Skyscript Astrology Forum

Skeptics would hate to read
this thread. It's too complex
for someone ignorant of
astrology. I'm impresed at the
quality and depth of analysis.

Let's hope more astrologers
like these, can make astrology
respectable again.

Hi Tom

I don't know how precise this birthtime is, but if you make it 32 mins past instead of 30 then, 1954 is the year that Mars progresses into the 1st from the 12th ( it is 52/53 if we use 30 mins) and the date of the murder is the day that transiting Mars forms an exact conjunction with his progressed ascendant.

According to AstroDatabase his autobiography "Endure and Conquer" gives 6:28 AM EST. Might it be correct? Perhaps some unmentioned family documents in this case are more correct than a bungled bureaucratic birth certificate? It is a possibility.

The 12th house Jupiter probably wouldn?t be so lucky, and the 1st house Sun tightly square the MC-IC axis could indicate shakiness in public standing and home life.

My source is Lois Rodden's book The American Book of Charts which was published in 1980 by Astro Computing Services. The chart was rated A: "Dewey quotes R.H. Oliver from B.C. Rodden's system rates brith ties from biographies and autobiographies s "B."

I don't know how precise this birth time is, but if you make it 32 mins past instead of 30 then, 1954 is the year that Mars progresses into the 1st from the 12th ( it is 52/53 if we use 30 mins) and the date of the murder is the day that transiting Mars forms an exact conjunction with his progressed ascendant

.

I did play with the rectification and briefly entertained the idea of mentioning 5:32 am (some directions are a bit more precise with that time, too), but I did that after I posted the data, so I decided to leave it as is. My personal opinion is that progressions and directions give us a broad outline of an important year or slightly longer period. We can fine tune ourselves out of business, if we let that happen. The 5:32 birth time may well be accurate even if a delivery room nurse barely took her eye off the clock. How accurate is the clock?

Rob Hand related an interesting personal experience with birth time. There he was, one of the world's most prominent astrologers, physically present at the time of his grandchild's birth. I think he used a hook up to one of those satellites or atomic clocks. Anyway, he was as satisfied as any human can be with the birth time, but when the birth certificate was made out, it varied from Hand's time by about 5 minutes.

On the other side of the coin, a long time friend of mine is married to a woman who has spent her entire working life as a registered nurse. She's been part of more deliveries than many doctors. The hospital she worked with at Portsmouth NH demanded that the nurses accurately note the time of birth and they made sure the clock was as accurate as possible, too.

Any birth time, any document, can be questioned, but unless we have evidence of error, not mere speculation, we have to work with the best we have available.

Tom

Michael writes:

Skeptics would hate to read this thread.

This is probably as good a place as any to mention skeptics and others in and out of astrology who have elevated a lack of critical thinking skills to an art form, and that is not hyperbole. A skeptic would look at this the way he would look at anything he did not wish to believe, by rationalizing his way around it. When all else fails dismiss the technical terms as "mumbo jumbo." Make a few sarcastic remarks and (here is the key) never, ever defend yor position, always attack. This is the favored position not only of anti-astrology skeptics, but politicians and their supporters, religious zealots, JFK conspiracy theorists, and most recently the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd. Reasoned argument escapes them. Facts are lies. Opinion trumps facts.

The finest example of "it cant' be true so it isn't true" activity is the story of Michel Gauquelin. Gauquelin originally started out trying to refute astrology with statistics. He had the academic credentials and he produced a scrupulously honest study. However the study didn't come out the way he was sure it would. Not only were there howls of protest from the scientists, but Gauquelin himself reached conclusions at odds with his own work. But the reaction of the scientific community was viscious. He was ridculed and denounced as an imposter, a tool of the astrology crowd, you name it. If it were possible to revoke his PhD, they would have done it.

They claimed his methods were faulty, the samples were too small, the question too loose etc etc etc. The "refutation," at first was a mere smear campaign. Then the "studies" came out to refute his work and they were later discovered to have been rigged to get the desired result. To call this episode shameful is to wildly understate the case. Now after almost 50 years of attempted debunkig, scientists scoff at his results as "only 2%" above chance, as if that matters according to their own rules. In short if people want to believe something they will and if they don't they won't.

