Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mark wrote:
I would suggest the best test samples are accurately timed natal charts where the ascendant changes signs betwen the two zodiacs. Especially, an instance of a change-over from a benefic to a malefic planet or vice-versa. In other words:

Joyce in 'Under One Sky' had an early or late Gem Asc. Hopefully I was reasonably objective in identifying the hits and misses, sometimes this was tricky. Overall the Sideralists appeared to have more success with her. The Sideralists appeared to make more 'predictions' about the life which seems to be their tendency from what I have seen to date.

SIDERALISTS
BOWSER - 5/4
GALE DREYER- 5/6
10./10

TROPICALISTS
ASHLEY - 3 / 4
CHRISTEN - 1/2
FITZGERALD - 0/1
FORREST - 2/1
GALLAGHER -1/7
GEORGE - 0/11
HAND - 4/3
MARCHESELLA - 4/2
ROBERTS - 7/1
SCHMIDT - 0/0
22./32

Nixx wrote:

Joyce in 'Under One Sky' had an early or late Gem Asc.

Not the ideal kind of test chart in my view. I still think a chart with a benefic ruling one zodiac ASC and a malefic ruling the other zodiac would be best.

I ordered this book some years back but it mysteriously never turned up. You have reminded me to try and get it again.

I dont recognise most of the tropical astrologers apart from Hand, Schmidt ,George and Forrest. I wouldn't have thought most psychological astrologers would do all that well in a test aimed at prediction. I assume this was the pre-traditional Demetra George? It would have been interesting if the tropical group would have done better with more traditional practitioners present. For a straight sidereal-tropical test there should be the same number of practitioners in each group.

I dont understand the scores. But it looks like Schmidt didn't have a good day.

It would be an interesting experiment to repeat with people around today. A larger sample of charts would be more statistically relevant.

Mark

Mark wrote:

One possible compromise position is to take the view of the Australian astrologer Bernadette Brady who argues these planets have an association or special connection with certain signs but doesn't go as far as suggesting any kind of rulership.

I can agree with that. This is the type of connection the Zoroastrian fragment might have been suggesting.

Dracon wrote:

Sorry, english is my third language

You're doing a very good job with English, Dracon, because here in America we can't even get our English correct, and no one speaks a second language unless they're immigrated from another country. I appreciate your post. Thanks!

Therese

It might make for an interesting thread one day for people here to erect a speculative chart for Bond

Frawley used to have some fun with speculative charts for fictional characters (Santa Claus), semi fictional characters (Barbie and Ken), and genres (he figured out a chart for jazz). In most cases his method was to take a date and use the pre-"natal" eclipse for a "birth" date.

James Bond first appeared in print upon the publication of the novel "Casino Royale" - April 13, 1953. The eclipse that preceded that publication date was:

Feb 14, 1953
1:10:14 AM GMT
London, UK (Fleming's birthplace)

Lo and behold 19 Scorpio 54 rises. Mars, ASC dispositor, is in Aries showing his independence and is posited in the 4th house of home and country. Mercury, ruler of the 10th is exactly conjunct the Arabic part of violence. Venus, lady of the 7th is in Aries showing his inability to be tied down to one woman, but posited in the 5th house of pleasure shows his true feelings towards the fair sex.

I think we have a workable chart.

Mark wrote:

I still think a chart with a benefic ruling one zodiac ASC and a malefic ruling the other zodiac would be best.

Sure, any chart where the ascendant changes signs between the tropical and sidereal. But what matters is the placement and aspects of the ascendant lord. I never give emphasis to the ascendant sign itself because (as the ancient texts describe) it's the ruler that determines the condition of the ascendant.

An interesting comparison is to take the timed charts of the movie stars known for great feminine beauty and sex appeal. Compare these to more "masculine" female stars such as Katherine Hepburn. As a child Katherine cut her hair off and called herself "Jimmy." Then we have Marilyn Monroe and many others known for their feminine sex appeal and charisma.

Then you can take the opposite: the prototype of "manliness" and strength compared to a star like Johnney Depp, who would never pass muster as a masculine muscle man. You'll find the key planetary placements in the appropriate male or female sidereal signs for each type of person.

Therese wrote:

Sure, any chart where the ascendant changes signs between the tropical and sidereal. But what matters is the placement and aspects of the ascendant lord. I never give emphasis to the ascendant sign itself because (as the ancient texts describe) it's the ruler that determines the condition of the ascendant.

Of course. I was obviously discussing the domicile rulers. Getting into their condition it would be interesting to see an example where the domicile ruler is debilitated by sign placement in one zodiac and not in the other. House systems are obviously something that astrologers can differ on in any zodiac. I am assuming aspects dont change much with zodiac. Although, if we exclude out of sign aspects there could be some interesting differences.

Time for some actual charts I think.....

Mark

Mark wrote:

Of course. I was obviously discussing the domicile rulers. Getting into their condition it would be interesting to see an example where the domicile ruler is debilitated by sign placement in one zodiac and not in the other. House systems are obviously something that astrologers can differ on in any zodiac. I am assuming aspects dont change much with zodiac. Although, if we exclude out of sign aspects there could be some interesting differences.

Time for some actual charts I think.....

