Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

I think the Democrats will win a majority in the House but the Republicans will retain a Senate majority. I also think the House will impeach sometime after it convenes in 2019; and I think the Senate will convict. Astrologically, what surprises me is the delay I foresee – the likeliest time for Trump’s conviction, it seems to me, is the last few days of June, 2019. The 28th is a Friday, but in extraordinary circumstances they would remain in session on the weekend. I haven't narrowed it down more precisely than that.

Bear in mind that Trump has a long-term conjunction from secondary Venus to natal Jupiter, providing him with his notable teflon.

55 days passed between the impeachment of Clinton by the House and the not guilty verdict of the Senate. Some of the gap is explicable by the winter holiday –- Clinton was impeached six days before Christmas. Had the impeachment occurred during an active segment of the calendar the 55-delay would probably have been truncated by, say, two weeks (thus maybe 41 days).

Presuming a 41-day interval between impeachment and conviction (as a first approximate) and a conviction in the last few days of June, this places the impeachment in mid-May. I don’t know why four months would pass between the beginning of the House’s 2019 session and the impeachment, but that’s what the astrology suggests to me.

I’ll post my reasons for the late-June conviction in a future post; I have no reason for the mid-May impeachment, however, except the internal timing of the process described above.

I believe this prediction is wrong, though the astrology seem right. I can't conceive of a Senate controlled by the currently existing Republican party convicting Trump by the required two-thirds vote no matter what evidence, unless it is part of an agreed stratagem to elevate Mike Pence. So unless Pence is removed first, and not replaced by an even worse hard-core "conservative", I devoutly don't want it to be true. You say Trump ain't great, and I give you that. He's a loose cannon, but he sometimes does something good for us by luck. President Pence never will. The man has absolutely drunk the Koch brother's Kool-Aid. To the extent he can, Pence will enact a liberal's (or a real conservative's!) worst nightmares. It's bad now, but we aren't quite to Heil Trump in this country. Make him President, and how long until Heil Pence?

Clay_Reed wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:01 pm I’ll post my reasons for the late-June conviction in a future post; I have no reason for the mid-May impeachment, however, except the internal timing of the process described above.

I think the first few months of the new Congress will be taken up setting things to rights again. Only after they have the country back on track will they take up rooting out the cause of the trouble. They'll probably also wait for co-conspiritors to be tried and sentenced.

mikestar13 wrote: Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:58 am You say Trump ain't great

No, I don't -- I say nothing about Trump other than my comment about his progressed Venus to natal Jupiter.

The math is hard for some of what I'll present, since I use a handheld calculator. I'll try to get around to it within a couple days.

Clay, I did not mean to suggest you personally said anything pro or con about Trump, My intention with "You say Trump..." was to address the fair number of readers who would describe themselves as Trump critics. You have identified yourself as neither a critic nor a supporter of Trump, but present your astrological findings objectively. I apologize for not making that clear.

For several months I've kept meaning to slightly modify my prediction above, changing it from "the last few days of June" to the period June 25 to July 5, 2019, with the crucial period centering on July 4th (when, presumably, the Senate would not be in session due to the holiday).

I still don't feel like doing the calculator math to give exact numbers, but I'll find my notes and list the factors I focussed on, when I get around to it.

Several notes: I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

I ignore houses and signs, but of course use angularity (or lack of it).

I use only the lights and the eight planets.

Returns are precession-corrected (or, if you prefer, sidereal).

I do not use the PSSR, but do focus strongly on quotidians (of the birth chart, the solar return, and the lunar return) IF there is a transiting planet on a quotidian angle.

I measure orb by the difference in clock-time between planets hitting angles at a given location, not by ecliptical degrees.

I ignore rulerships (the dumbest thing in astrology).

I use location rather than birthplace, though location is more fluid for the President -- still, Washington DC is the best spot (it's not far, also, from New York, the financial center).

I use the Boyd chart for the USA.

Forgot to mention:

The only aspects I use are conjunctions, oppositions, and parans (very occasionally, squares, with low orbs -- mostly in natal or radical charts, rarely in transits or progressions).

Orbs should be at MOST 4 degrees, preferably less than 1.5ish ....

Above I wrote: "I measure orb by the difference in clock-time between planets hitting angles at a given location, not by ecliptical degrees." Here, I'm referring to "square" parans, i.e. parans formed between the horizon and the meridian. As for "conjunction" and "opposition" parans, this clock-time orb is relevant only if the paran is angular (whereas, for "square" parans, they don't have to be angular). For ordinary non-paran aspects, I use degrees of longitude. (Sorry, but yet another exception: Pluto's conjunctions and oppositions, I think, should be measured in RA not longitude.)

Clay wrote:

I foresee – the likeliest time for Trump’s conviction, it seems to me, is the last few days of June, 2019.

Clay, right or wrong, I look forward to you going through your astrological thought processes for your astrological prediction for a Trump conviction in late June 2019. I note Trump has a vicious SLR for June 16 2019. Is this June 16 SLR the main chart for your prediction?

Isn't djt's 2019 SR on June 15?

Jambo wrote: Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:37 pm Isn't djt's 2019 SR on June 15?

Trump will have an SSR (Sidereal Solar Return) on June 14, 2019.
Trump will have an SLR (Sidereal Lunar Return) on June 16, 2019.

Jambo asked:

Isn't djt's 2019 SR on June 15?

Yes, but his June 16 Sidereal Lunar Return is on June 16 with viscous angular planetary symbolism.

Clay_Reed wrote: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:49 pm Several notes: I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

Most people can't see that issue for anything. Those issues are not exactly widely available.
If you own the copyrights on these articles, perhaps you'd like to re-publish them here.

