Rebranding EP & WP?

[Jim Eshelman]

A little history, first...

In the late '50s and early '60s, Bradley and Firebrace began observing in print several interesting chart examples where the point 90° from Midheaven in right ascension showed an angularity more acutely than Ascendant. (Nothing wrong with Ascendant, but some individual charts showed that this other point was similarly important as well.) I think the first time it had a name (at least in Sidereal literature) was in the July 1964 issue of Spica (Vol. IV, No. 4), in an article by Firebrace titled "Key Points of the Horoscope." (Remember, we have most issues of Spica available for download on this site in the Publications section.) Firebrace wrote:

As is well known to students of sidereal astrology we rely mainly for interpretation on planets situated near the 'angles, the horizon and the meridian lines. These appear to be the most important points of the map and planets situated near them appear to produce the maximum effect in events.

There are, however, other possible points which could be potent and some of these we have been studying.

For many years I used to draw map with a form of house division which entailed equal division from the M.C. I had found that the cusp of the first house thus obtained was of definite importance. This first cusp was obtained by adding 90 degrees in longitude to the MC. I have since found that, in my opinion, better results are obtained by adding 90 degrees in Right Ascensi6n to the R.A.M.C. The resulting point has often been called "The East Point." When one says, 'East Point' one must say 'East Point of what?' It is strictly the East Point of the Celestial Equator. This is not necessarily on the ecliptic and, as with the planets, we have to drop a perpendicular to the ecliptic to get its ecliptic position.

In recent experiments with my rectified time for Winston Churchill and in other maps I have found that this East Point is of considerable importance. I can remember that Garth Allen in 'American Astrology Magazine' commented on this point and stated that he had confirmed it statistically and considered it had equal value with the Asc. It is possible to use a system of houses based on this by adding successively two hours of Right Ascension to the R.A.M.C. for each cusp. Such a system has been christened the Axial System [Also called the Meridian house system, e.g., in Solar Fire. - JAE]. Alternatively, the East Point (E.P.) can be simply marked where it falls in the map.

It was the early '70s before American Astrology started showing this point drawn on charts, marked as an E within a circle (an icon that I still wish we had available to put on our charts). I was used to putting the "East Point" on my charts from very early thanks to Firebrace and (later) Bradley, and I was in on some of the additional statistical work that Bradley and Duncan were doing at the time that was quite interesting. However, I do recall that when Gary told me about that work around 1975, I was already sold: I think he wanted to persuade me of its importance, and persuasion wasn't required.

This point was long popular among Siderealists from these early influences. A few years ago, when I was revising typography for publishing, I decided we didn't need the extra keystrokes of splitting this into two capitalized words, so I started spelling it "Eastpoint."

[Jim Eshelman]

The brilliant Michael Munkasey next got his hands on the topic. Munkasey began working with this and related concepts. Among other work, he dug into a number of geometric ideas that might constitute "other angles." Among these were the East Point (and, of course, its opposite, the West Point).

One of Munkasey's most enduring effects on the topic is that he introduced a new term: What those before him had called the East Point, Munkasey called the Equatorial Ascendant.

Personally, I hate (ok: make that "seriously dislike" and "grumble about") the term "Equatorial Ascendant." I can identify three reasons. One is my habit of calling it East Point for decades. A bigger reason is that it's an unnecessarily long and cumbersome term with too many syllables and letters. My biggest reason is that the usual reason given for the term irks me: It's explained that the "Equatorial Ascendant" is "the Ascendant you'd have if the chart were calculated for latitude 0°00', the equator."

This is correct. If you were to calculate a chart for exactly the same time and geographic longitude, but for latitude 0N00 (the equator), its Ascendant would be the same as the Eastpoint.

Now, there are other reasons to justify a similar term. Viewed on the celestial sphere, the Eastpoint and Westpoint are the points (among other things) that mark the intersections of the horizon and the celestial equator. The Eastpoint (or "Equatorial Ascendant") is the point where the equator ascends, i.e., crosses the eastern horizon. In plain English, this might warrant a descriptor like "Ascending (or ascendant) Equator," ascendant here being used as an adjective, not a noun.

I'm not likely to use any of these terms (other than to communicate to people who only know these terms). They are cumbersome, and there is no need to tweak them by introducing entirely new terms.

