Donald Bradley's robbery

General Discussion on Progression or Direction matters for which a specific forum does not exist
Post Reply
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

This post is not about when Donald Bradley actually was born (we got a surprise on that with his birth certificate this morning!) but on when he thought he was born as of 1963. I've previously shown that in the late 1940s he regarded his birth time as 2:40 AM (besides telling Gary Duncan this, he used it as the basis of the sample charts in Chapter 6 of Solar and Lunar Returns). When he died, American Astrology published his time as 2:04 AM. Was this a typo? Did he rectify his chart along the way?

We have an intermediate "check point" from the June 1963 issue American Astrology. In his "Your Powwow Corner" column, under the heading "Full Barrage!", he wrote about a robbery of an unnamed astrologer that we know was actually him. The robbery occurred March 1, 1963, 8:00 AM, New York City. He used this as an example of the premise:
Garth Allen wrote:Let's face it, sometimes "the heavens" unleash such a barrage of adverse influences, there is little that we can do to stave off at least some "show" of something unfortunate. Heretical and defeatist, you claim such a statement to be? All the platitudinizing about free Will goes by the boards once in a while, and if facing this fact is "completely contrary to the philosophy of astrology," we freely please guilty of such contrariness. Just the same, we say Hurrah for the folks who can la-dee-dah into the very visage of disaster.
He described the 8:00 AM event as follows:
...our colleague made the distressing discovery that his home had been burglarized, perhaps within the preceding hour by the evidence. He had fortified his entire life to minimize if not escape from the barrage of malefic indications [previously known to be coming] - but burglarization was simply too farfetched a possibility to be anticipated. The over-all loss was not severe, but money, jewelry, and small household items of value were taken.
As a passing anecdote, I should mention that my life ended up being connected to this event after a fashion. In November 1975, at a public meeting in Hollywood, a noted Sidereal astrologer actually accused me of being the one who robbed Bradley's apartment. I pointed out that on March 1, 1963 I was eight years old and living in a small Midwest town a thousand miles from New York City. He immediately changed his story and said I could have travelled or arranged for someone else to rob it. - As you can imagine, this anecdote bears no connection to the astrological event I'm writing about other than, perhaps, to indicate that this story, a dozen years after Bradley wrote about it and a year after he died, was still very much in some Siderealists' mind. (I was accused of stealing something from him that I indeed had, and had told people I had, but that he didn't write until the early 1970s.)

Bradley used this burglary as one of his pet events for testing various astrological techniques. I also added it to my shortlist of major test events. The article in 1963 was an examination of the way even (thought to be) minor techniques converged all at once to give a similar message. Because he gave a lot of precise planet positions, it gives us an opportunity to test what he thought was his birth time. He noted:
Students commonly complain that astrology has become too chart-heavy, too complicated for convenient use on a day to day basis. We can only sympathize, having ourselves been buried in a blizzard of chartwork for many years. But when you see the many testimonies which follow, you'll agree that the concept of wheels-within-wheels is a verity which the conscientious astrology must be mentally geared to if astrological truths are to be fully appreciated.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

He began with what he called "the nine basic charts of most significance, giving the exact angular cusps of each." Here is the impressive table he gave (note the interspersing of direct and converse ["regressed"] techniques):

10°22' Gemini - natal Mars
10°48' Gemini - regressed Mercury [this should be progressed Mercury 11°05' Gem]

4°15' Cancer - progressed Mars
5°36' Aries - natal Mercury

16°00' Aquarius - transiting Sun
16°15' Taurus - regressed Mars
16°40' Leo - transiting Pluto

16°14' Libra - natal Saturn
17°05' Cancer - Anlunar Mars
17°10' Capricorn - Solar Saturn
17°33' Libra - Solar Neptune
20°51' Capricorn - Anlunar Saturn
21°24' Libra - transiting Neptune
22°41' Capricorn - transiting Saturn
24°01' Capricorn - transiting Mercury
26°10' Cancer - natal Neptune

Allowing for the errors inherent in 1963 methods of linear interpolation of ephemerides, the main thing we can determine so far is that the natal positions confirm the 2:40 AM range or nearby. Either 2:04 or 2:40 could be meant by each of these (plus or minus a minute or so). The progressed Mercury is strangely 17' off. (There is always room for manual calculation or transcription errors.)

