Hello All,

I have posted previously on two other forums. Therese Hamltoin advised me:

"JLL, the Skyscript Sidereal forum has relatively few readers compared to Nativities and General Astrology. As the stars and constellations are of general interest to most astrologers, many more will see your posts if they are placed on that part of the forum. I suggest that you place your current post and future posts regarding your system there. You can start a new topic under Nativities and General Astrology as your did here. It would be good to include the word Constellations in your title. Forensic Astronomy and the Constellations??"

I see now that I ought to have posted here in Sidereal Astrology in the first place, because the topic is an alternative system of sidereal astrology. Here is my last topic, copied from the other forum on General Astrology:

I am new to this venue having posted already in the Skyscript Astrological Forum under the topic: Sidereal Zodiac Models. I have been redirected to this forum. I won't repeat my posts as you can freely view them, if desired. They will serve as an intro to my topic. I respond here to the request to provide some perspective on the novel model I have developed since 1976.

I began work as consulting tropical astrologer in 1970. After five or so years, I became increasingly curious about the exclusion of stars -- except the sun -- from the tropical format. In LA I met Willi Sucher, creator of Astrosophy, who used a quasi-sidereal system, but I was not satisfied with his format. I scoured libraries for astronomical atlases which are full aplenty with views of the constellations. But I ran into a snag. I felt like Isis trying to assemble the dismembered parts of Osiris. I could not find one sky map that showed the thirteen constellations on the orbital rim of the earth (AKA ecliptic). I had to construct my own, which I did. I called it the Rimsite with a double entendre: the constellations sited or situated on the orbital path, and sighted or observed from there.

My intention was to overlay the Rimsite on a horoscope such as I was using, Placidian, as I recall. Of course, as you would expect, it did not work due to house distortions, intercepted signs, etc. I was not content merely to use an equal-house system, so I invented my own, the terrascope. It presented no distortions of local space around the birth place. Thus I was able to cut out a circular display of the Rimsite, align it to the VP, and see exactly where the planets in the signs and house would appear when projected into the remote panorama of the real-sky constellations.

Years later in Santa Fe where I taught astrology, I made a blow-up model five feet in diameter meticulously inscribing the stars on and near the ecliptic by their longitudes. For this task, I benefited hugely from Michael Erlewine's Astrophysical Directions which came out in 1977. Then I added the graphics for each constellation, using the traditional visualizations from Hellenistic and Greco-Roman astrology, and the Dendera Zodiac: Ram, Bull, Twins, etc

Then I had an interface: the tropical zodiac inside and the constellations around it. I could read the horoscope, for instance, mercury retrograde in 19 Sag/5th house opposite uranus in 19 Gemini/11th house. But at first I could not make out what the data projected into the Rimsite could tell me. Mercury in the legs of Ophiuchus (Snaketamer) opposite uranus at the head of the Bull (not the sign Taurus). All I could guess was that the constellational positions carried some kind of encoded data that could not be extracted from the tropical system. So, I disregarded all the tools and techniques of astrological interpretation and concentrated on an investigation of those positions in the real-sky star-patterns.

That's my intro. To cut to the chase, I worked out how the constellational images are comparable to die urbilder, "primordial images" and as such, there were encoded with mythological themes and motifs. I then came to regard the planets in those locales as the "assets" or tools for activating that content. By the mid-1980s I worked with the interface of both formats, giving a reading for the tropical model, and a second reading for the constellational perspective. The second interpretation has nothing to do with personality stereotyping and analysis of psychological complexes (of which I had learned mainly from Dane Rudhyar). Finally, I advanced to the constellational rendering of the horoscope which I call the Manifold. Here is a section of how it looks:

[img]https://nemeta.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... itzyn.jpeg

Trusting that works, this is what you see. From right to left: Libra - Scorpio - Ophiuchus - Sagittarius - Capricorn - Aquarius. Of course, that is not what you actually see. Those names apply to the starless ecliptic signs, and astronomers use them for other purposes to identify the constellations. To avoid this quandary I had to rename the actual star-patterns: Scales or Balance, Scorpion, Snaketamer (composite stars partially merged with former) - Archer - Great Void - Goatfish - Manitu. The Great Void is the relatively starless region of 13 degrees between the Archer and the Goatfish.

You can compare the tropical data to the Manifold in this way.

