Innauguration Obama 2009

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 19, 2009 4:42 pm

Obama's
SSR/Lunar Kinetic Return Wash. DC:
1/16/09
7:56 AM EST
LST: 15:32:25

ASC: 10CP, tr.Merc 11Cp, tr. Jup 8Cp opp. n. Merc 8Cn (& conj. n. Jup 7Cp)
Both natal and transits Mercury/Jupiter angular!.. hot symbolism for this most honorable' occasion.

Officially Obama becomes 44th U.S. President at 12 noon 1/20/09 regardless what exact' time he's sworn in.

Inauguration Chart:
MC/ 1Cp19.....Ob's Saturn 1Cp07 (Awesome responsibility!)
same angular aspects as in KLR above with the addition of tr. Sun 6Cp
and tr. Merc 6Cp reinforcing OB's n. Jup 6Cp.
Symbolizing the public's apparent boundless enthusiasm and optimism' for the new president.

ASC/19Aries SQ by OB's n. Sun 18Cn.

Mike

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 19, 2009 6:28 pm

Mike wrote:
Obama's
SSR/Lunar Kinetic Return Wash. DC:
1/16/09
7:56 AM EST
LST: 15:32:25

ASC: 10CP, tr.Merc 11Cp, tr. Jup 8Cp opp. n. Merc 8Cn (& conj. n. Jup 7Cp)
Both natal and transits Mercury/Jupiter angular!.. hot symbolism for this most honorable' occasion.

Hi Mike, I have absolutely no experience with Lunar Kinetic Returns for the SSR. I agree—this is very fitting--‘hot symbolism’ for the inauguration—‘honorable occasion’. Mercury-Jupiter symbolism is strong symbolism for ‘oratory or the gift for speech’ and Obama was born with this ‘gift’! I am betting he will give an inauguration ‘speech’ for the ages, especially as you have pointed out the same planetary symbolism is reinforced with transits. I have noted in an earlier post where you have stated you see good value with the LKR for the SSR. If you see or have any more LKR/SSR examples—please post.

Quoting ‘Primer of Sidereal Astrology’: “Alexander Marr has made special study of these kinetic returns and considers them of considerable value.” If anyone stumbles upon the old issue of SPICA where Fagan discusses kinetics—please post content of this article.

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 20, 2009 10:50 am

Steve,

Janus 4.1 calculates kinetic lunars accurately.
Will provide more examples in future posts.

Also the dbl Merc/Jupiter whammy described above also is great symbolism for Obama's masterful oratory and his inspirational inauguration speech as both Obama's n.Merc/Jupiter and transiting Merc/Jupiter angular MC/IC of the Inauguration Chart 12 Noon 1/20/09 D.C.

Mike

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 20, 2009 3:48 pm

Mike, I use SolarFire for my astrological computations and it is off in time compared to your Janus computations with Obama’s Jan 16th SSR/KLR. With SolarFire, I show a time of 7:54 AM EST with an ASC. Of 8cp58. This does not alter the angular ME-JUP symbolism that much-- but still it makes me ask which program is correct.

My SolarFire program shows Obama’s next SSR/KLR in DC occurring on Feb. 12th at 7:16 PM.

What does your Janus program calculate for Obama’s SSR/KLR on Feb 12th?

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 20, 2009 3:53 pm

Steve, are you using the approximation method I gave you - which AFAIK is the only direct calculation approach in Solar Fire, but is only meant to be an approximation within a few minutes - or are you actually doing the trial-and-error refinement (or a third technique not known to me)?

--------------------------------------
Jan 21, 2009 8:56 am

Jim, No—I am not doing the approximation method. I am only doing the method I know how to do. I take the base chart, in this case Obama’s 08 SSR, and then I click the Dynamic button, and then click Transits & Progressions. Then under Event Selector, I x out only the Transits to Progs box. Then I select under Period of Report my time frame. Then under Point Selection, I edit for a saved file by only selecting the Moon for the Transit Box. Then with the Progs Box, I edit and only select the Moon. Then under Aspect Selection next to the Transit & Progs Boxes I select Harm01. This runs me a list of my time frame, giving me the times & dates of exact conjunctions of transiting Moon to progressed Moon. I then take the dates & times and calculated these new KLR’S charts.

