So you knew who was behind the chart 3?

No, Tom asked us to do his solar return, and before I noticed it was chart 3 I had already delineated him as a scholar.

Papetris
I think the most important thing is maybe because Jupiter is retrograde going away from the ascendant, into a cadent house by division. So, as life goes by, his protective influence decreases ? Maybe.

2 - I NEVER give my chart to astrologers or forums of astrology. Every flame email that I receive from dramatic astrologers always try to attack me from my chart (that they don?t have): "oh, you are so pompous, I bet you are an aquarius".
And my reply is always "I am not an aquarius, please write me again after you learn some astrology"
if I gave my chart, I would miss my personal joke...
Besides that, Christopher Warnock said that he don?t give his chart because it can be used in curses, and I believe it so.

Deb:
John Frawley?s chart is May 16, 1955, 12:40 AM, London
according to Astrotheme, 14 Capricorn rising

Cheer up, I've got moon on Algol. And the scars to prove it, I fear. I think Lilly had sun on Algol, might've been another personal planet. My best mate has Sun/Venus on Scheat and as far as I know she's never killed anyone either.

They just aren't nice stars. That, and only malefics above the horizon were what caught my eye on that one. Which doesn't automagically make it a murderer's chart, but it was the yuckiest (that's a technical term) looking one of the bunch in that regard.

I intensely dislike giving out birth information or showing charts either, for the same reason - curses. Though I did have mine up here for almost a day.

Tom wrote,

As for accuracy. I got this chart from an old book Lois Rodden's The American Book of Charts (1980). The data was obtained from the Church of Light who in turn obtained the data in 1938 from his mother. Therefore the data is rated "A." I think that's about as good as we'll ever get. I'll try to stay with "A" and "AA" rated charts in the future.

Tom, can you please give the complete chart details? I am curious to know the exact time and location.

Thanks

My apologies to Bob too

The fact Chart 5 was a murder victim makes a lot of sense. It helps to resolve the paradox of a such a strong Jupiter yet a chart loaded with 8th house associations. Still, if someone came to me for a reading would I jump that conclusion? Probably not. I would try and go with other possible 8th house interpretations.

Its odd how sometimes we dont follow our own reasoning. I had scored Chart 3 as my next choice after 5 but ignored this and went for Chart 1.

The fixed stars is interesting here. I wonder if they are better at picking out more fated elements in a chart than the planets? I hadn't gone far back enough in time so missed Pollux. That certainly might have swayed me if I had spotted it. Ah its all so clear after the event......

Traditionally the more violent of the twins this star does seem to come up in charts with people a particular inclination to violence. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer the notorious serial killer has Pollux exactly on his MC. Still, the star could be expressed in more positive ways such as a boxer or martial artist.

I think that and the planetary associations do help to explain the chart. I should also probably have avoided trying to be 'astrologically correct' by ignoring that strong scorpio focus.

The Scheat on the MC and Algol on the POF is a nice connection although the former has more traditional associations with drowning, suicide etc. However, I would dispense with Algol and Scheat here. As I see it the approach advocated by Vivian Robson for fixed stars way outside the ecliptic is not that different from using Sabian symbols. People can find remarkable 'hits' but ultimately the technique has no astronomical basis. The reality is that Scheat is not on the MC at all.

The reality is that Scheat is not on the MC at all.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something because I don't understand what you mean by this comment. Can you explain it a little more fully?

Also, from the way ancient authors like Manilius and Firmicus describe the use of the term paranatellonta, I thought it referred to extra-zodiacal stars which rose and accompanied the zodiac degrees - so isn't this the same use as Robson's?

I'm sorry about not posting the data. My mistake

Harry Tracy
Oct 23, 1875
9:45 PM LMT
Minong, Wisconsin, USA
91 W 49 46 N 06

You know Wisconsin has produced more than its share of murderers. Jeffery Dahmer was from Wisconsin and Eddie Gein, the model for the book and movie Psycho, was from Wisconsin, and I think one or two others. I imagine most people from Wisconsin are normal, however.

Scheat on the MC and Algol on the POF is a nice connection although the former has more traditional associations with drowning, suicide etc.

