What "precipitates" an event?

[Jim Eshelman]

Nov 21, 2016

The following is the next direction of my concentration on Sidereal mundane astrology: Of all the times we mundane charts show possibilities of events, what is it that triggers the actual precipitation of an event from that possibility?

With a very high accuracy - close to perfect, but not perfect - if we are given the time and place of a mundane event, we can describe that event to you. We may not be able to distinguish a hurricane from a flood, or even from race riots, but we can describe the conditions and chief characteristics of the event that then occurred.

But... there are numerous other times when it seems these conditions exist and there is no major event. It does seem that, when a major event occurs, it nearly always has the marker we are not able to predict. However, of, say, 100 times we describe the characteristics of a possible event, nothing at all happens. How can we separate the times a major event happens from the times that it just has a good chance of happening?

Possibly there is no way. Arguments of free will and personal choice arise in connection with this. However, this is less persuasive in mundane astrology. Mundane events are not subject to the same kind of individual selectivity as events in a person's private life. Mundane astrology portrays collective waves, lowest common denominator responses, not individual outliers.

When I was first exploring SMA, I had a solid feel for when events emerged, but it wasn't anything I could put into rules. What seemed evident is that, with all the many tides and flows, the overlaps and interweavings of different charts, the event happened at the point in time that all the interacting factors reached their peak together. We don't yet have computer systems that can track this sort of thing for us, and make those calculations, and offer up a "maximum potential" point in time for a particular place.

So, along the way, I've created strategies for trying to fake this out. The creation of the Bridge system is the most successful implemented strategy. Of 283 events in the current set, the Bridge has something to say 257 times (91% of the time) and, when it has something to say, it is right 246 times (96%). Now, 96% of the time is spectacular - I could live with that quite happily. But, when you consider the 26 times the Bridge has nothing to say at all, this brings its overall score down to 246 out of 283, or 87% of the time. This is good enough to feel we've accomplished something, but still doesn't tell us when, of all the times a Bridge pattern occurs, which of those days will precipitate an actual event.

But it's a start. It might be my starting point, especially contrasting other conditions we (1) the Bridge nails an event or (2) it does not.

I'm just thinking aloud right now, sorting out the part I know and the part I don't, so start to bring my mind around to where I have to look next...

[Jim Eshelman]

Most of the SMA tools we use have very high performance scores. They are generally very reliable. However, I don't think there is a single tool we have that has something to say for all events.

What makes the difference? Is there some sort of threshold that has to be reached when a sufficient number of factors have a certain level of expression? Or are these human factors? Or something else?

Just to review for myself... let's start with solar ingresses. (Remember, every technique I mention below has a very high level of performance - see the statistics on the last couple of pages of Chapter 31, "Quantifying the Techniques.")

Let's start with solar ingresses and, particularly, the Capsolar. As good as the Capsolar is, of 283 events, there are 94 (about a third) for which it has nothing to say at all. Of these, in 23 cases (8%), the prior Cansolar has nothing to say, and so can't back up or "fill in for" the Capsolar. Of these 23 cases, the 13 of them (5%), the prior Quarter ingress doesn't have anything to say. Of these 13, via flow-through, every "most recent non-dormant solar ingress" that has anything to say accurately describes the event; but there are still 5 events (2%) that have no solar ingress at all that is non-dormant and non-zero, i.e., has something of substance to say.

This is a small percentage, but it does show one thing: A solar ingress is not required in order for a major event to happen. Nor are the exceptions minor events - they are a significant volcano, a significant earthquake, one of the largest wildfires in national history, the Panic of 1907, and one of the worst coalmine disasters in history.

Again, this is a good showing - but, on the question of what is actually required to precipitate an event, they show that a valid solar ingress is not part of any such formula (if such a formula exists).


Let's switch to lunar ingresses, including beginning with the Caplunar. As good as the Caplunar is when it has something to say, it has nothing to say 27% of the time. Of those cases, the weekly lunar ingress has nothing to say 38 times, or 13% of the time. There is not even any flow-through 7 times, or 2% of the time.

BTW, of these 7 cases of no lunar ingress involvement, in all cases there is a strong solar ingress presence, and they are all accurate and strong.

We seem to have a scenario where every event has either a solar ingress OR lunar ingress OR Bridge involvement. (Come to thin, of it, this is the basis of the structure of my monthly predictions.)
'

'This is where I sit right now. Maybe this is enough to start looking with fresh eyes. But I'm also wondering if anyone else has thoughts about this problem and, in particular thoughts about how to look for this missing linkage.

PS - It's always possible there is another undiscovered technique or type of chart. I think this is unlikely, though. For one, the search for the chart we never knew about has gotten us into more trouble than not in the past. Second, there's no mathematical reason to think that any such chart would have something to say 100% of the time. And maybe I'm pursing a Golden Fleece that doesn't exist. But I just might learn something valuable from the search.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's try this kind of breakdown: Though it might later prove to be too arbitrary, let's treat the solar ingresses as a whole, the lunar ingresses as a whole, etc.

For solar ingresses, we have two types: Year charts and Quarter charts. The Year chart is the Capsolar, unless it is dormant, in which case it is the Cansolar. The Quarter charts, if dormant, give way to flow-through. '

Comparative studies give a slight advantage to the Year chart over the Quarters, but not much; and they all are subject to various minor modifications of strength based on what else is dormant around them (this is all spelled out in Chapter 31 of SMA). So, with this in mind, and with there only ever being two firmly effective solar ingresses at any given time (a Year chart and a Quarter chart), let's take the strongest solar ingress of the moment and see how it performs.

Of 283 events, all but 5 have at least one non-dormant solar ingress operative. Of these, 274 have a score of +1 or better. That's 99% of the non-dormant cases, or 97% of the whole.

[Jim Eshelman]

For lunar ingresses, we have two types: Month charts and Week charts. The Month chart is only one kind, the Caplunar. The Week chart, if dormant, gives way to flow-through. '

Comparative studies give an advantage in strength to the Week chart over the Month. With this in mind, and with there only being no more than two firmly effective lunar ingresses at any given time (a Month chart and a Week chart), let's take the strongest lunar ingress of the moment and see how it performs.

Of 283 events, all but 7 have at least one non-dormant lunar ingress operative. Of these, 272 have a score of +1 or better. That's 99% of the non-dormant cases, or 96% of the whole.

Furthermore, of 283 events, 271 (or 96%) have a solar ingress and a lunar ingress both with something to say, and 263 have both a solar ingress and a lunar ingress with a +1 or better score (97% of 271, or 93% of the whole). This is quite good; but notice that this also means that 7% of the major events do not have both a solar ingress and a lunar ingress with a satisfactory score. (This is the gap I am trying to close.)

Here is a valuable finding: No event is without either a satisfactory solar ingress or lunar ingress. Every major event has one or the other, and 93% of the events have both.