North node - 13 Sag >> upper body of Scorpion
Sun - 19 Sag >> Tail of Scorpion, merged with legs of Snaketamer
Venus - 23 Sag >> right leg of Snaketamer near the stinger of the Scorpion
Mercury - 4 Capricorn >> forward arm of the Archer
Mars - 23 Capricorn >> in the Great Void
Midheaven - disregard as exact bt is not known.
Uranus - 24 Aquarius >> tail of the Goatfish

This is a view of one-fifth of the entire manifold of Alexandr Solzhenitzyn. I regard the positions of the planets, including the sun and north node, to be something like decoding prompts for a method of interpretation entirely distinct from any known system either tropical or sidereal: forensic astronomy. In reading the manifold, these graphic positions display in primordial images the intel encoded in the constellations -- you could say, encoded in the skywriting, the skyscript.

That, as briefly as I can explain it, is how the system works. [/img]

Hello All,

Since I introduced this topic a couple of weeks ago, I see there are 98 views and no replies. From the lack of replies, I infer either that there is no interest in the topic or that viewers were disinclined to respond, or perhaps not capable of responding.

If lack of capacity to respond, rather than lack of inclination or interest, is the reason for zero replies, it does not surprise me. From the start of my career in consulting with tropical format, I encountered both lack of interest and apparent incomprehension regarding the actual appearances, shapes, ecliptic longitudes, and boundaries of the real-sky, observable constellations. That would be easy to undertand considering the total absence of stars (except the sun) in the tropical format. Tropical astrologers simply do not look at the night sky.

When it comes to "siderealists" of various types, one might expect otherwise. But no, that turns out not to be so. If you consider, for example, the siderealists Cyril Fagan and Robert de Luce, the same omission occurs. They do not use astronomical maps of the star-patterns such as one finds in skywatching manuals. Constellational Astrology by De Luce, presumably based on Vedic astrology, contains no astronomical maps. The traditional Vedic house system in rectangular format also does not illustrate where planets actually are in the constellations.

I see a tremendous amount of material in these forums on sidereal systems and there are references by exact longitude to fixed stars in the constellations, but where are the full depictions of the constellations themselves? Perhaps I am missing it.

Whatever the case, I infer that this is not the place to solicit interest in a sidereal system that uses the observable star-patterns of the 13 ecliptic constellations with the intention to decode the mythological content associated with them -- but not for the purpose of character analysis. I have no issue with anyone in these forums and wish you all the best in your research and interpretative efforts.

Written with the moon conjunct the Pleiades (1 Gemini / ECL 61)

JLL

JLL, we would need to see you how you apply your system to events and circumstances in the real life of individuals. Otherwise your system is only interesting theory with no real relationship to astrology as it has come down to us from antiquity.

Sidereal astrology as it is currently understood is based on mathematical principles with only a minimal relationship to the visible stars and constellations. Modern sidereal measurements are based on specific ayanamsa dates rather than the position of stars in the zodiac. (Indian astrologers may have various star based zodiacs that I'm not familiar with.)

So your system isn't really 'sidereal' as the word is understood by today's practitioners. It is a constellational system.

Yes, that would be the correct technical term. Is anyone else on the forums working with a constellational format?

JLL wrote:

I began work as consulting tropical astrologer in 1970. After five or so years, I became increasingly curious about the exclusion of stars--- I could not find one sky map that showed the thirteen constellations on the orbital rim of the earth (AKA ecliptic). I had to construct my own, which I did. I called it the Rimsite with a double entendre: the constellations sited or situated on the orbital path, and sighted or observed from there.

I made a blow-up model five feet in diameter meticulously inscribing the stars on and near the ecliptic by their longitudes. For this task, I benefited hugely from Michael Erlewine's Astrophysical Directions which came out in 1977. Then I added the graphics for each constellation, using the traditional visualizations from Hellenistic and Greco-Roman astrology, and the Dendera Zodiac: Ram, Bull, Twins, etc

Libra - Scorpio - Ophiuchus - Sagittarius - Capricorn - Aquarius...Those names apply to the starless ecliptic signs, and astronomers use them for other purposes to identify the constellations. To avoid this quandary I had to rename the actual star-patterns: Scales or Balance, Scorpion- - Archer ...Goatfish...

These were the terms actually applied to signs of the zodiac in Hellenistic times as translated in ancient texts by Robert Schmidt and others.