Equatorial Ascendant (for Eastpoint) and Equatorial Descendant (for Westpoint) were adopted by Solar Fire and, perhaps, other software, hence the distinctive graphic for the points.

[Jim Eshelman]

Exactly what is this point? And why am I raising the question of rebranding?

Astronomically, the Eastpoint and Westpoint are the two points on the celestial sphere where the horizon, prime vertical, and celestial equator all intersect. They resemble the Zenith and Nadir (the two intersections of the meridian and prime vertical) and the Southpoint and Northpoint (the intersections of the meridian and horizon); but, unlike those others, the Eastpoint and Westpoint also incorporate a third great circle, the celestial equator.

In a more general sense (and I'm using the terms in a somewhat relaxed way; not planning to get into fine points of how to talk about the Vertex here), we have three pairs of major angles and three pairs of minor angles.

The three pairs of major angles are formed by three great circles, the horizon, meridian, and prime vertical. The circles themselves ARE the angles (not just the points where they intersect the ecliptic, which we write on a horoscope wheel); that is, these are all assessed mundanely, not ecliptically. I repeat: the circles themselves are the angles.

The three pairs of minor angles are formed by points of intersection of these three circles: Zenith and Nadir (where meridian and PV intersect), Southpoint and Northpoint (where meridian and horizon intersect), and Eastpoint and Westpoint (where horizon and PV intersect).

If the minor angles were taken mundanely, there would be nothing new beyond the major angles. That is, the six minor angle points are already contained in the three circles that constitute the major angles. However, because they are points and not entire circles, we can take their ecliptical longitudes. To say this differently: Unlike the major angles, the minor angles each have single, specific points of location that have longitudes.

These longitudes of the minor angles are all squares to what we usually call Ascendant, Midheaven, and Vertex. That is, the celestial longitudes of Zenith and Nadir are ecliptical squares to the longitude of Ascendant; the celestial longitudes of Southpoint and Northpoint are ecliptical squares to the longitude of Vertex; and the celestial longitudes of Eastpoint and Westpoint are ecliptical squares to the longitude of Midheaven. We could just call them "squares to the angles"; however, that has the adverse effect of implying that aspects to angles are valid: However, they are not.

Therefore, I've always considered it a cheat - a little insincere - to take the easy way out of calling these points "squares to the angles." I'd like to be able to settle into calling the ecliptical squares to Ascendant "Zenith" and "Nadir" and to calling the ecliptical squares to Midheaven "Eastpoint" and "Westpoint" - which they are - rather than call them "squares to the angles."

Back to explaining what these points are that we've been calling Eastpoint and Westpoint (that others call the Equatorial Ascendant and Descendant): All six minor angles can be contacted in both longitude and right ascension; however, four of the minor angles (Zenith, Nadir, Northpoint, Southpoint) have the same RA as MC-IC, so this adds nothing. Therefore, we are left with looking for a way to identify when a planet squares MC in right ascension. We could, of course, just set up an analog chart in RA the way we do for PV longitude or altitude, but a different custom was created: If we put right on the face of the chart the point that for a planet exactly on the ecliptic would be square MC in RA, then we have a good guide to help us guess when a planet is close to it.

That's what the Eastpoint and Westpoint written on the face of the chart is: It's not an ecliptical point: You have to confirm (by a separate process) whether any contacts to it are actually 90° from MC in RA: It's just a flag in the dirt to catch your attention. It has (for example) no ecliptical significance at all.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ecliptical squares to Midheaven are at the actual longitude of the astronomical Eastpoint and Westpoint. OTOH the extra point we add to a chart shows approximately where in the zodiac a planet would be if it were conjunct Eastpoint or Westpoint in right ascension.

Both are valid. What's also true is: They're BOTH the Eastpoint (or Westpoint). Neither is more entitled to the name than the other. Taking the point in the east where the horizon, prime vertical, and celestial equator converge, one measures a planet's contact to it in celestial longitude and the other in right ascension.

This creates confusion in the language we use. They look like different points (even though they aren't). There is no other major or minor angle that has quite this problem. We have two different way of labelling the same point pair of points.

And I'd really like to get away from calling most of the minor angles "squares to angles" for reasons stated above: Angles don't make aspects.

