Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

In the most recent edition of Sidereal Mundane Astrology, included an appendix entitled "Stretching the System." Its premise is simple: The core system is now established, and we're secure in it. Meanwhile, other ideas have come up of collateral, supplemental matters that deserve investigation, so I've identified some of these as deserving attentive examination.

I'm not going through the slow, time-extensive process of exploring four of these.

The "system stretchers" under exploration are the following. (More extensive discussions are in the appendix of SMA - please read there before asking me to elaborate what I mean by these brief descriptions.)

1. Aspects of non-angular planets to angular planets
Do we count these as part of the overall conditioning of the angular planet? Or is this just a way to be sloppy with foreground boundaries and the current sharpness of the system? The only way to find out is to itemize every one of these and see if it improves the chart, makes no difference, or diminishes the chart's clear message.

2. Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Mundane aspects, even if not foreground, are distinctive to a location. If an aspect exists mundanely but not ecliptically, it defines one geographic area but not the world. Are these important? Again, the only way to find out is to calculate them all, filter out instances where there are also ecliptical aspects, and see if the chart is improved, no effect, or worsened.

3. Prime Vertical Based Mundane Aspects to Angular Planets
The many possibilities of Vertex-related explorations need to be kept separate from each other. At the moment, I'm looking at only one thing, which is something that already has shown significant promise in smaller projects: Does a planet within 3° of the prime vertical form a mundane aspect with a planet on the horizon or meridian?

4. Meridian Azimuth Conjunctions
We dubbed this possible aspect (proposed by Uncle Aries) "MAC." It occurs when either the MC or IC shares the same altitude as a planet within 1°. I'm only looking at those where the planet in question is not already foreground. Uncle Aries' pilot report on lunar ingresses for fires stirred enough interest that we want to explore this also.

I'm checking each of these for each of the solar and lunar ingresses for every catalogued event. I'll report on them one topic at a time (e.g., I just finished the volcanoes, so I'll post that). I'm not checking the quotidians and transits to the solar ingresses - in short, the daily timing methods - because these have distinct problems that aren't worth solving unless the essential methods prove their worth.

I'll post the results of each category as I finish. These may come fast, or there may be months between new reports. In between, feel free to discuss what is unearthed. (I'll eventually publish a report that includes exactly what contacts and aspects occur in each case, so this information is available in the interim for all completed work.)

As a point of assessment, I think the standard should be quite high. There are enough malefics to go around that we should expect, in a random case, more positive scores than negative scores. At present, I'm especially interest in the distribution of scores, looking at the overall pattern.

The current published catalogue of Volcanoes has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 5
-2: 1
Almost perfect scores! This is very promising. However, all but one of the positive scores are from a single event (the Huaynaputina eruption), so this could be tipped unevenly. Still, it's a great start.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 8
+1: 6
0: 3
-1: 1
-2: 4
These are all over the map. There may, indeed, be something here - some wonderful examples - but there is also an unusually high percentage that contribute nothing or detract from the chart (over a third). Worth continuing to look, of course, but quite mixed. (Too bad. These make logical sense to me.)

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 3
0: 1
-2: 1
Pretty good. The one negative score is a Moon-Venus square in azimuth in the Krakatoa Capsolar.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 4
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 2
-2: 4
Not good. There are some excellent examples, but there are exactly as many that do not fit the event as do. I'll keep looking, of course, but the numbers from these few volcanoes make the results look random.

The one negative score is a Moon-Venus square in azimuth in the Krakatoa Capsolar.

We must be aware that sometimes the same event can trigger more than just the devastating toll of a natural disaster. The deaths of thousands can actually bring the community closer together and love is shared and expressed. I can see f.ex. for the Krakatoa volcanic eruption, tens of thousands of people died and some artists wrote books and made films about it. Maybe that is the Moon-Venus expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

Arena wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:46 pm

The one negative score is a Moon-Venus square in azimuth in the Krakatoa Capsolar.

We must be aware that sometimes the same event can trigger more than just the devastating toll of a natural disaster.

Of course. I've written about that often. I'm actually surprised major disasters don't have more Jupiter than they do, because there is so much humanitarian relief, people rising to assist and rescue each other, generosity.

But in rating charts for specific events, we have to look at the fundamental nature of event and be as one-dimensional as possible, otherwise the ability to quantify gets lost (and that's the whole point in the first place). I don't mind losing 5-15% of contacts to "makes no sense when I can have 85-95% or better clicking off as a verifiable hit.

