Paul wrote:.......

Statements without any argument or substance can be just ignored. If there was a theory, it wasn’t explained. ....

They should be ignored but they are not.

There are not just a few who have faith in the eudoxos narrative.

It is the same Robert Schmidt who invented with Robert Hand the false theory of "the preferential and systematic use of whole-sign houses" and look where that landed us in the astrological community.

Facts like that are relevant in this thread.

But for the sake of peace, I hereby end my contributions in this thread.

I argued that the rough and ready approximations using signs only (as found generally in VV) are not a good basis for determining what house system V Valens used. In particular I argued that good evidence for a CHOICE of the WS system (as opposed to its use for rough and ready chart consultations where there's no exact birth time) would include specification of the MC, and its NOT being used for topic signification.

Neugebauer, in Greek Horoscopes, p 184 pointed out that there are only 3 cases in the VV anthology that meet this minimum standard:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 8&size=125

"Though 'Midheaven is often mentioned, it is generally simply the third sign from the Horoscopus. In only three cases are we given the accurate position of M (Nos. L75 75,1 110, III). "

If You have come this far - I suggest to continue on this very interesting approach by halw

Missing Points in the WS debate. Facts => Values?

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... 6c5cce1afc