Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Q&A and discussion on Quotidian variations of progressions.
Post Reply
SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by SteveS » Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:12 am

The Boyd “Washington quotidian” for JFK’s death is astounding. Clay Reed, Dec 1991, American Astrology Magazine, “Transits vs Progressions.”
Note with link bi-wheel charts below:

t. Neptune partile cnj Q1 MC in Paran (rotational square) to Q1 Sun partile cnj Q1 Asc.
t. Pluto partile cnj Q1 Moon
Q1 Mars partile cnj Q1 East Point in RA, partile cnj t. Moon
Q1 Saturn partile 90 Q1 Asc
t. Saturn partile 90 Q1 MC
t. Saturn 1,23 square t. Neptune
*Secondary Sun has reached its partile 90 to radical Moon and Secondary Saturn, thus triggering that long term conjunction. Clay Reed
**Note: Boyd's 1963 Sidereal Solar Return:
Moon 28,05 Cap
Saturn 27,51 Cap

Inside wheel Q1 progressions, Outside wheel transits.

https://imgur.com/a/wEH1LoS

The only astrologer I have read (1991) who has noted this “astounding” Q1 Boyd Quotidian is Clay Reed. Without a doubt, this one progressed Q1 quotidian chart proves to my mind, Siderealists should allow a true valid radical moment in USA’s history for the Boyd Chart, and a valid Sidereal Chart for the Q1 progressed quotidian with mundane work.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:10 am

When I first saw this, as a stand-alone example, it definitely caught my eye and got me looking further.

The problem is that it's based on the Q1. As I've written many times, Bradley did multiple comparative studies, and I've done a few, of Q1 vs. Q2 performance. In every one of those comparisons (take an event and good birth time, run both Q1 and Q2, require yourself to pick which one is better based on angular contacts and progressed Moon aspects), 2 or 3 charts are better for the Q2 for every chart that is better for the Q1.

Q2 has always won those comparisons. No single example displaces that.

The case you cite is an example of that 1-time-in-3 or 1-time-in-4 that the Q1 happens to look better.

The SNQ2 for the July 4, 1776 chart and its SSR are striking on their own. (I say your example wins this round because there are more malefics piled up - a real mountain of them.) But the 1776 chart holds its own regardless, showing shock and overthrow, and violence. Specifically:

SNQ2 of 7/4/1776 12:15 PM for JFK assassination
15°31' Sco - t Mercury
15°35' Leo - t Uranus
15°52' Tau - p Uranus
17°18' Tau - r Uranus
17°35' Tau - Q2 MC

19°50' Leo - t Pluto
20°15' Leo - Q2 Asc

SSR of 7/4/1776 12:15 PM for JFK assassination
(Taking only the closest - there's a lot more to see)
24°51' Leo - SSR Mars
24°55' Leo - SSR Asc

166°33' - RA of SSR EP
166°59' - RA of SSR Pluto

17°00'36" Cap - t Moon
17°00'54" Cap - SQ Moon

SLR of 7/4/1776 12:15 PM for JFK assassination
21°31' Gem - r Sun
21°49' Sag - SLR EP

23°11' Vir - r Saturn
24°38' Vir - SLR MC

29°37' Tau - r Mars
2°59' Sag - SLR Asc

r Mars 2°41' past Dsc
r Saturn 0°32' past MC
r Mars-Saturn sq. 1°09'
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by SteveS » Mon Jan 28, 2019 5:55 am

Jim wrote:
, 2 or 3 charts are better for the Q2 for every chart that is better for the Q1.
Q2 has always won those comparisons. No single example displaces that.
Agreed, without a doubt.