That's an important research key: Narrow as much as possible, exclude as much as possible, stay as one-dimensional as possible while isolating a single factor to quanity. We can put it all back together later. (That's the significant stylistic difference between, say, the analyses in SMA vs. my monthly mundane forecasts.)

Thanks Jim. I am always interested in your research projects, particularly for possible refinement purposes with SMA. As far as # I (aspects of non-angular planets to angular planets), I have never ignored it with SMA because of the outstanding results I have gotten with this issue in your 'Interpreting Solar Return' book, especially with partile aspects.

The current published catalogue of Earthquakes has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 5
+1: 4
0: 2
-2: 3
More high scores than low scores, but hardly perfect.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 21
+1: 10
0: 7
-2: 8
Heavily leaning toward high scores, though with about a third not showing well.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 14
+1: 4
0: 3
-2: 1
Good.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 11
0: 6
-1: 3
-2: 5
All over the map. Not performing well. Certainly not reliable.

The current published catalogue of Coalmine Disasters has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 4
Perfect scores.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 13
+1: 4
0: 2
-2: 3
Heavily leaning toward high scores, though with about a fourth not showing well.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 6
+1: 2
Quite good, more or less perfect.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 2
+1: 2
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 1
All over the map. Not performing well. A majority does not perform well.

Jim, can you remind us again what settings you use for testing the Vx and Azimuth?

Arena wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:42 am Jim, can you remind us again what settings you use for testing the Vx and Azimuth?

It's a looonnggggg discussion, taking a few pages to set up the explanation. (It's not just one setting. One has to understand the geometry and then make decisions in each case based on what relationships are being measured and, for some of them, we have to estimate because we can't calculate a value directly.)

I think it's all spelled out in the "Stretching the System" appendix in the current edition of SMA.

Here's the original thread discussing it, but I think the more matured discussion is still in SMA:
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=174

The current published catalogue of Hurricanes has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 10
Perfect scores.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 22
+1: 8
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 1
Very heavily leaning toward high scores.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 5
+1: 1
0: 1
Overall good, no big failures.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 9
+1: 4
0: 6
-1: 3
-2: 1
Spread out a bit, but not as much as other samples.

The current published catalogue of Floods has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 6
+1: 5
-2: 1
Leaning heavily positive.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 14
0: 5
-2: 1
80% is positive, which is a good showing.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 2
+1: 2
0: 3
-2: 2
Worst showing for this in the categories so far - just over half do not show well.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 12
+1: 2
0: 4
-2: 2
Better than with the other sample groups not so spread-out.

Combined thus far gives this:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets (47):
+2: 31
+1: 9
0: 2
-1: 0
-2: 5
Looks quite strong, top scores overwhelming everything else combined.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects (156):
+2: 76
+1: 42
0: 19
-1: 2
-2: 17
Overall looks strong so far, most are top rank, but there are numerous (10%) strong failures (a fourth fall short of desired scores).

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects (51):
+2: 30
+1: 9
0: 8
-1: 0
-2: 4
Strikingly good so far, over 3/4 positive.

Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (91):
+2: 38
+1: 10
0: 20
-1: 10
-2: 13
Quite mixed, leaning poor. Some great examples but nearly half are at odds with them.

The current published catalogue of Fires has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 18
+1: 170: 3
-1: 6
-2: 7
Leaning heavily positive.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 30
+1: 34
0: 12
-1: 6
-2: 2
Three-fourths are positive, which is a good showing.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 24
+1: 14
0: 8
-1: 3
-2: 10
Not bad, but a big surge in the -2 category. About two-thirds positive is OK.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 36
+1: 8
0: 16
-1: 6
-2: 14
As we keep seeing, this has some great examples and some disappointments and failures.

The current published catalogue of Bombs has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 9
+1: 7
0: 2
-1: 0
-2: 0
Leaning heavily positive.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 10
+1: 8
0: 7
-1: 6
-2: 1
Just over half a positive, a poorer showing than usual. This didn't look as good.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 9
+1: 3
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 4
About two-thirds are positive. Most of the -2 scores were from the same event.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 7
+1: 4
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 5
As we keep seeing, this has some great examples and some disappointments and failures. Here, exactly half have positive scores: the contacts overall are random.

What if you use the Vx and Azi for latitudes beyond a certain degree? I think there is a shift somewhere, from PV to Azi ... not sure where, but you might have an idea. When we get beyond 45° north or south? Or beyond 60°?

Based on single case observation that comes to mind, no, it makes no difference.

