never written.

[fuelair]

Asstrollogy has been punked and pwned. As has, oh, who was it? Oh, rats, I dunno...........

[Hokulele]

Truer words were never written.


Dammit. I just realized that the post by idunno I was responding to is not actually his at all, but a copy/paste job from the thread linked in the OP.

Idunno, I have reported you for failing to indicate that you are not posting original material under your name, but copying and pasting someone else's words and pretending they are your own. I strongly recommend that you link to the material you want to use with a summary, rather than pretending to be the one posting these points of discussion.

Ironically, he copy and pasted my earlier post from here to that thread on the other site to see if he could get Slayer to respond. Argument by proxy is a very odd hobby for one to have...

[Tricky]

If astrology worked, all astrologers would be successful beyond their wildest dreams. That's all the debunking you really need.

[idunno]

From Slayer:

He(slayer) may understand statistics, but he fails to understand the criticism of the study. He is making the flawed assumption that astrology works and therefor any patterning must be attributed to astrology. The critique explained this problem clearly (my bold).

-Okay, I take the challenge. Most of the criticisms are directly adressed in the book.

Quote:
(2) Because many effects exist in the data, we will observe variations no matter how the data are grouped, whether by tropical sign as in Sachs' case, or by sidereal sign, or by month, or by any other period we care to choose. If the fact that variations exist between individual groups were sufficient proof (which is what Sachs claims), I would be able to prove the effectiveness of all these groupings. Of course, as Suitbert Ertel has pointed out, if it could be shown that, of all possible groupings, the tropical signs produce the most significant results,
this would be a good start towards establishing the reality of signs. It would not of course be proof, but it would be a good start. But Sachs is not aware of this basic requirement.

--That statement is incorrect. Gunter Sach's pre-empted criticsm that by the following experiment in the book.

He created random star signs, by using a Computer to scramble all the days of the year, assigning them randomly but equally to these 12 made up Star Signs. He then carried out the same process with the random Star Signs, looking at whether he would recieve any Statistically Significant results and found NONE!

You see, unless you use the actual Star Signs, you get no Statistically Significant result, using those methods. You only get the normal fluctuations attributed to chance. Therefore there is something in it, that is to say it's not the case that by Arbiterily taking any set of dates, you can get those kinds of results.

So it is not the case that you can get the same result with any arbitery set of dates. It don't work that way.

Quote:
In other words, this study only examined the groupings as dictated by astrology which is in itself a poor assumption. Divide the data into any 12 groups (by calendar month, by lunations, by whatever the heck you like) and see if the differences attributed to astronomy are any stronger than those correlated by other types of groupings.

- as stated above Gunter Sachs was well aware of that requirement. He tried doing it by "whatever the heck you like" (randomly generated signs on a computer) and found that nothing beyond the range of chance was found. There were variations, but nothing Statistically valid.

Now it is not neccesery to test everything in order to test anything. Only the Hypothesis (Sun Signs) are being tested to be proven or disproven.

And if you prove another Statistical Factor at work, it in no way whatsoever disproves the study, unless it correlates precisely with the Astrological Phenonoma and can be shown (with Evidence) to be the result of a factor that is not Astrological in it's cause.

However one must FIND this Evidence, it is not enough to assert that it exists, simply because you don't like the study's results. This is the fallacy of the Sceptics (and a lot of Astrologers), because we don't like the Evidence, we will simply state 'Other factors" before 'Other factors' have been proven to be at work, which are themselves independant of Astrological Phenonoma.

It doesn't test human judgements, therefore it is free of the 'subjectivity' element, that a lot of disproving tests have had a huge dose of. They have focused either on quantifying human judgements (how do you quantify 'Leadership Ability'), or upon the skills of Astrologers under controlled conditions.

But Gunter Sach's is pure number crunching. Therefore it is superior, since it doesn't leave much room for human judgements, that are influenced by the tester, or for human incompetance. Indeed one of the funny things about it, is that those doing it were forbidden from consulting Astrologers.

Quote:
This study does absolutely nothing to further astrology.


Go get the book, I got it very cheaply off Amazon myself. And then tell me that it does absolutely nothing. It is what it says on the cover pretty much. Proof of Astrology's Sun Sign hypothesis, therefore of Astrology itself.


