Very interesting, Martin. Thank you for the info.

Certainly, if we assume that there is something to these charts, (and to my eyes, there certainly appears to be); then up to now, Krishnamurti is definitely out-pacing Fagan-Bradley in the technique of monthly sidereal ingresses.

Re: "Atlantean, I'm glad that you are noticing the Moon in these charts as well as the angles."

Thanks...I'm trying to do this as well and fair as I can... anyone else can jump in, if they're up to speed on what we are testing here. ie. I'm not claiming to own the Scorekeeper. lol

My methodology declared:

I'm grabbing events from various internet lists by type and pulling the nearest preceding sidereal monthly ingress for both Fagan-Bradley and Krishnamurti and looking for angularity. If both charts have the same planets angular, then there's no point in posting them, so it's on to the next one. I'm defining angular as close to the angles in ecliptic longitude, or if relatively close to the angles in prime vertical longitude. (this PVL check fixes, for instance, the problem of Pluto looking like it's more than 20° off the Ascendant, when it's actually right on it) Since the Moon is so important in these charts (for meaning) and because the Moon aspects are different between the Fagan-Bradley and Krishnamurti charts, it has to be included in this study. We are essentially only interested in tallying tit-for-tat which performs better for each event, and a short comment why the one outperforms the other. The Scorekeeper is included to nerdify the process, and until we started seeing where this is going, intended to provide some drama...

Atlantean wrote:

Certainly, if we assume that there is something to these charts, (and to my eyes, there certainly appears to be); then up to now, Krishnamurti is definitely out-pacing Fagan-Bradley in the technique of monthly sidereal ingresses.

It would seem that this is a very critical technique as it depends one hundred percent on the precise moment that the Sun enters a new sidereal sign. Aren't we looking for an initial point of the sidereal zodiac that can be verified and performs will in tests? Even using a mathematically close ayanamsa such as Lahiri which is only six minutes away will give different chart angles.

Of course there are a number of techniques that can be used to test an ayanamsa. This would depend on individual preference and may not depend entirely on an initial starting point for zodiac signs.

We are essentially only interested in tallying tit-for-tat which performs better for each event, and a short comment why the one outperforms the other. The Scorekeeper is included to nerdify the process, and until we started seeing where this is going, intended to provide some drama... Laughing

We are certainly all enjoying your contributions, and we thank you!!

Atlantean wrote:I'm defining angular as close to the angles in ecliptic longitude, or if relatively close to the angles in prime vertical longitude.

I noticed this terminology once or twice before. Does it mean something other than the standard term altitude? Just seeking information...

No that is exactly it, Martin.

Checking the Prime Vertical Longitude corrects for planets when they have significant altitude. I got the idea from Jim Eshelman and it seems sound.

Though it's not a monthly sidereal solar ingress, my favorite example is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's horoscope. In ecliptic longitude, no one looking at his chart would likely see Pluto as angular... it appears rather, as more between the angles.
However, if we take Pluto's altitude into account, by looking at it in prime vertical longitude, we see Pluto's actual postion, relative to the Ascendant, rather than its ecliptic projection.

Hello Therese,

Re: "It would seem that this is a very critical technique as it depends one hundred percent on the precise moment that the Sun enters a new sidereal sign."

Yes, but I felt it necessary to highlight that we're testing monthly sidereal ingresses, because that is a technique that those that normally support Fagan-Bradley, don't normally use. [To make an analogy, if I progress secondary progressed angles/cusps by right ascension, rather than ecliptic longitude; yet someone says secondary progressions don't work, (though they are testing using ecliptic longitude), it doesn't say anything about whether they work when using right ascension.]

Re: "Aren't we looking for an initial point of the sidereal zodiac that can be verified and performs will in tests?"

Yes, but "because it performs better in the monthly sidereal ingresses," doesn't necessarily, automatically mean that it would outperform, when the stack of charts are analyzed differently. (ie. the Year, Quarter, Month, Week scheme of analysis or potentially others...)

Yet, as we are seeing through this sampling that I am posting, 1) the monthly sidereal solar ingresses appear to be very valid charts (making it a valid test-ground for FB vs. Krishnamurti) and 2) appear to be correct in Krishnamurti, where there are some strongly counter-indicative charts, if we use the same technique with Fagan-Bradley.

This brings up some interesting points concerning the techniques of Siderealists, as well. In their analysis, there is often the concept of "dormant charts." Their approach, is (for instance) that if a particular solar ingress (for instance the CapSolar) has no real angularity, to go further back in time to a preceding ingress (for instance the previous CanSolar) that they say is "flowing through" the time period encompassed by the dormant chart. Using this monthly ingress technique, I'm not really finding any "dormant charts," which on its own (to me) calls into question the concept of dormancy. Additionally, if we're sticking to the monthly ingresses, the planetary positions are always relatively current (ie. never more than a month off from the event), while examing the preceding Cancer ingress because the CapSolar doesn't have anything of note to say, would have positions displaced 6 months in time. Not saying it doesn't work, just that it seems to be on shaky conceptual ground, in light of the lack of "dormant" charts we are finding (using monthly sidereal solar ingresses), when taking returns closer in time to the event and using the Krishnamurti ayanamsa.