Jim, this is probably the long way (technique) of calculating KLR’S but I know no other way to calculate accurately-- KLR’S with SolarFire. Is this a ‘third technique not known to you’?

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 21, 2009 9:55 am

Jim, No—I am not doing the approximation method. I am only doing the method I know how to do. I take the base chart, in this case Obama’s 08 SSR, and then I click the Dynamic button, and then click Transits & Progressions. Then under Event Selector, I x out only the Transits to Progs box. Then I select under Period of Report my time frame. Then under Point Selection, I edit for a saved file by only selecting the Moon for the Transit Box. Then with the Progs Box, I edit and only select the Moon. Then under Aspect Selection next to the Transit & Progs Boxes I select Harm01. This runs me a list of my time frame, giving me the times & dates of exact conjunctions of transiting Moon to progressed Moon. I then take the dates & times and calculated these new KLR’S charts.

Yes. That's the approximation method

I call is that because Solar Fire's calculation of transits to to progressions is done using an algorithm that can be a few minutes off. For a list of transits, that's pretty good, though for a return one would want better in some cases. I use (a streamlined version of) what you described for spot-checks but, for example, if I were to calculate a KLR or KSR for here, I'd do a more laborious approach.

Jim, this is probably the long way (technique) of calculating KLR’S but I know no other way to calculate accurately-- KLR’S with SolarFire. Is this a ‘third technique not known to you’?

Here's the longer, more exacting way. The concept is really simple, it's just the work that's a little tedious.

Using Barack Obama as the sample, for the 7:24 PM birth certificate time, and will calculate last upcoming KLR. First, approximate the KLR. I do substantially what you described, except it's all saved as a KLR "Saved Selection" under Transits & Progressions. I pull up that Saved Selection, which picks the current month; I edit location to Washington, DC; Transits-to-Progs is already selected, as are Point Selections of only Moon for Transits and Progs, and HARM02 for Aspect Selection. I click View and see the KLR (shown as a conjunction) for December 30, 2008, at 10:12 PM.

This is fast and is the starting point. You can even tell how far it's likely to be off. Click View Chart, then click Reports. On the default Chart Analysis report it shows the Moon of his progressed chart at 24°22'07" Capricorn, and the transiting Moon as 24°21'31" Capricorn. The difference of 0°00'36" means the KLR is about a minute of time off (1' = 2 min on average lunar motion). The KLR is a minute later than calculated or 10:13 PM.

You can use the approximated chart obtained, or just do a chart for the 1 minute later, or you can let Solar Fire fix it with successively approximated charts as follows:

Get out of that part of Solar Fire. Do Barack's Secondary Progressions (Q2, which should already have been selected in the above calculation) for the estimated time, December 30, 2008, at 10:12 PM, Washington, DC. On the Reports button, see that progressed Moon's longitude is 24°22'37" Capricorn.

Get out of that part of Solar Fire and do a Sidereal Lunar Return for Barack for December 30, but select "Advanced & Ingress," select Moon of course, and force the longitude to 24°22'37" Capricorn. This produces a new chart for 10:14:12PM that has the Moon 1" different. Probably that's good enough. (Or you can go to the prior step, calculate the progressed Moon for this revised 10:14:12 time, and loop back through.)

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 21, 2009 11:01 am

That’s cool Jim—I now understand what you are doing with Solar Fire & the KLR and understand your terminology---thanks!

I have put a-lot of my astrological notes into computer files with a back-up flash disk system. Otherwise, many of my astrological notes would have already been lost. Going trough some of these files I found this statement from Kay Cavender.

Kay stated: Fagan in one of his early articles from Spica Journal considered the Lunar Kinetic of the SSR as perhaps the most potent return charts of them all. (Spica was published from 1962—1964)

I sure would like to verify this Fagan statement from Kay. The only way I know it can be verified is from the article in Spica Journal written in Fagan’s words. As I have previously stated—I have done very little work with Kinetic’s. However, I have done a-lot of research work with the progressed Moon of SSR’S, and have proven to myself the progressed Moon of a SSR and its aspects offers rich & abundant symbolism. Jim’s book taught me the importance of the SSR Moon. Kay’s statement sways my thinking that Fagan indeed could have proven to himself that the Kinetic of the SSR is ‘a potent return chart’—or at least we may need to pay more attention to the Kinetic of the SSR. My biggest problem is I am too damn lazy to calculate 13 lunar Kinetic’s for a one year period by the ‘approximation method’. SolarFire has spoiled me with its calculation of the 13 yearly standard ‘static’ lunars in a flash—but it takes too much time to calculate the charts of the 13 lunar Kinetic’s. I think this has caused somewhat limited ‘spot checking’ the KLR that could cause us to miss prominent symbolism with the KLR’S, particularly if Kay’s statement about Fagan is correct.