Jim wrote:
The case you cite is an example of that 1-time-in-3 or 1-time-in-4 that the Q1 happens to look better.
IMO, I think the Q1 and the Q2 examples I cited for the Boyd Chart for JFK’s death and 9/11 are excellent examples to show us not to ignore the Boyd chart as a valid radical chart. The one aspect which really grabs my attention with the Boyd Q1's for JFK and 9/11 are the two partile cnjs with progressed Moon to Pluto hits. These two events I consider to be the most stunning/shocking one day events in the history of the USA, and as you have taught in your teachings: Moon-Pluto combos represent stunning/shocking events. With my life experiences with people close to me, at times, I get great hits with the Q1, but am defaulted to Q2 with more hits. And certainly the 7/4 radical should not be ignored.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:24 am

Steve, I think these ere unequivocally the biggest mass-impact events of my life. (Have you checked how it behaves for Pearl Harbor? That would be the other equivalent impact event.)

I wasn't taking issue with the Boyd chart at all, but with the Q1. The 1 time out of 3 or 4 that a Q1 looks better than a Q2 seems random - the 25-30% or so that a single technique tends to fail. Theory aside, I don't know of any evidentiary basis (outside of an occasional single case examples) for assuming there is anything real about the Q1 at all. I do keep spot-checking here and there in case I'm wrong, but the evidence keeps suggesting that the Q1 is a complete fiction.

That aside... I think there are many key moments in U.S. history that make viable charts. I regard Boyd as an interesting secondary chart, and have a collection of a few others. I was recently provided with a July 1, 1776, 7:08 PM chart which is the hour, recorded in a participant's diary, the evening before the Philadelphia delegates convened, when they met and made the solid commitment that they were indeed separating from England. It's a powerful chart for a moment of separation (see rising Moon exactly square Saturn, plus the Mercury-Pluto opposition across EP-WP). They then sat down the next day to start hammering out the declaration, which they finished on July 4.

This and other charts are going to interrelate - they are all transits to each other, for example, or they were all moments that shared transits to key players of the time. It would be a worthy book (someone should steal this idea and run with it) to, say, trade Thomas Jefferson's charts through all these pivot-points in our formative history.

The Boyd chart, as a declaration of war, has reasonable value especially for our warring - and your 9/11 example was quite good for that. People have used the chart for Washington's first inauguration a "birth chart" for the U.S. presidency (April 30, 1789, 12:42 PM LMT, NYC.) Other charts I know people have used for interesting effect is the firsts opening of the Supreme Court Feb 2, 1790. Al Morrison spent years pushing (with great results) a chart for the U.S. constitution's adoption as the actual technical founding of the country as a legal entity, September 17, 1787, 11:29 AM, Philadelphia. And, in a sense, the start of each president's administration is another "start" of the country.

I've looked at all of these at one time or another, each of them seeming to speak to it's particular "angle" on what the country is; but, over and over again, the one that foremost describes the character of the nation and its people and responds better than any of them for major events is the one for a quarter of an hour past noon on July 4, 1776.

PS - Now that I've reminded myself, I might take a look at the Washington Inauguration chart to see what is up for the presidency (I'll test it against the Nixon resignation), and the Constitution chart for what some see as a pending constitutional crisis.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:49 am

Not to hijack the thread... I'll make this comment then dart back out...

Using the Washington Inauguration chart as a chart of the U.S. presidency per se, I checked the Nixon resignation. The discouraging note was that there wasn't a single interesting transit for the occasion. The encouraging note, though, was in its solunars: The Presidency's SSR had Saturn 1onedrive\ from setting; Mars, Uranus, and Pluto more widely angular; a 1°06' Moon-Pluto mundane conjunction; and Moon opposite natal Mars 0°08'.

The Demi-SLR for this chart, a few days before the resignation, had both transiting and natal Saturn's closely angular, a near-partile Venus-Saturn conjunction rising, but Jupiter a few degrees off MC, as if to say the presidency had a pretty bad week but with a "soft landing."
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by SteveS » Mon Jan 28, 2019 8:52 am

Jim wrote and asked:
Steve, I think these ere unequivocally the biggest mass-impact events of my life. (Have you checked how it behaves for Pearl Harbor? That would be the other equivalent impact event.)
Just checked the Q1 & Q2 for Boyd/Pearl Harbor located to DC: Only impact aspect I saw was for Boyd Q2 with t. Saturn partile 90 Q2 Asc on Zenith, which certainly can’t be ignored as a hit.