So I started looking at this question in the light of the other minor angles having more than one way of labelling them - because they all do. Start with Zenith: This is the point directly overhead marked by the intersection of the meridian circle and the prime vertical circle. We actually reference this several ways in the chart: It has the same right ascension (measured in terms of the celestial equator) and prime vertical longitude (measured around the PV as in the mundoscope) as Midheaven, so it's not wrong to call Midheaven "Zenith" as some astrologers do. It is the pole of the horizon so it can't be measured in azimuth (it has all azimuths in the same way that the North Pole has all geographic longitudes). But it has a unique celestial longitude, the "upper square" to Ascendant, so that's how we usually identify it.

The same story can be told about each of the other angles.

It occurred to me that I was struggling unnecessarily to find two DIFFERENT NAMES for the same point. I was looking for one name to call the point marked with a circled E or an EP on a chart, that marks the ecliptic point square MC in the horoscope, and another name for the point in ecliptical square to MC. Both of these, though, are the astronomical Eastpoint, the point where the horizon, prime vertical, and celestial equator all intersect.

Why do they need two names? The only reason is that if we give them the same name ("Eastpoint"), readers won't know which we mean. I don't mean readers won't know which point we mean because - here's the point! - they're the same point. We've actually been confusing readers by implying that they are different points. No, I mean that if we just call them both "Eastpoint," readers won't know whether we mean "contact by longitude" or "contact by RA."

And that's actually a small difference. It's like saying, "Did he mean Ascendant by longitude or Ascendant mundanely?" We're used to that kind of thing. We know how to talk about that kind of thing. So we can deal with it. The problem isn't as big as it may seem.

[Jim Eshelman]

So... the entire struggle with these different names boils down to: The point historically called "Eastpoint" or "Equatorial Ascendant" and the point historically called "square Midheaven" are the same point. The only difference is whether contact is measured in longitude or RA. We probably do need to continue distinguishing, just for clarity in discussion; but we've maybe been causing more confusion treating these as separate points than treating them as a single point with a single name.

So... my first rebranding recommendation is that we call both of these points Eastpoint because they're really not two different points. They're the same point.

This changes the question from "What do we call the points?" to "How do we distinguish whether the contact is by longitude or RA?" That's an easier question! First, we're used to dancing around the "ecliptical or mundane" issue. We do it when we don't even know it! (The horizon - Ascendant and Descendant - squares Midheaven in Prime Vertical longitude. The Vertex and Antivertex square Midheaven in azimuth. Longitude and RA are just other examples of the same thing.)

If we need a special way to distinguish whether we mean the EP in longitude or EP in RA, we can use an astronomical standard. The Greek letter alpha (ά) is the symbol of right ascension, as the Greek lambda (λ) is the symbol of longitude. The Eastpoint in RA or in longitude could, respectively, be called EPά and EPλ, or, Greek letters being difficult to type on a text-based forum, simply EP-a and EP-l (or, for Westpoint, WP-a and WP-l).

Your thoughts are welcome.

[Arena]

Ok, as you know, this point is of great interest to me. I think it is extremely important in my own horoscope and may actually be the point to determine the first house of a whole sign house system. And since I am born and now live in a very high latitude, the difference from this point and the ASC point is extreme.

So on a practical note, since I always cast my charts in SF with EP on 1st as a setting within the house system - then SF casts the right point according to your thought, it is showing me the right EP from the RA viewpoint? Right?

So if I simply take my sidereal chart cast for birth place, it shows the MC at 23,29° Sag and EP at 26,35°Pis (points change slightly for relocation).

[Jim Eshelman]

So on a practical note, since I always cast my charts in SF with EP on 1st as a setting within the house system - then SF casts the right point according to your thought, it is showing me the right EP from the RA viewpoint? Right?

Yes.

You would get the same result if using what Solar Fire calls the Meridian house system. Or, one way to get SF to calculate Whole House with this result is to put in your birth data with natal geographic latitude 0N00 (but then you lose Ascendant as a separate object).

You probably have your display method sorted out, but I'll mention: I think if I wanted Whole House from EP in Solar Fire, I'd calculate in Meridian and then display the chart on a wheel style that made the sign boundaries obvious, like Euro2a (maybe editing the wheel style so that it had no house cusps, then rely on the sign divisions to mark them - oh, Huber3 already does this).

So if I simply take my sidereal chart cast for birth place, it shows the MC at 23,29° Sag and EP at 26,35°Pis (points change slightly for relocation).

