Jim Eshelman wrote: Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:41 am
December 16, 1811, 8:15 UT, near New Madrid, MO
Steve especially asked that I look at the possible effect of two prior solar eclipses on this quake. At least in folklore, these two quakes a few years apart seemed to have a special relevance for the New Madrid area. These two quakes reportedly occurred June 16, 1806 and September 17, 1811.
Let's check the astronomy first: A total solar eclipse indeed occurred June 16, 1806. The eclipse chart itself did have Pluto setting near New Madrid with a Mars-Neptune opposition not far off the meridian. The convergence of those lines was in Minnesota. The actual eclipse path was
very broadly in the same part of the country, passing through northern Missouri. None of this singled out the Ozarks in particular, though all of the effects seemed to cluster somewhere in the general neighborhood (which could, I suppose, have had a general "averaging" effect).
The September 17, 1811 annular (non-total) eclipse was closer to the Zenith in New Madrid. For the world in general, it was square Mars exactly and had a Venus-Saturn-Pluto T-square (Saturn rising in New Madrid) so - if these eclipses have distinctive
astrological importance in the same sense as ingresses, makes it an unusually important chart for that region: The Saturn-rising line goes right through Missouri's bootheel, and the other angularities are nearby.
The path of totality, however, goes nowhere near the area. It passes from northern Minnestoa to Virginia. The New Madrid area is just within the 75% coverage area, which I suppose could have been regarded as very broadly in the eclipse path, but not on the line of expected maximum effect by the usual rules.
The real question here - that is, the question Steve asked me (as I understood it, anyway) - was what I thought about the effect of this eclipse, as an
astrologically causative factor of this earthquake. Here are my thoughts:
First, I don't come into this question with a strongly positive of opinion of the
astrological impact of eclipses. I think astrologers vastly overrate them. This is partly due to an opinion, from primitive times forward, that eclipses are something supernatural and the most dramatic
visually observable thing to come along from time to time. Also, Tropical mundane astrologers don't have that many major, reliable tools and, in their absence, rely heavily on syzygy charts (of which the most important are eclipse charts). They do have importance though: A lot of current thought treats them as primarily
destabilizing especially where they are visible. While I think that "visibility" rule mostly is a hang-on from ancient times when one only new about eclipses if you could look up and see them, I lean toward accepting something similar: It seems to me that eclipses are
intensifications of whatever else is happening astrologically in an area (primarily through its ingresses). I'm not sure eclipses so anything distinctive by themselves, but they do tend to cross areas that burst into the headlines for reasons evident in their concurrent Sidereal solar and lunar ingresses.
So, I find New Moon and Full Moon charts of mixed value - sometimes stunning in their effect and much of the time utterly missing the mark (meaning, they seem to have value but aren't reliable). In particular, they don't seem to
localize, since local angularities are rarely what's important about them. Solar eclipses, then, are unusually high-powered New Moons that
do also have a localization ability by where the eclipse path goes (and perhaps differently by where they are angular).
Next is the question of how long an eclipse effect lasts. Most books speak complete nonsense on this, often assigning rules that extend them many years past their occurrence.
In the best case this makes them impossible to test. For example, a common rule is that a solar eclipse's effects last as many years as the eclipse lasted in hours (commonly two years). I am certain that most of its
astrological effects last only through the immediate aftermath, typically no more than five weeks. However, one could reasonably argue - as Bob Jansky did - that since there are typically two solar eclipses a year, the
most recent solar eclipse is always in effect and, therefore, has an approximately six-month life. This BTW would be a good fit for the 1811 New Madrid effect since all the main quakes occurred by February 7, 1812, before the next eclipse February 12, 1812, which had no unique connection to the area.
In fact - thinking aloud for a moment - if I did not have Sidereal solar and lunar eclipses as a backbone of mundane analysis, I likely would experiment with the idea that the (usually) two solar eclipses each year marked out six-month zones within which lunar eclipses has lesser highlights, and the other New Moon and Full Moon charts twice each month marked short-term trends within that larger pattern. I doubt I'd be as happy as I am today, because these charts, while sometimes brilliant, are even more often complete duds. Nonetheless, it would be a reasonable path of exploration.
For the New Madrid quake, though, we have something much more important to consider IMHO. Above, I have emphasized that I was talking about
astrological effects of the eclipses. I actually think - especially with earthquakes - that the astrological effect pales compared to
non-astrological effects, especially geophysical effects in the form of tidal patterns that affect land masses just as much as they affect oceans.
Entering this domain, though, I think a firm answer requires a geologist or geophysicist opinion, not that of an astrologer. I'm not qualified to make a real assessment of this effect in New Madrid. With that caveat, I'll go ahead and give my
lay opinion that there may indeed have been a real tidal affect connected with these quakes. I think there is zero reasonable doubt about tidal affects having a hand in earthquakes (some quakes showing it more than others). Consider this lineup:
- One must have a weakened or otherwise vulnerable local geology, such as a tectonic line that is about ready to shift.
- In this vulnerable state, the locale is vulnerable to a sudden unusual "tug" on that spot or on one of the plates. How much of a tug depends on how close to slippage it already is.
- The 1806 eclipse passed near the actual area - at least as close as northern Missouri - and could (would?) indeed have "tugged" on the local geology. The 1811 eclipse was not nearly as close, but likely had at least a little extra pull on central North America in general. Therefore, sure, this one-two punch (even if the second punch was a glancing blow) could have made the area vulnerable, starting to pull the trigger on a gun already loaded by the tectonic conditions.
- The purely astrological factors were extremely primed for this sort of event (or something else matching the same symbolism).
- The third New Moon after - three repeated high-tide cycles worldwide - occurred the afternoon before the first New Madrid quake. That was enough, given its geological readiness to pop!
- The nearly equal magnitude quake (#2) the next morning occurred soon after the separating Sun and Moon had risen (Moon still within 10° of the horizon). This, within that 24-hour period, was one of the points of maximum tidal stress at that location.
- Quake 3 had no unusual tidal characteristics. Nor did Quake 4 unless you count Moon rising over an hour and a half earlier which, I think, is too long. (In any case, the "run" of quakes had already been started at the December New Moon.)
thanks Jim.