It's fascinating to see these numbers side by side, and play with them in different ways. For example, of events without a satisfactory solar ingress, all but one event has a lunar ingress that is a +2 or +3. (The single exception is the Tianjin explosion that only has a Week chart at +1, and a dormant Caplunar.) Of events without a satisfactory lunar ingress, only one fail to have a solar ingress with at least a +2 score (that being the 1931 Berlin bank run, which has a +1 Quarter chart and dormant Year chart). To say this differently, only two events out of 283 (less than 1%) fail to have either a solar or lunar ingress at very satisfactory (+2) levels.

In summary, 100% of all events have either a solar or lunar ingress +1 or more, and 99% have one at +2 or higher. 93% have both a solar and a lunar ingress at +1 or higher. These numbers give me a high altitude view of what is going on that I didn't have before.

[Jim Eshelman]

The daily indicators have been studied extensively in the Quantifying chapter of SMA (it's currently Chapter 31). I'm now curious, though, to see how these tie into the solar and lunar ingresses as analyzed above. We're getting into complicated multi-factor analysis here (and the daily factors are themselves layered), so let me review a bit.

Of 282 dated events, 259 (or 92%) of Capsolar-based daily timing (CapQ or transits to Capsolar) +1 or better. However, when we supplement this with Cansolar-based techniques to "fill in the gaps," 281 out of 283 events *99%) have one or the other at +1, and 265 (or 94%) with +2 or better.

With this data in hand, I will now compare different combinations of solar ingresses vs. lunar ingresses vs. daily indicators to see how many events of these with two or more categories at +1 or better.

Solar + Lunar
100% of the events have one or the other satisfactory.
93% of the events have both solar ingresses & lunar ingresses satisfactory.

Solar + Daily
100% of the events have one or the other satisfactory.
96% of the events have both solar ingresses & daily methods satisfactory.

Lunar + Daily
Essentially 100% (99.6%, i.e., all but one) of the events have one or the other satisfactory.
96% of the events have both lunar ingresses & daily methods satisfactory.

All three
100% of the events have one or the other satisfactory.
93% of the events have solar ingresses, lunar ingresses & daily methods all satisfactory.

Though it does not require all three to be active in order to precipitate a significant event, all three are nearly always active when there is a significant event. That means that either a Year or Quarter chart, plus either a Month or Week chart, plus either quotidian hits or transits to either Capsolar or Cansolar nearly always (96%) occurs concurrently for every major event in the catalogue.

I'm kinda blown away by how high this number is!

[Jim Eshelman]

There seems to be a breakthrough here, in considering the solar ingresses as a whole, and the lunar ingresses as a whole. That is, it doesn't take every single chart to be in agreement for a major event to occur but, rather, one chart in each of these categories. (At any given time, there will be no more than two possible charts in each category, viz., at most a Year and Quarter chart among the solar ingresses, and a Month and Week chart among the lunar ingresses.)

Going forward, we should start to consider that whenever at least one of the two possible solar ingresses (at any given moment) overlaps its symbolism somehow with at least one of the two possible lunar ingresses, we can expect an event, especially when daily factors also concur. "Overlap" need not mean that they have the same symbolism, but, rather, that they are capable of showing different pieces of the same kind of event. If daily indications then also agree, we have hit every possible category. (This will still miss 5% or so of events that do not have concurrence among solar and lunar ingresses.)

[Jim Eshelman]

As an example, tying this all together with real charts, let's look at one of the smaller categories of events. For details, you can follow in the current edition of SMA.

Volcanoes

MT. VESUVIUS. The Year chart is excellent, with Mars, Saturn, and Pluto angular, and Moon-Uranus and Moon-Neptune aspects. (The Quarter chart is very good, also.) Then, the Week chart is sufficient (Moon and a weaker Mars angular). To finish it, the CapQ has Mars angular and a Moon-Uranus transit. +3, +1, +2 for the categories.

HUAYNAPUTINA. This is one of our rare "oops," or incomplete examples. There is no solar ingress saying anything sufficient to suggest an event. However, the Week chart is excellent with Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto angular and in mutual aspects. The daily indicators are mixed, especially with Venus on CapQ (very bad), but with Mars exactly conjunct Capsolar Ascendant (very good).

LAKI. Both the Year (Cansolar) and Quarter (Arisolar) are very good, the former with Sun-Pluto angular, and the latter with Uranus angular and a Moon-Pluto aspect. Both the Month and Week charts are very good, the first with Mars and a Moon-Saturn aspect, the second with Neptune and various aspects. The Daily markers are excellent, with Mars and Pluto on CapQ angles, and Sun and Mars transiting Capsolar angles.

KRAKATOA. I usually regard this famous volcano as one of the poorer events studied, but how does it respond to the new sieve? The Year chart is very poor (Venus angular and Moon-Jupiter-Uranus aspects) and all quarter charts dormant - so we get no help from the solar ingresses. However, we have the other two categories in good shape. Both Month and Week charts are very good, the former having Mercury and (especially) Saturn angular (and their aspect foreground, though with Moon-Jupiter); and the Week chart has Uranus closely angular, Mercury and Mars more widely angular, and a Mercury-Uranus aspect added to the Moon-Jupiter. Daily indicators pull through, but not brilliantly, since the CapQ has Sun-Jupiter on angles (very bad), though the Cansolar methods are excellent, with Mars angular and a Moon-Saturn aspect in the CanQ. (As I said, a poor example, and it still hits +2 for lunar ingresses and +3 for daily.)

MT. PELEE. Year chart is very good, with Mercury and Mars closely angular, and Moon-Uranus-Pluto aspects (along with a foreground Sun-Jupiter). Lunar ingresses bring very good Month and Week charts: the Caplunar has Moon and Saturn closely foreground (backed by Mars); the Week has Sun and Mars closely foreground, and a strong Mars-Saturn aspect. For the Daily, we score excellent with Mars and Saturn transiting Capsolar angles.

MOUNT ST. HELENS. Year is very good: Despite a foreground Jupiter, we also get a foreground Uranus (and lesser Mars) and Moon-Saturn-Neptune aspects. Month and Week are merely satisfactory charts, the former with Uranus, the latter with less impressive close angularities but tight, foreground Mercury-Uranus-Pluto aspects. The Day is excellent, with a Moon-Saturn aspect in the CapQ, and Uranus plus Moon-Neptune for transits.

NEVADO DEL RUIZ. Year is very good with a foreground Pluto plus a Moon-Pluto aspect. (The Quarter is also good.) The Caplunar is good (not great) with Neptune closely foreground, Venus and Mars more widely foreground, and various aspects among them. The Day scores very good with Venus and Pluto transiting Capsolar angles and Capsolar Moon.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, do you agree, before a Sidereal Astrologer can forecast with high degree of accuracy with SMA, we have to be able to isolate a scheduled future event taking place somewhere in the World---with the event itself influencing a great deal of psychological influence on mass minds of people in a local/country. So far, the only times we have known these type events with foresight instead of hindsight is with important elections and sporting contests.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, do you agree, before a Sidereal Astrologer can forecast with high degree of accuracy with SMA, we have to be able to isolate a scheduled future event taking place somewhere in the World---with the event itself influencing a great deal of psychological influence on mass minds of people in a local/country. So far, the only times we have known these type events with foresight instead of hindsight is with important elections and sporting contests.