Returns are precession-corrected (or, if you prefer, sidereal).

Yes, we prefer. This site is for the study and growth of Sidereal astrology. (see up at the top of the page where it says exactly that.

I measure orb by the difference in clock-time between planets hitting angles at a given location, not by ecliptical degrees.

Are you using a speculum? Or something else?

I use location rather than birthplace, though location is more fluid for the President -- still, Washington DC is the best spot (it's not far, also, from New York, the financial center).

I tend to prefer location over birthplace as well. I will check birthplace angles, but it's not a given for me.

Thanks for explaining what you do. It helps to know. Sometimes people just surprise us, and then won't answer questions when asked about things that aren't our usual practice (although I suspect your practice is closer to ours). It's really nice to have someone who's willing (and able) to share their methodology.

SteveS wrote: Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:55 pm Jambo asked:

Isn't djt's 2019 SR on June 15?

Yes, but his June 16 Sidereal Lunar Return is on June 16 with viscous angular planetary symbolism.

Yes, the June 16 SLR is quite savage. With Uranus exactly on IC, there is a Mercury-Mars opposite Saturn-Pluto foreground. Only a background Moon-Jupiter conjunction gives it a bit of relief. His Saturn is in the mix as well.

So that gives a bad start to his new year. The new year, though, isn't so bad. His June 15 SSR is certainly the best he's had since he's been in the White House simply because it isn't bad. It's worst feature is Moon square his Mars, which could be simply him making our lives miserable. It's strongest feature is Uranus on Eastpoint, which, as I said, isn't bad. All the rough stuff is background. Once he clears the first four weeks, there is not much in his way.

SteveS wrote: Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:59 am your astrological prediction for a Trump conviction in late June 2019

Please see what I wrote above: "the period June 25 to July 5, 2019, with the crucial period centering on July 4th"

Clay wrote:

I use the Boyd chart for the USA.

Very interesting Clay. Even if you are off in time with your prediction for ‘conviction by senate’ the 2019 Sidereal Solar Return for the Boyd Chart (see link below) is striking and most interesting. Never in the history of the USA has the senate convicted a Prez on impeachment. But first, the new Congress must impeach Trump. I know this: If the new Congress impeaches Trump, I damn sure would be very interested in Vegas odds for a conviction by Senate.

https://imgur.com/a/aaFYDqm

Clay, I don’t know if you have read Jim’s free book on Sidereal Mundane Astrology, if not, I highly recommend. Below is a link to the June 12 2019 DC Liblunar chart. It’s the most malefic DC Cardinal Lunar Ingress I have ever witness. I find it very interesting this Liblunar is happening very close to your predicted time frame for this topic.

https://imgur.com/a/TMvcNrK

For many years I wrote the "Tomorrow's News" article every month for American Astrology magazine. I developed my own techniques based upon what did and didn't work, since I wanted to occasionally make correct predictions (and I did -- not at all rarely). I do not use capsolars or caplunars or any ingress charts. I do not think they are meaningful. I don't accept Allen/Bradley's original determination of the fiducial, which I believe was based on bad statistics and wishful thinking (rainfall relative to progressed ingresses? Really?). I think the ancient fiducial was simply the Aldebaran/Antares axis, and Allen/Bradley's arrival at the same conclusion was more luck than anything else. The fiducial is of no interest to me except historically.

On a similar subject, I proposed the only good explanation for traditional sign-rulerships that I've ever read: rulerships were based on a length-of-sunlight to speed-of-planet correlation in the Age of Taurus, with the modern Sun rulership actually a Moon rulership ... because, among things, the Sun defines the whole system and thus should not be included in its schema. Rulerships, in other words, were a function of declination, not longitude. Note: this was in the northern hemisphere.

SteveS wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:37 am the 2019 Sidereal Solar Return for the Boyd Chart

see the previous Boyd LR for DC. Transiting Mercury/Mars conjunction opposite t. Saturn/Pluto conjunction, foregrounded (or almost, for the latter) in conjunction/opposition to the Boyd Sun, with the Boyd Mars/Saturn rising (Boyd Saturn more or less partile on the ascendant; I haven't done the RA/declination precession-correction and other math necessary to be sure). This is just one detail.

See also the quotidian progression of this LR for t. Saturn/Pluto opposite Boyd Sun on the MH/IC (in mundo, of course), IIRC. Just one more detail.

Clay_Reed wrote: Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:32 pm see the previous Boyd LR for DC. Transiting Mercury/Mars conjunction opposite t. Saturn/Pluto conjunction, foregrounded (or almost, for the latter) in conjunction/opposition to the Boyd Sun, with the Boyd Mars/Saturn rising (Boyd Saturn more or less partile on the ascendant; I haven't done the RA/declination precession-correction and other math necessary to be sure).

I can save you a little legwork. I assume you're using a 15° bound for foreground (I cut it off at 10°), but here's what you've got:

r Saturn on Asc -0°49'
r Mars on Asc +4°00'
t Mercury on MC -8°13'
r Sun on MC -12°39'
t Mars on MC -12°43'
t Saturn on IC -14°08'

t Mars conj. r Sun 0°04' in mundo, 0°05' in eclipto
t Mars-Saturn op. 1°20'
t Saturn op. r Sun 1°25'
t Mercury conj. r Mars 4°13' in mundo
t Mercury-Mars conj. 4°22'
t Mercury conj. r Sun 4°17'

Moon-Pluto sq. 0°25' in mundo, 1°41' in eclipto

Thank you, Jim. Also, about 18.1 degrees for t. Pluto, meaning about 19 days after the LR simple date for the quotidian transit of Pluto to the LR angle, more or less. Glad to see my partile estimate of r. Saturn's angularity was correct, since it is unlikely I'll ever do the tedious math to check it.