I find it strange that you couldn't find the sky map you were looking for, that is a sky map based on the ecliptic pole. This is how sky maps were illustrated in earlier centuries. Perhaps these maps weren't so easily found in the 1970s? The constellation figures were clearly drawn around the circle of the ecliptic. Some of these maps are reproduced in Nick Kanas' Star Maps: History, Artistry and Cartography (2007). He notes about the colored sky map in color section 2 (Hood 1590): "Note the accurate latitude and longitude coordinate system centered on the ecliptic pole." So it seems that the basic work was already done for you a few centuries ago?

For many years I've kept close to my desk a copy of the north and south sky hemispheres with the ecliptic pole at the center and ecliptic circle around the edge with the constellational images. (photographed from page 214 of Sesti's The Glorious Constellations, 1991) The ecliptic clearly cuts the images between north and south. The feet of Ophiuchus, of course, rest on the ecliptic.

Along with the older sky maps we have Staal's (New Patterns in the Sky, 1988) drawings of the constellations with stars noted in various body parts of the images. On top of that we have precise ecliptic/latitude coordinates for stars today as found on Anne Wright's web site and the 768 stars in Michael Erlewine's Astrophysical Directions which you mentioned. In addition Diana Rosenberg's Secrets of the Ancient Skies (2012) has over 1000 stellar objects listed with their ecliptic coordinates and precise locations in the bodies of constellational images.

So how does your system differ from what could be a purely constellational system based on the old star maps and the precise star data in Diana Rosenberg's Secrets of the Ancient Skies??

The goal of my system is to track the phylogenetic transfer of inherent talents and drives across generations, using biographic studies.

Can you give us a concrete example of how you use your system so we can better understand what you are doing??

I'll be as brief as possible on three points:

1, Of course I know about circumpolar maps centered on the ecliptic pole, but they do not serve my purposes. What I sought originally was something like the two-dimensional illustration of constellations on the ecliptlc plane provided by Erlewine on two pages at the end of his book, but joined end to end like an uroboros and bent into a complete circle. Thus, the full ecliptic round seen from the earth, not imagined by looking at circumpolar projections from a godlike distance in outer space.

2, Such a model, which I call the Rimsite, shows the 13 constellations selected by the ecliptic from the total of 88. Double entendre: these star-patterns are sited or situated on the ecliptic and they can be sighted out there, actually observed. By formatting the Rimsite into a wheel, I could then paste that array around the rim of a horoscope, setting the VP at 1 Aries for the Epoch. Then I could use a ruler and draw lines from the center of the horoscope out to the actual star-based positions of the planets and other features in the horoscope. I call this conversion to StarBase. Example: Horoscope of Philip K. Dick, Saturn in 22 Sagittarius (23 Sag or ECL 263 for Epoch 2000), locating it in the legs of the Snaketamer.

(Needless to say, this only works with an equal-house system that avoids spatial distortions such as intercepted signs. However, I did not go with the standard equal-house system.. but that is another post, perhaps.)

3, Finally,, regarding the choice of constellational imagery. I consider the inventory of Greco-Latin myth and legend to be like a terminal moraine -- the area cluttered with rocks and debris left by a withdrawing glacier. It is really a repository of myths recorded in the Greek and Latin languages but not restricted to those cultures. As a comparative mythologist, I draw upon all myths of all races over time. Forensic astronomy incorporates the entire inventory of sidereal myth from R. H. Allen, Stahl, et al, and more. The choice to use the recognizable Greco-Latin figures such as Bull, Lion, Scales or Balance, came ofter long conderation of cross-cultural studies of Hindu, Chinese, Tibetan, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, Roman, Scandinavian, Celtic, Maya-Aztec sky-lore, etc, including the Hipparcho-Ptolemy star-list and Babylonian charts from the third millennium. Due principally to investigation of the Dendera Zodiac, (upon which I have written a book) I decided to go with that imagery -- which, by the way, does include Ophiuchus in the bas relief. If it was good enough for the designers of the DZ, it is good enough for me.

So, finally, what comes from conversion to StarBase is a set of exact positions in the constellations verifiable by observation and faithful to IAU boundaries as well as ancient sources. This is the complete constellational format distinct from Vedic astrology, astrosophy, and other quasi-sidereal systems.