As stated above the preferred method is attack, attack atack, and never defend. This is the favored metod of JFK conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. He is getting up there in years now (. Feb 4, 1927), but he used to participate in college campus debates and his favorite tactic was to dismiss, without evidence, anything anyone said that disagreed with hmi as a lie, then launch a broadside that would take hours and hours to refute point by point, and when certain points were refuted, he would simply launch more attacks. This is not critical thinking. This is propaganda. Does it sound familiar? Have you listened to any of the Presidential candidates' debates lately?

The problem is that this is persuasive especially if you have a predisposition to believe whatever it is the skeptic is saying whether he is dumping on astrology, the Warren Comission, or the claims of vitamin manufacturers. It is easy to nay say when you don't have to prove anything. All that is needed is the talent to ridicule. Comedian Don Rickles would have been an absolute genius in this field.

People accept this nonsense in order to hold their worldview together. If that worldview requires that astrology be impugned then they will believe anything that impugns it without question. The favored defense mechanisms required to hold the worldview together are "projection: you just want everyone to think like you: paranoia: you'll ruin our children for generations to come; denial; your facts are wrong, your data is wrong, you're a liar. Again, look at politics.

Crticism is not only valid but necessary. But the criticism needs to be thoughtful. In other words it needs to be based in fact and logic. Crying, as young people are taught to do, "But it's my opinion!" is meaningless. One may hold the opinion that the Moon is made of green cheese, but until there is evidence of that off colored dairy product comprising the Moon's structure, the opinion, like all opinions without facts, is worthless.

If I'm correct that arguing with skeptics is a waste of time, what do we do about them? Nothing. Should you run across a thoughtful skeptic who is willig to have a discussion ad you are of that temperament, go right ahead and engage him. I never bother. As Michael tactitly points out, they don't know enough for their criticism to have value, and they aren't interested in learning. For me most skeptics' crticicism has about as much value as my crticism of classic music would have. I know it when I hear it, I enen like it, but I don't have the background to make my crticism meaningful.

Tom

I need to clarify that the AstroDatabank software does use the 5:30 am time. From ADb, for 5:30 am.:

Rodden Rating: AA
Source: Quoted BC/BR Source notes: Ruth Dewey quotes R.H. Oliver, B.C. Same in Contemporary American Horoscopes
(Karen Spahn quotes his autobiography "Endure and Conquer" for 6:28 AM EST.)

I should accept the official documented time, but I?m having problems with it. To me that fat and jolly Jupiter sitting on the ASC should have been able to produce so much more. Following is what I wrote about the 5:30 chart a few days ago, but never posted. It is exactly how I wrote it; I?ve made no changes to account for later discussion of the chart. I include it here to show how forcefully Jupiter got my attention when first working with the chart.

Lord of Geniture is Jupiter. Jupiter has dignity by domicile, term and face [*] and gets to sit conjunct the ASC. It?s a happy planet. Jupiter doesn?t get to be above the earth in this nocturnal chart, but is beneath the earth with the Sun (a source of sect strength) and is oriental of the Sun. Its motion is direct and fast. It?s a very happy planet. And it?s a powerful and able planet. It also has a little helper through the applying sextile from Venus. Can anything go wrong for Jupiter here? It?s not aspected by the traditional malefics, Mars and Saturn. Not even by sign. They are both in the 12th sign from Jupiter and its domicile. In respect to Jupiter and its affairs, those two look weak and unable to cause mischief. Lucky Jupiter gets to do what he wants and surely must have done it in the native?s life. Jupiter as ASC ruler and conjunct the ASC to a very large extent is the native.

Here?s a person who attracts others through fiery enthusiasm and Venusian charm. Sagittarius loves its freedom and Venus in Aquarius can be socially gracious but standoffish, socially engaged but personally aloof. This is someone who perhaps knows he?s charming, and knows how to use it. But he?s maybe not someone who easily engages with others on a personal or emotional level ? especially considering the Virgo Moon and Mercury, ruler of the 7th, in Capricorn. But I doubt if he minds. Jupiter has him busy moving on.


The man lost everything. He became drugged and drunk. He couldn?t get going again in his old career or a new one. He couldn?t get himself to be widely believed or accepted. He died young. How could such a powerful Jupiter on the ASC be so weak? We all know how the old astrologers praised Jupiter. Wouldn?t they have read this chart (5:30 am) quite positively because of Jupiter?s position and strength? But this was hardly a life blessed by Jupiter. There is the square of the Moon?s nodes to ASC-Jupiter. The mean position of 5 VIR-PIS 09 is pretty close, but is it enough to derail Jupiter?? especially considering the fact that the nodes are in cadent houses. Maybe there is something to say for Whole Sign houses here with ASC-Jupiter in Sagittarius, MC, Moon and NN in Virgo, and SN in Pisces. Plenty of prominent shifting mutability.