Mike—what led you to pay closer attention to the KLR/SSR?

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 21, 2009 12:38 pm

I sure would like to verify this Fagan statement from Kay. The only way I know it can be verified is from the article in Spica Journal written in Fagan’s words.

Steve, a couple of suggestions.

First (and in the spirit of all of Fagan's work), I think it's much more important to verify whether the observation is correct than to find out whether he said it. Such testing is within your power.

Second, even if Fagan said it in the early '60s, it doesn't mean that her still thought it years later. He changed his mind about a lot of things as the years went by.

Testing this one is interesting, because it immediately raises the question: Which method of progressing the SSR? Even if we exclude the four variants of calculation the SQ, the big question is whether the SQ and PSSR Moons would work independently in this regard, giving two charts the same day with timings progressively diverging from each other through the course of the year. The PSSR gains on the SQ by an average of about half an hour a month, meaning the PSSR Moon gains about a quarter degree a month on the SQ Moon.

My biggest problem is I am too damn lazy to calculate 13 lunar Kinetic’s for a one year period by the ‘approximation method’.

Ah, common, it takes 2 seconds longer to calculate 13 of them than it takes to calculate 1 of them What takes time is then opening each one! LOL.

When you run the KLR "Saved Selection" under "Transits & Progressions," just specify the time period as 1 year. When you click view, it will do all of them.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 21, 2009 5:32 pm

Thanks Jim for the info on Solar Fire with the KLR’S. I agree with you there is no better proof of any technique than personal observations with charts verse written statements—I am just curious to Fagan’s exact words pertaining to Kinetics.

I have another question(s) pertaining to Lunar Returns. I hope I ask this question without any confusion on my behalf. When a transiting moon conjuncts either a static Moon or a prog. (moving) Moon—mathematically speaking a ‘line-up’ (in-mundo) conjunction would have to factor in the latitude of the transiting Moon & the latitude of a static or prog. Moon—correct? The Sun has no latitude so we don’t have this mathematically latitude problem with a conjunct transiting Sun to a static or prog. Sun vs. the Moon.

In other words—all the lunar return charts we are/have been viewing are elliptical based conjunctions-- not in-mundo conjunctions—correct? If my thinking is correct on this issue could you give me an approximation of how much clock time would elapse with a transiting Moon with high north latitude conjuncting a static or prog. Moon with extreme South latitude, in order for a true ‘line-up’, in mundo conjunction to occur. Or am I confused on this technical/mathematical issue with the Moon pertaining to lunar returns?

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 21, 2009 6:47 pm

I have another question(s) pertaining to Lunar Returns. I hope I ask this question without any confusion on my behalf. When a transiting moon conjuncts either a static Moon or a prog. (moving) Moon—mathematically speaking a ‘line-up’ (in-mundo) conjunction would have to factor in the latitude of the transiting Moon & the latitude of a static or prog. Moon—correct? The Sun has no latitude so we don’t have this mathematically latitude problem with a conjunct transiting Sun to a static or prog. Sun vs. the Moon.

In other words—all the lunar return charts we are/have been viewing are elliptical based conjunctions-- not in-mundo conjunctions—correct? If my thinking is correct on this issue could you give me an approximation of how much clock time would elapse with a transiting Moon with high north latitude conjuncting a static or prog. Moon with extreme South latitude, in order for a true ‘line-up’, in mundo conjunction to occur. Or am I confused on this technical/mathematical issue with the Moon pertaining to lunar returns?

Solar and Lunar Returns are based on ecliptical conjunctions. The simplest argument for this in lieu of "a mundane conjunction approximating a zodiacal conjunction" is similar to the one concerning parallel and lunar returns: If it were a factor, then all of the impressive statistics concerning Sidereal Lunar Returns would just evaporate.

How much difference could it make? A lot! Depending on various factors, the differencecould be anything from a few minutes to many hours. This range would essentially randomize any discernible results.