My most balanced answer has to be that this depends on what your goals are.

For myself, I'd say no - I'd disagree completely. That's too binary, and life isn't binary. It turns us into people calling win-lose rather than describing the scope of human condition. Sure, if you want to describe in detail a specific event, you probably have to start with a binary call to make - but I don't think astrology's about specific events, it's about describing the nature of experience. (Predicting concrete events is for psychics.) Many of my worst miscalls are from starting with some foreknowledge, or presumed foreknowledge, of something, and anchoring on it too much.'

Consider the early September events detailed in the Judgement chapter (Chapter 6) of the most recent version of SMA. Were it not for a math error, I would have predicted the exact date of what turned out to be the mid-Manhattan bombings, and described it accurately. I was affected by three things - a math error that made September 11 jump out instead; the fact that I was forecasting for a bounded month that ended September 12 and hadn't yet looked past; and over-absorption in known possible event, i.e., the 9/11 anniversary. The real fault was the math error except that I'm sure thinking I knew something threw me off from accurately predicting the right thing. (And if I'd done the math right, I'd have seen the actual convergence a few days later that exactly timed the real bombing.)

One of my most successful predictions - fulfilled in every way - was saying that this week and last week people were going to be confused and disoriented, with "What happens now?" being the big question on everyone's mind. That's exactly right! (Exactly.) History books probably won't list it - you sort of have to be here right now to see it - but it's an exact statement of what is going on in mass mind.

I don't want to predict known events. I want to predict the next 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, the next Oklahoma City or Boston, the next Aurora or Sandy Hook. I want to predict the next murder of a president, and do it as elegantly and clearly as Bradley did in 1963. And we've come close to these - I cited Aurora, but just didn't look far enough than a passing detail. I had the date of Boston and the psychological impact correct, and totally blew it by thinking I knew the kind of thing it had to be instead (I was silly enough to believe there would be a major breakthrough of gridlock in Congress that day). And so forth. We should be able to do this stuff. I did correctly predict the Louisiana floods, except I kept calling them hurricanes (essentially the same effect as far as the people living there were concerned). This is the stuff I think we should be able to do - describe ahead of time the essential psychological tone of the nation in general for a specific period of time (and sometimes narrowed to a specific date), and have people look at or words and think we knew precisely what was going to happen when, instead, all we did was very accurately describe the exact nature of the experience.

Two things are coming up that are somewhat based on foreknowledge. The first is the December 30-31 period, where a lot that you and I have been anticipating has to do with knowing that it is New Year's Eve. and also the last business day / last Friday of the year. Another is the announcement months ago that sometime before the end of the year the U.S. and its allies would be taking the war against Isis straight into Syria - read my words for the November 25 Liblunar (this month's predictions) and see how that foreknowledge crept into my interpretations.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

My most balanced answer has to be that this depends on what your goals are.

Yes. In my case as a Sidereal Astrologer gambler/speculator, SMA will not serve me unless I see a major event that is scheduled on the future calendar. In your case, since you are a natural astrological writer, you must write about SMA for other Sidereal Astrologers with this ground-breaking sight in the field of mundane astrology. I understand.

[Jim Eshelman]

So... I have a new perspective to take back into the analyses in SMA, and also to use to tweak predictions for the rest of the year. Let's see where this goes...

[Jim Eshelman]

The one event that has neither solar ingress nor lunar ingress nor Bridge involvement is Flight 9268. What does it have to offer at all? A very minor CapQ (+1) and a stronger CanQ. It seems a lousy event. Perhaps we can justify dropping it as an outlier? If we do, then at least we have a scenario where every event has either a solar ingress OR lunar ingress OR Bridge involvement. (Come to thin, of it, this is the basis of the structure of my monthly predictions.)

Wait. What? According to pages 277-278 in SMA 12, all lunar ingresses were dormant, but the Capsolar is a +2 and the Cansolar is +3.
What'd I misunderstand? This was the plane leaving Sharm el-Sheikh that was blown up by the soda can bomb, right?

OK, the good news is (1) you are correct and (2) my spreadsheet isn't screwed up.

So I must have made an error in writing the paragraph above. Let's see... set All Solar at "blank " There is no incident that has both no solar ingress AND no lunar ingress involvement. Flight 9268 had no lunar ingresses and no Bridge, but quite remarkable solar ingresses.

Good catch.

The Cocoanut Grove also has a strong Capsolar. I've removed most of that paragraph above. There are no examples that have neither a strong solar or lunar ingress.

[Jim Eshelman]

So no outlier and nothing needs to be dropped.
Good. Dropping outliers feels like just ignoring events that don't fit a preconceived pattern, so I'm really glad that isn't necessary.

[Jim Eshelman]

So no outlier and nothing needs to be dropped.
Good. Dropping outliers feels like just ignoring events that don't fit a preconceived pattern, so I'm really glad that isn't necessary.

My thinking: Labelling something a "major event" is a human judgment, and hardly even a universal opinion. We can easily see event of low importance where only a quotidian crossing shows, etc. Therefore, there must be some sort of (I think necessarily non-rigid) threshold between major events and minor events, and near that boundary we would randomly find an occasional event.

However, as you've helped me discover, we haven't found one yet, at least in the dedicated research set.

There is also the common statistical technique of dropping a matched number of extreme instances off either end of measured parameter - e.g., the two or five or ten highest-scoring and lowest-scoring examples, to keep outlier extremes from distorting the behavior of an entire sample. The study of probability includes consideration of the random occurrences of the improbable, and making allowances for them (and, when data sets are large enough, filtering for them) is part of the process.

So, I was willing to be flexible in looking for a broader pattern, and to admit that we may lose an item here or there and we would still be doing really well. I still think this has to be part of the larger picture. Even if odds are 1,000 to 1 against a combination occurring, we're likely to see it a time or two as our sample size approaches 1,000

[Jim Eshelman]

In the 1957 article series, Bradley remarked that some fires he investigated were shown by ONLY Mars on a quotidian angle. I've definitely noticed that in most kinds of Mars-themed disasters, Mars is much more likely to appear in short-term charts (such as quotidians and weekly lunars), just as Saturn is more likely to occur in Year charts than quotidians; but, of course, not all tragedy-types follow that.'

