I am putting up this link. Its a sceptic's view on Robert Zoller's alleged prediction of 9/11.

However, I thought it was interesting largely because it quotes Zoller's newsletter in some depth and actually engages with the astrological logic of the prediction. Not something many sceptics bother to do.

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=535

This topic has been raised before en passant in this old thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6339

Mark

Sceptics are notorious for getting bogged down in minor details and try to pick on every little grammar or slip of the tongue you make. In this case, Zoller said "AFTER" september the US would be affected by the elipse,which was in fact true ,and a consequence of 9/11. He might have meant "as of september" but thats why astrologers must beware of their word usage cause thats where sceptics like to nail them down Sceptics dont care about the truth but only about winning argie bargies

I'm glad you found this Mark. I ran into it years ago and even, on a lark, not intending to send it, prepared a rebuttal. Zoller is a bit tight lipped about how he did it (other than the occasional reference to the 1999 eclipse), but that is beside the point, The Skeptic tries the usual skeptic's tactics of setting up straw men, and ridicule. He knows no astrology and is therefore not really qualified to determine whether or not this is a valid prediction.

Straw man argument:

The ?threat? is not specified, except that it could happen on the US East Coast. That?s 3330 km (2069 miles), and he?s not even sure!

The threat does not have to be any more specific. No one ever claimed that astrology can be so specific, that it is able to say something like: "On Sept 11, 2001, two airplanes will be crashed into the Twin Towers at 8:46 AM followed by a similar attack on the Pentagon Building in Washington DC, and a failed attempt on the White House, crashing on a Pennsylvania farm."

Secondly a little thinking is on order. Yes the US East Coast is over 2000 miles long, but to where would an attack be more likely to come, New York City or Asbury Park, New Jersey? There are only a few places that make sense for such an attack. Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, the Naval Base at Norfolk Virginia (very heavily guarded, so we can count that one out) or maybe Miami. But to do maximum damage with a couple of commercial airliners, New York and Washington DC are the obvious choices. Furthermore, The total US borders exceed 12,000 miles in length (including Alaska and Hawaii I believe). The 48 states have an area of some 3.7 million square miles. Alaska adds a good 20% to that figure. So narrowing it down to the East Coast is pretty good in my view.

This objection can be discounted. Zoller said East Coast and East Coast it was. No one else predicted anything closer.

Zoller also claims that it will not be the boldness of terrorists but the incompetence of the US. Whether the US was incompetent is a good question, but I doubt there are anyone who will claim that the attacks on 9-11 were not ?bold?.

This is a misstatement of what Zoller said and a feeble attempt at ridicule. Zoller's claim that the threat, actually the success of the attack, will be due to US incompetence, not the boldness of the attack. Whether this is an astrological deduction or a personal opinion is not stated, but our intrepid skeptic, cherry picking as he does, interprets the statement his way. I suspect, based on other readings of Zoller's work, that this is a personal opinion. Zoller's idea of US incompetence was not kowtowing to terrorist interests. But it is arguable, and I've made the argument, that the US did not take the terrorist threat seriously even after being warned by such things as previous attacks on the Twin Towers. That's incompetence. He never said the attacks wouldn't be bold. Attacking a nation with the military power and resources of the USA is bold by definition. Zoller said or implied that incompetence would be the reason for the success, albeit, I think he said it badly.

The short version is this: Zoller predicted an attack on the US East coast and it happened on the US East Coat.

The ?eclipse effect? will be the worst for the period from September 2001 to February 2002. Not very precise either.

Says who? I think five months is pretty precise and if it isn't, who got it closer?

Zoller did not predict 9-11 in any way. What he pointed to was a possible attack on the US, perhaps the East Coast, and within a 6-months timeframe.

Anyone reading the newspapers could have done the same.

But no one did. In fact everyone from the President of the US to the writer of this article was caught by surprise. Everyone except Robert Zoller

And so on. The skeptical attack was necessary in their minds because they couldn't allow this to go unchallenged. The tone of the criticism and the general ignorance of astrology is all too typical. There is room for criticism. Zoller does not give anyone the reasons for his prediction. If he wants to keep his methods to himself or limit them to his paying students only, that's his business. He wrote this in a newsletter not for general publication, but it leaves him open to criticism. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, no one did this any better .

Mark wrote:I am putting up this link. Its a sceptic's view on Robert Zoller's alleged prediction of 9/11.

However, I thought it was interesting largely because it quotes Zoller's newsletter in some depth and actually engages with the astrological logic of the prediction. Not something many sceptics bother to do.

http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=535

This topic has been raised before en passant in this old thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6339

Mark

They seem to make a fair job of ridiculing the 'prediction'.

If it's true he did not alert the CIA or White House then what is the point of mentioning it to anyone either before or after?

''Robert Zoller is the self-proclaimed ?world?s leading proponent of Western Predictive Astrology also known as Medieval Astrology.?

Is this true, or were they taking a few liberties in order to attack him more effectively?

If it's true he did not alert the CIA or White House then what is the point of mentioning it to anyone either before or after?

Zoller claims he did try to notify authorities, but of course they didn't listen as the critic would have known. Secondly the critic goes after Zoller for not being specific, but somehow expects him to specifically identify the attack site in his report to authorities. You can't have it both ways. Assuming they believed him, what could they do? Plan to put the military on high alert up and down the entire East Coast for 6 months?