Notice, though, that Vertex functionality is not part of this thread study. That's from another thread where it failed. Miserably completely.

The current published catalogue of Vehicular Catastrophes has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 17
+1: 6
0: 3
-1: 1
-2: 3
Leaning heavily positive. Nearly all of them score well.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 32
+1: 15
0: 7
-1: 2
-2: 8
An excellent showing, with about three-fourths scoring positively.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 15
+1: 2
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 2
Over two-thirds are positive. Scores pretty well, as usual.

Azimuth Parallels to Meridian:
+2: 23
+1: 10
0: 9
-1:4
-2:6
Much better than usual, at almost 70%. Atypically good for this category.

Combining everything thus far gives this:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets (146):
+2: 75
+1:39
0: 10
-1: 67
-2: 15
Looks quite strong, top scores overwhelming everything else combined. Almost four-fifths positive.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects (336):
+2: 148
+1: 99
0: 45
-1: 16
-2: 28
Looks quite strong, top scores overwhelming everything else combined. About three-fourths positive. (Just a few too many -2 scores to be fully comfortable, but good.)

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects (151):
+2: 78
+1: 28
0: 20
-1: 5
-2: 20
Quite good so far, with about half at +2 and 70% positive.

Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (244):
+2: 104
+1: 32
0: 48
-1: 22
-2: 38
Quite mixed, leaning poorer. Some great examples but only half are satisfactory or better. The results seem pretty random. - I'm now finishing this category just for completeness, but it has been evident for quite a while that MAC is not something we can trust.

I've changed my mind. I'm not going to continue expending time testing MAC (Meridian Altitude Conjunction). The results so far have been mixed, all over the map - just the way that random results behave.

I have tabulated these for the catalogue bombs, coalmine disasters, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, vehicular catastrophes, and volcanoes. That's about 140 events. The results have been pretty consistent all the way through, from category to category, so there is sufficient homogeneity through the data and results examined.

The current published catalogue of Other Explosions has the following scores:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 7
+1: 7
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 1
Quite obviously a very positive, strong showing (over three-fourths).

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 19
+1: 9
0: 0
-1: 2
-2: 1
An excellent showing, with 90% scoring positively.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 13
+1: 3
0: 0
-1: 0
-2: 2
Nearly a perfect score. (The two negative scores are from the same chart.)

The current published catalogue of Impact Events has the following scores. (Partly because of their nature, and partly because of the small number, they are a strange set, though the basic trends persist.)

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 2
+1: 3
0: 2
-1: 1

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 8
+1: 8
0: 4
-1: 1
-2: 1

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 2
0: 1

The current published catalogue of Leader Deaths (and similar leader crises) has the following scores.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 11
+1: 1
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 1
Two-thirds are positive scores, all but one of those being +2.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 24
+1: 11
0: 5
-1: 2
-2: 2
A very strong showing, with 80% being positive, heavily weighted toward the high end of that.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 18
+1: 5
0: 6
-1: 3
-2: -1
Not as strong s this one usually is, I think, but hitting almost 70% positive.

The current published catalogue of events involving British Royalty has the following scores. They are quite poor - even astonishingly poor, compared to every other category examined thus far. In some cases, this can be traced to other concurrent events, but this isn't obvious for all of them. If I were to go by this one small chart collection alone, I would conclude that none of the "stretch" factors being studied has any value, especially the PV-based mundane aspects which have been performing so well otherwise.

For now, I will not include these numbers in the overall totals - they are such outliers that they skew the behavior observable in the others. Determining why they act this will have to be a separate exploration at a later time. Unless other categories (yet to be done) have similar behavior, these will get skipped.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 6
+1: 5
0: 0
-1: 2
-2: 4
The best of these, though a little high on the negatives.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 4
+1: 2
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 6
The negatives out-perform the positives!

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 1
+1: 2
0: 2
-1: 0
-2: 5
The -2 scores alone out-perform the positives, and make up half of the total examples.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:49 am
(I'll eventually publish a report that includes exactly what contacts and aspects occur in each case, so this information is available in the interim for all completed work.)

Thank you for exploring these, i understand how tedious and laborious it is, maybe you can advise me how to check ingresses contacts in a more efficient and faster way, do you use excel, what kind of spreadsheet have you designed for this type of research, im not good at creating a template to insert data in...

May i see a small portion of MAC distribution rating scores?

Thanks

UncleAries wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:11 pm Thank you for exploring these, i understand how tedious and laborious it is, maybe you can advise me how to check ingresses contacts in a more efficient and faster way, do you use excel, what kind of spreadsheet have you designed for this type of research, im not good at creating a template to insert data in...