In any case, your question got me thinking about the generalization that sometimes major fires had nothing of merit in the lunar and solar ingresses. I currently have 34 fires in the major set, and none of them work so narrowly. (I'd have to go back event by event to see what factors are being allowed to score.()

Of these 34 fires, a solar ingress (Year or Quarter chart) had a score of +1 or better 32 times. The two exceptions are the Kollam Temple fire (first quarter of the year, Capsolar the only solar ingress directly involved) which had a -2 score; however, the Caplunar was a +2 and the Arilunar a +3. The daily stuff was an adequate +1.

The other fire was the Great Fire of 1910, a massive wild fire, that could be suffering from difficulty pining down an exact geographic location, but lunar and daily factors performed quite well for Haugen, MT, so I think the solars just didn't come through. In any case, the flow-through lunar was a comfortable +2 and the dailies included Mars transiting a Capsolar angle.

Flip it to the other side and see how many of these fires didn't have a lunar ingress serving them: As with the solar ingresses, we find only two, one where the lunar ingress was quite poor, and one where it was unresponsive. The first is the Friendship Theater fire, which performs much better for Beijing (as a government embarrassment) than for the fire site. The Libsolar was quite good (+2), but that's about it (the lunars were bad, the dailies were neutral). For the Cocoanut Grove fire, all lunar ingresses were dormant, the Capsolar was quite good, and the quotidians were dazzling.

So I have yet to find the "it only shows in the quotidians" major fire example. All examples have either a solar or lunar ingress strongly expressive, and 30 of the 34 have both of them strongly expressive, plus all quotidians/transits at +2 or +3!

[Jim Eshelman]

I've been sitting with this a few days now, digging back through many of the test events, and haven't come to solid conclusions... but want to use this space to "think out loud" about where this is might be going.

The key to the current line of thought is the idea that SMA techniques can be divided into Solar Ingresses, Lunar Ingresses, and Dailies and, like an old style Chinese combo menu, you get to choose one from Column A, one from Column B, and one from Column C. Essentially all the major events catalogues have at least two of these items with a +1 or better, and nearly all have all three.

One of the characteristics of this approach is not distinguishing (for this purpose) between various solar ingresses, various lunar ingresses, etc., and not having an expectation that all charts will be relevant to an event (which, of course, we see to be true in real life, at least here and there). There will be no more than two solar ingresses (a Year and Quarter, determined by the various rules), and one time in four these will be the same chart. Ditto Lunar Ingresses with Month and Week. And Dailies sort into Capsolar methods and Cansolar methods. So, one or (usually) two in each menu column. (The last year's work has helped narrow this, by reaching a large enough number that we could filter out the "demi" ingresses previously thought to be effective - that idea just doesn't hold up.)

I'm not yet ready to wrap my head around this shift, not yet adequately convinced that the Solar vs. Lunar vs. Daily categories are any more meaningful (just because it sorts by luminary) than the time-gradient divisions of year / quarter / month / week / day. But I'm holding the possibility in my mind and toying with it, looking at it to see if it discloses anything new. As has happened so many times in the last three or four years, this may be an instance of finding a new, non-obvious way to look at what's already in front of us.

I'll revisit some numbers in the next post. I think I've given all this above, but I want to collate it again for myself.

[Jim Eshelman]

Solar ingress performance
Year Charts are either the Capsolar or, if it is dormant, the Cansolar. Of 283 events, the relevant Year chart has a +1 score or higher 246 times (87%).

The immediate Quarter chart has a +1 or higher 196 times. If we complete this (when it is dormant) with the most recent Quarter chart flowing through, this increases to 249 out of 283 (88%).

But... and this is the crucial part... if, for each event, you take the stronger of the Year or Quarter chart (on the "you only need one solar ingress telling the story" theory), we get a +1 or higher 274 times (97%). That's more or less everything - only misses 9 events.

Lunar ingress performance
The Month Chart is always the Caplunar. Of 283 events, the Caplunar has a +1 score or higher 197 times. .

The immediate Week chart has a +1 or higher 196 times. If we complete this (when it is dormant) with the most recent Week chart flowing through, this increases to 261 out of 283 (92%).

But... and this is the crucial part... if, for each event, you take the stronger of the Month or Week chart (on the "you only need one lunar ingress telling the story" theory), we get a +1 or higher 272 times (96%). That's more or less everything - only misses 11 events.

Solar ingress performance
The Capsolar dailies (CapQ + transits to Capsolar Moon or angles) has a +1 or better 259 times out of 283. The Cansolar equivalent has +1 score 224 times. But they tag team - if you take the better of the two each time, you get a +1 score 281 times out of 283 (99%).

Individually, these three perform well. In combination, they are quite impressive, too.


Solar & Lunar Ingresses both +1 263 times, or 93%
Solar Ingresses & Dailies both +1 272 times, or 96%
Lunar Ingresses & Dailies both +1 271 times, or 96%
all three +1 262 times, or 93%

The Dailies alone work better than any of these combinations, but don't allow us a way to filter which quotidian crossings precipitate events, and which do not.

When solar ingresses do not show an event, 100% of lunar ingresses and dailies show it, usually with +2 or better on the lunar ingresses.

When lunar ingresses do not show an event, 100% of solar ingresses and all but one Daily show it. All the dailies that show it are +2 or better, and all but one solar ingress is +2 or higher.

When dailies do not show an event... well, this is very rare, but the solar ingresses are +2 both times, and the lunar ingress is involved +2 once.


It does look like this is more or less a perfect score in all directions if we don't care which solar ingress (Year or Quarter) shows it, and don't care which lunar ingress (Month or Week) shows it. The ingresses have their previously established durations, and reflect "strength" differences in that way, but not in terms of ability to contribute to the outcome.

That's how the thoughts are flowing at the moment. This isn't a final settling of thought, but a revisiting and sharpening my grasp of what might be in front of me. Feel free to engage in the conversation, and I';ll keep the thoughts streaming as they develop.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks Jim, well written and concise, as usual.

[Jim Eshelman]

It occurs to me that I could record here concise versions of the factors in the different events, to better see for myself and demonstrate how this appears at the moment. I'll start with the volcanoes. (Remember, the standard is 1 solar, 1 lunar, 1 daily. How does this look in real life?)

MT. VESUVIUS
CAPSOLAR +3. Saturn (7'), Mars (partile), Pluto (close). Moon-Uranus sq. (PS Quarter chart is +2.)
LIBLUNAR +1. Close Moon, farther Mars. OK enough.
CAPQ +2. Mars exactly on angle. Also, t. Uranus conj. CapQ Moon.

HUAYNAPUTINA
CAPSOLAR 0. Inconsequential, and no other solar ingresses to serve.
ARILUNAR +3. Mars, Saturn, Uranus & Pluto in tight T on angles, plus Moon-Pluto conj.
TRANSITS TO CAPSOLAR +2. Mars & two neutral planets to the angles (though the CapQ was quite poor).

