900 Sidereal Nativities - new free book!

[Jim Eshelman]

ANNOUNCING: A new free book (about 50 pages) titled 900 Sidereal Nativities. I recommend it for all students and practitioners of Sidereal astrology (and most students and practitioners of other astrology models). You can download it here:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ansnmu2xbktanONCd2C ... w?e=5UOpx2

Astrologers love chart collections and the chance to examine new horoscopes! Hopefully you will enjoy this collection as well.

This catalogue of over 900 well-timed Sidereal nativities of eminent contemporary and historical people – evenly distributed around the calendar year, 50-50 split between male and female examples, and all AA, A, and B birth data – eventually will be an appendix to a larger, more comprehensive work. In the meantime, the catalogue has its own independent value.

The Birth Data Catalogue will interest all astrologers and astrology students, whether working in the Sidereal system or not. The Planet Position Catalogue, listing ten planets, MC, Asc, and EP in the Sidereal zodiac, will be of greater interest to Sidereal students plus Sidereal-curious astrologers trained in other systems.

Avid astrologers and students need little guidance in using the catalogue – curiosity will take over as you start scanning the list of 900 names. Perhaps the most valuable approach is the careful comparison of biographies against horoscopes: Pick someone that interests you, select a good biography discussing their character and life, and sit back to enjoy matching the person’s life with the chart. This is important and valuable in every astrologer’s initial training and continuing education. Analyzing backwards against known facts instills an instinct for what is important in piecing together the picture of a whole person from astrological fragments.

This book gives you over 900 opportunities to do that, enough to get you well on your way to the first thousand hours of practice that is the foundation of expertise. Enjoy!

[mikestar13]

Just downloaded this. I'm looking forward to it both for my enjoyment and tests chart for TMSA. 1000 thanks, Jim.

[Jim Eshelman]

You're welcome. BTW, I've wondered a couple of times if you wanted to provide the option of preloading these 900 charts with TMSA.

I've decided it's a crappy idea because I don't have a good way to dump the data and get the charts actually calculated. We'd need one or more people to type in all the data, one or more people to proofread it, and I'm pretty sure everybody has much more valuable (not to mention pleasurable) stuff they could be doing.

But it was a flitting thought a few times.

[mikestar13]

If there was an easy, automated way to dump the data, I'd gladly incorporated it as an optional (but likely quite popular) feature. It's likely not possible, but let me study the book a bit. Python does of course have a library for extracting data from PDFs. If I can get the data I need, I can automate this, likely by extracting the data once and build a small utility to automate calculating the charts, doing it all here, and distributing the charts with TMSA and adding them to the user's chart collection if desired. Not for the next release, but maybe sometime in December if it is feasible. Of course it may well not be, but well worth doing if possible.

[Jim Eshelman]

I think I can export the data one chart at a time from SF. Nearly all the charts are stored in one chart collection (it would be all except I seemed to have missed a few, there are 892 in the folder). What I don't know if I can do is bulk export the data (say, to a CSV), but I'll look into that. Not a priority item or one that has to be done immediately, of course (it could be added at any point and we both have lots to keep us busy).

[Jim Eshelman]

Uh-oh, I just got us in trouble.

By which I mean I got you in trouble. Which really means that I just discovered this is really easy to do.

Mike, as a first draft, I have a CSV for everything fielded out to match your input except the name is a single entry. (I can massage this later if you like, using some Excel tricks.) At the moment, there are only 892 charts, so I have to find which 8 I'm missing. In the meantime, to have something to look at whenever you actually have time to get around to it, you can download the file from here: [file deleted, link removed, new link available elsewhere]

PS - Anyone else should feel free to download it also. You can probably import it directly into Solar Fire with a little work.

[mikestar13]

It's on the back burner for now, but given the appropriate functionality in a Python PDF library (there are several, and I'm fairly certain I can find a good one), I can extract the data. Just go line by line and look for line numbers 1. thru 900. and parse the lines ,then store the data in a json file. Then I can write a utility to calculate the charts in a batch, and the resulting chart files can be zipped and distributed with a small installer that will insert the charts into the user's chart collection on request. I have other things I want do first, but I think making this available will be a nice Christmas present for TMSA users.