I've just tabulated them in a Word file, then collated the scores at the end of each topic (which look like the numbers posted here). For checking them more efficiently, don't both with an analog chart, just open the chart in question, click Reports, and read the Altitude column.

May i see a small portion of MAC distribution rating scores?

OK, here are the volcano scores, where the same number of MAC contacts scored +1 or +2 as scored -1 or -2. We already know that volcano ingresses have a predominance of Mars and Saturn angularities, and an unusual shortage of Neptune and Moon contacts.

Here are the MAC results for the current small set of volcanos, and the scores I gave:

Mt. Vesuvius
CAPSOLAR: Neptune -1
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 Moon -1
CAPLUNAR: Mercury 0

Huaynaputina
CAPLUNAR: Neptune +1, Jupiter -2
[Despite Neptune being a non-volcano planet, I gave it a positive score here for some reason I don't remember, probably related to the local mania; but it probably should have been a -1. In fact, this might have been a simple mistake.]

Laki
CANSOLAR: Venus -2
CANLUNAR: Uranus +1

Krakatoa
(none)

Mt. Pelee
ARILUNAR: Jupiter -2

Mount St. Helens
ARISOLAR: Pluto +2
ARILUNAR: Jupiter -2, Mars +2

Nevado del Ruiz
LIBSOLAR: Jupiter -2


Sorting by planets, and remembering that aside from routine astrological principles we know to expect unusually high Mars and Saturn and unusually low Neptune and Moon, we get mostly Jupiter, followed by a tie of Mars and Neptune in the middle.

thanks, ill comment in the future regarding MAC's

im thinking of narrowing down a tighter definition of MAC...

the amount of hit contacts surprised me, too many, it's as if they're common or random as you call them....

What's really frustrating is that some of them are great. The Vesuvius Cansolar is stunning! And then we turn and find tons of Jupiters where they don't belong, and a consistent stream of Venuses where they don't belong and so many Suns (which normally get a 0/Neutral score) to make me wonder if there is a mathematical reason the Sun should be there so often. (I haven't found one that would make more than a slight difference, the answer is probably that there is not.)

i wish we had in astro software your "meridian longitude" z-analogue

im curious how the mac planets would look in them?!

we have zero support from software developers, sad state of affairs,
there just isnt any interest on their part bacause of financial reasons, no money to be made in western Sidereal astrology is what they feel

i agree with you that the existing system is strong and we are secure in it

but something is bugging me, like the capricorn ingresses having 90 or 91 percent accuracy, i always feel we should be around 94 95 96 percentile

we have to be on the lookout for that last angular framework if it exists, maybe a different breed of angularity compared to the known angles

what could we see in meridian longitude if we had it?
conjunctions, midpoints, parrallels, angularity contacts?

i hereby then propose a new tighter definition of Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (MAC) or we may even rename them later on

it goes like this

you need 2 factors to check in order to get angularity

1. you need at least 2 planets (never a single one) each on seperate side of meridian (1before 1after, or 1left 1 right side) in LONGITUDE!!! within 1 degree midpoint to the MC or IC

2. then you need those very same two or more planets to be conjunct the meridian in altitude z-analogue within 1 degree orb


this will probably remove at least 3/4 of all contacts if not more which makes sense, since MAC's are rare, we have standard angular frameworks which have higher frequency of angular hits, that's how it is suppose to be

this means in case of
Mt. Vesuvius
CAPSOLAR: Neptune -1
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 Moon -1
CAPLUNAR: Mercury 0

we are left with only
CANSOLAR: Saturn +2, Mars +2 !!

and this
viewtopic.php?p=10269#p10269

Jim Eshelman wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:15 pm

That's too bad for this current example in particular, because there were (literally) killer MAC contacts with both the Caplunar and Arilunar. Both had a Saturn-Pluto "conjunction" right on MC for Washington. This fits more or less every detail of the last week's events. For example, the Caplunar has altitudes of 27°43' for MC, 27°55' for Pluto, and 27°58' for Saturn. That's impressive! Except... we can't rely on it, because actual observed results have only been right about half the time. We don't get an easy answer from this one.

we have the angularity in the CAPLUNAR and not in the arilunar by the new definition!!!

this means MAC's are angular altitude meridian parallels (AMP?)