Re: "Of course there are a number of techniques that can be used to test an ayanamsa."

Yes, it 100% depends on how the charts are being analyzed in that system, otherwise, one has erected a strawman argument. [Imagine critically analyzing vedic astrology using the Western approach as your sole metric.]

However, for what seems like a valid technique (in all the charts I have surveyed so far in this technique), the Krishnamurti ayanamsa is working like the ayanamsa...

Re: "We are certainly all enjoying your contributions, and we thank you!!"

You're more than welcome... I'm curious and there seems to be a reliable technique here, that wasn't in my trick-bag, so I have to thank linchi and you for that.

"Walk of Death" shooting in Camden, NJ. (Sep 6, 1949)

Leo Ingress.

Fagan-Bradley: Mars (right on the Asc), Jupiter, Venus

Krishnamurti: Mars-Uranus (with Asc as the midpoint), Mercury, Venus

Mars is definitely right, however in light of the explosiveness of the event (has a calm breakfast at home, eating a meal his mother prepared and then suddenly proceeds to lay waste to his neighbors (especially) and anyone he comes across along the way), as well as that Howard Unruh was found to be not responsible for his actions because he was criminally insane, makes Mars-Uranus (in my opinion) better for the event. Basically, I'd give it to Krishnamurti, because Mars can say "violent soldier, shooting people with a gun" but Mars-Uranus is closer to "violent, insane soldier, shooting people with a gun."

Monthly Ingress
Scorekeeper: FB: 2, Krishnamurti: 12

Atlantean wrote:No that is exactly it, Martin.

Checking the Prime Vertical Longitude corrects for planets when they have significant altitude. I got the idea from Jim Eshelman and it seems sound.

Thanks for the confirmation. I just wondered why someone would invent a new (and much longer) term for it. I presume the terminology is Eshelman's, then?

Using the actual risings, culminations and settings of the heavenly bodies (rather than their ecliptical projections) is a very old idea, of course. And I agree that it is very useful, both in analysing the radix and in directions. I don't use Pluto, but the difference can be quite striking even for Venus or the Moon, especially at Scandinavian latitudes. I remember a Swedish client with 19 Aquarius rising and the Moon at 18 Capricorn: she was in fact born exactly at moonrise (the Moon had zero altitude).

Re: "I presume the terminology is Eshelman's, then?"

Well, the prime vertical is (as you know) just another great circle ie. even older than Eshelman , but according to Eshelman (and it makes sense) measuring positions along that great circle negates substantially the likelihood of missing an angular planet due to its altitude.

Great example, Martin. Angularity's not always as obvious as it appears to be. Changing the view sometimes makes other things much more obvious, like in this case for which are truly angular.

Atlantean wrote:Well, the prime vertical is (as you know) just another great circle ie. even older than Eshelman

Indeed, but positions along it (= above/below the horizon) are normally called altitude, not longitude. At least as far as I know.

Atlantean wrote:

You're more than welcome... I'm curious and there seems to be a reliable technique here, that wasn't in my trick-bag, so I have to thank linchi and you for that.

I will humbly admit that I have been using this technique for many years, and Linchi followed my suggestion and experimented with monthly sidereal ingress charts. I mentioned his name on purpose as I knew you respected his work. Linchi had been using the Capricorn ingress for events. I could never accept the importance of sidereal Capricorn Ingress charts since the concept belongs to the winter solstice, and in theory should have no application in the sidereal zodiac.

Your comments about the FB sidereal use of 'Dormant Charts' were particularly interesting.

I am SO very grateful that you have been willing to test these charts. For me this is a real breakthrough as I've been trying to interest FB astrologers in looking at monthly charts and the Krishnamurti ayanamsa for a long time, often on now defunct forums. As you know, one might as well challenge those astrologers to climb Mount Everest! I've had no credibility in the FB camp. In days past Ken Bowser and I have had our discussions (uh...arguments...) but of course those discussions came to a dead end.

Martin wrote:

Using the actual risings, culminations and settings of the heavenly bodies (rather than their ecliptical projections) is a very old idea, of course. And I agree that it is very useful, both in analysing the radix and in directions... I don't use Pluto, but the difference can be quite striking even for Venus or the Moon, especially at Scandinavian latitudes. I remember a Swedish client with 19 Aquarius rising and the Moon at 18 Capricorn: she was in fact born exactly at moonrise (the Moon had zero altitude).

Atlantean wrote:

Great example, Martin. Angularity's not always as obvious as it appears to be. Changing the view sometimes makes other things much more obvious, like in this case for which are truly angular.

I wonder then about interpretation. For example in Martin's example of the Moon. If we're reading a chart for a client (or for a mundane event) do we or don't we interpret the Moon as angular?? Or how about the Moon and personality for a client? Do we look at ecliptical aspects and house positions?