Commenting on these various transits, Garth Allen importantly wrote:
...there are three basic bundlings of adverse influence, but these by themselves, bad as they are, must not be expected to "account for" an event happening to an individual. True individualized astrology rotates on the axis of the precept that the angular cusps (Ascendant, Midheaven, their opposite points and ninety-degree arcs therefrom) are the chief if not the sole mechanism through which cosmic influences reach the individual specifically. That the case of this robbery demonstrates this precept in ways that are absolutely uncanny is clear if you consider the sequence of Ascendants and Midheavens for the nine applicable charts in the light of the foregoing concatenation of planetary contacts:
He lists the following, telling us en passant that he then considered the "nine basic charts of most significance" (but perhaps only for this event?) to be the Solar Return, Lunar Return, Anlunar, Primary (Naibod) of natal, Converse Primary, PSSR, SNQ1, SNQ2, and Converse SNQ2. I've restructured the table he gave into zodiacal order for easier scanning:

2°00' Cap - Lunar Return Asc
3°41' Lib - Quotidian No. 1 MC
5°02' Ari - Anlunar MC

16°22' Can - Anlunar Asc
21°31' Cap - Natal Progressed MC
22°15' Cap - Quotidian No. 2 Asc
22°18' Cap - Q No. 2 Regressed MC
22°56' Cap - Natal Regressed Asc
25°40' Lib - Lunar Return MC

11°03' Sco - Quotidian No. 2 MC
11°30' Sco - Natal Regressed MC
15°55' Tau - Natal Progressed Asc
16°46' Tau - Q No. 2 Regressed Asc

9°56' Gem - Solar Return MC
9°23' Vir - Solar Return Asc
9°41' Sag - Quotidian No. 1 Asc
10°57' Vir - Solar Progressed Asc
11°45' Gem - Solar Progressed MC
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

I will now take this list of angles and, against it, calculate (with Solar Fire) the same angles for the 2:40 AM time he used in the late 1940s and the 2:04 AM time announced at his death. This will tell us which he used in 1963 when he published these calculations. We can expect small errors in calculation because modern computer positions are more accurate than manual ephemeris calculations in 1963. I'll update the labels on the techniques as I go, using modern terms.

At a glance, it is unequivocally clear that in 1963 he regarded his birth time as 2:04 AM - just as it is equally clear that in the late '40s he regarded it to be 2:40 AM.

PS - What he calls "natal progressed" are primary angles - calculated by the Naibod in RA rate, not the Solar Arc MC rate - and (without mentioning it) he relocated them to NY, not birthplace!

ITEM -- Garth Allen calc -- SF for 2:40 AM birth -- SF for 2:04 AM birth
 
SLR Asc -- 2°00' Cap -- 12°20' Cap -- 2°02' Cap
SNQ1 MC -- 3°41' Lib -- 12°43' Lib -- 3°28' Lib
Anlunar MC -- 5°02' Ari -- 14°12' Ari -- 4°36' Ari

Anlunar Asc -- 16°22' Can -- 23°16' Can -- 16°02' Can
Primary MC [local] -- 21°31' Cap -- 0°47' Aqu -- 21°36' Cap
SNQ2 Asc -- 22°15' Cap -- 5°51' Aqu -- 22°24' Cap
Converse SNQ2 MC -- 22°18' Cap -- 7°40' Cap -- 22°01' Cap
Converse Primary Asc [local] -- 22°56' Cap -- 5°32' Aqu -- 23°00' Cap
SLR MC -- 25°40' Lib -- 3°40' Sco -- 25°41' Lib