UncleAries wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:02 am but something is bugging me, like the capricorn ingresses having 90 or 91 percent accuracy, i always feel we should be around 94 95 96 percentile

The standard of viability for the different techniques has pretty consistently always been "about 7 out of 8), meaning abut 88% or better - some of them inching a bit up from that. That's actually a very high performance level IMHO. I think the key to "Why aren't they even better?" is that it's not about a single chart - it's about a chorus of charts converging and aligning to isolate a peak point.

Where we do get the numbers you are suggesting - the high end of your range and even a little better - is in this kind of convergence. Consider that each event has one or two charts applicable to it in each of three categories (solar, lunar, daily): A Year and Quarter chart among the solar ingresses, a Month and Week chart among the lunar ingresses, and the Capsolar set (CapQ & transits) and Cansolar set (CanQ & transits) among the dailies. There is a very sweet result obtained when we ask the question: How many events have at least one solar, one lunar, and one daily supporting the event?

Of 301 events in the current catalogue, 97% have the solar ingresses meet this criterion (either the Year chart or the Quarter chart is descriptive), 96% have either the Month or Week chart hit it, and 99% (298 out of 301) have either the Capsolar dailies or Cansolar dailies hit it. The system is more complicated than a single chart or a strict hierarchy of "has to show top to bottom."

Only 92% have one from each column - one solar, one lunar, one daily - although the phrase "only 92%" is kinda silly IMHO, since that's a very high level of predictability. When we only require that two of the three categories show the event, this number naturally goes higher. You may remember that in the earliest editions of SMA I had an appendix showing just the results from two factors, the most recent non-dormant lunar ingress and the CapQ results, and these two things alone were showing nearly everything quite clearly - they are still the two highest scoring individual techniques. Well, when we ask, "How many of the events have a lunar and a daily showing?" - meaning, either the Month or Week chart AND either the Cap or Can dailies - we get 95%.

It's in the convergence, in the chorus of voices finding a matching theme. One chart alone won't do it.

we have to be on the lookout for that last angular framework if it exists, maybe a different breed of angularity compared to the known angles

Well, there are a few techniques that are proving worthy add-ons, especially the idea - not as angularity, but as aspects - that mundane aspects between the prime vertical and horizon or meridian are valid. These are performing very well. Even with that, I don't know that it will tip the percentages up much, but it might tip it a percent or two. I'm in the middle of a nearly one-year project to address this exact question (i.e., of these supplemental ways of looking).

We also need to be careful, though, not to bloat the system. The charts have to be capable of failing, for example, otherwise it all turns into a bad joke (as do we).

what could we see in meridian longitude if we had it?

Exact orbs of mundane squares between planets on the prime vertical and planets on the horizon. As it is, I can estimate these pretty close (maybe very close) by interfacing PV amplitude of one with altitude of the other, but that would really be all. We aren't going to get more angularity, because we already have easy ways to calculate planets on the meridian, planets on the horizon, and planets on the prime vertical.

[quote[conjunctions, midpoints, parrallels, angularity contacts?[/quote]
None of those. Only mundane squares between horizon and PV.

UncleAries wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:01 am i hereby then propose a new tighter definition of Meridian Altitude Conjunctions (MAC) or we may even rename them later on

I'm dropping it. I'm done with it. Please take further discussion out of this thread (which is meant mostly as a catalogue and report of the findings in the current project) and back to the MAC thread.

I could search through my tabulations and find charts that meet your criteria, but it would take me an hour or two to tabulate them all from the lists, and I just don't feel like giving another hour of my life to this.

you need 2 factors to check in order to get angularity

I don't think that matches what has shown so far. There are almost no occasions of that, and, besides, these are such supplemental shadings that they don't really affect the overall rankings (which seem to concern you).

No fair using the Vesuvius chart against me BTW, since I'm the one who singled it out to you as a striking example

(I was going to do a spot test of the Fires on your new definition, until I read it further. I can't do it from the collated data, and would have to recalculate every damn chart all over again, and in a more complicated form than I did before. I'm not going to do that.)

In contrast to the last group, the current published catalogue of War & Peace events were remarkably good!

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 11
+1: 7
0: 0
-1: 1
-2: 3
Over 80% in the positives.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 40
+1: 20
0: 9
-1: 1
-2: 4
Again, over 80% - but these numbers seem huge!

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 25
+1: 9
0: 3
-1: 1
-2: 3
And again, over 80%. These numbers are big!

what kind of aspects and orbs are you using for
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects

0 90 180?
3 degrees?

UncleAries wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2017 12:06 am what kind of aspects and orbs are you using for
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects

0 90 180?
3 degrees?