LAKI
CANSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Both are great. Cansolar (Year) has Moon-Pluto and a foreground Sun-Pluto close to angles (and a minor mark against it.) Arisolar has Moon-Pluto & exact Uranus among other things.
CAPLUNAR & CANLUNAR +2. Both are great, though Caplunar is clearest: Mars setting and a Moon-Saturn conjunction.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +3. Mars and Pluto hit CapQ angles. Mars transits a Capsolar angle.

KRAKATOA [well known as a poor event]
CAPSOLAR is very bad, Quarter chart is dormant (but with great Moon aspects).
CAPLUNAR & ARILUNAR +2. Both are great. Caplunar is famous for its exactly setting Saturn. Arilunar has Mars & Uranus on angles.
CANQ +3. Progressed Moon-Saturn aspect, Mars on Q angle, among other things.

MT. PELEE
CAPSOLAR +2. Mars on angle 8'. Moon-Uranus-Pluto squares.
CAPLUNAR & ARILUNAR +2. Both are great. Saturn exactly angular in Caplunar. Mars etc. angular in Arilunar.
TRANSITS TO CAPSOLAR +3. Saturn and Mars cross Capsolar angles.

MT. ST. HELENS
CAPSOLAR +2. Moon-Saturn-Neptune, foreground Jupiter-Uranus, a little Mars.
CAPLUNAR +1. Uranus.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +3. Uranus transits Capsolar Asc, Neptune conjoins its Moon, and a progressed Moon-Saturn square matures. (CanQ is also great.)

NEVADO DEL RUIZ
CAPSOLAR +2. Moon-Pluto conj. to the minute, and angular.
CAPLUNAR & LIBLUNAR +1. Both are good. Neptune strong, mingled with Venus & Mars, in the Cap. Venus-Pluto dominates Lib.
CAPSOLAR TRANSITS +2. Venus-Pluto again.

[Jim Eshelman]

COURRIERES MINE DISASTER
CANSOLAR +1. Uranus. Jupiter/Pluto straddle angle, midpoint. Imperfect because of Venus exactly angular.
CANLUNAR +2. Venus-Pluto, Moon-Mars.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. Mars transits Capsolar angle. Venus & Mars on CapQ.

MONONGAH MINE DISASTER
CAPSOLAR + CANSOLAR +2. Both great. Capsolar has Mars exactly angular, Moon-Mars sq. Cansolar has explosive Mars-Uranus to Neptune, Moon aspects to them, a little Venus.
LIBLUNAR +2. Uranus exact. Foreground Saturn-Neptune sq. More...
CANQ & TRANSITS +3. Transiting Uranus to Cansolar MC & CanQ Moon. Moon-Neptune progression. Trigger with Mars on Q for the day.

SENGHENYDD COLLIERY DISASTER
CAPSOLAR +2. A little mixed... but mostly destructive. Uranus is strongest, Moon aspects Saturn.
CAPLUNAR +2. Mars-Pluto opposite Jupiter right on angles.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. Transiting Uranus stationary on Capsolar angle. Sun-Neptune paran to Q angles.

MITSUBISHI HOJYO MINE DISASTER
CANSOLAR 0. Too mixed. Also, Libsolar is dormant but with perfect Moon aspects.
LIBLUNAR +2. Neptune, Uranus, Moon-Mars.
CANQ & TRANSITS +1. Neptune only. Not great, but good enough to score.

BENXIHU COLLIERY DISASTER
CAPSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Both great. Capsolar Saturn partile angular, square Venus (and more). Arisolar Venus-Saturn again.
CAPLUNAR +2. Mars exactly angular (part of Mars-Jupiter).
CAPQ +2. Saturn & Uranus on Q. Transiting Neptune square CapQ Moon.

LAOBAIDONG COLLIERY DISASTER [not as strong as I'd like]
CAPSOLAR +1. Strong Mars-Pluto and Moon-Neptune aspects foreground are diluted by exactly angular Venus.
CAPLUNAR +1. Uranus exactly angular. Uranus-Neptune, Uranus/Pluto.
CAPSOLAR & CANSOLAR DAILIES +2. Both are great. Uranus transits Capsolar Ascendant. CanQ throws Mars on angle for the day.

MITSUI MIIKE MINE DISASTER
CANSOLAR +2. Moon-Pluto, Moon-Saturn, with Moon & Pluto closely angular.
CANLUNAR +2. Pluto closely angular. Foreground Mars-Uranus-Pluto aspects.
CAPSOLAR & CANSOLAR DAILIES +2. Both are great. CapQ has Saturn exactly angular. Cansolar has Pluto, Uranus, and Mars transiting its angles, and Mars opposite Moon.

SOMA COALMINE DISASTER
CAPSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Both great. Capsolar has Uranus, Moon, and Pluto all within 0°04' of the angle and aspecting each other. There is other stuff, but this stands out.
CAPLUNAR & LIBLUNAR +2. Neptune 0°00' from Caplunar angle. Liblunar puts Sun-Saturn on angles.
CAPSOLAR TRANSITS +2. Mars transits angle, t. Pluto & Uranus op. s. Moon. CapQ also has Moon-Mars progression.

[Jim Eshelman]

ABDICATION OF KING EDWARD VIII
ARISOLAR +2. Saturn-Neptune op. is sq. Asc. Moon & Jupiter add royalty indicators.
CAPLUNAR +3. Saturn-Neptune op. along meridian, with Sun closest to angle. Add Sun-Mercury.
CAPQ & CANQ +2. Uranus + Moon-Mars.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II’S CORONATION
CAPSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Jupiter dominates. Add Venus-Mars sq. Asc.
CAPLUNAR +2. Moon sq. Venus & Neptune. Sun-Jupiter & Mercury-Mars foreground.
CAPQ & DAILIES +2. t. Sun on Capsolar Asc, Moon-Uranus op. in CapQ.

WEDDING OF CHARLES & DIANA
CANSOLAR +2. Moon-Sun opposition across horizon, also sq. Pluto. Neptune angular.
ARILUNAR +1. Jupiter-Saturn (consistently indicative of the event) is angular. Wide Venus. But Moon to Pluto and Mars.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Sun on Capsolar Asc. Neptunes & Mercury on CapQ angles. CanQ also very good.

PRINCESS DIANA’S DEATH
CANSOLAR +1. Sun, Mercury, Neptune exactly angular. Sun-Neptune, Venus-Jupiter, Saturn-Uranus aspects foreground.
CANLUNAR +2. Mercury, Sun, Pluto. Mercury-Pluto. Sun-Pluto. Moon-Neptune.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Saturn on CapQ Moon, Venus on CapQ angles. t. Pluto sq. Capsolar Asc.

PRINCESS DIANA’S FUNERAL
CANSOLAR +1. Sun, Mercury, Neptune exactly angular. Sun-Neptune, Venus-Jupiter, Saturn-Uranus aspects foreground.
LIBLUNAR +3. Venus & Saturn closest, Moon-Venus-Saturn across horizon, add Moon-Mars & Moon-Neptune. (Sun distantly foreground.)
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. Mercury-Pluto sq. transits Capsolar angles. Jupiter & Neptune on CapQ angles.