For my rulership theory (mentioned above, and again, as mentioned, I think rulerships are BS) see p. 56 of the March 1992 issue of American Astrology.

Clay_Reed wrote: Tue Dec 25, 2018 2:57 am Glad to see my partile estimate of r. Saturn's angularity was correct, since it is unlikely I'll ever do the tedious math to check it.

Oh, we can make it way easier. We have a spreadsheet that you can set up for a given chart one time and then change one number for ach new chart. You can get it, and see the layers of development, here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1544

Thanks Clay. A Siderealist colleague who taught me a-lot of Sidereal Astrology was able to follow all of your articles in America Astrology Mag, and told me he was very impressed with your articles. I wish I had all of your articles where I could study.

Below link is Boyd’s July 9th 2019 SLR located to DC. I see Moon partile SLR MC and Pluto partile SLR East Point, a very potent aspect for a possible ‘stunning/shocking incident. Saturn partile 180 Boyd’s Sun. Thanks for posting this most interesting Topic. Clay, do you still have copies of all your American Astrology articles?

https://imgur.com/a/CwQEuNe

Clay_Reed wrote: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:49 pm For several months I've kept meaning to slightly modify my prediction above, changing it from "the last few days of June" to the period June 25 to July 5, 2019, with the crucial period centering on July 4th (when, presumably, the Senate would not be in session due to the holiday).

I still don't feel like doing the calculator math to give exact numbers, but I'll find my notes and list the factors I focussed on, when I get around to it.

Several notes: I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

I ignore houses and signs, but of course use angularity (or lack of it).

I use only the lights and the eight planets.

Returns are precession-corrected (or, if you prefer, sidereal).

I do not use the PSSR, but do focus strongly on quotidians (of the birth chart, the solar return, and the lunar return) IF there is a transiting planet on a quotidian angle.

I measure orb by the difference in clock-time between planets hitting angles at a given location, not by ecliptical degrees.

I ignore rulerships (the dumbest thing in astrology).

I use location rather than birthplace, though location is more fluid for the President -- still, Washington DC is the best spot (it's not far, also, from New York, the financial center).

I use the Boyd chart for the USA.

Hi, Clay. I remember reading an article by you featuring the Boyd chart in the 1983 issue of American Astrology Digest, I think it was. I liked the Boyd chart too until I discovered a letter dated July 6, 1775 written by John Adams that said Congress spent the “whole day” debating the Declaration on Taking Arms (DOTA). If Congress commenced at 9 a.m. as it normally did and approved DOTA at 11 a.m., that could hardly be called a “whole day.” I now prefer a chart created by Wayne Turner, once a regular contributor to this forum. Wayne used July 6, 1775, 4:52 p.m. LMT or if you prefer, 4:47:47 p.m. Local Apparent Time, the official time zone for Philadelphia in 1775. You can read the letter John Adams wrote here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... dg001528))

Secretary Charles Thomson kept a record of every important thing that went on in Congress. DOTA was the only resolution Congress dealt with on July 6, the only other item occurring at the end of the session ordering a letter be prepared thanking certain Brits for their support. The debate over DOTA took so long the order of the day, a daily schedule of items for Congress to act upon, was cancelled. You can read Thomson’s record of what happened on July 6 here.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... (jc00254))
All available evidence seems to suggest that DOTA couldn’t possibly have been adopted at 11:00 a.m. What do you think?

Gary asked:

What do you think?

The actual time for an important national chart has always been a perplexing question among astrologers’ Gary. I certainly understand your link presentation that the 11:00 AM time for the Boyd chart is not right, makes damn good common sense. But I ask myself if this 11:00 AM chart can’t be right—why did Boyd & Brigadier Firebrace (a Siderealist) endorse an 11:00 AM time? Rectification is a very tricky business, something I never have put much stock in, but I have always respected with an open mind the rectifications of other astrologer’s opinions for an accurate timed national chart. There is one thing I know for sure: The Boyd Chart is a Declaration of War Chart declaring a certain Independence. It makes practical sense to me—if we want to use a possible accurate clock time for the Boyd chart, we need to first look at 1941 when USA declared war on Japan and other nations. I took the Boyd time of 11:00 AM and looked closely at Sidereal Astrology’s methodology of Solar Return quotidians for the day of declaring war, and came-up with a big Bingo in my mind the 11:00 AM being spot-on, but with the reservation—rectification is very tricky for the astrologer. My big mental Bingo using the 11:00 AM time certainly does not mean I right the 11:00 AM time is correct.

I never knew Clay used the 11:00 AM time for his work with mundane affairs in USA until AFTER I used my own test for the 11:00 AM. I know this: What few AA articles I have read by Clay has impressed the Hell out of me, and I wish I had all his articles for a serious personal study, being able to ask Clay questions about things I did not clearly understand about his work. I have not looked a Wayne’s 4:52 LMT, but I will seriously look at for the year 1941 using USA Declaration of War on Japan using certain Principles (Charts) for Sidereal Astrology. Gary, please present your beliefs using Wayne’s rectified time for certain events in USA. This is what a forum is all about—learning from others, and is certainly how I have learned much with Jim’s forum. It’s the only Sidereal Astrology forum in existence.

SteveS wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:25 am Gary asked:

What do you think?