Jim wrote:
Now that I've reminded myself, I might take a look at the Washington Inauguration chart to see what is up for the presidency (I'll test it against the Nixon resignation), and the Constitution chart for what some see as a pending constitutional crisis.
Good :idea: Jim—may provide some interesting symbolism. I have been real busy of late, but I want to get around to posting some very interesting alternative radical charts for US which Clay Reed discussed in several of his articles in AA, this may also yield some fruit for the near future with DC’s crises. I think one of Clay's alternative radical charts is for the first impeachment (Johnson)) process in US History. Clay may be using this chart as one of his charts for his possible prediction for Trump's impeachment/conviction--but I don't know for sure.
Last edited by SteveS on Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by SteveS » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:31 pm

The Pearl Harbor attack commenced at 18:18 GMT, Dec 7 1941. Wikipedia
Boyd’s DC Q2 inside wheel, transits outside wheel, below link.
Note: approaching t. Mars 21,37 Pi square Boyd’s Sun (1,03) at 22,40 Gem
t. Saturn partile 90 Boyd’s Q2 Asc on Zenith.
https://imgur.com/a/8L8jcOo

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:35 pm

Pretty good! Notice also the exact progressed Moon-Neptune aspect.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by SteveS » Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:05 pm

Jim wrote:
Notice also the exact progressed Moon-Neptune aspect.
:) Exactly, for the sneak attack, good observation.

Clay_Reed
Planet Member
Planet Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 pm

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Clay_Reed » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:44 am

The above Boyd-centered chart is from the December 1991 American Astrology, page 50-51.

Steve's posted link for the chart is very noisy, I assume because it isn't possible to post a pared-down chart. The one in the original article featured four transiting planets (Moon, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto), four secondary progressed planets (Sun, Moon, Mars, Saturn), and two radical planets (Moon, Mercury). The article itself was broadly about progressions as a concept, with some astrological history, so when I got to the chart it was meant just as a striking illustration and the space allowed for only one paragraph describing the chart. I wrote (italics in original, bracketed material added):

"The progressed date, to which all transiting planets have been precession-corrected [i.e., in long/lat and RA/dec], is January 10, 1776, at 12:35:30 P.M. UT." ...

"Above all, note that transiting Neptune's paran to progressed Sun (orb, 0.8 degrees) is in partile conjunction to the Midheaven/Ascendant [...]. Neptune's RA orb from the Midheaven is 0.1 degrees. Transiting Pluto conjoins secondary Moon to the minute of arc! Secondary Sun has reached its partile square to radical Moon and secondary Saturn, thus triggering that long-term conjunction. Transiting Moon is 0.2 degrees from conjunction to secondary Mars, itself 1.4 degrees from opposition to radical Mercury."

I add a perhaps unimportant detail, which I preface by saying "For what it's worth": "transiting Saturn is in partile 'square' to the Midheaven; this reiterates secondary Saturn's partile 'square' to the Ascendant." I don't "believe in" ecliptical "squares" to angles, but I found this coincidence interesting so I mentioned it.

The quotidian angles are 13:56 Scorpio MC and 20:55 Capricorn, tropical (I don't use any zodiac, so this was just for reference).

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:51 am

Clay_Reed wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:44 am
I don't "believe in" ecliptical "squares" to angles, but I found this coincidence interesting so I mentioned it.
FWIW...

I don't any aspects to angles per se, i.e., I see angles as locations, not "things" that make aspects.