Exactly the same as the standard for any aspects in ingresses: 4° for conjunctions and oppositions (weakening after 3°, but counting them for this purpose) and 3° for squares.

For example, I'm currently working through "Other Warlike Actions." Here are the additional test items extracted for the 9/11 attack for Washington:

Year: Capsolar
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Mars-Uranus square 0°10' +2
Jupiter-Saturn conjunction 3°40' +1

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects
Venus-Saturn square 1°59' in azimuth +2

Quarter: Cansolar
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
Pluto opposes Venus 0°09' +2
Pluto conjoins Mars 2°16' +2
Pluto opposes Saturn 2°08' +2

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Uranus-Pluto square 1°27' +2

Month: Caplunar
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
Mars squares Mercury 1°41' +2

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects
Mars-Uranus square 2°31' +2
Saturn-Neptune square 0°28' +2

Summary
Aspects by Non-Angular Planets: +2 +2 +2 +2
Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects: +2 +2 +2 +2 +1
Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects: +2

These, though few, were quite good.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 8
+1: 3
0: 2
-1: 0
-2: 0
Over 80% in the positives, and no negatives.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 3
0: 3
-1: 3
-2: 2
Heavily weighted to very high scores, with about two-thirds positive.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 2
0: 2
-1: 1
-2: 0
Over 80% positive, with nearly all in +2. However, nearly all of those were from one single, extraordinary chart.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:59 am Exactly the same as the standard for any aspects in ingresses: 4° for conjunctions and oppositions (weakening after 3°, but counting them for this purpose) and 3° for squares.

I know you are busy, but how certain are you that mundane aspects have the same orb as longitudinal when it comes to ingresses but then again maybe the orbs are around 3 degree for natal charts as well?

You now have 547 Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects analyzed.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, unless it would take you too much time, to ignore these 547 aspect withing 1 degree orb, only taking aspects from 1 degree onward to check if the score would be similar to the 1 degree maximum orb? or maybe 1.00-2.00deg, 2.00-3.00deg?

You are probably the only astrologer who has the data and the opportunity to determine the orbs for pv mundo aspects once and for good?

How would an astrologer attempt to determine the orbs for pv mundo aspects, im just thinking out loud?

In my opinion the cutoff degree must exist and that cutoff line must be sharp, severe and not gradual like the normal aspects?

What do you think?

Quite strange. I answered this at great length this morning, and now the answer isn't here. (Did I not hit Submit, or it didn't save to the db correctly?)

I'm not going to do it twice.

The current published catalogue of populist uprisisings, revolts, riots, and their suppression are in some respects excellent, in some respects sketchy.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 7
+1: 7
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 2
Only two-thirds positive with no natural scaling between +2 and +1. Unusually poor for this category.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 22
+1: 7
0: 5
-1: 0
-2: 2
Heavily weighted to very high scores, with 80% positive (mostly +2).

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 26
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 0
-2: 1
Over 90% positive, with nearly all in +2. One of the best showings in the whole study.

I probably will regret derailing this thread further by posting this here, but I just took an hour and ranked the non-foreground mundane aspects in the catalogue Fires by orb, then (in full-degree increments) compared how they did.

If we didn't already have abundant evidence pinning the general range of orb drop-off for this type of chart, this would give us many of the same perspectives that we presently have.

The most important facts that emerge are that plus-scores overall stay at about the same frequency out to the orbs we're using (3° for squares, 4° for conjunctions and oppositions), but shift around to where more charts are +1 instead of +2 as the orb increases.

One shouldn't over-emphasize this in the last degree of the orb, because I intentionally score lower in that range. (A "seems descriptive, but doesn't knock'm dead" aspect at a wide orb is less persuasive, commanding, and relevant to practical work than the same aspect in a closer orb). Therefore, the tail end of this is caused by the evaluator intentionally.

Combining +2 and +1 scores together for this group ogf aspects, they account for 74% of non=foreground mundane aspects within 1°, 86% within 2°, 75% within 3°, and 71% within 4° (all of which are conjunctions or oppositions). Notice that they all remain high, and that, to the extent there is variation, the orbs peak somewhere past 2° ("two-something) and continue down a bit from there.

But there is distinction between the +2 and +1 scores.

+2 scored aspects made up 47% of the aspects within 1°, 43% within 2° (where they tied the +1 aspects), 33% within 3°, and 18% within 4° - a soft, smooth tapering from first to last (though with the last entry being somewhat intentionally induced).