Let's try one example. My chart's a pretty good start since the Moon had not quite 5 degrees of latitude at my birth (it's a little over half a sign from square the Nodes, so you know it's somewhere near greatest latitude). To find a time of maximum difference, let's pick an era when the Nodes were opposite mine, Caput being about 15 Gemini, around April, 2001. And let's pretend I was in Seattle, which has a moderately high latitude.

My SLR for March 23, 2001 has the Moon near the horizon, so the mundane displacement due to latitude difference would be maximized. Without getting too complicated, here are some basic facts sufficient for us to give a sample answer to your question:

Being born with about 5 degrees of lunar latitude, at a time when transiting Moon was of reverse latitude, and at a moderately high geographic latitude (47 N), my natal Moon at 27 Aqu 24 would set when the Descendant was 29 Aqu 34 and rise when it was 13 Aqu 59. Transiting Moon (at the same zodiacal longitude) would set at 25 Aqu 14 and rise at 11 Pisces 15! That means that natal and transiting Moons, in exact zodiacal conjunction, rose when the Ascendant was 27°16' different. It would have taken the Moon two and a half days to make up that difference!

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 22, 2009 11:37 am

Thanks Jim—I now clearly understand we don’t need to consider transiting mundane conjunctions pertaining to return charts. I wish I had some of your excellent mental abilities pertaining to the mathematics and astronomy that supports Sidereal Astrology. Because I am lacking in this area-- it is difficult/confusing for me at times to clearly distinguish certain astronomical issues involving Sidereal Astrology. When I started seriously studying astrology I had the PC which did the mathematical computations for me, and I did not actually know how to distinguish certain astronomical factors pertaining to Sidereal Astrology. It makes me appreciate the hand calculations you, Matthew, and the fathers of Sidereal Astrology had to do in order to learn Sidereal Astrology. Because I was raised on the computer—I am still back tracking—trying to understand certain astronomical issues.

Jim, in your book ‘Interpreting Solar Returns’, you offered one of the best systems/analyses of rating the potency of ecliptical orbs with planetary aspects I have ever read. Before I read your book I was always somewhat perplexed with orb issues and in one paragraph you cleared-up this entire orb issue for me.

Some more questions:
1: When you see a 4 degree zodiacal orb with a conjunction in a natal chart but the conjunction is actually a mundane conjunction—you would rate this zodiacal 4 degree conjunction much more potent?
2: How do you rate the potency of partile ecliptical angular planets (alone) verses partile in-mundo (bodily) angular planets?
3: When a planet is partile on the angle ecliptically and in-mundo-- how would you rate the potency of this situation? Is this situation much more potent than in-mundo placement without the planet being partile ecliptically on the angle?

These questions may be ‘splitting hairs’ but I am curious to your analysis of these different situations in regards to rated potency.

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 22, 2009 12:31 pm

I wish I had some of your excellent mental abilities pertaining to the mathematics and astronomy that supports Sidereal Astrology.

I wish astrologers in general understood (at least at the concept level) the math behind all of this - a lot of zaniness would evaporate if they did. (Again, old Bradley harangues come to mind, at least one of which involved the albedo of ice-embedded toilet paper in permanent orbit around the earth).

Because I am lacking in this area-- it is difficult/confusing for me at times to clearly distinguish certain astronomical issues involving Sidereal Astrology. When I started seriously studying astrology I had the PC which did the mathematical computations for me, and I did not actually know how to distinguish certain astronomical factors pertaining to Sidereal Astrology. It makes me appreciate the hand calculations you, Matthew, and the fathers of Sidereal Astrology had to do in order to learn Sidereal Astrology. Because I was raised on the computer—I am still back tracking—trying to understand certain astronomical issues.

I still think everyone should learn to calculate a chart by hand from a printed ephemeris and Table of Houses etc., using logarithms or DPM tables, and work that way for a year or so (using a computer to check their work). Just by "living out of an ephemeris" day in and out for several years, one knows scads of things that nobody's going to remember to teach you otherwise.

Jim, in your book ‘Interpreting Solar Returns’, you offered one of the best systems/analyses of rating the potency of ecliptical orbs with planetary aspects I have ever read. Before I read your book I was always somewhat perplexed with orb issues and in one paragraph you cleared-up this entire orb issue for me.