The actual time for an important national chart has always been a perplexing question among astrologers’ Gary. I certainly understand your link presentation that the 11:00 AM time for the Boyd chart is not right, makes damn good common sense. But I ask myself if this 11:00 AM chart can’t be right—why did Boyd & Brigadier Firebrace (a Siderealist) endorse an 11:00 AM time? Rectification is a very tricky business, something I never have put much stock in, but I have always respected with an open mind the rectifications of other astrologer’s opinions for an accurate timed national chart. There is one thing I know for sure: The Boyd Chart is a Declaration of War Chart declaring a certain Independence. It makes practical sense to me—if we want to use a possible accurate clock time for the Boyd chart, we need to first look at 1941 when USA declared war on Japan and other nations. I took the Boyd time of 11:00 AM and looked closely at Sidereal Astrology’s methodology of Solar Return quotidians for the day of declaring war, and came-up with a big Bingo in my mind the 11:00 AM being spot-on, but with the reservation—rectification is very tricky for the astrologer. My big mental Bingo using the 11:00 AM time certainly does not mean I right the 11:00 AM time is correct.

I never knew Clay used the 11:00 AM time for his work with mundane affairs in USA until AFTER I used my own test for the 11:00 AM. I know this: What few AA articles I have read by Clay has impressed the Hell out of me, and I wish I had all his articles for a serious personal study, being able to ask Clay questions about things I did not clearly understand about his work. I have not looked a Wayne’s 4:52 LMT, but I will seriously look at for the year 1941 using USA Declaration of War on Japan using certain Principles (Charts) for Sidereal Astrology. Gary, please present your beliefs using Wayne’s rectified time for certain events in USA. This is what a forum is all about—learning from others, and is certainly how I have learned much with Jim’s forum. It’s the only Sidereal Astrology forum in existence.

Steve, you asked me to present my beliefs using July 6, 1775, 4:52 LMT for certain events in the USA. Initially, I was trying to test the belief among some horoscopists that Saturn represents the Dems and Jupiter the GOP. At first, I used a time of 5:25 p.m. LAT and noticed that every time Saturn occupied a Gauquelin plus zone (Gauquelin plus zones often coincide with what siderealists called the foreground) and Jupiter the background in an SSR based on this day and time, Dems made political gains or at least, maintained power and every time Jupiter transited a Gauquelin plus zone and Saturn the background in an SSR based on this day and time, the GOP did the same, results that seemed to confirm the tradition that Jupiter represents the party of Lincoln and Saturn the party of Truman, a belief I adopted in the July 2, 2008 issue of Today’s Astrologer in which just prior to the 2008 election I predicted the Dems would maintain control of Congress and might make significant gains in both houses, a prediction based on Saturn rising and Jupiter occupying a minus zone in the 2008 SSR.

My forecast proved accurate and in the February/March 2010 issue of The Mountain Astrologer, I demonstrated how Saturn and Jupiter worked their political magic from 1952 until 2008. Sometime after this issue hit the newsstands, I heard from Wayne Turner who told me he preferred a time of 4:52 p.m. LMT for the Declaration on Taking Arms (DOTA). I found Wayne’s chart impressive. The two warrior planets, Mars and Jupiter conjoined exactly the angles Midheaven and Descendant respectively. Solar returns based on Wayne’s chart upheld the Jupiter/Republican and Saturn/Democrat tradition, placing Jupiter and Saturn closer to the angles than the 5:25 p.m. chart, the election of 2018 being a prime example. The USA 2018 SSR based on Wayne’s chart featured Saturn separating less than 2 degrees from Midheaven and a journey into a minus zone greatly diminished Jupiter’s influence, a sure indication the Dems would regain some of the political power they had previously lost and of course, by winning a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years, they did.

The following is a link to an article I wrote for the ISAR Journal several years ago when I was still using 5:25 p.m. for DOTA. After this article was published, I received an email from a well-known tropicalist saying that by using DOTA instead of the Declaration of Independence for a USA chart I was trying to reinvent the wheel.
https://www.isarastrology.com/news/472/ ... -horoscope

Thanks Gary, I am always interested in statistical work like your work. I have not studied you work but knew you were a long time publishing astrologer. Please post as much as you possible can about your work—I am retired and a Virgo and love to spend my retired time researching/analyzing all kind serious astrological work pertaining to predictions, and love to analyze predictions about political contests, which are the most challenging type of predictions to my mind.

I've found some of my notes for my prediction that the Senate will convict Trump sometime between June 25 and July 5, 2019, with the stronger period centered on July 4. Note, however, that since I no longer write for a national magazine a lot of what I do is just "eyeballing," so I tuck many details away in my mind while I'm analyzing things, and don't write all or even most of it down as notes.

Remember, I don't use the standard math for calculating progressions (though my math for secondaries, unintentioanlly, ends up almost exactly the same as "bija" corrected) -- I use rotations, not civil days; and for primaries, a rotation equals a secondary revolution.

My notes in the entries above also include a few other points I noticed, such as the stuff Jim provided RA/DEC precession correction for. Obviously, too, the "eyeballed" material included LRs for Trump and Boyd not only during my predicted dates, but surrounding months also (which were rejected). Also, everything below should be understood (for timing) as "in mundo" with (as mentioned above) a maximum orb of 1.5 degrees of RAMC.

I don't want to address the debates about Boyd here. I have different beliefs about what constitutes a radical chart than those of most astrologers, which I wrote about extensively in American Astrology. We can take up this topics in a different thread.

My INCOMPLETE notes read:

Transit Mars to Trump's primary progressed IC
Transit Mars to Trump's LR quotidian DSC
Transit Mars to Trump's SR IC
Transit Saturn to Boyd LR quotidian IC

the notes also mention, but only as enhancers (since no transiting planets are involved):

Boyd Neptune Mars and Saturn to Boyd SR quotidian MC (in parentheses, the notes also mention Uranus and Jupiter on the DSC, presumably also natal to the SRQ)
Boyd secondary progressed Moon/Mars conjunct/opposite Boyd secondary ASC/DSC

I'm sure there was more than this that I did not write down, or wrote down elsewhere, but the above (in the context of relevant LRs and maybe SRs) at least puts me on record for SOME of what led to my increasingly likely prediction, made last August then slightly modified in December. The Fourth of July should be interesting ....