The 6:28 chart weakens Jupiter considerably by placing him in the 12th.
It also makes for an angular 1st-7th Sun-Pluto opposition square the MC-IC axis.


*[Edit]: I just noticed the mistake. It should be domicile, triplicity and term ? a very strong 10 points. Since I didn?t post it I hadn?t done a final check.

I bet the Antiscia has something to with it. But yeah Kirk, thats why I was so baffled when I read who the native was. The only thing I can think of is that Jupiter's influence was felt initially, because his life did seem quite blessed. But even though all of this bad fortune happened to him, Jupiter did show up in his life again, through the courts overturning his conviction. Jupiter in Sag has affinity with the law and the clergy.

The problem with this chart is finding out where the bad fortune comes from. Jupiter has done his job, he protected the native his whole life as best as he could.

So we can see the influence of Jupiter quite clearly.

It was mentioned in this thread that Jupiter does not form an aspect to any of the malefics. Maybe thats the problem. Jupiter is hardly debilitated by Mars, quite the opposite, an aspect from Jupiter to Mars would take away some of Mars' malevolence. So here we have a mars that can run free without being checked by Jove. The same with Saturn. Saturn can weigh on any other planet, but Jupiter is a greater like Saturn so he can somewhat influence Saturn with his good fortune.

I think its better to have Jupiter aspecting malefics than not, because you want to Jupiter to help out in the chart. Here he has freedom to act, but he can't communicate with the planets that so desperately need his influence.

Maybe we should try looking at the chart without Jupiter to see if that can show us anything. Maybe we've been too distracted by him. What would this person's life had been like without the influence of Jupiter?

Something to think about anyway.

Forgive me if my methods are "half-assed" at the moment(not to imply that they are ever "full-assed"). Its late and I'm just brainstorming ideas. Hopefully this will spark some more thought about this very complex and interesting chart.

The Moon and Venus traditionally indicate the wife of a male native. The moon is on the MC which is telling. The wife of the native was prominent in his life, influencing his public persona. The moon is also applying to the MC, I'm not going to make a judgment on that but it might be worth noting.

I think the MC is very powerful. It is basically the outward manifestation of our lives. Almost like our legacy... or maybe the 11th is more like our legacy. Or is that the 4th? Ok, this isn't going anywhere. Another interpretation might be the persons inner life(moon) was on public display,
or a part of his "culmination".

Does this make sense to you guys?

ASC = How
MC = What
IC = Why
DSC = Who

Was that genius or what?
Ha, I kill me.


Anyway, If we go along with this, Jupiter is the How. He lived his life like Jupiter in Sag. He was probably a very magnanimous person, or tried to be. Its how he lived his life. What became of his life is the Moon in Virgo. His wife, who I have a hunch was a Virgo, (at least it would make sense) and his inner life is what his life becomes.

The aspect from Jupiter to the Moon becomes much more important to me now. Somehow the way he lives his life, and the good fortune that comes with Jupiter is in aggression with his Moon. He doesn't feel quite right about it perhaps? Maybe he felt like everything was given to him and he didn't really earn all of it? We'll never know, but Jupiter is on his own in this chart. He doesn't see the Sun, Mars, Saturn, or Mercury, and he is in conflict with the moon. So Jupiter was captain of the ship, but he couldn't give out any orders. What do you guys think?

If we use whole sign houses, both malefics are in the 12th house of secret enemies, and evil spirit. Saturn here is good, because he can stamp out the evil, but mars here is really malefic. He can do a lot of evil in the 12th.
My Lawyer, the esteemed Julius Firmicus Maternus, states clearly in the Mathesis, Book III, Part IV:34:

"[Mars in the 12th house] stirs up frequent plots amongst slaves. He makes the native the type slaves wish to harm, often through inventing scandals. Sometimes the natives are in prison [...]. But all these are alleviated if Mars is found in a nocturnal chart."

Well, we don't have slaves, but wasn't the gardener or another servant a suspect?

Lets not forget that Mars is also in his own sign in this chart, giving him full dominion over his activities in the 12th. I'm one of those that think the state of exaltation is a greater dignity than being in ones own sign. If we use Lilly's analogies of the man in different houses, being an honored guest is much better than just sitting around your own house isn't it? I've been sad in my house, but I've rarely been grumpy as an honored guest!