BTW, some apparent inconsistencies in the data: Flamsteed's date is marked OS while Copernicus' date is not, likewise Elizabeth I is marked OS while Mary, Queen of Scots is not. There may be other cases, I can generate a list so you can verify the relevant cases -- basically flagging any dates before 1582 not marked OS.

[mikestar13]

The file you just posted will make it maybe five times easier. I lusted after this when I thought it would be hard to do.

[Jim Eshelman]

The file you just posted will make it maybe five times easier. I lusted after this when I thought it would be hard to do.

I'm inching through the chart file now to find out which ones I'm missing, cleaning up name fields, deleted one that got in by accident, that sort of thing - but you have something to play with.

[Jim Eshelman]

Somehow, when I got everyone added back, there were 906! That now means that 6 in the collection didn't get into the the book.

I don't mind having more than 900. The next task, before newly exporting this, is to see what's missing from the canonical 900 list.

[Jim Eshelman]

I have 904 of them. I'm not sure where the other two are hiding, but these will be plenty. (I also got the chance to edit a number of typos, missed items, misalphabetizations, and other things along the way.)

I'm going back to edit a few more things in the spreadsheet, such as filling in city names where I had to leave them out in SF (e.g., because I had slightly better L/L info than if I'd let it auto-detect the city.)

I'll take this part of the discussion over to the TMSA threads.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

This is a great resource, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention that...

In 900 charts, there should be (approximately) 1.67% of the collection on any particular birth minute (of their respective hour).

Looking at the even hours in the collection, (1:00, 2:00, etc.) we have 12+%

This can only mean that we have 7+ times as many even-hour births as can be correct. (to the minute) [assuming that any particular minute is as likely as any other particular minute to be the case] ie. someone born at 8:13 is equally as likely in reality as a possibility as being born at 8:00...

ie. use with caution if using any techniques that rely on close partility of aspects, as many of these charts will fail the analysis or return gibberish, even though the technique is sound, due to an approximate, likely rounded-off birthtime being used [ie. if a false time or rounded time is entered on the birth certificate, "AA" doesn't in reality have a strong meaning ]

(keeping in mind that a 5 minute error in time, could be several minutes of arc for the Moon, and approximately a whole degree (error) for the Angles... ) Though they're likely not used here, the Primary Directions (normally maturing in maximum 0° 6' for all aspects except conj/opp and 0° 11' for those), as well as the secondary progressions (that normally mature in less than 0° 11', except for the Moon), as well as Age Harmonics (that change incredibly quickly with small changes in the birthtime) will have the event-relevant aspects fall right off the list and be excluded because the orbs are too high)

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

You do know clocks up till even 75 years ago, were set once a day at noon, and often accumulated an hour or so by the noon the following day, right?

The audience for this new book does not include people who do "age harmonics" and other such techniques that are not part of the Fagan-Bradley-Eschelman Sidereal astrology method being used and taught on this site.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thank you for your comments.

Greater integrity comes from presenting birth data from the original "best source" we can find, without modification. This is certainly what we have to do for serious research to avoid the legitimate accusation of forcing our results. Individual astrologers can, of course take that "best source" data and do with it what they want.

My greatest interest, as usual, is natal analysis more than forecasting. That said, I nearly always find, in work with a celebrity chart, that the time is right within a few minutes - more than enough to give sufficient precision in solar and lunar returns and transits (not to mention the long patterns of progressions and solar arcs).

In any case, I won't be easily moved to the view that every chart has to be rectified.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Re: "You do know clocks up till even 75 years ago, were set once a day at noon, and often accumulated an hour or so by the noon the following day, right?"

People used to ride horses to get everywhere. In both circumstances, things have progressed considerably... You do know there are atomic clocks now, right?

Re: "The audience for this new book does not include people who do "age harmonics" and other such techniques that are not part of the Fagan-Bradley-Eschelman Sidereal astrology method being used and taught on this site."

I think you meant the intended demographic for the new book, as I am already in the audience of the new book and certainly use age harmonics. (and anything else I find reliable)

I must admit that your comment did remind me eerily of my last reading of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

[ODdOnLifeItself]

Re: "In any case, I won't be easily moved to the view that every chart has to be rectified."

Though Isaac Starkman would likely disagree, I find it unreasonable to rectify every chart, as it can be a multi-hour process (imho, to do it correctly)...