Clay wrote:

Note, however, that since I no longer write for a national magazine a lot of what I do is just "eyeballing," so I tuck many details away in my mind while I'm analyzing things, and don't write all or even most of it down as notes.

I understand Clay, I do the same at times in my work.

Clay wrote:

Remember, I don't use the standard math for calculating progressions (though my math for secondaries, unintentionally, ends up almost exactly the same as "bija" corrected) -- I use rotations, not civil days; and for primaries, a rotation equals a secondary revolution.

Clay, do you know what issue of AA magazine you wrote about your work with secondaries and primaries?

Clay wrote:

I don't want to address the debates about Boyd here. I have different beliefs about what constitutes a radical chart than those of most astrologers, which I wrote about extensively in American Astrology. We can take up this topics in a different thread.

Yes, I read this article with much interest and curiosity. I hope to see you start a topic about your beliefs about ‘what constitutes a radical chart. I think it may bear fruit for the astrologer interested in prediction.

Clay wrote:

Boyd Neptune Mars and Saturn to Boyd SR quotidian MC (in parentheses, the notes also mention Uranus and Jupiter on the DSC, presumably also natal to the SRQ) Boyd secondary progressed Moon/Mars conjunct/opposite Boyd secondary ASC/DSC.

Most interesting Clay.

Clay wrote:

I'm sure there was more than this that I did not write down, or wrote down elsewhere, but the above (in the context of relevant LRs and maybe SRs) at least puts me on record for SOME of what led to my increasingly likely prediction, made last August then slightly modified in December. The Fourth of July should be interesting ....

Indeed! A very interesting prediction Clay. Thanks for your feedback.

SteveS wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:05 am
Clay wrote:

Boyd Neptune Mars and Saturn to Boyd SR quotidian MC (in parentheses, the notes also mention Uranus and Jupiter on the DSC, presumably also natal to the SRQ) Boyd secondary progressed Moon/Mars conjunct/opposite Boyd secondary ASC/DSC.

Most interesting Clay.

Thank you for replying, Steve. I don't mean to be rude, but the above quote is the least important thing I've posted on the matter. As I said above, it's at best an enhancer, and the important details involve transits. For example, the natal planets to quotidian angles is something that happens three times a year, and may be foregrounded four -- thus, it is almost meaningless. The Moon/Mars thing is more interesting, since both planets are progressed, but again I think triggers must involve transits.

You asked about my progression formulas -- I mentioned in a post above which old issues of AA explain them.

Clay wrote:

I don't mean to be rude, but the above quote is the least important thing I've posted on the matter.

I certainly don’t take this as you being rude to me Clay, only you trying to get me on the same page of your thought processes with your topic. I simply don’t understand some of your methodology but believe me I want to learn as much as I can about your work. I have never studied your methodology in detail, but a Siderealist who I trust once told me many years ago we need to study and understand your methodology/work. I am just glad you appeared on this forum so I now have a chance to ask you questions. I will go back and re-read as many as your American Astrology articles that I can locate and study your words in this topic, taking detailed notes so I will be in a better position to ask you yes and no questions for a better understanding of your work. Thanks

The below link is a Secondary Progressed Bija Solar Arc in Longitude Boyd Radical calculated by Solar Fire, relocated to DC for June 25 2019.

My first question: Is this progressed chart in below link one of your chart methods? The main astro point of this chart showing the partile Moon-Mars 180, partile cnj Zenith-Nadir axis?

https://imgur.com/a/0ONsGyp

Clay, those issues are not available to most people, and if they were, it would cost about $13.00 plus shipping (usually another $4.00) to acquire them.

If you were able to type out the formulas here, one or more of us could create a spreadsheet for you that would act as a calculator. I used to also do charts on a handheld scientific calculator. Spreadsheets are easier, and you don't need to buy a fancy spreadsheet program to use one.

Steve, Clay said previously

Several notes: I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

and I think some of the other things he said in that same post are answers to questions you have.

SteveS wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:01 am
I will go back and re-read as many as your American Astrology articles that I can locate and study your words in this topic, taking detailed notes so I will be in a better position to ask you yes and no questions for a better understanding of your work. Thanks

The below link is a Secondary Progressed Bija Solar Arc in Longitude Boyd Radical calculated by Solar Fire, relocated to DC for June 25 2019.

That's much too nice. Sometimes what I wrote I later disavowed. Sometimes I was boring. Sometimes I did the math wrong, like when I first published my tertiary formula and immediately screwed up the calculator stuff and posted a wrong chart for the death of Pope John Paul I. Fortunately I didn't comment on the chart, but just published it to show the math.

I'm really sorry I hate typing so much -- I have to wait till I'm in the right mood to type at length, which is as often as I want to vacuum the floor or do anything else that's a drag.

I don't know what you mean by "solar arc." That's usually a version of primaries, isn't it? I'll give my primary formula in the next post.

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:24 am
If you were able to type out the formulas here, one or more of us could create a spreadsheet for you that would act as a calculator. [...]

Steve, Clay said previously

Several notes: I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

and I think some of the other things he said in that same post are answers to questions you have.

Progressions are TO a radical chart. Find the Julian date/time (i.e., with decimals) of the original chart and call that JR (Julian radical).