_________________
read..my..lips!! No..more..taxes!!!

[idunno]

Response from Slayer:


He(slayer) may understand statistics, but he fails to understand the criticism of the study. He is making the flawed assumption that astrology works and therefor any patterning must be attributed to astrology. The critique explained this problem clearly (my bold).

--Okay, I take the challenge. Most of the criticisms are directly adressed in the book.

Quote:
(2) Because many effects exist in the data, we will observe variations no matter how the data are grouped, whether by tropical sign as in Sachs' case, or by sidereal sign, or by month, or by any other period we care to choose. If the fact that variations exist between individual groups were sufficient proof (which is what Sachs claims), I would be able to prove the effectiveness of all these groupings. Of course, as Suitbert Ertel has pointed out, if it could be shown that, of all possible groupings, the tropical signs produce the most significant results, this would be a good start towards establishing the reality of signs. It would not of course be proof, but it would be a good start. But Sachs is not aware of this basic requirement.

--That statement is incorrect. Gunter Sach's pre-empted criticsm that by the following experiment in the book.

He created random star signs, by using a Computer to scramble all the days of the year, assigning them randomly but equally to these 12 made up Star Signs. He then carried out the same process with the random Star Signs, looking at whether he would recieve any Statistically Significant results and found NONE!

You see, unless you use the actual Star Signs, you get no Statistically Significant result, using those methods. You only get the normal fluctuations attributed to chance. Therefore there is something in it, that is to say it's not the case that by Arbiterily taking any set of dates, you can get those kinds of results.

So it is not the case that you can get the same result with any arbitery set of dates. It don't work that way.

Quote:
In other words, this study only examined the groupings as dictated by astrology which is in itself a poor assumption. Divide the data into any 12 groups (by calendar month, by lunations, by whatever the heck you like) and see if the differences attributed to astronomy are any stronger than those correlated by other types of groupings.

--As stated above Gunter Sachs was well aware of that requirement. He tried doing it by "whatever the heck you like" (randomly generated signs on a computer) and found that nothing beyond the range of chance was found. There were variations, but nothing Statistically valid.

Now it is not neccesery to test everything in order to test anything. Only the Hypothesis (Sun Signs) are being tested to be proven or disproven.

And if you prove another Statistical Factor at work, it in no way whatsoever disproves the study, unless it correlates precisely with the Astrological Phenonoma and can be shown (with Evidence) to be the result of a factor that is not Astrological in it's cause.

However one must FIND this Evidence, it is not enough to assert that it exists, simply because you don't like the study's results. This is the fallacy of the Sceptics (and a lot of Astrologers), because we don't like the Evidence, we will simply state 'Other factors" before 'Other factors' have been proven to be at work, which are themselves independant of Astrological Phenonoma.

It doesn't test human judgements, therefore it is free of the 'subjectivity' element, that a lot of disproving tests have had a huge dose of. They have focused either on quantifying human judgements (how do you quantify 'Leadership Ability'), or upon the skills of Astrologers under controlled conditions.

But Gunter Sach's is pure number crunching. Therefore it is superior, since it doesn't leave much room for human judgements, that are influenced by the tester, or for human incompetance. Indeed one of the funny things about it, is that those doing it were forbidden from consulting Astrologers.

Quote:
This study does absolutely nothing to further astrology.


--Go get the book, I got it very cheaply off Amazon myself. And then tell me that it does absolutely nothing. It is what it says on the cover pretty much. Proof of Astrology's Sun Sign hypothesis, therefore of Astrology itself.
_________________

[idunno]

-mind you this is a response from randis forum not mine, i know little about statistics. I guess if i show them your reply they ll find an answer somehow. Maybe its a fruitless discussion

slayer:-Sorry idunno, I was a little concerned. You sent a message to them. You could send my reply to them if you wish, I won't mind. I just don't have the energy or the courage to write an E-Mail to them myself.

It is in effect. World renowned oppoanants of something are not going to simply hand over 1 million pounds for the privilage of delivering them a humiliating blow. And anyway, it isn't even me that's doing the proving.