That being said, you've left me with yet another question...

If you checked a dozen events for someone and noticed that there weren't many contacts to angles at events, yet if you moved the angles backwards 1-1/2 degrees, suddenly CLICK, it's all there with stunning precision; would you use the adjusted time?

From my perspective, the astrological systems (ideally) are a reflection of the universe and are fundamentally TRUE, when based on sound principles. ie. if you have the correct time, you will see correct aspects/placements

The recording of birthtimes is done, often under pressure, VERY often after-the-fact (from memory, reckoning by how long it seems to be since the birth), and with the expected range of human error.

I understand that many techniques are forgiving of this imprecision, but my comment wasn't specifically aimed at those (only) using those techniques, but rather for anyone in similar shoes to mine. (there must be some)

The collection will be fun to peruse for all-around astrological positions to help in understanding what needs prompted what actions and when...

Thanks for the collection...

[Jim Eshelman]

...you've left me with yet another question...

If you checked a dozen events for someone and noticed that there weren't many contacts to angles at events, yet if you moved the angles backwards 1-1/2 degrees, suddenly CLICK, it's all there with stunning precision; would you use the adjusted time?

Sure. With a client, it would be a collaboration: "Do you notice that we're just slightly off on a few things? It always seems that some things hit just a little early or late? I'm beginning to think that your birth time was really X:xx. I suggest we work with that time from now on."

But it almost never happens. Less than half a dozen times in 50 years. I do get reflexively suspicious of even-hour or even half-hour times, but there is never enough reason to bump it.

Most recently, among public figures, President Biden is a great example. His birth time is given as a round half hour. It's clear that the chart is fundamentally correct, but one naturally wonders if it isn't slightly off. I wouldn't have even bothered to wonder except that Neptune's transit to his IC looked like it would be a big deal through part of his presidency. I found that he is unusually responsive to quotidian angles - far more than most - and most of them hit just at or before the half hour. Ken Bowser also noted Biden's responsive to quotidians and but sees them hitting just at or after the half hour. (We checked: We're doing the math the same.) I'd say he's born at 8:30 or maybe as early as 8:25. Ken thinks he was born at 8:30 or perhaps as late as 8:35. - From this, I take it that we're in good shape using 8:30.

[mikestar13]

Rectification is reasonable if and only if the underlying events are numerous, well-timed, and all or nearly point in the same direction. Biden's chart would be a terrible candidate for rectification. I note a fetish for rectification is far more common among Tropical Zodiac enthusiasts--understandably, as their methods don't work, so let's fudge the birth time. Prenatal Epoch anyone?

[SteveS]

Correct me if I am wrong: A precise birthtime is only needed for the techniques of Primary Directions & Age Harmonics?

[Jim Eshelman]

Correct me if I am wrong: A precise birthtime is only needed for the techniques of Primary Directions & Age Harmonics?

Well, anything involving angles, right? With your particular interests, Steve, you certainly would want to include Solar Arc directions of angles. Transits to natal and SSR angles matter if you expect partile orbs.

Solar and lunar returns are more forgiving. There isn't that much discernible difference between a planet being anywhere within 3° of a solunar major angle. This gives a space 10-15 minutes either side of a given birth time that might show essentially the same chart - to the extent one couldn't functionally tell the difference. In practice, who cares whether the most angular planet in my next SLR is 2° on one side of the angle or 3° on the other side? Yet, that's a 20-minute gap. (And, frankly, if nothing else were angular, the same planet would still be the strongest voice with even wider orbs.)

Quotidians generally expect angles within 1°, though sometimes it seems this may be slightly wider. (Quotidians of ingresses clearly act the same out to 2° from the angles, though I don't usually see this with personal quotidians.)

[SteveS]

I understand Jim. I can only think of one reason why an astrologer would not trust an AA birth time, and that is if they did not trust the angles of their charts. And yes, if I wanted as a quick test sitting down with someone's AA birth time in question I would start with questions about their Solar Arc cycles.

[Jim Eshelman]

I just updated this to version 1.1. (The link at the top is updated.) I corrected some typos (mostly how names were alphabetized) and found four charts that somehow didn't get displayed in the original.

If you like, feel free to download a refreshed copy.