[Jim Eshelman]

16th STREET BAPTIST CHURCH BOMBING
CANSOLAR +3. Saturn-Neptune sq. on angles + Moon-Pluto (6').
CAPLUNAR +3. Saturn-Neptune sq. tightly angular. Moon-Mars-Jupiter T.
CANQ & TRANSITS +3. t. Saturn & Neptune to Cansolar angles. CanQ Moon conj. t. Pluto.

THE PARIS ATTACKS
CAPSOLAR +2. Uranus rises, Moon-Pluto sq., universal Moon-Jupiter sq.
CAPLUNAR +2. Uranus rises, op. Sun & Mercury.
CAPSOLAR TRANSITS +2. Uranus transits Capsolar Ascendant.

WALL STREET BOMBING
CAPSOLAR +2. Venus-Saturn on angles, plus Moon-Jupiter.
CAPLUNAR +2. Mars angular.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. Mars transits Capsolar IC. CapQ brings Uranuses to the angles.

BATH SCHOOL DISASTER
CANSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Both are great. Cansolar has Sun-Saturn (4') on angles, Moon-Pluto, and a Mercury (sq. Saturn). Arisolar is nearly perfect with exact Uranus + Moon-Uranus, and Moon & Mercury to Pluto, among other things.
LIBLUNAR +2. Mars-Pluto conj. angular, Moon is closest.
CAPQ +2. Mercury-Pluto op. on angles. (CanQ also had a Moon-Mars prog.)

DRESDEN BOMBING
CAPSOLAR +2. Uranus rises.
CAPLUNAR +2. Moon-Mars conjunction. Sun sets.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Mars conj. Capsolar MC. CapQ brings the Capsolar's Mars-Saturn op. right to the horizon, and t. Mars also conj. CapQ Moon.

1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB (NYC)
CAPSOLAR +2. Moon to Mercury-Uranus-Neptune. Pluto on angle.
CAPLUNAR & ARILUNAR +2. Both are great. In Cap, Uranus-Neptune on angle & conj. Moon (Moon-Uranus is 0°01'). Ari is simple, Saturn closely angular.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Uranus sq. CapQ Moon (then a mix of Mars & Jupiter on Q angles). Dramatic transits including Neptune & Uranus to Capsolar Moon, & t. Pluto on angle.

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING (Oklahoma City)
CANSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Sun op. Uranus-Neptune across horizon in Cansolar. Mars angular + Moon-Neptune in Arisolar.
CAPLUNAR +2. Venus-Pluto sq. angular (with secondary Mars & Uranus).
CAP & CAN DAILIES +2.t. Uranus sq. Capsolar Asc; Neptune on CapQ angle. t. Neptune on Cansolar & CanQ angles, plus Moon-Pluto progression.

OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING (Washington)
CAPSOLAR +2. Mars-Pluto sq. foreground.
LIBLUNAR +2. Mars & Neptune angular, Neptune sq. Moon-Sun exact op.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Mars on CapQ angle & sq. Capsolar Asc.

BOSTON MARATHON BOMB (Boston)
CANSOLAR & ARISOLAR +2. Both are great. Moon-Saturn + angular Neptune for Cansolar. Saturn on IC for Arisolar.
CAPLUNAR +1. Moon exactly angular, mundane aspects to Mars & (wider) Venus.
CANQ +2. t. Uranus sq. CanQ Moon. Q angle hits Neptune. 0°00' Mars-Pluto prog. sq.

BOSTON MARATHON BOMB (Washington)
CAPSOLAR +2. Sun & Pluto angular, Moon-Jupiter.
CAPLUNAR & ARILUNAR +2. Both are great. Moon exactly angular, mundane Moon-Mars, in Caplunar. In Arilunar, Saturn angular (7'), foreground Sun-Mars conj., more.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +3. Capsolar angles transited by Pluto & Sun-Mars. Q angles hit Uranus & Pluto.

VOLGOGRAD BOMBINGS
CAPSOLAR & LIBSOLAR +2. Both are great. Capsolar has Mars-Saturn partile sq. angular & some Moon-Jupiter. Libsolar has Saturn exactly angular.
LIBLUNAR +2. Sun-Mercury-Pluto conjoined, rising.
CANSOLAR TRANSITS +2. Transiting Mars, Jupiter, & Pluto to Cansolar transits.

BAGHDAD BOMBINGS (July 2016)
CAPSOLAR +3. Mercury-Mars-Uranus aspect angular, Uranus & Mercury closest. Add Sun/Pluto.
CAPLUNAR +2. Uranus angular (01'), Moon-Uranus.
CAPQ & TRANSITS +2. t. Mars crossed Capsolar IC. CapQ Moon-Pluto sq. (CanQ had Moon-Saturn also).

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm going to stop posting these (the last few posts demonstrating how this works). The ones posted already give the idea, I think, of how this "one solar, one lunar, one daily" minimum is working. The posts have confirmed anecdotally what the more impersonal raw numbers first demonstrated.

What they have not done, though, is give me anything new about the core question of this thread: What precipitates an actual event out of possibilities? They do seem to say that maybe I'm on a fruitful path, though.

My next step will be to look closer at questions such as whether this interchangeability (of ingresses in each category) is a correct observation; how a rare gap in one of the three categories is answered by the others; and additional breakdowns of the data I haven't yet done.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's look at the events for which solar ingresses that do not score an at least satisfactory (+1) level. Out of the current 283-event set, this occurs 9 times (3%).

I wondered if the Bridge was going to make up for this. In fact, I've speculated (one of my farther-out speculations) that maybe the Capsolar and Cansolar aren't nearly as important or expressive as we thin, but that the slow planets near their angles merely hint at the planet that will transit their angles most often during the year. (That's probably not true.) In this case, the Bridge covers 7 of the 9, which, despite only leaving two exceptions, isn't a strong enough showing for my current line of inquiry.

But looking at the other two categories is quite different! In 100% of these 9 cases, both the lunar ingresses and the dailies shine through. In all 9 cases, both the lunar ingresses and the dailies have at least a +1 score. For all but one of them, the lunar ingresses have at least +2, while 6 of the 9 dailies have at least +2. About half of the time, these 9 exceptions have a +3 in either the lunar ingresses or the dailies.

Bottom line: The other two (non-solar) categories "cover" exceptionally well for the lack of a showing by a solar ingress in the 3% of the cases the solar ingresses don't help us with the event, and (perhaps to compensate for the lack of a showing in a solar ingress), the lunars and dailies show some of their best work and strongest results.


Next, I want to know if there is any way to filter why the Year chart is showing the event sometimes and the Quarter chart the rest of the time. Is this just "luck of the draw," different charts coexisting and the one that matches conditions and lunar ingresses comes to fruit? Or is there something else?