Tom wrote:

Zoller claims he did try to notify authorities, but of course they didn't listen as the critic would have known.

Yes he re-stated this in an interview with Chris Brennan in the Radio Astrology Blog.

I also think Zoller's prediction of a Eurasian treaty involving the Islamic world was quite accurate.

In particular the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Declaration of June 20001 which involved the Russian Federation, China and the majority Muslim states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_C ... ganisation

July 2001 saw the signing of a Sino-Russian treaty that included military co-operation:

http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/ ... treaty.htm

Mark

So can we assume then it wasn't a prediction on one level but astrological symbolism suggesting, to him, if the optimal measures were taken an attack was preventable. They would have been on reasonably high alert anyway I imagine, as they are today.

Or can we assume he would know they would not take much notice of some weirdo not least as it is not exactly the kind of data they can work all that effectively with re timing and land mass. We also don?t know what he did with previous or even prior hunches of this type, or even if he had any. He may have alerted them previously and it turned out nothing happened in ways he suggested they might, so both may have borne this in mind?

Does it become more of a prediction, if he assumed the USA will carry on acting ??incompetently??, as he defines and perceives this.

I note in this curio of an article - http://www.new-library.com/info/article ... 01+35.html, (and I recall some banter about his link to this site or lack of), no mention seems to have been made of him notifying the authorities. Also it gives you the impression he thought something was going to happen along these lines regardless as to his own interventions or lack of.

They would have been on reasonably high alert anyway I imagine, as they are today.

They weren't on high alert. Just prior (less than a year) to 9/11 I accidentally left a box cutter knife in my coat pocket and discovered it just before I passed through what was then security before getting on an airplane. I expected them to take it from me. No one said a word.

So can we assume then it wasn't a prediction

After 9/11 one of Zoller's students wrote a rather rambling piece about what was and wasn't a prediction. While I like the idea of defining our terms, the point of the article got lost in the explanation. Zoller says the chart or charts provide the promise or potential. The prediction is the announcement of the time the potential will be fulfilled. He gave a time frame. I think that makes it a prediction. If someone is to argue that in order for it to be a prediction, the event must be inevitable and the time precise, that's a tall order to fill.

Or can we assume he would know they would not take much notice of some weirdo

We sure can. Put yourself in the bureaucrat's place. "Hey chief we have a guy on the line who says the East Coast is going to be attacked by foreigners between September and February. He's an astrologer. What should I do?"

We also have to keep in mind how much this attack changed our perspective. Zoller said "foreign." Up until that morning how many of us would have not assumed he meant a nation state using military force? It would have been pooh pooed on the grounds of American military strength alone. Who would do that and for what purpose? Again we would be thinking in terms of nation states. That all changed. So Zoller's use of the word "foreign" was precise. These were not Americans doing this. But it was not an attack by a nation state either.

Does it become more of a prediction, if he assumed the USA will carry on acting ??incompetently??, as he defines and perceives this.

This is the problem for Zoller and his defenders in a nutshell. He did not explain to the astrological community how he arrived at his conclusions and therefore how much of what he wrote was personal opinion and how much was based on astrology. Zoller wrote some pretty silly things after hurricane Katrina and the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis insinuating they were both the products of the American government warring against its own people. I imagine his view of government incompetence is a whole lot different from mine. I agree that the American government displayed incompetence by not taking previous attacks seriously. Beginning with the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, which was followed by two attacks on the Twin Towers prior to 9/11/2001. What does it take to sink in? However, I suspect, based on his other writings, decidedly pro-Arab, that this is not what he meant by incompetence.

It's been 11+ years since the attacks and 12 years since his prediction. Granted the prediction was made in a newsletter to his students, not a widely circulated (by our standards) publication, but I've seen it and it is pretty empty of astrological content other than the occasional reference to the 1999 eclipse. It was a spectacular prediction and there is no longer much point in keeping the method a secret, but that's up to him.

I have decided to update this thread as I have found this article from Luke Andrews on the new Library site setting out more on Robert Zoller's approach to prediction and the full background to his prediction of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.new-library.com/info/article ... 01+35.html

Mark

Back in January I wrote:

After 9/11 one of Zoller's students wrote a rather rambling piece about what was and wasn't a prediction. While I like the idea of defining our terms, the point of the article got lost in the explanation.

The Andrews article is the one I was referring to. Make up your own minds. I find it unreadable. I skimmed it and have not changed my mind about it. I'll try to force myself to read it carefully tomorrow or the next day.

hi folks,

i read the luke andrews article just now.. it strikes me like a promotional blurb for 'the school' and little more.. next to no astrology is given with zollers predictions from hi monthly 'Nuntius' newsletter..

it seemed to me the article was written in such a way as to encourage one (students of school in particular) to read/buy all of zollers and the schools work and continue to take the courses and blah blah blah.. like a trailer to a movie hoping folks will get excited at the thought they too can make mundane predictions if they just follow the wisdom of zoller as captured in the books and courses being offered at the website/school..

it would be nice to know the nuts and bolts behind zollers prediction, but one gets next to none of it in this article other then a mention of the eclipse of 1999 having relevance..