SNQ2 MC -- 11°03' Sco -- 19°34' Sco -- 11°07' Sco
Converse Primary MC [local] -- 11°30' Sco -- 19°59' Sco -- 11°31' Sco
Primary Asc [local] -- 15°55' Tau -- 25°28' Tau -- 15°58' Tau
Converse SNQ2 Asc -- 16°46' Tau -- 28°51' Ari -- 16°26' Tau

SSR MC -- 9°56' Gem -- 18°19' Gem -- 10°00' Gem
SSR Asc -- 9°23' Vir -- 16°35' Vir -- 9°26' Vir
SNQ1 Asc -- 9°41' Sag -- 18°01' Sag -- 9°21' Sag
PSSR Asc -- 10°57' Vir -- 14°33' Vir -- 7°24' Vir [my calcs are RAMS estimates]
PSSR MC -- 11°45' Gem -- 15°56' Gem -- 7°40' Gem [my calcs are RAMS estimates]
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

It is clear, therefore, that in 1963 Bradley considered that he was born at 2:04 AM. This wasn't just a typesetter's mistake in 1975: He wrote of the astrologer anticipating this convergence of events. He'd been using this time at least long enough to look forward and anticipate the mad convergence of angular crossings.

Finally, let's leave that question behind and see what else we can learn (remembering that this is a single example) from how these planets and angles converged - what angles set off what planets as best we can sort out such an intricate entwining. I'll use his angles (which are close in all cases) for convenience of tabulation. - I'm specifically looking at the question of which planets work on which angles.

2°00' Cap - Lunar Return Asc
3°41' Lib - Q1 MC
4°15' Can - p Mars
5°36' Ari - r Mercury
5°02' Ari - Anlunar MC

16°14' Lib - r Saturn
16°22' Can - Anlunar Asc
17°05' Can - Anlunar Mars
17°10' Cap - s Saturn
17°33' Lib - s Neptune
20°51' Cap - Anlunar Saturn
21°24' Lib - t Neptune
21°31' Cap - P1 MC
22°15' Cap - Q2 Asc
22°18' Cap - c Q2 MC
22°41' Cap - t Saturn
22°56' Cap - cP1 Asc
24°01' Cap - t Mercury
25°40' Lib - SLR MC
26°10' Can - r Neptune

11°03' Sco - Q2 MC
11°30' Sco - cP1 MC
15°55' Tau - P1 Asc
16°00' Aqu - t Sun
16°15' Tau - cp Mars
16°40' Leo - t Pluto
16°46' Tau - c Q2 Asc

9°56' Gem - s MC
9°23' Vir - s Asc
9°41' Sag - Q1 Asc
10°22' Gem - r Mars
10°48' Gem - cp Mercury
10°57' Vir - PSSR Asc
11°45' Gem - PSSR MC
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

Breaking this down and (for transits and quotidians, but not within solunars) looking for only partile contacts.
2°00' Cap - Lunar Return Asc
3°41' Lib - Q1 MC
4°15' Can - p Mars
5°36' Ari - r Mercury
5°02' Ari - Anlunar MC
Progressed Mars was near, but not within partile orb of, natal Mercury. The SLR Ascendant surely is irrelevant (it's even too wide for natal Mercury to be on Nadir) as is the Anlunar MC with respect to Mars.

Though Q1 doesn't usually perform well, we credit Q1 angle partile to progressed Mars and natal Mercury on Anlunar MC. The relevance of this isn't clear until you run the full Anlunar and see Mars exactly rising opposite Saturn and square Neptune, with natal Mercury on MC squared by transiting Mercury. (I assume Mercury's relevance is "thief.")
16°14' Lib - r Saturn
16°22' Can - Anlunar Asc
17°05' Can - Anlunar Mars
17°10' Cap - s Saturn
17°33' Lib - s Neptune
20°51' Cap - Anlunar Saturn
This is what I just mentioned as the Anlunar, its Ascendant rightly conjoined Mars and more widely drawing in Saturn and Neptune. SSR planets are definitely relevant in the Anlunar, and this is an outstanding example of why I say so!
21°24' Lib - t Neptune
21°31' Cap - P1 MC
22°15' Cap - Q2 Asc
22°18' Cap - c Q2 MC
22°41' Cap - t Saturn
22°56' Cap - cP1 Asc
The convergence, within a degree, of the primary MC (this is local, not birthplace), converse primary Ascendant, SNQ2 Ascendant, and converse SNQ2 MC is a spectacular setup! (I've sometimes thought we should just generate lists of when multiple systems' angles converge - and then see if there are any planets there). In this case, they ALL fall within 1° of transiting Saturn and Neptune.

