John Wayne Gacy

I came across this article while looking up information for a different topic for this section. The author of the article mentions that astrologers he's talked to have failed to see any problems with Gacy's chart and have really only said good things about it. Albeit, maybe they were doing that because they wanted to say positive things to the person who was asking (being that they didn't know it was Gacy's chart). I'm not good at analyzing charts, but does anyone have any points these astrologers have missed that could link his placements to his horrible crimes?

The article: http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/is_v01/1-11-5.htm<BR>
His chart is under this link: http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/John_Wayne_Gacy<BR>

Wow he was a Pisces?! Well someone mentioned that most of the nazi war criminals were Pisces so maybe a Pisces has the ability to compartmentalize so well (from reality/fantasy as to enable him/her to commit these heinous crimes while still being an active and sometimes an upstanding citizen of the community. On paper Gacy was quite successful. Read that essay I linked about "doubling". It's specific to nazi war criminals but I think in this case it fits too.

on a similar note, i do think people are born inherently good. obviously this is an eternal debate, nothing new since the enlightenment thinkers and thus arguable... but to me.. the undying, secret optimist, i believe in the natural goodness of human beings. what is "good" vs. "evil"? in societal standards i think evil is the infliction of harm on others, above all physical harm...that which penetrates the realm of personal space (or one's definition of it). and in doing so the governing body, acting as a neutral party-neither good nor evil, has the authority to constrict the offending party's personal space to one deemed worthy of penance by a jury of his peers. my definition of what the judicial system should be (but as we know sometimes that's not the case) BUT I DIGRESS.

yes so now that we've gotten the definitions of "good" and "evil" out of the way, i don't think any person's chart would betray any sign of "evil" OR "good". charts don't have the ability to predict what the person will do in life, so therefore cannot show that a person is "good" or "evil".. rather perhaps how the person might handle certain things. patterns in sociopathic/psychopathic behavior through the chart you might ask? well perhaps... but that doesn't necessarily even mean they will commit evil. reading gacy's bio, i definitely think his is a case of severe psychological trauma from his abusive upbringing that caused him to commit his perversions in life... and perhaps his behavioral habits (and astrological chart, astrologically speaking) as to ensure that he gives into his demons rather than fight and rise above them as some others might have done given his same traumatic upbringing.

sounds familiar right? the ever ubiquitous argument of nature vs. nurture.... what do you think?

Well, I mentioned this in another thread, but today, I would say there's not much of a debate going on for nature v nurture. Many experts and professionals now agree that both work together. So, I would also believe that environment plus pre-determined factors are the cause of how he turned out. Certainly with abuse, that would constitute most of the reasoning, though. I still found it interesting though that the astrologers in the link said stuff like he'd be good with children. It seems they thought there was at least a tiny element of predictability. I know that some aspects are known to cause disruptions in personalities, though, so I was wondering what his aspects would say about his chart even if it didn't match him as a person.

I agree with you for the most, part. My personal belief is more towards the blank slate theory which states that people are born neither good nor bad. But, there's theories for being born good and bad, also, so it's all up to opinion.

Posted by Scenic
Well, I mentioned this in another thread, but today, I would say there's not much of a debate going on for nature v nurture. Many experts and professionals now agree that both work together. So, I would also believe that environment plus pre-determined factors are the cause of how he turned out. Certainly with abuse, that would constitute most of the reasoning, though. I still found it interesting though that the astrologers in the link said stuff like he'd be good with children. It seems they thought there was at least a tiny element of predictability. I know that some aspects are known to cause disruptions in personalities, though, so I was wondering what his aspects would say about his chart even if it didn't match him as a person.

I agree with you for the most, part. My personal belief is more towards the blank slate theory which states that people are born neither good nor bad. But, there's theories for being born good and bad, also, so it's all up to opinion.

ah that's interesting about him being good with children... because he WAS a clown. he might have been a good one.... maybe the astrologers just see his paths crossing with many children and interpreted that to mean he would be good with children (because why would children keep coming in your life if you weren't good with them/know how to handle them) and never really fathoming the fact that he would actually murder them.