Find the Julian date/time (i.e, with decimals) of the moment to which you're progressing the radical chart. Call that Julian progressed (JP).

Find JP minus JR. Call that A ("age" in days, with decimals).

SECONDARY aka QUOTIDIAN: Divide A by 366.25639. Add the result (with decimals) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time (with decimals) of the secondary progressed chart, including quotidian angles.

TERTIARY: Simpler approximate formula: Multiply A by 0.0365. Add that result (with decimals) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time of the tertiary progressed chart, plus or minus a few hours. There's a more perfect formula that's a pain, and the simpler formula will affect, at most, a couple degrees in tertiary moon's position; also, I don't think tertiary angles are of any use, so it doesn't matter much.

PRIMARY: Multiply A by 0.0001789 HOURS. Add that result IN HOURS (i.e., a fraction of a day) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time of the primary progressed chart. Simpler but the same: Find the RAMC of the radical chart, whether for birth or location. Add 58 minutes 58.3 seconds of RAMC per year (including fractions of years). The result is the RAMC of the primary progressed chart. (For exact planetary positions, add 3 minutes 55.1 seconds of clock-time per year.)

THAT was a drag to type, and I'm exhausted.

Clay_Reed wrote: Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:15 pm Progressions are TO a radical chart. Find the Julian date/time (i.e., with decimals) of the original chart and call that JR (Julian radical).

BTW, pone advantage of a spreadsheet approach is that you can bypass JDs altogether (not to mention decimal conversions), at least for dates 1900 and later. Excel will directly subtract one date and time from another.

Find the Julian date/time (i.e, with decimals) of the moment to which you're progressing the radical chart. Call that Julian progressed (JP).

Find JP minus JR. Call that A ("age" in days, with decimals).

Got it: One's age for the "event" (target date), measured in days and parts thereof. For example, from my birth to the minute I started writing this response (expressed in UT):

10/10/1954 10:13 --> 1/20/2019 9:44 = 23477.97986111 dy

SECONDARY aka QUOTIDIAN: Divide A by 366.25639. Add the result (with decimals) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time (with decimals) of the secondary progressed chart, including quotidian angles.

This number seems to be the number of sidereal days in a sidereal year. It will vary slightly from year to year, but probably not enough to make a fuss about. Using the sidereal year length at epoch 2000.0 (365.256363004 civil days), and a sidereal day length of 23:56:04.0905 civil hours, I get 366.2564019467669. (Did I misinterpret, or is this small difference within range of annual variance?)

LOL, yours works backwards to a "year length" of 365.256351089853 days, or 365d 6:09:09 and mine to 365d 6:09:10 so I think we're on the same page.

So, to simplify for everyone else: This is the standard definition of the Q1, i.e., 1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal year (whereas the Q2 is 1 civil day = 1 sidereal year).

TERTIARY: Simpler approximate formula: Multiply A by 0.0365. Add that result (with decimals) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time of the tertiary progressed chart, plus or minus a few hours. There's a more perfect formula that's a pain, and the simpler formula will affect, at most, a couple degrees in tertiary moon's position...

I think I reverse engineered that your preferred formula is 1 sidereal month = 1 sidereal day. If I got that correct, then the difference from the classical definition is the same as the difference between Q1 and Q2 among secondaries, i.e., it's only a matter of what definition length of "day" one uses. Once I got that, I realized one could get your variant formula for tertiaries in Solar Fire by selecting Q1 progressions (which nobody thinks to do except for secondaries) then calculate a tert.

Let's see if my understanding of your approach is right: For a sidereal day of 23:56:04.0905 civil hours and a mean sidereal month of 27.321661 days, divide 0.9972695659722222 by 27.321661 days to get 0.0365010592135018. Bingo.

PRIMARY: Multiply A by 0.0001789 HOURS. Add that result IN HOURS (i.e., a fraction of a day) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time of the primary progressed chart. Simpler but the same: Find the RAMC of the radical chart, whether for birth or location. Add 58 minutes 58.3 seconds of RAMC per year (including fractions of years). The result is the RAMC of the primary progressed chart. (For exact planetary positions, add 3 minutes 55.1 seconds of clock-time per year.)

Straightforward. This is the mean Naibod rate in RA.

Yes, I always expressed it in terms of rotations (earth) and revolutions (sun or moon). Remember, this was 1991 and computer programs weren't very flexible AND people like me didn't have computers. My formulas were pretty much the first of their kind back then, easily done with just an ephemeris (enumerating Julian days) and a calculator. More important, I gave more or less philosophical reasons for my conclusions (within the philosophy of astrology, so to speak) in the material introducing the formulas -- that's why it took two issues, the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine.

Clay_Reed wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:30 am Yes, I always expressed it in terms of rotations (earth) and revolutions (sun or moon). Remember, this was 1991 and computer programs weren't very flexible AND people like me didn't have computers. My formulas were pretty much the first of their kind back then, easily done with just an ephemeris (enumerating Julian days) and a calculator. More important, I gave more or less philosophical reasons for my conclusions (within the philosophy of astrology, so to speak) in the material introducing the formulas -- that's why it took two issues, the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine.

And this was appreciated by many. (I had stopped reading AAM by about that point - I do have a few issues from the very early '90s but it was spotty and I don't think I have those issues, so I never knew about your work until Steve started talking about it here.)

FWIW, I don't agree with you on the rotational formulas, but my agreement isn't germane at the moment - the goal (at least, my goal) is to get a clear definition of your position so that people can investigate it.