That's what I have for you, yes. (Well, I have your MC 23°30', but that's just a matter of what side of town you were born.)

PS - Regarding Whole Sign houses from EP, I must admit that it gives an entirely different impression to see your Venus-Jupiter opposition stretched 4th-10th square Pluto in 7th! I'm not saying better or worse - just really different! <g>

[SteveS]

Jim wrote:

The Eastpoint in RA or in longitude could, respectively, be called RAά and RAλ, or, Greek letters being difficult to type on a text-based forum, simply RA-a and RA-l.

Jim, with DC's 2021 Capsolar, we would label Capsolar Saturn RA-l, correct?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, with DC's 2021 Capsolar, we would label Capsolar Saturn RA-l, correct?

Yes. You read that correctly.

Except... I have to edit the above. (I think I was blurrier eyed than usual when I wrote that.) I meant to write EP-a and EP-l, so Saturn, on the west, would be WP-l ("Westpoint by longitude"). Sorry for the confusion.

I'll go edit the original.

[SteveS]

Yes, I like your edit labeling better.

[SteveS]

Jim, Buffalo Bills vs Kansas City Sunday Jan 24th; app end of game 10:30 PM EST
Buffalo’s CapQ features a WP-a partile conjunct CapQ Jup, correct?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, Buffalo Bills vs Kansas City Sunday Jan 24th; app end of game 10:30 PM EST
Buffalo’s CapQ features a WP-a partile conjunct CapQ Jup, correct?

Correct. EP-a 128°56', Jupiter 308°33' - drop the first two numbers so it's clear they're 8°56' and 8°33' - separated by 0°23'.

[SteveS]

And Jim, for Buffalo's Capsolar I show a WP-a 1,55 Conjunct Sun with a non-dormant Mars on MC, offering a co-angularity of Sun-Mars, correct?

[Jim Eshelman]

And Jim, for Buffalo's Capsolar I show a WP-a 1,55 Conjunct Sun with a non-dormant Mars on MC, offering a co-angularity of Sun-Mars, correct?

Yes, Sun 1°56' earlier than WP-a in RA. Mars is also angular, perhaps best measured in PV longitude as 2°33' later than MC. They are both on angles (i.e., "co-angular").

Are they in any kind of aspect? Not in longitude or PV longitude. Their closest is in RA, where they are over 4° from square, which is wider than we usually allow in ingresses so, no, I wouldn't say they are also in aspect. But they're definitely both closely (Class 1) angular.

Mars' main aspect, of course, is the partile square to Saturn, plus the wider (but still close) aspects with Uranus and Jupiter. Sun's main aspect is its partile conjunction with Pluto. (Since they are both on WP-a we can note that in RA Sun-Pluto is only 0°10'.)

[SteveS]

Thanks Jim, you are helping me learn & read SMA charts in a new and better way?

[Soft Alpaca]

This is a lot to munch on.. I'm not sure if taken mundanely anything occurs on any of those minor points along minor angles in my own chart (however taken Nataly I believe my Sun/Asc=Mars on my WP/EP). Is this something to even watch over, or Is the degree and a half too wide?

[Jim Eshelman]

This is a lot to munch on.. I'm not sure if taken mundanely anything occurs on any of those minor points along minor angles in my own chart (however taken Nataly I believe my Sun/Asc=Mars on my WP/EP). Is this something to even watch over, or Is the degree and a half too wide?

I think the orb you mention is too large. In any case, I think there was a math error. In right ascension, you have:

275°46' Sun
326°48' Mars
301°17' Sun/Mars midpoint
295°54' Eastpoint

Even if we took this in longitude, your Sun/Mars is 4°58' Capricorn and your EP's longitude 29°16' Sagittarius.

[Soft Alpaca]

At 7:32 am I thought my MC is at 3 degrees Libra (maybe that puts the EP at 29 degrees sagittarius anyway)..

[Jim Eshelman]

At 7:32 am I thought my MC is at 3 degrees Libra (maybe that puts the EP at 29 degrees sagittarius anyway)..

Sorry, I thought you meant in RA (since EP-l, i.e., in longitude) hits the same midpoints as Midheaven.

