Converse Solar Returns

[Freya]

Before I calculate one for myself, what’s the general consensus on the accuracy of converse returns as a predictive tool? Are they reliable and always recommended, merely add another layer or completely useless and misleading?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Add another layer, but if you don't bother with them, you won't miss much, or really anything.

[Jim Eshelman]

Before I calculate one for myself, what’s the general consensus on the accuracy of converse returns as a predictive tool? Are they reliable and always recommended, merely add another layer or completely useless and misleading?

History and opinion:

1. I don't have a clear opinion on them. I think they probably work fine but I've not vetted them sufficiently. I usually have so much to work with already that I don't need another chart. (I did a research report on Converse Lunars but not solars.)

2. Brigadier Firebrace took all the converse return charts fairly seriously. I don't find anything about them in his letters to me but remember that there was a lot of work on them in Spica.

Because the ordinary SSR is so reliable, I think I can say with confidence that the Converse doesn't contradict it. If you're looking for a "second opinion" to undo something you don't like in the direct SSR, I think that's a waste. At best it can be a reinforcement or "second voice" talking about other matters or supplemental details. (This is a reasoned, not observed, matter based on the observation that the ordinary SSR's reliability doesn't seen to leave room that something else is upsetting or contradicting it much of the time.)

FWIW, my current Converse, for the year of my marriage, has only Mercury angular in LA but Venus closely conjunct Descendant in Milwaukee where it set up. That's not bad!

[Freya]

I wouldn't look at the converse to disprove the current SSR, merely to add another layer, however, what if they are at odds? Meaning a good SSR and a nasty converse with saturn foreground?

I have just looked at mine and I have Saturn on the ascendant...if I disregard this because it's in the converse, would I be burying my head in the sand?

[Jim Eshelman]

I wouldn't look at the converse to disprove the current SSR, merely to add another layer, however, what if they are at odds? Meaning a good SSR and a nasty converse with saturn foreground?

I have just looked at mine and I have Saturn on the ascendant...if I disregard this because it's in the converse, would I be burying my head in the sand?

The honest answer is that I don't know. We don't have enough research to my satisfaction (or at least I haven't done enough of them to know.)

I suspect they are valid and generally generally unnecessary. If that is true, then it would be more like any situation where we have two different return charts disagreeing (like a Lunar Return saying one thing an an Ennead saying something else). In those situations, one normally has some events that clearly express the one along with other events that clearly express the other.

I'll do a little research and post it here so we all have a chance to (maybe) learn something.

[Jim Eshelman]

If I look (rather casually) across the last 40 years of my Converse SSRs to see if they describe (whatever pops into my mind concerning) the respective years, here is what I notice.

The first thing I notice is that these are damn hard to see in bulk in Solar Fire. because they're labelled according to when the chart occurred rather than the period covered. By that I mean that I ask for 50 cSSRs beginning 1/1/76 and, instead of getting one labelled "1976," it comes out October 9, 1933, which makes it hard to track. I guess I can't do those in bulk.

Grrrrr

Let's try something else.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's look at the cSSRs for every U.S. president who has died in office. Their direct SSRs are all pretty good, so let's check the converse.

I'm leaving out the first two deaths because the birth times are a little flaky.

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN won the Civil War days before he died, and was wrapping up the amendment of the Constitution to end slavery forever (though the real push for the latter was in the month before his final birthday). His final direct SSR had transiting Saturn foreground and, even more closely, his natl Moon-Mars exactly angular - which became a big part of the timing of his murder. - His Converse SSR is similarly descriptive, since his natal Mars exactly rises and, instead of Saturn, it has Neptune at MC opposite Mercury. Moon squares his Sun. It's a fine chart. The two work hand in hand.

PRESIDENT JAMES A. GARFIELD was shot, and later died, under a direct SSR with transiting Mars, Saturn, and Neptune around Asc-Dsc, with natal Mars-Neptune closely angular - a really, really descriptive chart! (They never should have moved him to the Jersey Shore to recouperate: It put Neptune 0°09' from Asc, Mars 2°02', both of which are much closer than in Washington, and he died there. But the Washington chart stands on its own quite well.) - The Converse SSR has no transiting planets foreground, no important Moon aspects, and only natal Jupiter (widely) is foreground. It's either a worthless chart or a quite wrong chart.