Ah, my attorney has something more to add to the record:

"In all charts we should hope that Venus and Jupiter should be in aspect to Mars in any way from any house. For then the attacks of Mars are weaker, mitigated by other planets."

"In order to assess the power of Mars more accurately, carefully observe his duodecatemorion and the terms of the duodecatemorion."

...Yeah, I'll jump right on that.

Venus is square to Saturn, which could be descriptive of his tragic love life. I mean, his High School sweetheart was murdered in their own bed! Ouch! If he didn't do it, what a sad thing to happen.

Anyway, I think someone who was jealous of his life and decided to ruin his day. Stranger things have happened. Thats a logical conclusion given the above analysis.

Uh, I better go. Maternus is about to object on the grounds of speculation.

Well, we don't have slaves, but wasn't the gardener or another servant a suspect?

Richard Eberling is probably the strongest suspect, if we eliminate Sam Sheppard himself. Eberling was a window washer who had worked at the Sheppard household several times.

Eberling told the police that he was working at the Sheppard house on July 3, 1954, when he cut himself and went into the house (no one was home) in order to tend to the wound and in so doing he left blood in the house.

Years later Eberling's co-worker wrote to Sam Jr and told him that Eberling was not working in the house on July 3, so why would he say he was? If he were not working there, and he was the killer and was hurt in a struggle with Marilyn Sheppard and was cut, he could have been laying the groundwork for an alibi should his blood be discovered anywhere in the house. In those days only blood type could be determined. The problem with the story is that it was written by a man who, at the time it was written, was dying of cancer and did not survive to be questioned any further.

A woman also claimed, that while roaring drunk, Eberling admitted to killing Marilyn adding " ... and she bit the hell out of my finger." Again this stuff came decades after the fact.

Eberling also supposedly confessed on his deathbed, but his "confession" was made in a state of delirium and it didn't make a lot of sense. My feeling is that Sam Jr believes Eberling was the killer.

Tom

What would be very telling here in showing whether he actually did it as opposed to someone else acting in secret would be a look at his wife's chart.

I wonder if her birth data was ever published? It would be very interesting to put them in a bi wheel.

RC

I wonder if her birth data was ever published?

I couldn't find it. Marilyn was one year ahead of Sam in high school. She went off to college and he stayed behind to finish high school. It is likely that she is anywhere from roughly 6 months to about a year older than he was. All published reports put her age at her death as 31 and his as 30. If thsi is accurate she was born prior to July 3, 1923,

The most likely source for a date, I can't imagine we could find a time, would be Mockery of Justice, by Sam Reese Sheppard and Cynthia L. Cooper. There are other books on the case that may contain this information. My local library did not have any. If someone has at least her birth date, please feel free to post it.

Obviously I've been thinking about the case, and to me anyway, the most striking fact is that despite the horrific death scene and obvious brutal violence, Sam Reese Sheppard,aged 7 at the time, did not wake up.

There are several facts that are easily accepted. Sam and Marilyn had guests over the house on July 3, 1954. The couples watched a late movie on TV, with Marilyn sitting on Sam's lap through much of it, but Sam, who had a tiring day at the hospital,, pulled out a day bed and fell asleep while the guests were present. The guests left, Sam was still asleep and so was Sam Jr. Marilyn went to her bedroom and got into her nightclothes. Sam claimed to have been waked by her cries and when he rushed into the bedroom was struck from behind.

For my purposes we can stop here. Why didn't the child wake up? Regardless of who killed her, it had to be a noisy affair. It was by one witness' account the work of an insane person.

Criminologists will tell us that when a murderer destroys the victim's face, like Marilyn's was, it is the desire for the perpetrator to not merely kill but to obliterate the person entirely. Mere killing is not enough. The individual has to be erased. A rapist or thief might well kill, but it would be of necessity. It wouldn't be insane violence. It was estimated she was struck on or about the head and face some 23 times. That's passion, not efficiency. But the question still remains, regardless of who killed her, how could such violence be accomplished so quietly? Such passion is not necessarily limited to people who know the victim. A killer could detest what he or she perceives the victim symbolizes in the killer's mind. He could hate women, or who he perceives to be wealthy women, or good looking women or maybe it's just brunettes that he hates. We are talking derangement here. The Jack the Riper murders are an example of this type of killing.

Tom