So, yes, your MC is 3°09', your Sun/Mars in longitude is 4°58' Capricorn, so Midheaven squares your Sun/Mars midpoint within 1°49'. I consider this to too wide to consider and, in any case, it would only be abut Midheaven.

Your EP-a (i.e., MC's right ascension square square in RA) is 29°16' Sagittarius with RA 295°54'.

[Soft Alpaca]

I understand now, you've explained that before I just have trouble processing all of the angles (so many). This hits Jup (Moon/Pluto) just like the MC (except it gets even tighter in orb), just reenforces everything I already know I think.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Just process all the angles the same for now. Differences between angles is something you can come back to when you've got more experience. The important part of an angle is the angularity, not the "flavor."

[Soft Alpaca]

Yes I'm not to worried about the flavor, and it is just keeping them all straight in my head (the truth is what I don't understand is the mathematics behind this all, mysticism and intuition {ike all my dumb metaphors that sound just odd} actually have some truth; even though sometimes words come to me, I'm simply just speaking them..

Also I suck at circles..

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Yeah, well, spherical trigonometry isn't really what you'd call easy math.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yeah, well, spherical trigonometry isn't really what you'd call easy math.

Study this picture as a picture - understand what each part of it is actually showing - and it is easy enough to explain what the angles are after that.



This might be even better, as it has the four most important circles:



This one adds a few more important details:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-X_URL-CO3Z4/ ... umber7.jpg

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

It's important to notice the Prime Vertical is 90° from the Horizon, and they're both 90° from the Meridian. You can prove that by drawing sharpie lines on an orange.

[Soft Alpaca]

The image helps a lot (especially seeing all of them mind you the vertex for me is very much an important angle- saying more than what these overlapping ones are saying in my own case).

Could I also use this to see the square between my Sun and Uranus (say I literally set them in place on an orange and draw the lines of the angles)?

[Jim Eshelman]

The image helps a lot... Could I also use this to see the square between my Sun and Uranus (say I literally set them in place on an orange and draw the lines of the angles)?

Sort of: Notice that the horizon and prime vertical are always square each other. (Always!) Your Sun is on the horizon, your Uranus is on the PV, so it's just the same as horizon being square PV. (Remember, the square isn't between the actual planets but between the circles of position that measure them.) The backdrop for this (if you want to take it further) is the meridian circle.

[Soft Alpaca]

So the Sun and Uranus are aspected on a shared angular level (the intensity of the while thing being that without the angular alignment their would be no relation). Probably explains why sometimes I don't get the Sun part of my chart (it's kind of hard now to look at the two apart). The sun is seemingly on some magical dust from Uranus haha, anyway curious how I should read this purely because I haven't myself seen any other ones to read (and funny that it's discreet supposedly). Also I think this explains Jupiter energy being specifically blended with the Sun that you always talk about in my chart, what if the sun is lost to Uranus so Jupiter is what shines (then would Jupiter, Uranus,Pluto/Saturn be the first planets I dance with?)

Sorry to take over once again, I think this is all related and I hope other people will be helped by the visuals here as well.

As for the rebranding of this axis I think EP^ and WP^ work just as well for EP/WP-a (keeping the EP and WP (the same) when in longitude and using an easy carrot to symbolize a delta sign {signifying a change in method}).

[Stillpoint]

Thanks for this thread.

I have started to watch this Ep point more closely now including it in the Solar fire settings.
Found a recent nice example of angularity of the planet Jupiter in the chart of the
famous traveler explorer Sven Hedin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Hedin

Hedin, Sven Gender: M
Birthname Sven Anders Hedin
born on 19 February 1865 at 01:45 (= 01:45 AM )
Place Stockholm, Sweden, 59n20, 18e03

[FlorencedeZ.]

Hi Stillpoint,

The aspects to Eastpoint and Westpoint are measured in Right Ascension. In Solar Fire: Z-Analogue RA.
In this chart you have calculated them ecliptically. To the eye it's not directly visible since they are still within orb 3* but for your future reference you need to measure them in RA.

Also, please refrain from uploading charts to this forum as it is costly for Jim to pay for extra space.
Thank you.
Regards,
Flo

[Danica]

In the above example, Jupiter-Uranus opposition is angular by square MC-IC axis, orb under 1*

[Jim Eshelman]

Also, please refrain from uploading charts to this forum as it is costly for Jim to pay for extra space.