He did commit suicide.

Tom

Hi Deb,

Thanks for the thumbs up.

Mars being so close to the descendant is something that I'd notice though.

I agree, and also with your comments about the importance of angularity and the birth time. When I posted my wager on Chart #3 it occurred to me that, if I'm right and this is the murderer, I will be slightly disappointed. Disappointed because I would expect (of astrology) to show an angle afflicted with a closer orb than, for example, this out of sign Mars 8degree 54minute opposition. So, either astrology is working just fine and I need to widen my orb-angle expectations, or the birth time is slightly off ... or both.

Here is a mug shot of Harry Tracy. The sharp piercing eyes are a Mars to Ascendant feature. Can anyone add anything?
http://www.wrvmuseum.org/journal/journal_0498.htm

Note: Tracy's birthday is not on the web however his birth year is there, sometimes off by a year. This is an example of why Lois Rodden began her astrodatabank rating system.

Cassie

Deb wrote:
Also, from the way ancient authors like Manilius and Firmicus describe the use of the term paranatellonta, I thought it referred to extra-zodiacal stars which rose and accompanied the zodiac degrees - so isn't this the same use as Robson's?

Hello Deb,
No, it's not the same method as Robson's. He uses stars according their longitude.

I believe the only one who uses stars according their "in mundo" position at the moment is Giuseppe Bezza and his group.
Moreover Bezza gives no room to mythology, he justs collects meanings of stars from hellenistic, medieval and Renaissance texts.

Margherita

Hi Margherita

Thanks for your response. I understand that Robson uses Longitude, but I?m confused by Mark?s comment that the use of fixed stars outside (presumably ?far from?) the ecliptic has no astronomical basis, so ?that Scheat is not on the MC at all?.

It is this comment that I don't understand. Ancient authors obviously did consider stars that were far from the ecliptic, and they did use longitude as a way to measure their position (even if it was a variable measurement that shifted according to latitude). I would understand if he were talking about Scheat not really being conjunct ascendant, but why would it not be conjunct the midheaven, which is only where the meridian intersects with the ecliptic? Am I missing something relevant or has Mark confused the MC with the zenith (or something similar)?

On a general note, I think our understanding of what was and wasn?t done with the stars in remote antiquity is far from complete. I agree that ancient authors took a different approach to that which Robson describes, but there also seems to be an approach that is very different to anything I have seen any modern author describe either. Last year I wrote an article on the circumpolar stars which touched upon this and I hope to have that published soon as a demonstration of how we need to switch perspectives quite dramatically to understand how the stars were put to use in ancient times. But I wouldn't suggest that this is the only valid way to use the stars and Robson does have a strong astrological tradition behind the approach that he describes.

Deb

Deb wrote: On a general note, I think our understanding of what was and wasn?t done with the stars in remote antiquity is far from complete. I agree that ancient authors took a different approach to that which Robson describes, but there also seems to be an approach that is very different to anything I have seen any modern author describe either.

I agree with you more than 100%
For what I understood, while doing my researches for Albumasar text, hellenistic astrologers mixed several catalogues of different ages and built with different methods.
I became almost crazy to understand why Albumasar follows Ptolemy catalogue, updating positions of stars for his era, but on the contrary he put Ursa Maior and Ursa Minor in the opposite part of the Zodiac.
Still now I have not a clear idea, maybe he follows Manilius/ Firmicus who put these stars at the end of their book, but why I don't know.
And Hypparchus catalogue is lost if not for Hypparchus comment to Aratus.

The same is for Astrolabium Planum. Moreover descriptions of images in Abano book are the same from the older Spanish illuminated book Vat. Reg.1283. Warburg and Saxl wrote Abano took his book from the Spanish one, anyway they don't write how Abano in Padua could know it. He surely knew Albumasar and IbnEzra who repeats Albumasar text as his, in "The beginning of wisdom" but we don't know how Abano could know the Spanish book. At least I never met someone who knows this.

Last year I wrote an article on the circumpolar stars which touched upon this and I hope to have that published soon as a demonstration of how we need to switch perspectives quite dramatically to understand how the stars were put to use in ancient times.