It's a bit like expecting Creationists to just roll over and accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They are so proud of being 'Sceptics', they have built their entire lives on opposing Astrology, thus the odds of them ever being able to see the light, is about absolute 0. Expecially when you consider that they have a public reputation to keep up.

Imagine the headline-

World Renowned Sceptic admits defeat and passes 1 million pounds to an anonomous internet user under the name of Slayer of Cliffracers. I mean, could anything be more humiliating for him? I mean I get catapulted to celebrity overnight, but at his expense.

To a fair and open mind, something like the Gunter Sach's work is pretty much a proof of Astrology working. But to a closed mind, like that of the average Sceptic, Astrology is wrong absolutely.

Any proof of Astrology is therefore a discrediting of the Statistical methodology used to prove it. It's a hopeless circle, if anything is found, just throw away the Methodology used. None can force anyone to accept Methodology, it is impossible. If you accept common Methodology, you can prove something. If you throw out all Methodology that disagrees with your initial position, then you cannot be persuaded by anything.
_________________

[Tricky]

Imagine the headline-

World Renowned Sceptic admits defeat and passes 1 million pounds to an anonomous internet user under the name of Slayer of Cliffracers. I mean, could anything be more humiliating for him? I mean I get catapulted to celebrity overnight, but at his expense.
Yeah. Imagine that. So why is it just imagined inatead of reality? Why haven't any astrologers been catupulted to celebrity overnight? Who is the last astrologer that anyone can remember the name of? Jeanne Dixon?

[idunno]

Yeah. Imagine that. So why is it just imagined inatead of reality? Why haven't any astrologers been catupulted to celebrity overnight? Who is the last astrologer that anyone can remember the name of? Jeanne Dixon?

Evengeline Adams, Leo Knegt, Alan Leo. Want more?
The ancient ones as well??:D
There will always be astrologers claiming astrology can do this and that when it cant, because astrology is not regulated and any astrologer can say what he likes

[Locknar]

Imagine the headline-

World Renowned Sceptic admits defeat and passes 1 million pounds to an anonomous internet user under the name of Slayer of Cliffracers. I mean, could anything be more humiliating for him? I mean I get catapulted to celebrity overnight, but at his expense.
Why just imagine it? I can only imagine that after such bold statements/claims a MDC application will be forthcoming right?

[Pixel42]

They are so proud of being 'Sceptics', they have built their entire lives on opposing Astrology
OK, hands up all the skeptics here who have "built their entire lives on opposing Astrology". That description doesn't even apply to Randi, let alone to a bunch of people who occasionally amuse themselves by arguing with woos on his forum. Does this guy really think how he's chosen to delude himself is that important to anyone? Don't flatter yourself, mate.

There are, however, many people who have built their entire lives - their livelihoods, even - on believing in astrology, so the rest of his quote certainly applies to them:

thus the odds of them ever being able to see the light, is about absolute 0. Expecially when you consider that they have a public reputation to keep up

[fuelair]

OK, hands up all the skeptics here who have "built their entire lives on opposing Astrology". That description doesn't even apply to Randi, let alone to a bunch of people who occasionally amuse themselves by arguing with woos on his forum. Does this guy really think how he's chosen to delude himself is that important to anyone? Don't flatter yourself, mate.

There are, however, many people who have built their entire lives - their livelihoods, even - on believing in astrology, so the rest of his quote certainly applies to them:
Well, I'm pretty certain I have spent between twenty four and thirty hours of my life pointing out that asstrollogy is inaccurate, simplistic, right at chance level at best and dangerous to those stupid/ignorant enough to believe it.
And those hours (under two days total) did occur over my last 52 years- but, in all fairness, that leaves the first ten years of my life during which I never opposed or supported Asstrollogy.:):):D:):)

[X]

I think Martin Timothy's thread about "moon occult venus" did a pretty good job of showing astrology as bunk.

[Hokulele]

--As stated above Gunter Sachs was well aware of that requirement. He tried doing it by "whatever the heck you like" (randomly generated signs on a computer) and found that nothing beyond the range of chance was found. There were variations, but nothing Statistically valid.

Now it is not neccesery to test everything in order to test anything. Only the Hypothesis (Sun Signs) are being tested to be proven or disproven.