Historically, I haven't found transits to these primary angles to be significant. If I'm right about that, then we still have the convergence of two quotidian angles in the same degree, setting off the afflicting planets.
24°01' Cap - t Mercury
25°40' Lib - SLR MC
26°10' Can - r Neptune
SLR MC was square natal Neptune. Transiting Mercury wasn't in partile orb of either, so I've drawn a line through it. (I'm not sure it was a relevant factor.)
11°03' Sco - Q2 MC
11°30' Sco - cP1 MC

15°55' Tau - P1 Asc
16°00' Aqu - t Sun
16°15' Tau - cp Mars
16°40' Leo - t Pluto
16°46' Tau - c Q2 Asc
The convergence of SNQ2 MC and converse primary MC doesn't hit anything, so I'm not sure they're relevant at all. I've drawn lines through them.

But we then get primary (local) Ascendant within a degree of converse SNQ2 Ascendant. This is a setup to run into a three-planet gangbang. The transiting Sun-Pluto opposition on a quotidian angle is big enough, but, in this case, it also lands on converse Mars which, perhaps, emphasizes the criminal aspect of it.

Historically, I haven't found transits to these primary angles to be significant. If I'm right about that, then we still have a quotidian angle setting off the afflicting planets. Notice that the transiting Sun-Pluto is theoretically valid for all these angles, but the converse progressed Mars is only relevant (highly relevant!) to the converse SNQ - they're the same chart! This seems to explain why transits to a regressed (converse progressed) planet is so significant - it's the triple contact with the relevant quotidian angle.
9°56' Gem - s MC
9°23' Vir - s Asc
9°41' Sag - Q1 Asc
10°22' Gem - r Mars
10°48' Gem - cp Mercury
10°57' Vir - PSSR Asc
11°45' Gem - PSSR MC
Finally, we have the other criminogenic aspect, converse progressed Mercury conjunct natal Mars. While natal Mars would be relevant to any angles it touches, the regressed Mercury isn't. For example, it makes no sense to relate a progressed or regressed natal Mercury to PSSR angles. (I question how the PSSR angles were calculated in any case, though it's interesting that these fall in the pile-up.) Personally, I think natal Mars is the only thing that matters in this set (not regressed Mercury, except for making an aspect to natal Mars). Natal Mars is on the SSR Midheaven and Zenith, the Q1 Descendant (if relevant: it hasn't always demonstrated it is valid), and the PSSR angles (if this method of calculating PSSR is valid).
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

Finally, Garth Allen's conclusion to the article:
When you realize that four of these charts progressively change cusps at the rate of one degree per day, it is breathtaking to say the least that the Saturn and Mars [and Neptune] contacts therewith are so exact, all four techniques precisely pinpointed the exact day of the event! (And to think that there are people w3ho wonder why siderealists are so in love with astrology!)

What surprised us a bit was the lucidity of the anlunar return, the sensitivity of the progressed cusps (per the standard system taught by Llewellyn George and Alan Leo), and the remarkable way the "converse" or regressed versions of both the natal [converse primaries] and Quotidian #2 [Q2] maps told the same tale with equal punch. Note that both the man's solar return for the year, and lunar return for the month, had a malefic within half a degree afflicting the Midheaven, indicating that something bad was in the offing somewhere during that four-week period. The other charts specified exactly when it would take place. And it did. Is it any wonder why sidereal astrologers are so zealous in trying to show the realities of astrology?
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

While all the charts are here, I want to go into more detail about the surprisingly great Anlunar return. Here's how the February 13, 1963 Anlunar looked (using Time Matters):

