Natal planets in Anlunars

[Mike V]

Hi y'all,

Is it recommended to check the natal planets relative to Anlunar return angles, or do we only check transiting + solar planets?
If I had to guess, I would guess only solar planets, but I'd rather ask.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes, natal, too.

These charts aren't very powerful . They do seem to have effect in highlighting when themes of the SSR come to manifestation. But when they operate it seems clear that natal planets are important in every technique - it's the one set you never get rid of.

[Mike V]

But when they operate it seems clear that natal planets are important in every technique - it's the one set you never get rid of.

Wow, even for KLRs?
Using them in that context didn't occur to me.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yup . Even in kinetics.

[Jim Eshelman]

Mike, for your question on whether to include natal planets in Anlunars… Tonight I was reviewing John Kennedy's charts for his assassination. His Anlunar (for Washington, where he was when it set up) occurred November 10, 1963, 6:16:25 AM EST. In addition to Moon partile conjunct Pluto and closely square Mars (and closely conjunct Uranus), it has the following:

21°14' Libra - t Neptune
22°23' Capricorn - t Saturn
23°06' Libra - t Sun
24°18' Cancer - Anlunar MC
26°21' Libra - t Mercury

Now this is plenty by itself! The chart speaks for itself very will without anything in an inner ring. But it's worth noticing that President Kennedy's natal Mars is 24°50' Aries!

The SSR planets are fine enough, too. We get more Saturn, more Neptune, more Mercury, but the Neptune is with Venus. BTW, I know that SSR really well - could give it to you by memory - because it's essentially Marion's birth chart but about five hours later. That transiting Venus-Neptune square Ascendant exactly in his final SSR, on the horizon of his final Anlunar, has always kept my sense of conspiracy theory alive because it's an aspect of betrayal by someone he trusted.

Anyway, I thought you'd like that example.

[SteveS]

Damn good example Jim!

[Profit]

[That transiting Venus-Neptune square Ascendant exactly in his final SSR, on the horizon of his final Anlunar, has always kept my sense of conspiracy theory alive because it's an aspect of betrayal by someone he trusted.

Jim... I'm curious, was Venus-Neptune (square Ascendant) elevated near the MC?

In the SSR, yes. But, in any case Venus was on the Zenith since the longitude of the Zenith is always the exact ecliptical square to Ascendant. That (and not proximity to MC) makes Venus the most elevated planet (she was 64°05' in altitude above the horizon).

Here is more information:

16°36' Libra - Anlunar Asc
19°09' Cancer - SSR Asc
19°25' Libra - SSR Neptune
19°45' Aries - SSR Venus

Other than this, I wouldn't call Venus-Neptune foreground. In the SSR Venus is 10°50' from MC and Neptune 10°38' from IC, but they are (respectively) 0°16' from the Zenith and 0°36'from the Nadir.

[Profit]

Good Info Jim!

Zenith versus MC is distinctly important to frame strength & importance. Sq to the EP is also of critical importance.

how does altitude 'amplify' Venus being '"elevated"? and does one review + & - Altitude the same way they would judge importance of declinations? How do you assess latitude vs. altitude?

A thought on JFK at the time of Venus opposition to Neptune.... There was great concern at the time if JFK should even go to Texas. JFK's mindfulness at the time was neptunian... Idealistic in wanting to believe he would be 'loved' in Texas and also concerned with that thinking delusional... It could have been an internalized perspective of insecurity that he possessed or an externalized lack of security that showed up in his Anlunar.

Thank you for all of the food for thought!

[Jim Eshelman]

Zenith versus MC is distinctly important to frame strength & importance. Sq to the EP is also of critical importance.

I don't know that this is true, especially since I'm never been convinced that elevation is a real issue. It might be - and a case can be made for above/below horizon making a difference - but I've never been persuaded that (say) elevation is more important than southness,

The upper square to Eastpoint is called the Midequator. It's the 10th cusp of the Morinus house system. A year or two back, because one theory of what forms angles suggested that this would be equally important , I tested it in the large archive of Sidereal mundane charts (ingresses and their quotidians). It failed quite decisively. The mundane charts are an especially good test for such things because (1) angularity is so overwhelmingly crucial in them and (2) their correct time (unlike human birth time) is decisively known to within seconds, so its a fabulous for such thins as fine-tuned distinctions between Midheaven and Midequator. But exact contacts to ME only occasionally were representative of the events (so little as to be a random effect), wrong planets hit more often than we see with the other angles, and when there was a difference in the symbolism of MC and ME, MC was uniformly better. - So I have to conclude that the Midequator (square to Eastpoint) is valid.

It seems that all valid angles are formed by the intersections of two of the following: horizon, prime vertical, meridian, and ecliptic. When one of the circles intersecting is ecliptic, then the angle operates mundanely, with the angle being the whole semi-circle (e.g., eastern half of horizon circle = ascendant). If neither of the two intersecting circles is the ecliptic (e.g., prime vertical and meridian intersect to form Zenith-Nadir), then the angle has to anchor to the ecliptic, i.e., take its longitude (by the usual means of dropping a great circle through it perpendicular to the ecliptic), e.g., the longitude of the Zenith (celestial longitude of the upper intersection of the meridian and the prime vertical) which is always exactly square Ascendant. - If the five circles also included the equator, then the theory would support inclusion of the Midequator; since the ME fails testing, the equator has to be dropped from the formulation.

how does altitude 'amplify' Venus being '"elevated"? and does one review + & - Altitude the same way they would judge importance of declinations? How do you assess latitude vs. altitude?

Altitude is the literal definition of elevation. It literally measures how high a planet is elevated above the horizon, how "high" in the sky it is (or, with negative altitude below the horizon, it shows how "low" or "deep" it is). But, as mentioned above, I'm not convinced elevation as actual astrological concern. For example, if the most elevated planet were on the 9th cusp (which happens often), it would be in one of the weakest parts of the wheel and clearly inexpressive in comparison to, say, a planet on the Ascendant which has no elevation at all.

[Profit]

Testing parameters has been for me a challenging undertaking.... I don't question your conviction or results regarding your testing however, my experience has shown me in 'real time' that an ME can be a 'trigger for adjustment' and not simply a chance or "random" occurrence.

Much of my experience with ME comes in anticipating changes in the price action of financial instruments within real-time moments. The aspects to 'lines' like the vertex/anti-vertex and ASC/DES also require similar observation and attention.
We know that magnetic strength is stronger at the poles than it is at the equator. What do we know of (its) fluctuations? Its association with 'aspects'?? Another discussion all together but possibly germaine within this dialogue. We don't know what we don't know.

The EP/WP & Vertex/AVertex may best be described as auxiliary to the ASC/DES and square to each a definitive point of engagement. Dialogue here has been focused on the square however, every aspect carries effect... Currently Transiting Saturn aspects Trumps relocated Vertex/AVertex and EP/WP. Correlation? Save for another post.


RE: Altitude or 'elevated'.... Did I misinterpret you? My impression of what you wrote regarding "Venus elevated" was that its Altitude in some way enhanced it being elevated.