But the squares are a special case because they are all other angles. That is, the squares to Ascendant are the exact ecliptical longitudes of the points that are Zenith and Nadir (intersections of meridian and prime vertical), while ecliptical squares to MC are the longitudes of the points of the Eastpoint and Westpoint (intersections of horizon and prime vertical).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Clay_Reed
Planet Member
Planet Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 pm

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Clay_Reed » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:37 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:51 am
the squares to Ascendant are the exact ecliptical longitudes of the points that are Zenith and Nadir (intersections of meridian and prime vertical), while ecliptical squares to MC are the longitudes of the points of the Eastpoint and Westpoint (intersections of horizon and prime vertical).
Yes -- I was thinking of mentioning something along those lines, but I thought it was a little off-topic. Either Fagan or Bradley (both?) used to say that planets squaring the ascendant and above the horizon were the most "elevated" planets in the chart, something I mentioned in the article mentioned above but didn't quote here.

I think adding zenith, nadir, eastpoint, and westpoint increases noise over signal too much, so I don't use them; I respect other approaches if they're fruitful, but I think the permutations increase too much to really have much chance of that. I think it's best to stick to rising/setting, culminating/anti-culminating.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:49 pm

Clay_Reed wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:37 pm
I think adding zenith, nadir, eastpoint, and westpoint increases noise over signal too much, so I don't use them; I respect other approaches if they're fruitful, but I think the permutations increase too much to really have much chance of that.
Ah, if only I found life were that simple. I feel at least like walking with a limp without them. This was evident in natal astrology but even more so in mundane where very tight, closely timed contacts are the be-all. Sticking only to the four major angles would cost us half the information in a chart.

Sometimes you do get pristine, minimalist hits. Tomorrow is the anniversary of Gandhi's murder, so I was preparing a post on it for another site. Caplunar had Mars rising 0°34' for the month, Canlunar had Saturn rising 0°51' for the week, progressed Capsolar Moon was within 0°06' of opposite Mars to narrow the timing. Good enough as it is, though the complete picture also adds the Capsolar with Neptune square MC 0°54' for the year and Capsolar Quotidian Ascendant square transiting Sun for the day. Three malefics and Sun for the death of a national leader or comparable solar-centric figure. I'd rather not miss those last two pieces of the puzzler.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Clay_Reed
Planet Member
Planet Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 pm

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Clay_Reed » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:06 pm

A while back I said that I don't accept ingress charts (Capsolar, Arilunar, six more-lar, plus progressions including PSSRs, etc.) because I don't think there's a fiducial. You replied that you didn't think there was a fiducial, either, so I think there was a semantic issue confusing things. I don't think there's an ayanamsa (sp? I don't care); maybe that's the right term? Or another one? SVP? Sorry to go off on a tangent, but maybe we can clarify this?

I think the ancients, for a while (centuries), used Aldebaran/Antares to demarcate the ecliptic, which is relevant to my theory of the derivation of so-called rulerships; otherwise, the fiducial/ayanamsa/SVP/you-name-it is, to me, fiction.

Thank you, as always, for responding to what I wrote. You seem to be cool with people being frank about their intellectual positions, so I thought it would be OK to reiterate this.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:42 pm

Clay_Reed wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:06 pm
Thank you, as always, for responding to what I wrote. You seem to be cool with people being frank about their intellectual positions, so I thought it would be OK to reiterate this.
I don't mind people disagreeing - with me, with each other, etc. :) It's basic to scientific method. As long as discourse is respectful and candid, it's probably worthwhile. If nothing else, it furthers conversations on a subject that seems to matter to both of us quite a lot.

We agree on quite a lot, and it doesn't usually seem necessary to point that out, but it's true.

As for fiducials, ingresses, and all the rest: Yes, on that we disagree quite seriously. I don't think there is more solid evidence anywhere, in any form, of astrology's authenticity to match the hard evidence from ingress-based Sidereal mundane astrology. The Caplunar rainfall study alone is monumental even be academic scientific standards, let alone the usual small scale of "results" our meager astrological studies often produce.

I wonder, though, if that isn't a matter that pivots off the most fundamental difference in our point of view? If I'm reading you correctly, something that matters much (most?) to you is having a coherent theory about things, an elegant model of how the pieces fit together. I can't consider you averse to evidence, because (from what's been repeated here, since I don't have the original published material) you've laced your work with examples. But (again, if I'm reading you correctly), when push comes to shove, I think you would pick the pleasure of an elegant model over the pleasure of empirical confirmation.