4°10' Cap - Anlunar Mercury (+0°28')
4°38' Ari - Anlunar MC
5°37' Ari - r Mercury

16°06' Can - Anlunar Asc
16°15' Lib - r Saturn (-0°09')
17°06' Can - Anlunar Mars (+1°21')
17°10' Cap - SSR Saturn (-0°46')
17°33' Lib - SSR Neptune (-1°00')
20°51' Cap - Anlunar Saturn (-4°17')
21°27' Lib - Anlunar Neptune [not foreground]

The NSR (Ennead) had occurred February 24 (it is also the 10-Day Solar) and isn't very impressive. It neither ties into the four sets of planet pile-ups nor reflects the event on his own. OTOH the daily NLR tied right into all of it, occurring the previous day - February 28 - at 11:27 PM:

16°15' Lib - r Saturn
17°00' Lib - NLR Asc
21°24' Lib - t Neptune (-3°24')
22°38' Cap - t Saturn (+2°54')
23°30' Cap - t Mercury (+1°45')
25°36' Ari - t Moon (+0°25')
25°41' Can - NLR MC
26°10' Can - r Neptune

Among all the rest, image the paran of natal Saturn on Ascendant and natal Neptune on MC - both within 1° and in mundane square.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Mike V
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:31 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Mike V »

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun May 05, 2024 9:47 am The NSR (Ennead) had occurred February 24 (it is also the 10-Day Solar) and isn't very impressive. [...] OTOH the daily NLR tied right into all of it [...]
I have a nomenclature question. I've noticed you refer the term "NSR" to the full Ennead, the 9th harmonic, and use a separate term for the 36th harmonic returns (10-Day Solar).
However, you've been using NLR to refer to the 36th harmonic Lunar return.
In theory, wouldn't "NLR" more naturally refer to 40°-multiple Lunar aspects, not the 10° multiples?

For full disclosure, my motivation here is towards finding a nice, terse acronym for 10-Day Solars. :lol: Maybe if NLR = 10° increments, NSR can also fairly be used for 10° increments?
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

Mike V wrote: Sun May 05, 2024 2:25 pm I have a nomenclature question. I've noticed you refer the term "NSR" to the full Ennead, the 9th harmonic, and use a separate term for the 36th harmonic returns (10-Day Solar).
However, you've been using NLR to refer to the 36th harmonic Lunar return.
In theory, wouldn't "NLR" more naturally refer to 40°-multiple Lunar aspects, not the 10° multiples?

For full disclosure, my motivation here is towards finding a nice, terse acronym for 10-Day Solars. :lol: Maybe if NLR = 10° increments, NSR can also fairly be used for 10° increments?
Yeah, the whole thing is a mess, right? <g>

While I want to respect the historic term Ennead (on the "you found it, you get to name it" basis) , it's awkward. Furthermore, Bradley didn't discover the technique first, it already existed (see Spica) under the older term "Navamsa Solar Return." The older term is more consistent with how solunars have been named (though "Navamsa" needs to be updated). - Of all the awkwardness-avoiding names, "10-Day Solar" seems the most expressive and least confusing.

So then we come to the lunars...

There would be some advantage in these proving to be invalid techniques so we don't have to ever answer this question <g>.

Yes, ideally the 40° multiples every three days should be called the NLR and the 10° subs within that should be called... something else. But what? Eighteen-hour Lunar Return? (It starts sounding like a bra commercial.) In particular, what name can we use that is the same length or shorter? (We have enough syllables.) I don't want to go the demi and quarti route because, as best I can tell, there isn't an overarching 40° master chart: The magic is in the 10° multiples.

So the real answer is: I've been lazy, especially while in the agnostic space of "I'm not even ready to say that this is for sure a valid technique."

I'd like to move past Ennead completely, so I'd like not to co-ops NSR for the subsets. Also, "10-Day Solar" as grown on me. NSR was historically used for the 40° chart. (I even used it as such in my ancient first book, The Sidereal Handbook, where I called them "Ennead or Navamsa Solar Returns (NSR)." [NB: I'd forgotten I had the Kinetic Anlunar in there.]