All of which begs the question, How to read it? And to what purpose? I do not use StarBase for psychological analysis of personality. I can do that with the sign-based horoscope like other tropicalists. Instead, I use the astronomical data for forensic purposes, that is, to investigate an event like a CSI team on a crime scene. The event is phylogenetic transfer. In plain English, the inheritance of acquired traits and talents over generations. The informing paradigm here is the orthogenesis of Lamarck. This is a rather novel and complex proposition that may come across as baffling, I suspect, or perhaps not. I rely on your interest to see if and how to proceed with the explanation of basics.

I apologize for delayed responses as I don't always have time in my office.

You wrote:

What I sought originally was something like the two-dimensional illustration of constellations on the ecliptlc plane provided by Erlewine on two pages at the end of his book, but joined end to end like an uroboros and bent into a complete circle. Thus, the full ecliptic round seen from the earth...

I'm trying to get a visual on this. I don't have a copy of Astrophysical Directions, but I do have a set of sky maps which I must have purchased from Erlewine's Heart Center many years ago. There are two maps based on the ecliptic titled 'Ecliptic Star Map Winter/Summer Sky, Epoch 1950'. Are these the maps you described? If so, then I'm a little confused as these maps don't include images of the constellational figures which you have in your own illustration. (I have these two maps taped together to form the complete zodiac with various added notations, and adjusted to the Lahriri zodiac.)

2, Such a model, which I call the Rimsite, shows the 13 constellations selected by the ecliptic from the total of 88. Double entendre: these star-patterns are sited or situated on the ecliptic and they can be sighted out there, actually observed. By formatting the Rimsite into a wheel, I could then paste that array around the rim of a horoscope, setting the VP at 1 Aries for the Epoch. Then I could use a ruler and draw lines from the center of the horoscope out to the actual star-based positions of the planets and other features in the horoscope. I call this conversion to StarBase. Example: Horoscope of Philip K. Dick, Saturn in 22 Sagittarius (23 Sag or ECL 263 for Epoch 2000), locating it in the legs of the Snaketamer.

You are using a different set of ecliptic longitudes than the standard astronomical positions of stars for each epoch?

Due principally to investigation of the Dendera Zodiac, (upon which I have written a book) I decided to go with that imagery -- which, by the way, does include Ophiuchus in the bas relief. If it was good enough for the designers of the DZ, it is good enough for me.

Is this book available in a printed edition which would greatly interest me?

So, finally, what comes from conversion to StarBase is a set of exact positions in the constellations verifiable by observation and faithful to IAU boundaries as well as ancient sources.

Are you talking about IAU constellational boundaries here and/or the ecliptical longitude of stars?

All of which begs the question, How to read it? And to what purpose?...Instead, I use the astronomical data for forensic purposes, that is, to investigate an event like a CSI team on a crime scene. The event is phylogenetic transfer. In plain English, the inheritance of acquired traits and talents over generations. The informing paradigm here is the orthogenesis of Lamarck. This is a rather novel and complex proposition that may come across as baffling, I suspect, or perhaps not. I rely on your interest to see if and how to proceed with the explanation of basics.

Plain English? Yes, indeed such a proposition is baffling. We await enlightenment!

Hello Therese,

Thanks for getting back to me and taking time with your thoughtful response. Currently I am writing the foundation text on the theory and practice of forensic astronomy, or Celestics, as I call it. I reached out to this forum due to certain issues of exposition that came do mind in the course of writing, such as objections and questions that might arise in the minds of practiced astrologers totally unfamiliar with the concept and method. The motive of seeking feedback was simply that selfish need to assist me in clarification of the system. I have no intention to recruit anyone to this system, or to convince anyone of its validity. I have no argument with tropical or sideral systems currently in use.

You can find answers to your questions at Nemeta on the area of Vocations dedicated to Celestics: https://nemeta.org/course/14-celestics/

Like all the other landing pages at the school, this one is open for free access to the public. It presents the Rimsite model to which I have referred. Seeing it will tell you more than a verbal explanation, although that also is provided.

The landing page for Course 11 Skywatching is also freely accessible. It contains more explanation of this version of constellational astrology, including talks from quite a while ago that still reflect, more or less, how i wish to present this system.

https://nemeta.org/course/11-skywatching/

One final comment: I have developed Celestics in concordance with the practice of naked-eye observation of the sky, including the art of celestial divination, reading the script displayed in the constellations, composed of the observable cycles of planets and the moon moving against the real-sky background. For instance, the recent retrograde loop of mars in the Bull (Taurus) which may have caught your attention. Students around the world follow this practice with me in real time. We track these events closely and discuss them in depth at Nemeta.