I'm exactly the opposite. I certainly have my theoretical side, I've thought much about how the pieces go together, how different parts of our frameworks go together, why there are a This and a That... but, at the end of the day, I will side with empirical confirmation first. I don't know how the zodiac "works" other than in a very broad way, but I'm convinced that we know its exact boundaries to within a second or two leeway at most. Sun and Moon ecliptical crossings of the ecliptical point we call 0° Capricorn (and, to a lesser extent, its oppositions and squares) describe the great, mass-impact events of the world.

I can show you evidence for this if you want, but I'm not sure you do, so I won't insist. From what you've said, I think it's more important to you that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to think that there is anything special about a point presently 64°59'50" behind the vernal point since, frankly, we don't know of anything that is in that place (or in obvious geometrical relationship to it). I respect that. In fact, I'd love to know the exact causal, or at least structural, mechanisms of all this.

You favor the Q1, as best I can tell, because the relationship of one sidereal day to one sidereal year makes more sense to you than using a civil day. I agree that this is a more elegant theory, but favor the Q2 because every time I've gathered a bunch of events of well-timed birth charts and compare the Q1 and Q2 side by side and pick one, I end up with 2 or 3 "wins" in the Q2 pile than in the Q1 pile. I value that more.

Hoping I haven't stepped excessively hard on any toes, I welcome diverse points of view. I think we're better for it.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Clay_Reed
Planet Member
Planet Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 pm

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Clay_Reed » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:49 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:42 pm

The Caplunar rainfall study alone is monumental even be academic scientific standards [...]

If I'm reading you correctly, something that matters much (most?) to you is having a coherent theory about things, an elegant model of how the pieces fit together. [...]

You favor the Q1, as best I can tell, because the relationship of one sidereal day to one sidereal year makes more sense to you than using a civil day.
I think the Capsolar rainfall study could easily be shown to be irrelevant by a professional statistician. Bradley was dreaming, in his 1950s kitchen with the slide rule and notebooks and coffee. [edit: I'm thinking of the articles Bradley wrote that "confirmed" his proto-SVP; if you're referring to something else, I'm not referring to that. I found Bradley's PSSR progressions of ingresses, or whatever it was, ridiculous 30 years ago, and have never thought otherwise -- so VERY easily shown to be statistically meaningless and not replicable, but understandable in his pre-computer context.]

I prefer coherent "theory," so to speak, to avoid noise over signal. We should default to first principles. The civil day is a hybrid unit; if we use hybrid units, we have nine basic units rather than three (rotation, solar revoltion, lunar revolution); and the PSSR makes no sense on first principles or otherwise. Astrology is the only oracle that involves objective information. The more we impose subjective choices on the information, the more we spiral into permutations that make it far more likely to find false positives. At a certain point, we may as well be using Tarot cards or the I Ching.

But I also have decades of observing my own study, which I consider evidence on the same order that you consider yours.

Why not tausolars, gemsolars, leosolars, virgsolars, scorpsolars, sagsolars, aquarsolars, piscesolars, and their corresponding lunars? With those, why not have progressions based on nine different units?

Even ignoring that, why privilege capsolars? Who says? God? Nature? Or Bradley ...

How about Fagan, who always advocated the method that produces what you call Q1 and what I call, simply, secondary progression? Independently discovered, later found to be almost the same as Cyril's weird "bija" formula, so needlessly complicated (just divide civil days between radix and progressed date by 366.25639 and add that number of days/time to the julian date/time of the radix ... WAY easier than Fagan's bizarre obfuscation, but almost identical in results).