PRESIDENT WILLIAM McKINLEY's direct SSR for his murder had Pluto at MC opposite Uranus on IC - quite powerful and disruptive - and an exact Moon-Neptune conjunction distantly foreground. His Converse SSR, however, has Venus 2° from IC and a foreground exact Moon-Jupiter opposition - really positive indicators. I deem it a fail.

PRESIDENT WARREN G. HARDING'S direct SSR for his death (from illness) in San Francisco is pretty boring. It does have a Full Moon, just as in his natal chart (which means "a thing has gone as far as it can and now changes," sometimes meaning "end of the line"). Nothing is angular except his natal Jupiter. When we relocate it to Washington, DC (where it probably set up) we get a better (but quite mixed) chart with Mars 0°30' from IC square Jupiter 2° from Asc. -- His Converse SSR for San Francisco is boring - nothing, really - but for Washington, where it probably set up, it has Saturn square Asc (0°46'), which is impressive. Natal Pluto is also near MC. In this case, the cSSR is much clearer, while the direct SSR was adequate but misleading.

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT's probably set up in Washington. in addition to a 0°28' Moon-Jupiter conjunction opposite Venus 2° (he was beloved, and also had essentially won WW II in Europe in his last months), the main feature is a Sun-Pluto opposition, with Pluto 4° off MC for Warm Springs and 3° off MC (but Sun closer) for Washington. Also, his Saturn exactly sets. The Washington chart is very descriptive of both the climax and the end of his life. - The Converse SSR for Washington has transiting Mars most angular for his cerebral hemorrhage. There are broadly positive (beloved) indicators, including his own Venus setting, but the sharpest indication is transiting Mars and the "setting Sun" symbolism consistent with the winding down of his life. It's descriptive enough without being dramatic, but a minor chart compared to the dSSR.

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY'S direct SSR is not spectacular (though his Lunars are great!). His 1963 SSR probably occurred in Washington, and has natal Saturn and Neptune on angles plus barely transiting Neptune. One wouldn't pick this as an assassination year, but perhaps one where his personal weakness and personal demons were more to the fore. (It doesn't show outside enemies directly.) -- The most valuable thing in his Converse SSR is a 2° Moon-Mars conjunctin - quite descriptive! - though still it has a positive spin with his natal Venus exactly setting. This time I'd say that the two returns work together to give a more complete picture.


CONCLUSION
In only one case was the Converse SSR necessary. In many cases, the two charts worked together but, mostly, the SSR was the stronger, more vivid chart and the converse, at best, a weak side comment (and sometimes an outright fail).

LINCOLN: Both excellent, Direct a little sharper than Converse (but not much).
GARFIELD: Direct was spectacular, Conc=verse worthless (or worse).
McKINLEY: Direct was excellent, Converse was a fail.
HARDING: Direct OK but misleading. Converse excellent!
ROOSEVELT: Direct is excellent, Converse is adequate (a much lesser chart).
KENNEDY: Direct has weak signals, barely adequate. Converse adds violence, which is sharper.

[Freya]

Thank you!!!! I wouldn’t replace progressions in favour of converse solars... do you believe converse lunars aew more reliable? Converse demi solars are probably too weak to mean anything, going by previous research on converse SSRs?

I wonder if the effects in converse solars can be avoidable undertones (save exceptions) whilst themes in the SSRs are inevitable. I may be really wrong here though

[Jim Eshelman]

do you believe converse lunars aew more reliable?

I did a report on Converse SLRs for Spica decades ago that I just found in storage - but didn't bring home. The conclusion was that they were good but... something different. Going from memory, they were't exactly replacements or twins for the normal SLRs but did have "something to say" that was on target. (Probably about like we're seeing above in the solars.)

Converse demi solars are probably too weak to mean anything, going by previous research on converse SSRs?

I think all Demi-Solars are worthless as stand-alone charts.