Mars turned retrograde on November 1, 2022 at 26 Gemini between the horns of the Bull. It turned direct on January 15, 2023 in 9 Gemini near Aldebaran. Notably, it recovers the locale of its station retrograde on March 16, coming up in a few days. We note these events closely and observe the timing as it relates to current events in the world drama and emergent realizations in the individual psyche. I consider skywatching along these lines to be a requisite for Celestics. There is no better foundation for reading the celestical code than direct, real-time observation and participation, living with the starry cosmos, moment by moment.

I add that comment in the event itmight be helpful to Skyscript members to know where I am coming from with this novel system.

JLL wrote:

You can find answers to your questions at Nemeta on the area of Vocations dedicated to Celestics: https://nemeta.org/course/14-celestics/

The landing page for Course 11 Skywatching is also freely accessible. It contains more explanation of this version of constellational astrology, including talks from quite a while ago that still reflect, more or less, how i wish to present this system.

https://nemeta.org/course/11-skywatching/

It all sounds very unique and ambitions! But you still haven't answered my specific mathematical questions. Can you please do that?

Therese wrote:
Q1: I'm trying to get a visual on this. I don't have a copy of Astrophysical Directions, but I do have a set of sky maps which I must have purchased from Erlewine's Heart Center many years ago. There are two maps based on the ecliptic titled 'Ecliptic Star Map Winter/Summer Sky, Epoch 1950'. Are these the maps you described?

JLL wrote:
Then I could use a ruler and draw lines from the center of the horoscope out to the actual star-based positions of the planets and other features in the horoscope. I call this conversion to StarBase. Example: Horoscope of Philip K. Dick, Saturn in 22 Sagittarius (23 Sag or ECL 263 for Epoch 2000), locating it in the legs of the Snaketamer.

Q2: You are using a different set of ecliptic longitudes than the standard astronomical positions of stars for each epoch?

JLL wrote:
So, finally, what comes from conversion to StarBase is a set of exact positions in the constellations verifiable by observation and faithful to IAU boundaries as well as ancient sources.

Therese asked:
Q3: Are you talking about IAU constellational boundaries here and/or the ecliptical longitude of stars?

Regarding your technical questions:
Therese wrote:
Q1: I'm trying to get a visual on this. I don't have a copy of Astrophysical Directions, but I do have a set of sky maps which I must have purchased from Erlewine's Heart Center many years ago. There are two maps based on the ecliptic titled 'Ecliptic Star Map Winter/Summer Sky, Epoch 1950'. Are these the maps you described?

JLL: The last two pages of Astrophysical Directions (1977) show the arch of the summer and winter constellations, but I don't find that title for them. They show the sinusoidal wave of the ecliptic with 360 degrees indicated. Imagine connecting those pages end to end and bending them into a full-found circular display. That is the Rimsite you find on Nemeta. However, I did not exclusively use Erlewine's format to create it. I plotted the Rimsite from several sources of ecliptic longitude for stars on the ecliptic, or above and below it.

JLL wrote:
Then I could use a ruler and draw lines from the center of the horoscope out to the actual star-based positions of the planets and other features in the horoscope. I call this conversion to StarBase. Example: Horoscope of Philip K. Dick, Saturn in 22 Sagittarius (23 Sag or ECL 263 for Epoch 2000), locating it in the legs of the Snaketamer.

Q2: You are using a different set of ecliptic longitudes than the standard astronomical positions of stars for each epoch?

JLL: No, not at all. 22 Sagittarius for Dick's birth year is 263 ecliptic longitude for E 2000. I use the standard astronomical longitudes for E 2000. I don't know what you could mean by a different set. The purpose of a constellational format is to accurately follow the data in astronomical almanacs, double-checked on Stellarium.org and elsewhere.

JLL wrote:
So, finally, what comes from conversion to StarBase is a set of exact positions in the constellations verifiable by observation and faithful to IAU boundaries as well as ancient sources.

Therese asked:
Q3: Are you talking about IAU constellational boundaries here and/or the ecliptical longitude of stars?

JLL: Your question implies some difference between the plotted boundaries and the ecliptical longitudes of the composite stars within them. Or I am reading you wrongly? A book like David Levy's Skywatching shows the IAU boundaries of all constellations. The composite stars are within those boundaries, right?

I think we might be crossing signals somewhere. I'm guessing that your concept of a "sidereal" format may be unknown to me, or hold some connotation that I am missing... I have studied various so-called sidereal formats such as the Vedic, anthroposophical, and others. I don't know what the Lahriri zodiac is. There may be a dozen sidereal models that I don't know about. My point is, there can be only one accurate constellational zodiac using exact ecliptic longitudes for star-patterns that are observable. You can go out and see the constellational format of the Rimsite in the night sky. Thus I call it the real-sky zodiac. It is not a modeled construct but an exact map of the observable stars. Somehow, I am not getting this across to you.

John, thank you very much for taking time to reply to my questions in our era of 'never enough time' for even routine daily tasks.

JLL wrote:

The last two pages of Astrophysical Directions (1977) show the arch of the summer and winter constellations, but I don't find that title for them. They show the sinusoidal wave of the ecliptic with 360 degrees indicated. Imagine connecting those pages end to end and bending them into a full-found circular display. That is the Rimsite you find on Nemeta...

I was curious about Astrophysical Directions, so found a used copy on Amazon which arrived yesterday. I was very surprised to see that the map you mentioned was based on the equator rather than the ecliptic. This map is for 1950 as noted on the larger copy I have. So I’m not sure how you used that map for ecliptic longitudes. (On page 6 the 1950 date is mentioned for all the positions in the book. Erlewine should have highlighted that date.)

However, I did not exclusively use Erlewine's format to create it. I plotted the Rimsite from several sources of ecliptic longitude for stars on the ecliptic, or above and below it.

All this data for Erlewine’s 768 fixed stars for 1950 was readily available on Anne Wright’s old web site in longitude order: Long, Lat, RA, Decl, Mag, Sp Fortunately I printed this information years ago because the web site has been changed. (For my use I adjusted the longitudes to fixed sidereal positions.)

Then I could use a ruler and draw lines from the center of the horoscope out to the actual star-based positions of the planets and other features in the horoscope. I call this conversion to StarBase. Example: Horoscope of Philip K. Dick, Saturn in 22 Sagittarius (23 Sag or ECL 263 for Epoch 2000), locating it in the legs of the Snaketamer.

But this isn’t necessary if one has the ecliptic positions of stars and where they are located in the bodies of the images? (This is Diana Rosenberg’s contribution in her massive Secrets of the Ancient Skies, 2012.) Of course you can use this visual aid of lines if you want to.

Re: Ecliptical longitudes
JLL: No, not at all. 22 Sagittarius for Dick's birth year is 263 ecliptic longitude for E 2000. I use the standard astronomical longitudes for E 2000. I don't know what you could mean by a different set.

I didn’t understand the basis of your measurements, but I do now. Thank you.

So, finally, what comes from conversion to StarBase is a set of exact positions in the constellations verifiable by observation and faithful to IAU boundaries as well as ancient sources.

Your question implies some difference between the plotted boundaries and the ecliptical longitudes of the composite stars within them. Or I am reading you wrongly? A book like David Levy's Skywatching shows the IAU boundaries of all constellations. The composite stars are within those boundaries, right?

Right, but the standard astronomical coordinates today are in RA/Decl as in Levy’s books. So everything has to be changed from RA/Decl to Ecliptic Long/Lat. But I understand now the basis of your measurements. Levy’s set of Skywatching books are my all time favorite astronomy books. Very beautiful and informative books! I feel very fortunate to have them.

My point is, there can be only one accurate constellational zodiac using exact ecliptic longitudes for star-patterns that are observable. You can go out and see the constellational format of the Rimsite in the night sky. Thus I call it the real-sky zodiac. It is not a modeled construct but an exact map of the observable stars. Somehow, I am not getting this across to you.

I think our problem with communications is that my Mercury function wants to see numbers and degrees as a foundation rather than statements such as ‘constellational format of the Rimsite’. Note: as I understand your Rimsite we are still talking about a projection from the ecliptic pole to constellations on the ecliptic. It’s just that Erlewine’s ecliptic based map (which you don’t have) has the line drawings of constellations and precise measurements for 1950.

Whether we choose to base measurements on an Epoch from the Vernal point (tropical) or from a fixed sidereal date isn’t so much a question of zodiacs as whether we want the stars to continue changing positions in longitude or have them fixed through the centuries in precise degrees (sidereal).