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:30 pm

Clay_Reed wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:49 pm
I think the Capsolar rainfall study could easily be shown to be irrelevant by a professional statistician.
The original academic work was done by professional researchers.
Why not tausolars, gemsolars, leosolars, virgsolars, scorpsolars, sagsolars, aquarsolars, piscesolars, and their corresponding lunars? With those, why not have progressions based on nine different units?
I checked these. They failed to produce viable results. I have a theory on why (Rims are more inherently linked to external, surface manifestation), but it's only a theory.
Even ignoring that, why privilege capsolars? Who says? God? Nature? Or Bradley …
Experience. I have documented that in hundreds of events and thousands of examples, the Capsolars and Caplunars have dramatic priority over the others,
How about Fagan, who always advocated the method that produces what you call Q1 and what I call, simply, secondary progression?
Having enormous respect for Fagan, I think he was wrong about that in his early years. Bradley wrote me that he inherited Fagan's notebooks and the longer he lived, the more often he noted that the Q2 was better.
Independently discovered, later found to be almost the same as Cyril's weird "bija" formula, so needlessly complicated (just divide civil days between radix and progressed date by 366.25639 and add that number of days/time to the julian date/time of the radix ... WAY easier than Fagan's bizarre obfuscation, but almost identical in results).
Agreed. Fagan's Bija was the best that he and Jimmy Hynes thought of in the day t get the equation of "one sidereal day = one sidereal year." It was unnecessarily complicated.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Clay_Reed
Planet Member
Planet Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:13 pm

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Clay_Reed » Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:58 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:30 pm
Clay_Reed wrote:
Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:49 pm
I think the Capsolar rainfall study could easily be shown to be irrelevant by a professional statistician.
The original academic work was done by professional researchers.
Mm-hmm.

1) What was the hypothesis?
2) What data was relevant?
3) Has it ever been replicated?
4) If not, given the modern era of high-speed computers and giant databases, why not?

This sub-discussion has been useful to me for remembering that I NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING ABOUT HOW TO DO ASTROLOGY from Bradley.

Fagan is extraordinary, and I turn to him again and again. But all the hours I spent reading Bradley, while entertaining, were worthwhile only for his criticism of bad astrology, rather than his teaching of good astrology -- which was none, as far as I recall. He was mediocre as an astrologer. Fagan was great.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Boyd’s Q1 for the “moment” of JFK’s death.

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:45 am

You aren't familiar with the NYU weather studies? I'll post here a summary I wrote a while back. These were government funded major university studies headed by some of the most respected figures in meteorological research and statistical methodology. Most of their material was published in peer reviewed journals. The one part that dealt with Caplunars and precipitation was written up for that purpose, had a symposium convened to discuss it, then not published because it was too threatening to the careers of most of the authors, so Bradley summarized it more popularly in American Astrology when it would no longer impact their careers.

More when I have time to type it.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

The Weather Studies

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:24 am

(This is a previously written paper, mostly copied here without change.)

After Donald Bradley reported his initial (early 1957) experiments with Sidereal ingresses, he naturally continued his investigations. In the September 1957 issue of American Astrology Magazine, he reported on Caplunar ingresses for the 12 heaviest rainfall dates ever recorded for New York City. Jupiter, lord of thunderstorms and bountiful rains, tended to fall near the Cap-lunar angles for these record-setting cloudbursts. Jupiter’s frequency on the Caplunar angles for these events was many times more than normal expectation would allow purely by chance.

Nor was the phenomenon unique to weather in Manhattan.

These dozen maximum precipitation events provided a strong pilot showing sufficient to attract attention from serious weather scientists. A grant issued from the National Science Foundation, administered by New York University, to continue this and related weather studies. When the team computer-crunched 90 years of U.S. rainfall records from every reporting station in the country, this “Jupiter effect” was resoundingly replicated: In Caplunars for the dates and places of nearly 50,000 maximum precipitation events, Jupiter’s presence on the Caplunar angles was almost incomprehensibly frequent, exceeding normal expectation by a staggering 15 standard deviations. (I say “staggering” because there may not be a z-score table that counts this high: The odds against such a result occurring purely by chance are effectively 0%.)

