E 2.5 Letter to the Dayton Astrology Group (DAG)

DISCLAIMER: The addresses and phone numbers in this document are no longer valid.

	July 20,1995
TO:	The Dayton Astrology Group (DAG), The Dayton Daily News, Various Individuals, Organizations, and Institutions
FROM:	Fred Howard 2124 Stocker Drive, Apt. 3 Kettering, Ohio 45429 513-298-6719
SUBJECT:	The pathetic disregard for truth demonstrated by Nancy Koons at the July 13, 1995 monthly meeting of the DAG.

1.       Nancy Koons is the founder and head of the DAG. She has been a professional Astrologer for many years. She currently charges $50/hr for her services. In this letter, I will demonstrate why she represents what is bad about the practice of Astrology.

2.       One of the most confusing issues in Astrology deals with the 12 Houses. There are numerous different House systems with names such as Koch and Placidus. The interpretation of an Astrological natal chart may or may not vary radically vis-a-vis one House system versus another House system. The degree of variation of interpretation, one House system relative to another, depends upon:

1. the particular two House systems under consideration;
2. the distribution of the planets in the heavens for the particular natal chart under consideration;
3. the degree of the rising sign on the ascendant point (this ties down the signs and the degrees of the signs on the Nadir, Zenith, and Descendant points) for the particular natal chart under consideration.

      Note that we are not even addressing the extreme degree of variation that can manifest between the interpretation of a natal chart from one professional Astrologer to another for any given House system.

3.       At the July 13, 1995 DAG meeting, I proposed an experiment, the objective of which is to throw some light on the question of Houses. Not only was there absolutely no enthusiasm from the DAG membership for the experiment, but also, Nancy Koons made one of the most remarkably honest, stupid, and disgusting comments that I have ever heard. She said, "Even if the experiment demonstrated that one House system was right and one was wrong, I may not accept the results if they disagree with what I prefer because I've got too much invested in what I prefer." Now this quote may not be exactly correct, but it is very close and the concept presented in the quote is definitely the same as what she intended by her comment. The serious and arrogant tone of her voice added insult to injury. The proceedings of the meeting were recorded on audio tape, and so her comment may be available for review. At any rate, Mr. Glenn Johnson (513-256-8880), who was sitting about four feet in front of Mrs. Koons, heard the comment, is willing to testify to what he heard, and was as stunned as I was to hear it.

      By the expression "too much invested", Mrs. Koons refers to her time, energy, reputation, and the many things she has told so many clients that she has handsomely charged for her services over the years.

      Several times in the past year when I have approached Mrs. Koons about a scientific exploration of Astrology, she has countered with absurdities such as:

1. No, Fred, Astrology is not an art/science like you say it is.
2. The only scientific aspect of Astrology deals with the positioning of the planets in the heavens and the Houses in the heavens. (She says this even though she denies that Astrology is an art/science.) Everything else is interpretation. (She says this even though she would concede it a fact that the Sun rules Leo and a fact that the Moon rules Cancer.)

      By and large the DAG membership is an "Old Girls Club" whose members deem protection of their reputation as Astrological experts significantly more important than the search for whatever truth and validity there is in Astrology.

5.       Here is the experiment I proposed. Three Professional Astrologers from the DAG would generate interpretations of the natal charts of ten people who I know very well and who the Astrologers have never met. They would do this for two different House systems, such as Placidus and Koch. Thus, each of the three Astrologers would generate two natal chart interpretations for each of the ten individuals. There would be 20 interpretations by each of the three Astrologers and a total of 60 interpretations by the three of them together.

      I would then take the 60 interpretations and beat them against my intimate knowledge of the ten individuals. This would require a great deal of work on my part. It would involve:

1. constructing many tables of various kinds in order to organize the data from the 60 interpretations;
2. analyzing the information in the tables;
3. recording the results of my analysis in a coherent and comprehensive report.

      I figure that at a minimum, I would have to spend two full months (i.e., 320 man hours) of hard work on the project. I have a B.S. in Physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and I have spent 20 years as a professional physicist in the aerospace business. In those 20 years I have been in charge of many research efforts, including flight testing in which the many psychological factors dealing with human perception and interpretation of events and recorded data is of paramount importance, and I can say for a fact that the single most difficult and grueling aspect of most scientific experimentation is the analyzing of the data at hand and the writing of a coherent and comprehensive report. I have written many technical reports, and I am very good at it, so I am well versed in what it takes to generate a good technical report.

      The time and effort the three Astrologers would have to put into the experiment would be trivial compared to the time and effort I would have to put into the experiment. Furthermore, I would ensure that the report would be very professional and acceptable for publication. Myself, the three Astrologers, and readers of the report would learn something important from the experiment even if the results of the experiment demonstrate an inability to distinguish the importance of one of the House systems over the other.

6.       In addition to the disturbing comment by Mrs. Koons in response to me proposing the experiment, another example of the pathetic shallowness of the DAG was demonstrated by Patsy Moore. Her trite attitude to me was basically, "Why should three Astrologers work just to satisfy your curiosity? Pay Nancy Koons and she will do 20 charts for you at her regular fee of $50/hr. You wouldn't consult in physics for free for someone." I informed her that I often consult for free in the area of physics, and that I would be delighted to consult for free for anyone in the DAG in the area of physics. In fact, earlier in the day, prior to the DAG meeting, I had offered to tutor her daughter in mathematics, and I think Ms. Moore knows full well that I never intended to charge her a fee.

7.       Also, another member (a professional astrologer) of the DAG approached me after the meeting and made it a point to dismiss my proposed experiment by rudely telling me that she was much too busy going to Astrological Conferences and counseling her clients. Again, what was demonstrated was a patent disregard for any careful scrutiny of her own Astrological beliefs. It would be different if the attitude of the DAG membership was: "Well, Fred, we find you arrogant and repulsive, and we resent your interference in our little tea party. But, you are right, we do need to conduct a serious investigation of our own into some of the controversial issues of Astrology. You are not welcome to attend our meetings, and we reject your proposed experiment, but we should be more careful about looking seriously and quantitatively into our Astrological beliefs". Their attitude, however, is not to inquire into who may be right and who may be wrong about Astrological issues. Their attitude is, "Everybody is right, everybody has a valid interpretation". I hear this over and over again from them. It is because they are moral and intellectual cowards who are mightily afraid of a careful scrutiny of their Astrological beliefs.

      The practice of medicine is an art/science, but any decent and honest doctor welcomes a careful scrutiny of his/her methods and ideas.

8.       Mr. Aleister Crowley says on page 209 of The Complete Astrological Writings:

"I have always been opposed to the receiving of money for anything which has in any way to do with the occult sciences. Because they are so important and so sacred, one ought to be particularly on one's honour with regard to them. As the Scripture says: 'Avoid even the appearance of evil'. The more serious one is about the subject, the more careful one should be to do anything which can make anyone justified in calling you a humbug".

      Mrs. Koons, Ms. Moore, and the other rude DAG member have so little appreciation for the sacredness of the Mysteries that they are not in the least bit interested in carefully scrutinizing their Astrological beliefs out of fear that there may be some big issues about which they are dead nuts wrong. They are a shameful disgrace to the many brave men and women who have sacrificed so much since time immemorial in the search for and promulgation of truth.

9.       I challenge Mrs. Koons, Ms. Moore, and the other rude DAG member to a public debate; me versus them. Let's get an unbiased opinion about who is more interested in finding whatever validity there is in Astrology, me or the three of them.

(Signed) Fred Howard