Here is an example from Diana Rosenberg's book. I just flipped open to a random page: Vol 2 p. 367:

Nu Serpentis, tail over Oph’s right thigh
Long 20 Sag 18 (2000)
Lat 10 16
Dec -12 58
RA 17 21
M 4 33
Spec A1V
Lahiri 26 Sco 27 (sidereal zodiac)

Yes there is only one constellational zodiac in the sky, but if you are basing measurement on the vernal point, this is only relatively true as star longitudes are constantly changing through the years. Latitude, stars and constellations are fixed in the sky, but due to tropical measurement, degrees are constantly changing.

From my point of view, this is a very clumsy way of studying the constellations. Once we choose a sidereal zodiac and adjust longitudes once from any VP date, these longitudes hold true through the centuries.

Thus Diana has adjusted the tropical 2000 positions to the permanent Lahiri longitudes as a nod and help to sidereal astrologers. Diana may be our only author whose books provide strictly constellational data on stars. She was a true ‘constellational’ astrologer. Diana has filled her books with historical data linked to stars. John, I think you might like to have her books? They are still sold on ebay, around $90 for the set. I paid $60 when they were first published. Book 1: 770 pages; Book 2: 857 pages

Hi Therese,

Thanks for taking time on these issues. I think we are finally getting to see eye to eye so that we understand differences in technical matters and overall perspective. There are still some sticking points to clarify. Let's see if I can handle them without incuding further complications. In order to get to the point, we have to see eye to eye on the vernal point! I believe we can do that now. It's a breakthrough and well worth waiting for!!

TH: the map you mentioned was based on the equator rather than the ecliptic.

I see it based on both. It uses the celestial equator as a base line for formatting the overall perspective, and displays the ecliptic as a sinusoidal curve broken into two flat illustrations on two pages. If you look at Gemini in the summer sky, the positions of the composite stars correspond accurately to their eclipic longitudes. The list of Fixed Stars from p 55-68 gives ecliptic longitudes for E 1950.

Yes, I only use ecliptic latitudes such as 84 05 11 (85) E 1950 for zeta Taurus, "the one at the tip of the southern horn" (Hipparcho-Ptolemy Star List). It's a simple as that. I take it you have seen the Rimsite on Nemeta. I initially constructed a wheel five feet in diameter and drew lines from the center out to specific degrees on the perimeter line of the ecliptic. For stars above or below the ecliptic rimline, such as zeta Taurus, I carefully approximated their positions in consideration of declination and latitude. I disregarded figures of right ascension. The result was that every line from the center went to the exact ecliptic longitude of a star, but advanced for E2000. Then I added the graphics, tracing the figures over the star positions.

TH: But this isn’t necessary if one has the ecliptic positions of stars and where they are located in the bodies of the images?

This is where I don't follow you. Are you asking, if one has the ecliptic positions of the stars in numeric notation which locates them in the images, why use the lines? At that time, I had been using tropical signs and constellations simultaneously, but I needed a consistent format for juxtaposition, or overlay. I reduced the five-foot diameter model to A4 page size. Once I had a prototype of the Rimsite, I cut it out and placed around the horoscope setting the VP for the birthyear. Then I could look at, say, mars in 25 Libra for E 1948 and see mars at Spica in the left hand of the constellation of the Virgin. As a tropical astrologer, I read mars in the starless format of the horoscope; as a celestician I read mars in the constellation. I toggled back and forth between the two sets of data, eventually learning how to distinguish the information in the horoscope from the information in the celestial code. I did not carry over sun-sign typology into celestics. There are no celestics personality-types.

TH: but the standard astronomical coordinates today are in RA/Decl as in Levy’s books. So everything has to be changed from RA/Decl to Ecliptic Long/Lat.

I don't have to change anything. I disregard RA/Decl/Latitude use current ephemerides of ecliptical longitudes. Drawing from Hieratic Publishing Ephemerides in book form, Erlewine, Astrodienst, Stellarium.org. Everyone can agree on ecliptical longitudes, right?

TH: I think our problem with communications is that my Mercury function wants to see numbers and degrees as a foundation rather than statements such as ‘constellational format of the Rimsite’.

The constellational format of the Rimsite IS a full-round map of numbers and degrees, but only the degrees of ecliptical longitude. Every star on the Rimsite has an exact number by degree, 1 through 360.