From that research project, several papers saw print in scientific journals and became part of the evolving science of meteorology. The published findings referred only to non-zodiacal phenomena, not to Caplunars; but it is worth acknowledging these published papers to show the level and importance of the work. They include:

“Lunar Synodical Period and Widespread Precipitation”
by Donald A. Bradley, Max A. Woodbury, Glenn W. Brier
Science, September 7, 1962, Vol. 137, No. 3532, pp. 748-749

“The Lunar Synodical Period & Precipitation in the United States”
by Glenn W. Brier (U.S. Weather Bureau) & Donald A. Bradley (New York University), 1964
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 386-395

“Tidal Components in Hurricane Development”
by Donald A. Bradley
Nature, October 10, 1964, Vol. 204, No. 4954, pp. 136-138

Further studies, concerning precipitation and Caplunars, remained unpublished in professional journals. Eventually, in 1968 when the professional reputations of his colleagues were no longer an issue, Bradley published a summary report in American Astrology Magazine under the title, “Crashing the Atmospheric Barrier,” using his pen name Garth Allen. After reviewing the effect of lunar phase and celestial latitude on precipitation in Part 1, Bradley moved on to the Caplunar effect in Part II.

THE STUDIES & THE RESULTS

Bradley’s 12-item New York City pilot study expanded to include rainfall data for 1,202 consecutive sidereal months. During those nine decades (1871-1960), whenever Jupiter was in a zone from 1° east to 10° west of Caplunar Midheaven, New York City received an average of 41.3% more rainfall than normal.

This one factor “worked” 74% of the time: Jupiter only occupied that zone 35 times in the 90 years studied, and 26 of those 35 times rainfall was greater than the 90-year median. In the remaining nine instances when rainfall was below the median, “none… were very much below average,” according to Bradley.

Next, the study expanded to include the entire continental United States. As Bradley explained, they calculated Jupiter’s meridian distance in the Caplunars “preceding the 12 dates of heaviest rainfall at each of thousands of rain-recording stations strewn across the nation – a total of 49,576 precipitation maxima.”
Not only does Jupiter prefer the upper-culminating region, but a striking 90° wave in its distribution exists!

…the peaks are in the angular-cusp regions basic in any horoscope. Jupiter plays out his classical Pluvius role when near the Ascendant, Nadir [IC] and Descendant as well. When the quadrants are superposed, with exacting probabilities taken account of, the violation of “normalcy” reaches the jarring figure of close to 15 standard deviations. Three SD’s would do, and four would suffice to establish the effect as a fact of nature, as an existing anomaly.

To express 15 standard deviations as odds against it all being coincidental would be a rather silly exercise in writing strings of zeroes; in fact, the probability function hasn’t even been calculated for levels beyond the sixth or seventh SD. As one noted mathematician stated openly at a professional seminar convened to discuss this very matter, “Ratios this size mean that it is not a statistical fact we are dealing with, but a physical law.”
Jupiter was not “the whole story,” though. The Moon was also found to be pro-precipitation in lunar ingresses, though only when within orb of conjunction with IC. Bradley continued,
Of even more importance is the performance of Venus, which turned out to be quite as conducive to rain as Jupiter. In fact, when Venus’ meridian distance is plotted in the same way Jupiter’s was… one sharp peak occurs which crests exactly at the very degree on the Midheaven.
A diagram plotting “Venus and Jupiter moving totals along the uppermost third of the Caplunar charts” documented this, combining Venus and Jupiter placements around MC. The spike is precise and decisive.

In contrast, traditionally “dry” planets – Sun, Mars, and Saturn – were predominantly in the background areas, away from Caplunar angles, during periods of heightened precipitation.

An interesting side issue, that Bradley called “the biggest surprise of all,” was that the Sidereal Time of Caplunars most pro-precipitation was exactly the RA of the Galactic Center.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: The Weather Studies

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:27 am

A couple of notes...

His use of "meridian distance" is unusually casual. He really meant the meridian distance of the circle of position plotted against the prime vertical, i.e., the Campanus mundoscope position.

On replication: The original data was massive, so they had plenty of raw data points; therefore, they split down the middle, first half against second half (not quite half a century of data in each half) and the two halves matched.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest