Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Venus_Daily wrote:Hi Everyone,
I wanted to bring this little gem, or at least what I think is a little gem of an example for a young woman who died of an insulin overdose, she slipped into a coma. what's really amazing is that the the Kinetic SSR out shown the regular SSR by miles...which is just is just strange...This information was taken from Dymock Brose's site.

Birth information
Jan 29 1952
Merida, Yucatan, Mexico
20n58 89w37
10:59 pm

The event happened on Jun 26 1977, here is her normal SSR for 1977

There are a only a few difficult aspects going on here, the moon making a 150 to Mars, and the Sun making a somewhat wide cadant 180 to the sun, and a weakly placed partile 120 between Saturn and and Pluto.
If anything the year promised to be romantic, or at least filled with some type of love or affection, Venus was 4 degrees below the ASC in Mundo,(Venus was also conjunct the Anti-Vertex) with natal moon rising conjoining transiting natal Venus obviously on the ASC.

Now, let's look at her kinetic! I will be using a double ringed chart to show how strange this one is as well


This woman's Kinetic Return Involved 5 important transiting planets Jupiter, Uranus, Saturn, Mars, and the Moon

Jupiter by about 2 degrees was on the Asc, Mars was on the MC by 2 degrees, Uranus was on the West Point by 2.5 degrees in RA
Anyway, the moon, mars, uranus, and saturn were all aspecting each other

(I'm just going by the main angles)
Ebertin describes Jupiter/Mars/Saturn as an easy death

As for the double rings!

This woman's secondary progressed Chart actually had progressed Mars 39' away from the progressed asc, and secondary pr mars was exactly conjunct the Solar West Point!
There was also a partile progressed Moon/Pluto Opposition which fell just a about 1.5 degrees from the Kinetic Solar Zenith, and progressed Neptune was conjunct the Kinetic Zenith.....
This is just a theory, of mine, I am no way a professional nor do I have as much experience like Jim or Steve, but anyway......What I noticed is that is that when an amazing year rolls around the secondary progressed moon is usually making a conjunction or an opposition to a progressed planet at the the exact time of the Kinetic Solar Return.
It does not happen with every KSR I've noted, but with a lot of them it has, more than just a coincidence

And the last chart, the Solar Q2



The moon is now partile in the mixture of the whole Mars/Saturn and indirectly Uranus T-Square, and Neptune is on the IC!....I guess Neptune might have activated this situation..

For her SLR Saturn was 3 degrees away from the DSC
For her KLR Saturn was Partile Anti-Vertex
Tertiary Progressions: Moon was Partile Progressed Pluto

I hope this was easy for everyone to follow, I am very much a scatter brain and horrible with writing skills
Maria

Jim Eshelman wrote:Here are some notes from examining the charts.

First, let's not miss simple transits - which are still the best predictive technique we have. You don't give a death time, but for that day t. Pluto was sq. r. Uranus withinb 12' - dramatic changes, especially those that are startling, out of the blue, against the odds, freaky, etc., and trigger a significant shift in the person's life. (Bizarre wording, I know, but I think you'll agree that it fits.)

I get a slightly different timing on the SSR than you do. Presuming the birth time was CST (I couldn't find Merida with what I had here at work, so used your long/lat figures and presumed CST), the SSR occurred at 8:52:08 AM CST on January 29, 1977, with Nepotune about 1 degree from the Midheaven. (Venus is quite a bit below the 14 Aquarius Ascendant.) Also, her Pluto set when the Descendant was 5 Leo, so it was much closer to the Descendant than appears.

On her date of death, there was a partile Mars-Saturn square in space. One would expect it to be prominent in the death charts. In fact, the SQ for noon on the death date gives:

SQ Asc 19 Can 17
s Saturn 19 Can 18
t Saturn 20 Can 12
t Mars 20 Ari 44
SQ MC 17 Ari 35
s Uranus 17 Lib 15
(The SQ Moon at 15 Tau 59 doesn't seem to be doing anything.)

Her final SLR had Saturn 7° above the Descendant but only half a degree from the Westpoint. The intervening Demi-SLR had various forces at play but (to take only the closest) had r. Pluto minutes from the Zenith.

For the data you have given, I get her final Kinetic Solar Return as February 23, 1977 at 10:31 AM CST. As you indicated, it is quite a striking and crisis-orirented chart!

s Asc 16 Ari 31
s Moon 14 Ari 14
s Uranus 17 Lib 20
s Saturn 17 Can 27
s Mars 16 Cap 32
(add p. Mars 19 Lib 32)

A most interesting chart.

A guess the one extra point I would make in conclusion is that, while the KSR was the clearerst indicator of the severe aspects of the event, we should note that the event itself was shown by transits and the basic SSR. These didn't have the clarity, though they did have the timing and essential characteristics. (And the SLR was quite on target.)

SteveS wrote:Confounding, I run the same procedure for the SK in another SF version (5.0) and get virtually the same MC as Primer—2Sag21:31.

Jim Eshelman wrote:Got it! I was able to replicate your results, and am happy to confirm that it wasn't Solar Fire's fault.

The key to replicating involved two things: First, I had to use GMT as you gave it, instead of BST which was really in force. Second, I had to switch to the Q1.

You were using the Q1 in your calculations. Presumably Fagan & Firebrace were doing the same in the Primer, since he was sold on the Bija correction in those days.

I, of course, was using the Q2 - which made all the difference. (Well, aside from the Summer Time issue.)

I'm completely dismissive of the Q1 rate for progressions, and my Solar Fire result is Q2. (I think the quotidian angle aspect of the Q1 works for reasons not necessarily related to the Secondary Progression rate - and, even then, the Q2 trumps it two or three times for each time the Q1 looks better. - And that has nothing to do with progressed planetary rate.)

The strength of the Kinetic Lunars alone is enough to confirm the Q2 rate even if nothing else did.

But, in any case, we have the calculation puzzle solved.

Jim Eshelman wrote:

SteveS wrote:Jim wrote:

You were using the Q1 in your calculations. Presumably Fagan & Firebrace were doing the same in the Primer, since he was sold on the Bija correction in those days.

Jim, does this mean we should never use the Bija (Q1) rate for ‘Progression Day Type’ with any chart computations with SF?

The routine is use Q2, not Q1.

Regarding the planetary motion component of progressions (progressed aspects, etc.), I'd say yes - it's the wrong approach. However, the Q1 angles have demonstrated their value. (This is why I indicated that they may work on a different theory - that they aren't 'secondary progressions' as such, but that the angles are generated independent of that.)