In contrast, +1 aspects made up 26% of aspects within 1°, 43% within 2°, 42% within 3°, and 53% within 4°.

The neutral values (0) went 5%. 10%. 21%, 18% which might mean that the wider the orb, the less sharp and definitive its meaning, with, again, the "two-something" range starting to show some degradation.

The negative numbers were consistently small throughout,

NB - I'll keep this word file of the tallies around for a day or two before I delete it in case there is some reason to revisit it.

thanks for this, the score tapering frequency looks nice and stable

The current published catalogue of Mass Murders has the following scores.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 19
+1: 6
0: 0
-1: 0
-2: 4
Over 85% are positive scores, two-thirds of them +2.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 21
+1: 16
0: 3
-1: 4
-2: 3
A very strong showing, with almost 80% being positive.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 12
+1: 7
0: 3
-1: 2
-2: 4
Not as strong as this one usually is. Two-thirds are positive scores.

The current published catalogue of Massacres has the following scores.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 8
+1: 8
0: 1
-1: 2
-2: 0
Almost 85% are positive scores. Atypically, the +2 and +1 are tied: the aspects were not as often loudly vivid as in other sets.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 16
+1: 10
0: 3
-1: 4
-2: 1
A strong showing, with about 75% being positive. These were more "relaxed" than in other sets/

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 2
+1: 1
0: 1
-1: 1
-2: 0
There weren't as many of these as usual, and they weren't automatic slam-dunk correct.

The current published catalogue of Space Missions has the following scores. Perhaps because of the small number, or because they are quite a different sort of event, the numbers are noticeably poorer than usual.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 10
+1: 12
0: 5
-1: 1
-2: 1
About 75% are positive, the best feature of this set but lower than we have been seeing for this category of aspect.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 5
+1: 2
0: 0
-1: 2
-2: 3
Just over half (7 out of 12) are positive. These didn't fare so well.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 2
+1: 1
0: 0
-1: 1
-2: 2
And here we only get 50%.

The current published catalogue of Structural Collapses (excluding the two that were also in other categogies, viz., Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11) has the following scores.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 7
+1: 9
0: 4
-1: 2
-2: 3
Only about two-thirds are positive, much lower than usual.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 15
+1: 8
0: 3
-1: 1
-2: 5
About 70% are positive, which, again, is a bit worse than usual.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 5
+1: 2
0: 1
-1: 0
-2: 1
Though this is a higher ration, the overall numbers are quite small.

The current published catalogue of Financial Crises/Panics has the following scores.

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets
+2: 22
+1: 13
0: 1
-1: 0
-2: 1
95% of these are positive, with nearly two-thirds of them at +2.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects:
+2: 24
+1: 14
0: 7
-1:1
-2: 7
About 70% are positive, which is a bit worse than usual.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects:
+2: 13
+1: 5
0: 1
-1: 0
-2: 1
There weren't many of these overall but, where they existed, 90% were positive and two-thirds were at +2.

Combining everything thus far gives this:

Aspects by Non-Angular Planets (402):
+2: 193
+1: 120
0: 33
-1: 21
-2: 35
78% are positive. Almost half (48%) are +2.

Non-Foreground Mundane Aspects (761):
+2: 358
+1: 209
0: 90
-1: 39
-2: 65
75% are positive. Almost half (47%) are +2.

Vertex-Related Mundane Aspects (371):
+2: 209
+1: 67
0: 41
-1: 14
-2: 40
75% are positive. Over half (56%) are +2

I began this project in June, and it has taken many months. I knew the basic conclusions would be when I was about half-at through, but needed to finish anyway.

We began studying four techniques. One of these (Meridian Altitude Conjunction) was eliminated early. The other three techniques, though, have been substantiated as having high reliability for solar and lunar ingresses for the major events in our current catalogue.

Additionally, subjective observation (while scoring these techniques) has given fair insight into how they behave in practice.

The Best: PVP Aspects
The best of the three features, and the most important find, are what I hereby dub PVP aspects. "PVP" stands for "Prime Vertical Parans."

In an ideal world, these would not require a new name. They are simply another variation of mundane conjunctions, oppositions, and squares. However, since there is no direct way to calculate half of these special aspects, I will need a terse term when referencing them. They are mundane aspects formed by one planet on the prime vertical great circle, and another planet on either the horizon, meridian, or prime vertical.

