In 1979, CSICOP–skeptics tried to replicate Gauquelin’s Mars effect using a sample of 408 U.S. athletes. Their first intermediate result (from batch 1 of 3 sub-samples) which was not made public confirmed Gauquelin’s effect, i.e., an excess of athletes was born when Mars was rising or culminating. The main researcher, Paul Kurtz, enlarged the sample (by batch 2 and 3) and ended up with a deficit of athletes born with Mars in the sensitive zones. Suspicion of data manipulation that might explain why the Mars effect changed significantly and even reversed within an ongoing research process arose in CSICOP’s own circle. Gauquelin and others expressed like concerns, but none had scrutinised the data. The present study reanalyzes CSICOP’s athletes data and reveals two anomalies (1) For athletes of batch 2 and 3, citation counts – which is an eminence indicator – decrease significantly (athletes must be eminent for a Mars effect to become manifest), citations would hardly decrease under proper sampling conditions. (2) An unattended additional indicator of a Gauquelin Mars effect, namely an excess of birth counts for secondary Mars sectors 36 and 9 (no. 36 preceding Mars rise sector 1 and no. 9 preceding culmination sector 10) did not change, remained unaffected from batch 1 of the initial sample, to batch 3 of the enlarged sample. In 1979, birth counts in secondary sectors were not yet considered effect-indicative. Thus, empirical evidence supports the hypothesis of data manipulation. My attempt to get permission to check the US athletes data in Buffalo in CSICOP’s headquarters in order to verify this hypothesis remained un-acknowledged. The present account of this case of doubtful data treatment adopted CSICOP’s own guidelines:” Debunking should not be abused, but should be used with caution; it should be based on an arsenal of facts” (Kurtz, 1986). Another case of debunking in the field of Mars effect research, by J. W. Nienhuys (1997), is shown to fall short of this admonition.

This is a reply to Jan Ruis’s comments on the author’s replication of Ruis’s earlier synastry study. It reveals some more results based on Ruis’s comments. It also suggests that articles which claim positive findings for novel investigations should include clear statements of hypotheses to facilitate replication. In this respect, it also discusses the issues involved and the problems encountered when trying to form unambiguous and non-overlapping hypotheses.

At present a key question in astrological research is whether diurnal planetary effects are confined to eminent people. In order to investigate this, 23 predictions concerning the personality correlates of planets placed in Gauquelin’s plus zones at birth were obtained from previous experiments and from judges. These predictions were tested on 468 ordinary people by means of 11 measures of personality from the EPQ and the 16PF. Only three of the predictions gained any support: Mars in plus zones was associated with Psychoticism (p<0.05) and Extraversion (p<0.1). Because of the many failures to replicate, no firm conclusions can be drawn from these results.

Ever since times immemorial astrology has been a determining factor in the decisions and actions of men of all ranks and stations. At the beginning of the 17th century, great scientists as Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei and Johannes Kepelr – now best remembered for their roles in the development of modern physics and astronomy – all held astrology in high esteem. At the end of the 17th century, however, the scientific community had completely turned away from astrology. For some it was the subject of derision, others preferred to ignore it completely – so, hardly a single word on astrology, either pro or contra, is to be found in the works of scientists as Christian Huygens (1629-1695) OR Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727). However, in the case of Newton, the astrological literature presents a different view and even claims that in secret Newton was an ardent student of astrology. As evidence the following anecdote is often quoted: when the astronomer Edmond Halley (1656-1742), famed for his comet, once spoke with derision on the subject of astrology Newton is said to have rebuked him with the remark: “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!” How much significance may awe attach to such a testimony? The first questions that should be answered are: what is the source of this statement and what evidence is there that Newton ever “studied the matter”?

Six astrologers matched 23 birth charts to comprehensive case files, including photographs, as specified by them. The charts were of native Americans (4 men, 19 women) aged 30-32 years. Birth times were verified by birth records and in most cases were recorded with a precision of five minutes or better. The mean accuracy (i.e.., agreement with the case files), expressed as Cohen’s kappa, was 0.02. The mean agreement between astrologers was 0.03. Accuracy was unrelated to confidence or to birth time precision. In a follow-up study, five groups of 5-6 astrologers each matched a subset of 5 charts, so that collectively all 23 charts were matched. The mean accuracy was -0.15, or worse than chance. Although the astrologers had collaborated to make the experiment as fair as possible, the negative findings had no effect on their belief in the validity of astrology.

Astrology, as a language of codes and signs, can be explored using semiotics and language theories to bring a new understanding. Wittgenstein’s attempts to create a totally logical language is considered and his view of mathematics as a form of language. The theories of social criticism that make up the approach of Deconstruction also explore the limits of language and address many of the linguistic and interpretive issues also found in astrology. Thus, how Deconstructive approaches are conducted may reveal new ways of working with astrological symbolism. Heidegger’s phenomenology may also shed light on astrology’s workings. These various approaches are contrasted with the views of Jung, which are often used to underpin modern astrological unconscious behaviour. The work of the phenomenological and linguistically orientated psycho-analyst, Jaques Lacan, is considered, along with the criticisms of Jean Paul Sartre. Confusions between theories about archetypes and social movements/attitudes are described and the need for astrology to develop a more coherent theory of the relationship of Being to Time. The psychopathological approach, which underlies nearly all depth psychology, needs to be questioned when applying astrological ideas to human affairs. Alternative models of human existence, stemming from phenomenology, may greatly assist in describing astrology’s working in the world.

Astrology, as a language of codes and signs, can be explored using semiotics and language theories to bring a new understanding. Wittgenstein’s attempts to create a totally logical language is considered and his view of mathematics as a form of language. The theories of social criticism that make up the approach of Deconstruction also explore the limits of language and address many of the linguistic and interpretive issues also found in astrology. Thus, how Deconstructive approaches are conducted may reveal new ways of working with astrological symbolism. Heidegger’s phenomenology may also shed light on astrology’s workings. These various approaches are contrasted with the views of Jung, which are often used to underpin modern astrological unconscious behaviour. The work of the phenomenological and linguistically orientated psycho-analyst, Jaques Lacan, is considered, along with the criticisms of Jean Paul Sartre. Confusions between theories about archetypes and social movements/attitudes are described and the need for astrology to develop a more coherent theory of the relationship of Being to Time. The psychopathological approach, which underlies nearly all depth psychology, needs to be questioned when applying astrological ideas to human affairs. Alternative models of human existence, stemming from phenomenology, may greatly assist in describing astrology’s working in the world.

A “time-switching” control applied to Hill and Thompson’s original 500 redheads’ birth data supported the separate significance levels claimed for their “Mars-Redhead Link” results and revealed that if a single hypothesis had been employed the significance would have been p<10-8.

Each of 122 subjects, married or in an intimate living-together relationship, ranked five descriptions, based on planetary inter-aspects only, of partners, one of which was his/her own, from “most” to “least true” of his/her actual experience. Half the sample were sent control descriptions of relationships randomly selected from the whole sample of relationships; the other half were sent control descriptions of contrived relationships between the subject and four hypothetical partners to him or her, all of whom shared the Sun-sign of the subject’s actual partner. Subjects chose the correct astrological description of their experience of their partner among the five possible positions at significantly better than chance (p<.5). Discrimination of actual partners was clearly found to be easier from random controls than from among same Sun-sign controls, though this was not statistically evaluated.

A sample of 175 mixed adults completed a 36-item questionnaire addressed to likely Pluto meanings, namely intensification, exaggeration, social power, transformation, and suppression. A comparison with Pluto aspects in the natal charts found no evidence to support any of these meanings.