I am just going to focus on this point as it shows how much Sachs and Slayer fail to understand how science works. First, I will retract what I said earlier, as I will admit I didn't think about this in terms of how I would devise a proper test/analysis, it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction and it shows in the response to my comments.

Idunno, do you understand what the point of a scientific study is? Judging by the fact that you found this reponse to be constructive, I doubt it. It is not merely a case of "proving" or "disproving" things. Let's take the hypothesis in this test (and this segment of your post) that Sun Signs can accurately predict driving skills. The way science works is not so much to try and prove this is true, but to show it cannot be false. This may sound strange, but it really the method behind most testing.

In the case of Sun Signs, the reverse of the hypothesis would be that there is no more correlation between a person's Sun Sign and driving skills that between other random groupings. Note, you are not comparing Sun Signs to random chance, as demographics predicts that any grouping of people will show some kind of correlation to any activity. The fact that Sachs found his "made up" signs to have no statistical correlation is in itself a bit suspicious that the methodology was flawed. If Sachs had made 10 separate groupings imitating signs and all of them showed such behavior, the computer-generated grouping would have a bit more validity. For all we know, he may very well have made 10 such groupings and threw out all those that did not support his conclusion.

This leads me to the second point of why this test is completely unconvincing. One of the strongest supports for the scientific method in testing is that any well designed test or study can be repeated and the results can be reproduced by other researchers. In this case, I could easily generate fake Sun Signs on my computer and come up with a completely different set of results. If my random generation just so happens to put the youngest drivers all in the same "sign", guess which one will show a strong correlation with poor driving skills? Sachs would have been much better off using groupings such as alphabetizing the entire list by last name, and dividing the list in 12 equal groups, doing the same by first name, and using something such as Chinese Year Signs rather than something randomly generated that may or may not be replicable. This way any researcher can verify the results of the test and see which groups are or are not statistically interesting.

This is why I think my previous suggestion of grouping people by birth month or lunations is in hindsight a bad idea, as there is not enough spread compared to the Sun Signs.

As a third note, several major factors in driving safety are well known, such as the age of the driver. A decent test would check against this demographic at a minimum to avoid obvious unrelated correlations. As I mentioned earlier, if the people who were listed as Taurus were all under the age of 20, I would be completely unsurprised to find them to be the worst drivers as a whole. If the deviation in average driving age correlates to the 13% deviation noted in the study, bingo, Sun Signs may not be the culprit after all and the conclusion is worthless. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the study carries the fatal flaw in that it assumes that any deviation from random chance must be ascribed to astrology.

As for the rest of the two posts you pulled from the other forum, pure waffle and bull.

[Elizabeth I]

One really weird thing about the Sachs study is that they found people whose sun sign is Taurus are the worst drivers. Taurus? Seriously? The most patient, reliable, and pedantic personality type? The one most likely to play by the rules?

Astrology is bunk.

I thought that was Virgo? :p

Sorry idunno, I was a little concerned. You sent a message to them. You could send my reply to them if you wish, I won't mind. I just don't have the energy or the courage to write an E-Mail to them myself.
[emphasis mine]

So some guy has the secret to predicting the future of the human race and the individuals who comprise it, but he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, or the energy, to fight the evil skeptics whose only desire is to keep humanity from fulfilling its glorious destiny? And this doesn't make his sycophantic groupies stop and think just a little?

Why just imagine it? I can only imagine that after such bold statements/claims a MDC application will be forthcoming right?

See above. He's too tired.

[Tricky]

Evengeline Adams, Leo Knegt, Alan Leo. Want more?
No, just some. Maybe those folks are famous in the circles of astrology, but that's not exactly famous. What are their most famous correct predictions? Jeanne Dixon of course had the famous Kennedy assassination prediction, in which she got everything except the "die in office" part wrong. She capitalized on it big too. So while it is true that some people can milk the public to make a living, or even a very good living, I'm not seeing any of them regarded as reliable sources. Except, of course, by astrology buffs.

The ancient ones as well??:D
We all know about Nostradamus. People are still using his work to predict things after they've happened. Yeah, he made it big.