In general, we already know that non-dormant Year charts are slightly stronger than non-dormant Quarter charts (but only a little). They also endure longer. There is also a non-trivial tendency of Quarter charts to be more responsive in the locality of the event, and less responsive for the nation's capital for the same event.

For 274 events (97%), the solar ingresses had a positive score. For these cases, the 261 non-dormant Year charts had the following scores:

+3 - 17 (7%)
+2 - 165 (63%)
+1 - 58 (22%) ---> 92%
0 - 11 (4%)
-1 - 6 (2%)
-2 - 4 (2%)
-3 - 0 (0%)

Of these 274 events, the 274 Quarter charts (taken from the flow-through list, i.e., the most recent non-dormant Quarter chart) were produced the following scores:

+3 - 20 (7%)
+2 - 166 (61%)
+1 - 62 (23%) ---> 91%
0 - 11 (4%)
-1 - 11 (4%)
-2 - 3 (1%)
-3 - 1 (0%)

These two lists are strikingly similar! There seems no real basis for choosing between the two. (There is a small amount of overlap in the lists BTW. About one time in four, the Quarter chart will also be the Year chart, and occasionally a dormant Quarter chart will cause the Year chart to serve as the acting Quarter chart; but these events are a minority.)'

Of 274 events for which either the Year or Quarter chart gave a positive result:

Year produced a positive score, but NOT Quarter 24 times
Quarter produced a positive score, but NOT Year 32 times
BOTH Year & Quarter produced a positive score 216 times
NEITHER Year nor Quarter produced a positive score 2 times

As you can see, the very marked trend was for both Year and Quarter to produce a positive result. The times when one or another did so alone were (compared to the aggregate data) about the same.

Let's examine, therefore, the 216 events for which both the Year and Quarter charts produced a positive result.

Year scored higher than Quarter 31 times
Quarter scored higher than Year 31 times
Year & Quarter scored the same 154 times

Wow, this is a pretty clear indication that neither has a particular advantage over the other. Most of the time, they scored well, and scored equally well. When one was better than the other, it was just as likely it be one as the other.

This is what I expected, though (against my expectations) I was hoping for something to give me a little more guidance. So, at the moment, I have no way of anticipating, for a given potential event, whether the Year or Quarter chart will better reflect it when they disagree. I suspect this assessment "works itself out in the wash," i.e., is generally obvious in real life circumstances because one chart is more vivid and forthright, or better matches other circumstances of the time.

[Jim Eshelman]

Next, let's look at the events for which lunar ingresses that do not score an at least satisfactory (+1) level. Out of the current 283-event set, this occurs 11 times (4%).

Examining the other two categories (solar ingresses and dailies), in 100% of these 11 cases, the lunar ingresses shine through (10 of the 11 having +2 scores, the other a +1). In 10 of the 11, the dailies have a positive score (it is 0 for one event known to be a poor showing overall). Curiously, none of the solars and few of the dailies reach +3, in contrast to the "failed" solar ingresses where a higher percentage of lunar ingresses offered +3 scores.

Bottom line: The other two (non-lunar) categories "cover" quite well for the lack of a showing by a lunar ingress in the 4% of the cases where the lunar ingresses don't help us with the event.


Next, I want to know if there is any way to filter why the Month chart is showing the event sometimes and the Week chart the rest of the time. Is this just "luck of the draw," different charts coexisting and the one that matches conditions and lunar ingresses comes to fruit? Or is there something else? (Note that the Week charts have a statistical advantage because they incorporate all flow-through incidents, and therefore have little or no dormancy, while the Month charts will always be the Caplunar, with typical percentages of dormancy.)

In general, we already know that non-dormant Week charts are a little stronger than non-dormant Month charts, but the Month chart endures longer.

For 272 events (96%), the lunar ingresses had a positive score. For these cases, the 211 non-dormant Month charts had the following scores:

+3 - 19 (9%)
+2 - 125 (59%)
+1 - 53 (25%) ---> 93%
0 - 4 (2%)
-1 - 4 (2%)
-2 - 6 (3%)
-3 - 0 (0%)

Of these 272 events, the 272 Week charts (taken from the flow-through list, i.e., the most recent non-dormant Week chart) produced the following scores:

+3 - 23 (8%)
+2 - 170 (63%)
+1 - 68 (25%) ---> 96%
0 - 4 (1%)
-1 - 3 (1%)
-2 - 3 (1%)
-3 - 1 (0%)

These two lists are similar, with only small differences. There seems no real basis for choosing between the two. (There is a small amount of overlap in the lists, since about one time in four the Week chart is the Month chart.)

Of 272 events for which either the Year or Quarter chart gave a positive result:

Month produced a positive score, but NOT Week 11 times
Week produced a positive score, but NOT Month 75 times
BOTH Month & Week produced a positive score 186 times
NEITHER Month nor Week produced a positive score 0 times

As you can see, the trend was for both Month and Week to produce a positive result. Unlike the solar ingresses, the Week charts had a much greater likelihood of showing the event than the Caplunar. At least partly, this is a flow-through advantage, but not entirely; if we neglect flow-through and only look at the literal, immediate Chart of the Week, there are still 44 instances where the Week chart is positive and the Month chart is not.

Let's examine further the 185 events for which both the Month and Week charts produced a positive result.

Month scored higher than Week 28 times
Week scored higher than Month 28 times
Month & Week scored the same 130 times

This (as with the solars) is a pretty clear indication that neither has a particular advantage over the other. Most of the time, they scored well, and scored equally well. When one was better than the other, it was just as likely it be one as the other.

This is what I expected, though (against my expectations) I was hoping for something to give me a little more guidance. So, at the moment, I have no way of anticipating, for a given potential event, whether the Month or Week chart will better reflect it when they disagree. I suspect this assessment "works itself out in the wash," i.e., is generally obvious in real life circumstances because one chart is more vivid and forthright, or better matches other circumstances of the time.

[Jim Eshelman]

I still think I'm missing something here - something probably extractable from the data - but the general picture is starting to show through. For one, we have several new ways of showing how well the methods work, alone and with each other. Second, I have a different feel of the landscape that I'll try to articulate.

[Jim Eshelman]

Here is the issue I'm wrangling with -0 need to spell it out and maybe disspell it in the course of that.

First, I should be pleased with the results. I've previously tried different ways to combine the stack layers to sieve out results, and they've never been this strong before. The best previously was the Bridge approach which shows something 96% of the time and is right about the nature of the event 91% of the time it shows something... but that means it's only hitting 87% of all events, and still doesn't reliably allow us to identify precipitating events from possible events. Nonetheless, the Bridge has been the most useful single approach to my monthly forecasts.

But, here's the struggle: The picture that may be emerging would be a working rule that says something like, "Major events will always shown in one of the (1 or 2) solar ingresses - it doesn't matter which one - AND in one of the (1 or 2) lunar ingresses - it doesn't matter which one - AND in one of the two Daily tools. In the < 5% of the time that all three aren't in the mix, there will be at least two, and they will be strong and vivid." (We have previously learned how to prioritize and sort the Capsolar vs. Cansolar daily tools by a couple of simple rules.)