TH: as I understand your Rimsite we are still talking about a projection from the ecliptic pole to constellations on the ecliptic. It’s just that Erlewine’s ecliptic based map (which you don’t have) has the line drawings of constellations and precise measurements for 1950.

Again, we are crossing wires somehow. The projection from the ecliptic pole on the Rimsite is like a PROTRACTOR, period. From the pole, the lines run down to 360 marks. I plot the stars on these marks. How else could it be done using the perspective of ecliptic longitudes in a flat circular format? Perhaps what I am describing is too simplistic to satisfy your Mercury which seeks other parameters. [JLL: Mercury R in 20 Sag sextile Jupiter in 21 Libra /opposite Uranus R in 16 Gemini trine Jupiter on a 5-degree orb. That should tell you all you need to know about how my Mercury functions.]

TH: Whether we choose to base measurements on an Epoch from the Vernal point (tropical) or from a fixed sidereal date isn’t so much a question of zodiacs as whether we want the stars to continue changing positions in longitude or have them fixed through the centuries in precise degrees (sidereal).

Eureka! I finally see the problem in communication. Thanks for hanging around this far as it has gotten somewhat tedious at points. A sidereal zodiac in your concept depends on the ayanamsa, a set point that does not change with precession. Right? I have read many arguments about it, going back to Cyril Fagan and before. You set the ayanamsa and calculate all ecliptic longitudes from that point so that you do not have changing degrees due to precession. Wow. It was always merely this concept that was tripping us up.

The sidereal format has one set-point, right, taking the VP at a certain moment in a certain position, Zero Aries or whatever. This I guess is your Lahriri zodiac. Well, that's one way to cut the mustard. The constellational zodiac I use does not rely on one set-point for all dates, but it does have well-defined boundaries for the constellations. However, you would reply, if my zodiac follows precession in real time, then those boundaries change and gain longitude over centuries. Yes, they do. But what is the problem there? The boundaries for E2000 gain longitude going back in time, but I don't trouble with that because the StarBase software custom-designed for celestics gives (1) current locale at date by sign, (2) current ecl long, and another figure (3) automatically corrected for precession. It works like you see in Stellarium.org.

The StabBase readout ls like what you see on Stellarium.org. For instance, look at August 965 CE when there was a uranus-neptune conjunction at Spica. The data reads:
Ecl. long (j2000.0) 203 08 03
Ecl. long (On Date) 188 43 03.

So, its locale in 965 was at ECL 189 or 9 Libra at that time, equivalent to 24 Libra today. Working a celestics chart, I use the longitudes adapted E 2000 for exact star positions. I have worked on biographies and events going back centuries with this same technique. No, the constellational zodiac does not have an absolute set-point.

TH: Yes there is only one constellational zodiac in the sky, but if you are basing measurement on the vernal point, this is only relatively true as star longitudes are constantly changing through the years. Latitude, stars and constellations are fixed in the sky, but due to tropical measurement, degrees are constantly changing.

This is not a problem for me at all, as explained here. So far we have not understood what we are mutually discussing due to this distinction being unclear. I am hugely relieved.

Finally!

TH:From my point of view, this is a very clumsy way of studying the constellations. Once we choose a sidereal zodiac and adjust longitudes once from any VP date, these longitudes hold true through the centuries.

I have no issue with anyone using a set-point sidereal format in order to have a consistent scale for reading longitudes. I can see the advantage. But, in all respect, speaking of clumsy, I cannot see how dividing the real-sky, observable constellations into a pizza-slice model of twelve equal sectors is anything but a clumsy and improbable arrangement of the celestial display. The Lahriri sidereal zodiac has 12 equal sectors and the VP/ayahamsa is set in the cord between the Fishes. Correct? It uses a fixed date in the past to situate the VP in the constellations and determine "Zero Aries." Correct?

I don't do that. I observe the exact extent, shpae, and proportions of the constellations and add graphics accurately drawn on the stellar positions. For instance, Nunki, Sigma Sagittarius, at 13 in the sign Capricorn = ECL 284 for E2000. It marks the vane of the arrow at the drawing hand of the Archer -- that's the constellation, not Sagittarius.

Now I know what you are talking about. It was so obvious I missed it.

Whew! With all that said and done I have to thank you again for your exceptional persistence and respect. Finally, a conversation with a siderealist! This exchange has been the icebreaker.

JLL