Flo, thanks for looking out for me this way. - In this case, Still didn't upload the chart directly: He referenced it from another web site (which is the preferred way to do it).

[FlorencedeZ.]

Flo, thanks for looking out for me this way. - In this case, Still didn't upload the chart directly: He referenced it from another web site (which is the preferred way to do it).

I see. Thank you Jim.

[Stillpoint]

Thank you guys for your patience with me.

So....now reading more closely how to proceed, I checked the 'Report page' in 'Solar Fire', getting the Right Ascension
data. And for the explorer Sven Hedin it is still an existing conjunction with Ep and Jupiter measured in that mode.
I am impressed. makes total sense. The travel planet Jupiter in own sign Sagittarius on 'an angle'.
(And as Danica noted Jupiter is opposite Uranus, which is a good catch for explorers I assume. The Armstrong moon steps in 1969
comes to mind, when in the sky Jupiter and Uranus was in partile conjunction that day.)


Then I assume that this point may be helpful as part of rectification of birthtimes ?

For example in writer Ernest Hemingways chart:

- his natal Mercury (writing) is
ME 147'30' RA
Ep 151'19' RA

And his birthtime is said to be 8:00 which seems
quite rounded ? If in a rectifiction attempt moving his time back a few minutes there is then Mercury would be within the 3 degree orb ?
.

[SteveS]

Stillpoint wrote:

(And as Danica noted Jupiter is opposite Uranus, which is a good catch for explorers I assume. The Armstrong moon steps in 1969 comes to mind, when in the sky Jupiter and Uranus was in partile conjunction that day.)

Indeed, for new & benefic discoveries.

[Soft Alpaca]

Further more there is a sense of boundlessness (unshackled freedom) in this case as well.

[Jim Eshelman]

So....now reading more closely how to proceed I checked the 'Report page' in 'Solar Fire', getting the Right Ascension data. And for the explorer Sven Hedin it is still an existing conjunction with Ep and Jupiter measured in that mode.

Yes. Jupiter and Uranus are both on Eastpoint-Westpoint both ecliptically and in right ascension.

Jupiter is on EP-l (Eastpoint measured in longitude) 0°12' [i.e., square MC] and EP-a (Eastpoint measured in RA) 1°06'. It doesn't matter which is closer; in this case, it happens to be by longitude. So Jupiter is 0°12' from EP.

Uranus is on WP-l 0°41' and WP-a 0°08'. Again, it doesn't matter which is closer; in this case, it happens to be by RA: So Uranus is 0°08' from EP.

These different measuring frameworks also alert us to possible closer aspect orbs than we see otherwise. In celestial longitude (which is always relevant), Jupiter opposes Uranus 0°55'. In prime vertical longitude (which is always relevant), the orb is 1°05'. In right ascension (which is relevant when planets are on MC-IC and/or EP-WP), the opposition is 0°56'. In this case, they're all about the same (no practical difference) and longitude happens to be closest, but this wouldn't always be the case. In this chart, Jupiter and Uranus both have small celestial latitude, so the different frameworks for measuring their separation produce essentially the same results.

Then I assume that this point may be helpful as part of rectification of birthtimes?

That's not a direct ergo; that is, what you say would be true from the natal if one accepts that one can 'rectify' just by making the chart best fit how you think it should look. I'm always uncomfortable with that approach. (However, using the above information on, say, solar and lunar return charts or quotidians for well-timed events would be a legit tactic for rectification.) Nonetheless, following through with your example:

For example in writer Ernest Hemingways chart:

- his natal Mercury (writing) is
ME 147'30' RA
Ep 151'19' RA

Correct. (I get 01' different, but that could be the exact coordinates we each used). 3°49' is too much IMO (and the longitude orb is much more).

But is he more writer or explorer and eye-opener? For the given birth time, Uranus is 0°54' from IC. (A further detail that makes this even more intense is that - measured along the PV, as I measure all primary angularity - Eris is 0°59' above Descendant with a 0°04' Uranus-Eris mundane square exactly on angles. Theoretically, those are both pretty good for him, too!)

And his birthtime is said to be 8:00 which seems
quite rounded ? If in a rectification attempt moving his time back a few minutes there is then Mercury would be within the 3 degree orb?