That sounds pretty good, if true! It's clear enough, realistic enough, and manageable. But I have a resistance I'm wrangling with.

The resistance is simply this idea that two different concurrent solar ingresses or two different concurrent lunar ingresses are interchangeable and I get to pick the one I want! That feels... cheesy and cheating. It stirs a shadow sense that there are entirely new statistical considerations in weighting them.

So... let me think through..,, is it really? What does this actually mean in practice, and does it match our experience?

I'm gratified - some of the pressure taken off - to be able to document above that, in the large majority of cases, both solar ingresses or both lunar ingresses are engaged. (I haven't filtered out the cases where they are the same chart. The "large majority" may look smaller after that, but I'm sure it will still be a majority.) But there are a lot of cases where only one or the other tells the story and, strikingly, for both solar and lunar ingresses, the number of times this was the whole period chart, and the number of times it is the quarter-period chart, are exactly matched. (Exactly.)

So... let me paraphrase this result into different language: It means (among other things) that, for a major event, most of the time both the whole- and quarter-period charts will show well, but sometimes the Capsolar (for example) will show an event and the Quarter chart won't pick it up (same with Caplunar and a Week chart); and we know this is true. It doesn't freak me out when I see it. There is no need to repeat the message (though it usually is repeated). It also means that sometimes the event will show in the Week chart and not the Caplunar (we're used to this, and Bradley cited it in 1957), and sometimes in the Quarter chart but not the Capsolar (this feels more uncomfortable but, truth be told, we often see it - especially [but not exclusively] when dormancy compounds the picture.

So... thinking it through in the light of day, I guess neither of those is disturbing.

But, one scenario that remains, which makes me uneasy, is where one of the two charts supports one kind of event, and the other shows an exactly opposite event - that is, when one scores very well for an event that actually happens, and the other is quite against it. This has always made me uncomfortable.

I should add that I've always understood that more than one kind of event happens in a given region in a given time. Even the same event can have different sides - a horrible disaster with parallel stories of human generosity, or a sad loss of life that is concurrently like a memorial to heroism - these can coexist in a single event, and more than one event occurs in the same local in the same general period of time. So that part isn't disturbing.

But it makes us look bad if it seems we can pock and choose which charts to pay attention to at any given time.

[Jim Eshelman]

How often do these truly opposed messages occur?

One or the other solar ingress described 274 of the 283 events in the catalogue.

248 times, the Quarter chart (most recent non-dormant Quarter chart) showed the event (+1 or better). In eight cases, the Capsolar had a negative score - which at least, on balance, more inclined to an opposite description of the event. These are:

Sea Islands Hurricane
Hurricane Camille
Big Thompson Canyon Flood
Blackwater fire
Yarnell Hills fire
Trigana Flight 257
Columbine massacre
Greek default

I notice that five of these eight events are third Quarter - they follow a non-dormant Cansolar. I don't know if this is a factor, I just notice it. All of these cases but one had strong Bridge involvement (half were +3!). I probably have to examine them case by case to see what was going on.

Switching around, 178 times the Capsolar showed the event. (At the moment, just for convenience in a quick head count, I'm ignoring the other cases where, due to Capsolar dormancy, the Cansolar was the Year chart.) In 14 cases, the Quarter chart had a negative score:

Rhythm Club fire
Ycua Bolanos market fire
Great Nashville Train Wreck
Chernobyl
SpaceX Explosion
Oslo attacks
Jonestown
Watts riots
Waco siege (Washington)
Sputnik 1 - 1st Satellite
Apollo 11 - Moon mission

I'll have to go case by case to see what's really going on here, but a first impression - with almost twice as many "flips" when the Capsolar has it right - that, when Year and Quarter disagree, the Capsolar is more likely to be right.

OK, that makes it worth doing the filtering for those times the Cansolar is the Year chart. Of 79 events with a dormant Capsolar, the Cansolar was non-dormant 66 times and had a positive score (showed the event) 62 times. Of these, the Quarter chart had a negative score once: Mitsui Miike Coalmine Disaster

I'm off to examine these individual events to see what I can see.

[Jim Eshelman]

I've been over the above variant events, and I'm satisfied that all of the seeming exceptions are appropriate in context.

For those where the Quarter showed an event and the Year chart was contrary (inconsistent with the events), this seems OK in context. (That is, sometimes a mid-range chart, like a Quarter chart or a Caplunar, comes into being with a new trend not shown in the Year chart.)

More interesting, though, are the cases where the Year chart shows the event and the Quarter chart speaks against it. In every single case (every? I think every, or there were almost no exceptions), the Bridge had already pegged the quarter of the year independent of the Quarter chart, which doesn't have the power to halt something already in motion. Also, the collateral charts (e.g., lunar ingresses) continued to support the event even when the Quarter chart did not.

The final of these events, the Mitsui Miike mine disaster, is the most extreme, since the Quarter chart is a -3, Totally Unacceptable. However, it was at odds with al the other charts around it. The lesson here is that a chart that goes in a different direction doesn't undo charts going in a given direction.

[Jim Eshelman]

Let's try the same thing for the lunar ingress.

One or the other lunar ingress described 272 of the 283 events in the catalogue.

261 times, the Week chart (most recent non-dormant lunar ingress) showed the event (+1 or better). In nine cases, the Caplunar had a negative score - which at least, on balance, more inclined to an opposite description of the event. These are:

Tohoku quake
Oklahoma City bombing WASHINGTON
New London school explosion
Pearl Harbor (Hawaii)
Fall of Saigon - DC
Iraq War - Washington
9/11 (Washington)
Selma March WASHINGTON
Greek default

Switching around, 197 times the Caplunar showed the event. In 7 cases, the week chart had a negative score:

Laobaidong Colliery
Paris Attacks
Baghdad July '16
Tunguska explosion
W McKinley death
Buddhist temple murders
Freedom 7 - Alan Shepard

I'm off to examine these individual events to see what I can see.

[Jim Eshelman]

The methods suggested by everything above are not grossly different from what I intuitively used in designing my monthly mundane forecasts for the U.S. It does appear, from what I've seen and documented above, that the layering of the stack for an event is primarily in three strata, one for solar ingresses, one for lunar ingresses, and one for dailies. In nearly all major events, all three of these have a chart that describes the event. In the small number that do not have all three, every example in the catalogue has at least two. When one of the three is absent, the other usually not only show the event, but both show it with unusual strength and clarity.

If there is a reliable finding to take away from this, it is in working methodology. It seems that, in assessing the possibility of an event, an eye must be on whether the current chart is telling messages compatible with others in the stack so they can speak in harmony. This isn't so different from much else that we have seen and take to be true in astrology.

[Jim Eshelman]

The end for now.