I find in side by side comparison of Q1 and Q2 variants of the SNQ, the Q2 is the better hit the heavy majority of the time. That means that "1 civil day = 1 sidereal year" prevails with closer and more appropriate angle hits, lunar aspects, etc., than "1 sidereal day = 1 sidereal year" in any checking I've done. I can see a smoother theoretical elegance in your approach, I just don't see it supported in practice. - But, as I said, we'll be in a better place to discuss it after everybody's individual approaches are clear.

I know we disagree about rotations versus civil days. As Derrick Kinsolving pointed out about my work, I didn't like using hybrid units -- I argued that only basic units should be used, to avoid noise over signal. A civil day is a hybrid unit; a rotation isn't. We also disagree about the value of solar ingresses, not to mention of the fiducial and all it implies (and the idea of a radical chart based on the Sun's passage of an ecliptical point based on it); therefore, I'm unlikely to find your civil day quotidian idea persuasive, in part because I presume at least some of your research is based on solar ingress quotidians. I'm stating this without judgment, just difference.

As mentioned above, I think the ancient fiducial was Aldebaran/Antares, and is of no other interest than as a historical fact. I don't think there IS a fiducial.

Clay_Reed wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:12 am I know we disagree about rotations versus civil days. As Derrick Kinsolving pointed out about my work, I didn't like using hybrid units -- I argued that only basic units should be used, to avoid noise over signal. A civil day is a hybrid unit; a rotation isn't.

As mentioned above, I find your approach more theoretically elegant. I'd prefer to think the universe works that way. However, my core criterion is empirical evidence first, then (if one must have a theory) pick the one that conforms most to the observations.

We also disagree about the value of solar ingresses, not to mention of the fiducial and all it implies (and the idea of a radical chart based on the Sun's passage of an ecliptical point based on it)

Yes, LOL, that would be a significant disagreement. Again, I have to go with the evidence even in the absence of any coherent theory on why that point might mark 0°00'00" Capricorn. (It would have been lovely if that solar apex thing had been real but, oh well...)

therefore, I'm unlikely to find your civil day quotidian idea persuasive, since I imagine at least some if your research is based on solar ingress quotidians. I'm stating this without judgment, just difference.

The comparisons I meant were entirely on natal charts. Quotidian progressions of solar ingresses are worthless as a comparison since they only last a year and Q1 vs. Q2 never diverge by more than a day's motion (with a viable orb closer to two days' motion).

As mentioned above, I think the ancient fiducial was Aldebaran/Antares, and is of no other interest than as a historical fact. I don't think there IS a fiducial.

On these two po9nts I agree completely. (Or, rather, I'd say that the structure of the zodiac is determined by the entirety of matter in the universe, not any single astronomical marker.)

However, you surely would disagree with me in my view that the one thing we know in astrology with greater certainty than any other thing is the exact (within a second or two) boundaries of the signs, based on the SVP research, since you seem to disavow the basis of all the statistical research that determined it.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 2:03 am

PRIMARY: Multiply A by 0.0001789 HOURS. Add that result IN HOURS (i.e., a fraction of a day) to JR. The result is the Julian date/time of the primary progressed chart. Simpler but the same: Find the RAMC of the radical chart, whether for birth or location. Add 58 minutes 58.3 seconds of RAMC per year (including fractions of years). The result is the RAMC of the primary progressed chart. (For exact planetary positions, add 3 minutes 55.1 seconds of clock-time per year.)

Straightforward. This is the mean Naibod rate in RA.

Just for the record, it is actually less than the mean Naibod rate by about nine arc-seconds -- which would create an error of timing, e.g., of seven months in the Boyd chart. (Note: I think primaries have uses independent of angularity, so this error is not diminished simply due to uncertainty of birth time.) Much more important to me, it is based on a different principle consistent with what progressions entail -- mathematically paralleling rotation with revolution, or, in this case, rotation with a secondary revolution: One primary rotation equals one secondary revolution.

Clay, I just want to chime in to say: we have a thread here for forum members to put their birth data, if you want to share yours, it would be appreciated.
Here's the link to it:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25

Clay wrote:

Just for the record, it is actually less than the mean Naibod rate by about nine arc-seconds -- which would create an error of timing, e.g., of seven months in the Boyd chart.

Clay, can you post your mathematical multiplier number you are using where I can have the option of plugging it in to my Solarfire program?

Clay wrote:

(Note: I think primaries have uses independent of angularity, so this error is not diminished simply due to uncertainty of birth time.) Much more important to me, it is based on a different principle consistent with what progressions entail -- mathematically paralleling rotation with revolution, or, in this case, rotation with a secondary revolution: One primary rotation equals one secondary revolution.

Clay, I am very much interested in understanding your thinking here. I know you hate typing up posts, much more so tying up an explanation to me as a non-mathematician. In any of your American Astrology magazine articles—did you discuss your ‘different principle’ of how you view progressions pertaining to your ‘rotation with revolution’ thinking?

SteveS wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 4:51 amClay wrote:

Just for the record, it is actually less than the mean Naibod rate by about nine arc-seconds -- which would create an error of timing, e.g., of seven months in the Boyd chart.

Clay, can you post your mathematical multiplier number you are using where I can have the option of plugging it in to my Solarfire program?

I believe it was quoted by Jim in the post you're quoting.

Clay wrote:

(Note: I think primaries have uses independent of angularity, so this error is not diminished simply due to uncertainty of birth time.) Much more important to me, it is based on a different principle consistent with what progressions entail -- mathematically paralleling rotation with revolution, or, in this case, rotation with a secondary revolution: One primary rotation equals one secondary revolution.

Clay, I am very much interested in understanding your thinking here. I know you hate typing up posts, much more so tying up an explanation to me as a non-mathematician. In any of your American Astrology magazine articles—did you discuss your ‘different principle’ of how you view progressions pertaining to your ‘rotation with revolution’ thinking?