As I mentioned before, I am uncomfortable with the "I am going to change the natal chart to make it read the way I want it to" approach to rectification, but you have the angularity concept right. Let's try testing his birth time with an event (which I haven't tried yet... don't know what I'll encounter): He committed suicide July 2, 1961, 7:05 AM MST, Ketchum, ID.

Transits are complicated and don't give a good example: For instance, transiting Mars was 7°55' Leo, a bit too far past the 8 AM EP-a and a bit too far short of EP-l. The ideal method for measuring this would be to adjust transiting Mars for precession back to his birth then recalculate the RA (which is complicated) or to fudge a little by nothing that transiting Mars would have been exactly on EP, MC, etc. if the angle's longitude was 8°21' Leo (I have a report in Solar Fire that gives me this information - it's really a digression from the immediate topic, so I won't dwell on it.)

Much more interesting is the theory that the partile Moon-Pluto opposition in space when he killed himself was square his MC. Pluto was 11°52' Leo, which would bump the birth time later 5-10 minutes. But this is only a first impression. - I'm more inclined to trust the time closer to 8 AM since transiting Neptune was within 1° of the natal IC relocated to Ketchum, and clearly fits his condition at the time.

As I do more charts, I'm thinking I won't find an example of the EP that will be useful to this thread; but I'll continue (please excuse the digression) because the issue of confirming his birthtime is interesting...

His final SSR set up almost a year earlier with a close Moon-Saturn opposition everywhere on Earth. He was still in Cuba until July 25, 1960, so I'll draw his SSR for Havana. It roughly has Mercury, Sun, and Neptune on the angles (just noticed: Eris 0°35' from Asc mundo). Nothing else useful to our current interests. His SLR a few days before his death has little more than Mercury on MC. But oh, his SLR actually set up just before he left Mayo in Rochester, MN, putting transiting Saturn opposite his Sun most angular. (It doesn't have to be exact. It's the closest.) This is a good fit and suggests that the birth time is at least approximately right.

We are left with Quotidians for the final event. These angles connect by longitude, except that EP-WP also works in RA. Let's see if we see anything.

The SNQ for the moment of his death seems to confirm the 8 AM time quite exactly:

22°49' Tau - r Pluto
23°21' Tau - p Pluto
24°29' Sco - r Saturn (also p Saturn)
24°46' Tau - SNQ MC
26°42' Leo - SNQ Asc
26°51' Leo - p Mercury
27°13' Leo - r Mars

EP isn't involved. It seems to me that this is a very exact fit for an intentional, thought-out self-inflicted gunshot to the head. (It can't get much better with Saturn 0°17' past IC and Mercury 0°09' before Asc, unless you wanted to give priority to natal Mars, which is 0°31' from Asc. This suggests either that the birth time is exactly right or could be shifted 0:02 later.)

Ah, but here at the end we do finally get a great example of using RA to measure EP contacts. His SQ (Solar Quotidian) for the moment of his death had WP 8°38' Leo. Transiting Mars was 7°55' Leo and (as I noted above) was just far enough off the ecliptic that it actually crossed EP-WP when the angle was 8°21' Leo. This looks like a great hit! Because there is no precession issue (of more than 0°01') between the solar return's quotidian and transiting Mars, we can test this directly:

t Mars RA 154°31'
SQ WP RA 154°47' (EP RA 334°47')

It's a direct hit! To be more exact, the birth time would be 0:01 earlier - but the orb is close enough as is.

[Stillpoint]

Thank you for that educational meaty example. Sounds like the time is quite correct as it is.
It will take some time to unpack this and follow the steps involved.

[Stillpoint]

I find this Eastpoint quite remarkable sometimes.

Hard to argue with Salvador Dali and his natal Neptune conjunct Eastpoint.
Surrealism and imaginative art.

Neptune 94' 21 RA
Eastpoint 92'55 RA

[Jim Eshelman]

Hard to argue with Salvador Dali and his natal Neptune conjunct Eastpoint.
Surrealism and imaginative art.

Neptune 94' 21 RA
Eastpoint 92'55 RA

Agreed with your statement. However, that's one of three or four simultaneous "strong Neptune" statements, and not the strongest of them:

• Neptune squares Moon 1°33'.
• Neptune is on EP in RA, as you say, orb 1°26'.
• Neptune is on EP in longitude ("square MC") with orb 0°50'.
• Moon is in Pisces.