To put it bluntly, these are viable aspects that need to be taken as seriously as any other aspects in these ingresses. I have been using them in monthly mundane forecasts for a couple of months, referring to them vaguely as "hidden aspects." Of 371 of these aspects in the event catalogue, 209 had a +2 score and 67 had a +1 score. This still leaves 20% that were neutral or wrong symbolism but, in context of a full chart, that isn't that different from other aspects. (One aspect rarely makes a whole chart.)

Solidly Reliable: Modifying Aspects
Historically, we were only able to validate that aspects between two foreground / angular planets were valid in these ingresses. A question left pending was the extent to which angular planets are modified by other aspects (by non-foreground planets).

The evidence confirms that they are, indeed, so modified. For example, if Jupiter is exactly rising in an ingress for a financial crisis, and that Jupiter is squared by a non-foreground Saturn, it expresses as an afflicted or damaged Jupiter and the symbolism is valid.

Notice that this is not the same as saying that the Jupiter-Saturn per se is valid. The expression often will be different from that, because (to stick with the example) it is an afflicted Jupiter rather than pure (equal) Jupiter-Saturn aspect. It would be quite different if it were the other way around, and an angular Saturn were squared by a non-angular Jupiter (which would make a "good Saturn" instead of a "bad Jupiter)").

These aspects are nearly always relevant. However, they have to be understood as supplemental to the primary indications of the chart. Rarely would they reverse the meaning of the primary indicators (though my example above is one where it does reverse the meaning). I generally advise interpreting the ingress chart in the ordinary way - interpreting the closest foreground planets, aspects between all foreground planets, all close Moon aspects, and then shading the nuances with more widely angular planets) before considering these modifications of angular planets by non-foreground planets.

Something observed throughout is that widely foreground planets are modified by these aspects just as much as closely foreground planets. I'll start listing these as SMA as "Background X aspects [angular planet]," just to have some consistent language.

Out of 402 such aspects in the current catalogue, 193 (almost half) scored +2 and another 120 scored +1. This comes to 78%.

Shadings from Distinctive Mundane Aspects
Something I theoretically thought was probably legitimate and valuable does indeed seem to be though I urge you to consider it as a shading, rather than a fully equal aspect. In fact, you might want to ignore it.

Among non-lunar ecliptical aspects, only those that are foreground are reliable. In fact, it is quite common to have totally wrong, unfitting aspects in an ingress but non-angular.

But mundane aspects bring a different consideration. They are geographically limited: They do not exist for all parts of the world, but only to certain regions, We don't have a means of charting the geographic area where they are in orb, but we do have easy ways to identify them in a particular chart for a particular place.

Because they are geographically distinctive, it occurred to me that these mundane aspects distinguish a particular place just as much as angularity does. Therefore, in theory, they would be meaningful, regardless of whether they are angular.

It turns out that this is the case. If a close conjunction, opposition, or square exists in the mundoscope of an ingress, but not in the horoscope, then it is active and meaningful. However, I wouldn't start reading the ingress from such aspects - I would do the entire core interpretation first and then add these for additional information or refinement. They are usually such subtle shadings that one could be easily forgiven (and perhaps even praised) for ignoring them.

Occasionally, they seem even stronger than that. In the Financial Panics data, a surprising number of ingresses have a close mundane Sun-Saturn aspect when there is no ecliptical Sun-Saturn aspect. Most of those charts showed extreme anxiety, economic issues, and crisis anyway, but the addition of even a non-foreground mundane Sun-Saturn aspect just topped the sundae with a cherry.

Of 761 such aspects in the current data set, 358 (almost half) scored +2, and 209 scored +1. That's 75%, which is pretty good. But, as we move into the negative scores, the -2 occurrences nearly doubled the -1 (almost 10%), and there were a lot of neutral scores. This is the one validated system that, nonetheless, seemed easiest to set aside, most likely to occasionally screw up (usually badly). Therefore, I suggest that you be willing to add details to a scenario or not - use these aspects or not - as judgement suggests.

This is the end of this project. Now I have to gear up for a very large rewrite of SMA.

Been busy with business lately-but finally finishing-up. Jim, your tireless research in this area is appreciated. I only wish I understood better certain technical issues involving mundoscope. Are you saying we need to pay closer attention to partile pv 'rotational' mundo square aspects to the angles, which I guess is an actual paran seen in a hidden pv mundo square. I probably used the wrong terminology with my question--hope you know what I am asking. Or, is a pv partile mundo rotational square aspect actually seen in an A*C*G Map with an exact location 'line crossing' on the A*C*G Map? When you have time, could you offer us folks with SF instructions how to easily identify partile pv rotational mundo square aspects with the mundoscope, without the A*C*G Map?