For the lunars - as far as TM is concerned - here's a passing thought (maybe better to continue in the TM area): Mike listed the SSR and SLR sub-periods as "DSSR, QSSR1, QSSR2," etc. (That looked strange at first, then I saw when he did it. I've never decided if I like it better than how Solar Fire does it, but I certainly don't like it less.) For requesting the chart, we have a limited number of spaces. Perhaps the solar variations should be: NSR, 10Dy 1, 10Dy 2, 10Dy 3.

This still doesn't give a good answer on the lunars. "Daily lunar" isn't quite right. However, I don't think we need to parse them out so narrowly (and maybe not for the solars either). In fact (still thinking aloud) since I think there is no longer any question of the NSR + 20° being a "Demi-Enny" (as Matthew and I used to call it), We really only need one for the full NSR and one for the most recent 10° multiple. This gives us a lot more characters! So, it could look something like this maybe:

Code: Select all

[ ] SSR  [ ] DSSR  [ ] QSSR1 [ ] QSSR3
[ ] SLR  [ ] DSLR  [ ] QSLR1 [ ] QSLR3
[ ] NSR  [ ] 10-Dy Solar
[ ] NLR  [ ] 18-Hr Lunar
This is only brainstorming. And, while there is much value in adding experimental techniques for aggressive testing, I just want to emphasize that I still consider this a speculative technique in advance of such testing.

I probably won't settle on my own thoughts about naming until deep into writing Volume II, both because my head will then be on solunars more, and I'll hopefully be able to do aggressive cross-technique validity testing. But I understand that you need a working answer ahead of that.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Mike V
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:31 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Mike V »

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun May 05, 2024 2:55 pm So, it could look something like this maybe:

Code: Select all

[ ] SSR  [ ] DSSR  [ ] QSSR1 [ ] QSSR3
[ ] SLR  [ ] DSLR  [ ] QSLR1 [ ] QSLR3
[ ] NSR  [ ] 10-Dy Solar
[ ] NLR  [ ] 18-Hr Lunar
[...]

I probably won't settle on my own thoughts about naming until deep into writing Volume II, both because my head will then be on solunars more, and I'll hopefully be able to do aggressive cross-technique validity testing. But I understand that you need a working answer ahead of that.
That looks pretty good. As far as working answers... these things are easy labels to change in software. I'm satisfied with the terminology example above, and whenever you post chapters of the Solunar section of CSA (if you do so), I'll be eager to read and discuss this topic.
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

I will, and it's a date. But I won't start working on that until late this year.

It still sounds like a bra commercial.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 19078
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Donald Bradley's robbery

Post by Jim Eshelman »

This sub-thread is in the wrong place. (It took me a while to remember where it is and find it.) I guess I'll start one somewhere else.

I realized the other day that what i wrote below works great for Active and Backwards returns but collapses when seeking Forward returns. - I hadn't started a new thread on such things because I wasn't really thinking about expanded predictive stuff yet, but it looks like the topic is raising itself - so I'll start something.
Mike V wrote: Sun May 05, 2024 3:48 pm
Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun May 05, 2024 2:55 pm So, it could look something like this maybe:

Code: Select all

[ ] SSR  [ ] DSSR  [ ] QSSR1 [ ] QSSR3
[ ] SLR  [ ] DSLR  [ ] QSLR1 [ ] QSLR3
[ ] NSR  [ ] 10-Dy Solar
[ ] NLR  [ ] 18-Hr Lunar
[...]

I probably won't settle on my own thoughts about naming until deep into writing Volume II, both because my head will then be on solunars more, and I'll hopefully be able to do aggressive cross-technique validity testing. But I understand that you need a working answer ahead of that.
That looks pretty good. As far as working answers... these things are easy labels to change in software. I'm satisfied with the terminology example above, and whenever you post chapters of the Solunar section of CSA (if you do so), I'll be eager to read and discuss this topic.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
Post Reply