I believe it's the same thing you discussed a year or so ago in this thread:
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1465

Jupiter Sets at Dawn wrote: Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:38 am thread:
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=1465

Yes, PLEASE look at that thread, to spare me re-typing things I said 28 years ago. One note: In the articles, I set up the dichotomy "informational/oracular," pointing out that astrology is the only oracle that incorporates objectively available* (*by anyone, any time, before or after ... given science) INFORMATION, so I contrasted this with "oracular" as the thing that sets astrology apart. Oracular involves combining everything as much as possible; informational means minimal combination. I had other reaons for my position, too, but I mention this since the words "informational" and "oracular" appear in the quotes from my work.

Clay wrote:

I derive progressions (primary, secondary, tertiary) via the formulas I described in the September and October 1991 issues of American Astrology magazine; for a quick summary, see page 65 of the latter.

Clay, I finally located these 2 misplaced issues. I will study them for a better understanding of your work. Thanks.

Clay, I have found several of your American Astrology articles from the nineties from your column titled “Astrology for the 90’s,” which IMO are some of the most thought provoking articles I have ever read. If it is alright with you I will quote some words and charts from these articles, if not, let me know and I will delete. First up—your article about the impeachment of Johnson during his administration 1865-1869, titled: “Unimpeachable proof that progressions work.”
Chart 1—A. Johnson Oath of Office April 15, 1865, 10:00 AM LMT Washington DC. *(All charts in Sidereal Z, and calculated with my Solarfire program using certain symbols used in my work—not Clay’s charts.)
https://imgur.com/a/GTtxIJI

Clay Reed writes:

Immediately, we note the following factors in Chart 1 (above link). A foreground Mars-Neptune square (orb, 0.5 degrees). A Sun-Saturn opposition (1.5 degrees). A Jupiter-Uranus opposition (2.7 degrees). A Mercury-Pluto conjunction (2.4 degrees). We also note that during a four year term, the secondary progressed Moon would form hard aspects to all but the last of those four combinations (which is what sets this oath chart apart from “Lincoln’s Death” chart; the latter would feature the same aspects but have little meaning in terms of progressions). Further, we’d expect that lunar progressions would time crucial events when the progressed/natal complexes were both angular and stimulated by transits of Sun or Mars (the trigger planets). All of this is standard Fagan methodology…

Impeachment/conviction vote charts next-up.

Clay writes:

In and of itself, the Oath NQ1 (Natal Quotidian) chart for 1:00 PM LMT May 16, 1868---the most critical date in American History for a nearly-successful Constitutional attack on the Presidency (Senate voted by one vote not to convict)—is more than enough to convince me (yet again) that astrology works. NQ1 secondary Moon had moved to its exact square to the Oath Sun-Saturn opposition, which in turn is aligned with the NQ1 Meridian; meanwhile, transiting Mars conjoins the NQ1 Midheaven, triggering the Sun-Saturn-Moon complex. Charts like this ought to be one in a million. But in the world of astrology, they’re par for the course.
Inside chart-NQ1 Oath quotidian; middle chart-Oath Chart; outside chart-transits.

https://imgur.com/a/vM3Ee6S

Jim, since this Johnson near impeachment/conviction was over Constitutional matters, take a look at the NQ1 for the July 4th 12:14:42 PM USA DC NQ1 chart for the timing of this vote. Boyd’s Q’s chart shows nothing.

t. Mercury partile cnj NQ1 MC
t. Saturn partile 90 NQ1 Asc

https://imgur.com/a/4bXe6hO

SteveS wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm Jim, since this Johnson near impeachment/conviction was over Constitutional matters, take a look at the NQ1 for the July 4th 12:14:42 PM USA DC NQ1 chart for the timing of this vote. Boyd’s Q’s chart shows nothing.

t. Mercury partile cnj NQ1 MC
t. Saturn partile 90 NQ1 Asc

Unfortunately, that's a Q1. I can't give it any more credence and I'd give, say, to a Tropical Solar Return.

There were plenty of other charts, though. The simplest is the astounding timing of transits:

23°11' Vir - r Saturn
23°21' Pis - t Neptune
24°00' Gem - r MC

The lunar return a day or so earlier is extremely positive - for the vindication? - with Venus, Jupiter, and Uranus angular atop natal Venus-Jupiter.

The SSR shows the weakening and embarrassment of the president with Sun setting partile square transiting Neptune. Most interesting to me, though, is the SQ with (on the one hand) transiting Saturn 0°47' from SQ Asc and (on the other hand) SQ Moon opposite transiting Jupiter 0°41'.

I'd have to agree that the SNQ2 angle contacts don't win any medals for this one. Several "right planets" are close, but none of them is close enough. What I really like about the Q2 in, though, in this "all about the president" event is that progressed Moon is 21°41' Gemini, only 0°10' from conjunct natal Sun, while progressed Sun at 20°16' Virgo is 0°15' from conjunct natal Ascendant.

Great observations Jim. BTW, I should mention with Clay's work, he has correlated the "unscheduled" Oaths of Office are the important ones to pay attention.

Steve, it's fine with me if you quote from my articles, provided:

1) You do NOT add anything, except in brackets [like these] -- I never used the expression "Q1", for example.
2) You DO give the month, year, and page from which you are quoting.
3) If your solarfire numbers differ form those I published, please say so.

For example, I don't think I wrote the parenthetical remark about "one vote in the senate" which would have been explained elsewhere in the article -- that should have been bracketed, not put in parenthesis.

Please note, also, that sometimes you might underemphasize something I considered crucial or overemphasize something I considered to be just further coloring to the main points.