I hope to read it soon.

But I wouldn't suggest that this is the only valid way to use the stars and Robson does have a strong astrological tradition behind the approach that he describes.

Well, I don't like to have TEACHERS, I like to think with my brain.

I was just saying that Bezza uses stars in their celestial motion, because he says that stars are very far from the ecliptic, so we cannot measure their position on it.

Stars move because the motion of the sky "the primum mobile", so we should measure their position "in mundo" and then turn this position in ecliptical coordinates- this is Bezza way of reasoning.

In every case - if you ask me what I think about the subjiect- I believe that astrologers were a little freer of this and they happily used longitude.

But I agree with Bezza in his dislike for mythology. We have so many Renaissance texts listing the meaning of fixed stars, why we should invent others? Anyway obviously, it's just my opinion,

Margherita

Looks as if I will have to re-think aversion and a few other things as well I picked Chart #4 primarily on the basis that the Asc/Asc ruler appeared to be the worst harmed; Chart #3, with the malefics averse to the Asc/Asc ruler didn't look all that bad. As Steven pointed out, an analysis of the chart as a whole is probably the best way to go, assuming you can correctly weigh the various factors in a chart, there's the rub.

Chart #3 has both the malefics above the horizon with the lights and benefics all below the horizon, an indication the malefics will play a more prominent role or be more pronounced in the life?

There is also the stellium in Scorpio with all 4 planets square an angular Mars. The stellium is primarily in the 5th house of pleasure, risks. An indication he would enjoy being violent? The Moon, Asc ruler, is tapped into the stellium by a fairly close sextile to the Sun.

The chart is nocturnal and if the tradition is right in assigning Mars to the nocturnal sect, he is the only planet in sect being positioned nocturnally but he is out of sect by gender being in a masculine sign - tradition states he is less harmful in a feminine sign. Morin, I think, places more emphasis on gender, saying (in Bk 14 p34-36) that a planet exerts its influence more powerfully and joyfully if in a sign of its own gender. Here Mars is angular, in a masculine sign and disposited by Saturn in his masculine domicile (also 'joyful'). Mars is determined to the 1st by opposition and the entire stellium, disposed by Mars, is trine the 1st. Saturn and Mars are mutually applying to conjunction due to Saturn being retro which also makes him, according to Morin, stronger and more unfortunate.

So, in hindsight, the malefic elements of the chart all have determinations to the 1st; Mars by his opposition and inconjunct to the Moon (Asc ruler), Saturn by his mutually applying conjunction to Mars and square to the stellium, the stellium of corrupted planets by trine.

One interesting element, Saturn ruling the 8th in domicile and retro in the 8th indicates a solitary and violent death. In Sharon Tate's chart, Saturn rules the 8th but is in the 11th and she died with friends; I know this is the traditional forum but it is dfficult to overlook Saturn's conjunct with Uranus given the sudden and unusual nature of what happened to her.

The other puzzling thing is all those exalted planets in Chart #4, based on Tom's description of the native they do not appear to have raised her very high in life. Need to to take a closer look at the chart but out of time this morning.

janeg wrote:
The chart is nocturnal and if the tradition is right in assigning Mars to the nocturnal sect, he is the only planet in sect being positioned nocturnally but he is out of sect by gender being in a masculine sign - tradition states he is less harmful in a feminine sign. Morin, I think, places more emphasis on gender, saying (in Bk 14 p34-36) that a planet exerts its influence more powerfully and joyfully if in a sign of its own gender.

Hello Janeg,

I should say I don't agree here. Mars is in his hairesis, it's a night planet in a night chart.

Firmicus writes (II.20.11):
? For if the planets which rejoice by day are in important houses in a diurnal chart, and are found on the first cardinal points, they portend the greatest increase in good fortune. But if the planets which we said rejoice by night are in the important houses or cardinal houses in a diurnal chart, they indicate unending misfortune and constant catastrophe.?

Then maybe I agree with you that Mars could be more happier in a feminine sign.

On the other hand, Saturn is against his hairesis being a day planet in a night chart, in the wrong part of the chart according Arab definition of sect and retrograde, and in the 8th house...

Margherita