I'm all for discussing actual charts and having the charts in both zodiacs here on the forum. We had Fern's charts a while back, but immediately everyone got off topic. Shall we try again with a timed chart? This is a traditional forum, and aspects should be the same in both zodiacs. Yes, out-of-sign aspects might show interesting differences. I liked the way Fern's charts were posted: tropical Placidus and Sidereal equal house.

Therese wrote:

I'm all for discussing actual charts and having the charts in both zodiacs here on the forum. We had Fern's charts a while back, but immediately everyone got off topic. Shall we try again with a timed chart? This is a traditional forum, and aspects should be the same in both zodiacs. Yes, out-of-sign aspects might show interesting differences. I liked the way Fern's charts were posted: tropical Placidus and Sidereal equal house.

I think the problem with the Fern chart was it was so third hand with teachers describing the girl to Greenbaum and nothing more than a short paragraph to describe her personality. I feel we need a better known public figure.

Regarding house system we already have differing zodiacs so it would ease things looking at the same house system. Equal house is a bit a rareity these days. Although I know its still taught by the Faculty of Astrological Studies In England. However, the London based astrologer Frank Clifford is a great advocate of the system and he is a renowned natal researcher. I suspect most western traditional siderealists would be using Alcabitius, or Whole sign these days with possibly Porphyry or Placidus making some appearances. Placidus is probably the most popular house system across the astrological community as a whole. I personally use Whole sign for natal myself but Equal is fine to identify the Whole sign houses.

As a compromise to satisfy as many people as possible I will present the next nativity in both Equal and in one quadrant system (Placidus) in each zodiac.

The chart I am putting up for discussion is that of the former US President Richard Nixon. Nixon is of course notorious for the Watergate scandal and the threat of his impeachment in office by the Congress. The image of Nixon resigning his office and flying away in a Helicopter from the White House lawn was surely an iconic image of one of the lowest points in American political history.

Nixon's chart is heavily Saturn ruled in the Tropical zodiac but this emphasis shifts more to the Sun with Jupiter and Saturn involved in the Lahiri zodiac. However, the Moon remains Saturn ruled in both zodiacs (Capricorn in Lahiri and Aquarius in tropical).

Looking at the tropical ASC Mercury predominates as domcile and exaltation ruler. It in turn is disposited by Saturn. Saturn is the dispositor of the Moon although Mercury has triplicity here too.

Tropically The temperament seems melancholic with some sanguine characteristics too (Moon in sanguine sign and phase, Mercury oriental of Sun). The quality of the soul/Lord of manners is Saturn as domicile ruler of Mercury and the Moon. However, Mars also has influence over Mercury too as the exaltation ruler of Capricorn. Mars is in sect here and in its term. It is also oriental of the sun making it easier for Nixon to tap into the positive dimension of his Mars through his thoughts. On the other hand Saturn is out of sect and retrograde in the chart and very dry since it is occidental of the Sun. This increases the planets negative connotations. Mercury is oriental of the sun making it warm and moist. The largely Saturn-Mercury focus of the chart fits Nixon's negative nickname of 'tricky Dicky'

The fixed star Denobola in the constellation of Leo was rising in mundo at the time of Nixon's birth. Traditionally this star is in the Lion's tail and is associated with misfortune and public disgrace.

In this chart I do think the Tropical zodiac more readily captures the very Saturnian and austere personality of Nixon. I would be interested in seeing how you explain the strong Sagittarian focus in Lahiri since from a from an initial outlook this seems rather paradoxical. I find it hard to see the socially stiff, paranoid, secretive, reclusive Nixon as a Leo rising/Sag sun personality.

On the positive side Nixon did open up diplomatic relations with Communist China for the first time and pursued Nuclear weapons treaties with the Soviet Union. Nixon built his political career as a anti-communist in the 1950's and early 1960's and it is often said that only a political conservative like Nixon could have pulled this off. In many ways Nixon is a tragic figure. Almost like a character from Shakespeare with a fatal personality flaw that destroys him. His loss of power was more due to his personal distrust , paranoia, and fear than any tangible political threat.


Richard Nixon (Lahiri-Equal Houses)
Richard Nixon- (Lahiri-Placidus Houses)

Richard Nixon-(Tropical-Equal Houses)

Richard Nixon-Tropical-(Placidus Houses)
Note: I posted up the information from the Clifford data file on Solar Fire. This lists Nixon's place of birth as Whittier, California. This appears incorrect and Nixon was actually, born in Yorba Linda, California. This moves the ASC forward to 17'26 Virgo (tropical). I have decided to leave the charts up as entered both due to the time involved in changing them and the fact I dont see this making a difference to the exercise being conducted here.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Nixon,_Richard_M.

Nixon represents the problem with using relatively recent political figures in astrology discussions.

Nixon is of course notorious for the Watergate scandal and being impeached in office.

Nixon was never impeached. Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. If they had voted for impeachment a trial would have taken place in the Senate, and the Senate would have to vote on whether or not to remove him.

msg deleted

Tom wrote:

Nixon was never impeached. Nixon resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on by the full House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. If they had voted for impeachment a trial would have taken place in the Senate, and the Senate would have to vote on whether or not to remove him.

Yes I spotted that error myself myself and corrected it. Presumably while you were posting! Still the fact remains he got out expressly to avoid this humiliation and I dont think the American public saw much of a distinction even if the lawyers did.

Mark