CAMBRIDGE SPIES
| NAME | BIRTHDATE | MONTH | YEAR OF THE | PLUS/MINUS CODE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KIM PHILBY | 1/1/1912 | CAPRICORN | PIG | 1+/3- |
| DONALD MACLEAN | 25/5/1913 | GEMINI | BUFFALO | 3+/1- |
| GUY BURGESS | 16/4/1911 | ARIES | PIG | 1+/3- |
| ANTHONY BLUNT | 26/9/1907 | LIBRA | GOAT | 2+/2- |
| JOHN CAIRNCROSS? | 25/7/1913 | LEO | BUFFALO | 2+/2- |
| VICTOR ROTHSCHILD? | 31/10/1910 | SCORPIO | DOG | 2+/2- |
Notes
There was a questionmark over whether Cairncross or Rothschild were part of the ring as they were similarly politically inclined and friends with Kim Philby and the others at Cambridge. Looking at the astro codes of them all, and removing Rothschild from the equation, it is noteworthy that the odd one out is Philby. Philby was on passive side of the scales in both month and year. All the others were from the dynamic side in Sun Signs (i.e. Gemini, Aries, Leo & Libra) and on the passive side in the years (i.e. Buffalo, Pig, Goat and Buffalo again). It is for this reason I believe it is highly likely to have been Cairncross and not Rothschild who was fifth man. Cairncross was outed in 1951 as a Russian spy. Although Rothschild was equally passive/dynamic type, his was opposite to the other four excluding Philby who was the odd one out in any case. If Rothschild were to have been the fifth man, it would have been him in charge and not Philby. Rothschild’s dynamic would not have enabled him to allow himself to be second to anybody.