Thanks. I have a very wonky, tedious, exacting math explanation I've never written out (but may some day) that explains all sorts of things about orbs that were already deeply embedded in my cells from looking at charts. The ISR section is a significant simplification - glad it did its job.

1: When you see a 4 degree zodiacal orb with a conjunction in a natal chart but the conjunction is actually a mundane conjunction—you would rate this zodiacal 4 degree conjunction much more potent?

The importance of mundane aspects still has to be deteremined, in my opinion. They are extremely seductive, and there is surely something there, but exactly how it relates to the rest of the picture still isn't clear to me. It isn't clear what is "valid." But, to answer the question as you asked it: If there are two different valid ways to assess a given aspect, the closer orb is the actuality. (PS - This is a more complicated statement than it seems. It makes allowance for all sorts of things, including the way that midpoints may determine "closest hit" in a multiplanet situation, etc.)

2: How do you rate the potency of partile ecliptical angular planets (alone) verses partile in-mundo (bodily) angular planets?

Partile is partile, and partile wins, no differentiation.

When you move away from near-partile, the picture changes. In mundo is the way to determine angularity as part of the larger picture. But (OK, this is going to be confusing, because I don't acknowledge "aspects" to angles as such, I'm just talking as if I do) the ecliptical proximity may still be of the nature of a "conjunction with the angle" in an aspecty sort of way. (Was that clear enough?)

3: When a planet is partile on the angle ecliptically and in-mundo-- how would you rate the potency of this situation?

Is this situation much more potent than in-mundo placement without the planet being partile ecliptically on the angle?

No differently (or, at least, not much differently) than if either one of them alone is. It's not two aspects. It's one proximity of that planet to an angle.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 22, 2009 4:10 pm

I wish astrologers in general understood (at least at the concept level) the math behind all of this - a lot of zaniness would evaporate if they did.

I agree it's sad. Once upon a time, the words "mathematician" and "astrologer" were virtually synonymous (perhaps because astrology was the best way for a math geek to get a paying job).

(Again, old Bradley harangues come to mind, at least one of which involved the albedo of ice-embedded toilet paper in permanent orbit around the earth).

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 23, 2009 8:29 am

Jim-all of your answers to my questions was crystal clear—thanks!

Gmugmble—I ditto your laughing smilie pertaining to Jim’s statement about ‘Bradley harangues’. Started my day off with a good laugh.

Regards, Steve

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 28, 2009 8:44 pm

Hi all,
Here is part of Bernadette Brady's article on President Obama's inauguration distributed in her January 2009 Visual Astrology Newsletter #49. Does anyone here have software that calculates these positions, and do you work with star parans? I don't remember seeing either Fagan or Bradley using stars in their delineations, perhaps because different authors gave somewhat different meanings, and the origins of the delineations were obscure, though just doing the math for so many points by hand would be a serious chore as well. If you know different, I'd appreciate a reference.

Saturn in paran with:
Rigel - Faith in an elected leader.
Ras Algethi - The natural order restored, a worthy appointment.
Aldebaran - Planned military action, a military leader.
Betelgeuse - Leaders taking the harder path, focusing on the proletarian issues.
Alnilam - Solving problems one step at a time.

Uranus in paran with:
Aculeus – A person who tries to give voice to the difficulties of the life within their culture of community.
Phact - Willing to break new ground on behalf of one’s community or culture.
Murzim – To be interested in or have an understanding of the thinking of the general people.

Venus - in paran with:
Zosma - Depression, a difficulty with self-esteem.
Denebola - To challenge accepted social opinions.

Regards,
Wayne

The link is here: http://www.zyntara.com/VisualAstrologyN ... ry2009.htm

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 29, 2009 2:53 am

These are routinely available through Solar Fire. I've yet to find anything of any use in the dozens of fragments of new data provided.

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Jan 29, 2009 5:38 pm

Hi Jim,
Can you tell me if Bernadette is using a 1°/4 minute orb for these? I sometimes wonder if there are any intelligent civilizations around any of the stars we see in the night sky. That might help explain some of the symbolism, but the origin of most delineations seems to go back just to Ptolemy, and would likely be based on anecdotal evidence.
Regards,
Wayne

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:41 pm

Can you tell me if Bernadette is using a 1°/4 minute orb for these?

I have no idea what she's using. I've never looked at any of her work.

But the Solar Fire "Star Parans" report defaults to one degree, and can be customized.