Guest guest Posted September 9, 2005 Report Share Posted September 9, 2005 Bert -- You wrote: " I did some work earlier on with the Idea of a RA return of Moon or Sun. It is true that conjunctions in RA are important. But I did not get the kind of results I would have expected. the Return of the Sun to a point in the sky (0 of the Cardinals) seems to be important, when measured along the Zodiacal circle, from the Sidereal fiducial. From the work of Bradley it can be seen how the right determination (I feel that Fagan/Bradley gives the best fit for events) would be critical. When I took a number of mundane event, Floods, Crashes and Fires, I found that the time of the ingresses, as determined by F/B gave a time that placed the proper Planets closer to the angles for the location of the event. Laheri was off by a noticeable amount. " Cool so far. I'm totally with you, EXCEPT regarding RA Sun returns as a relevant point of reserach -- the return of Sun in longitude occurs the same moment as the return of Sun in ex-precessed RA. But what do you mean by this: " What is interesting is that when the ingress for Laheri is looked at en mundo, the difference between the RAMC of the ingress or its progressions (Neo-SQ) and the RAMCs for the malefic crossings, when converted to UT, is very near the difference between the UT for the ingress as calculated using F/A and Laheri. This suggests,, but by no mean proves, that the difference between a valid determination and one that is off is this difference. " 1) The ingress based on the Laheri fiducial 2) examined in regard to mundane placements 3) has an RAMC 4) and its neo-SQ progressions have proportionally corresponding RAMC's 5) which are, respectively, the same difference from 6) the RAMC's 7) of the malefic crossings 8) and, that difference (or those differences) 9) when converted to UT 10) is nearly the same as the difference between 11) the UT of the Fagan ingress and the UT of the Lahiri ingress I can't get this -- I think you're saying: The planets progress to the angles of an ingress chart for fiducial " A " after the passage of " X " amount of RAMC. The planets progress to the angles of a nearly-contemporary ingress chart for fiducial " B " after the passage of " Y " amount of RAMC. The difference between " X " and " Y " will be proportional to the difference between " A " and " B. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 9, 2005 Report Share Posted September 9, 2005 fimtinnegan wrote: > fimtinnegan wrote: > >>Bert -- >> >>You wrote: >>But what do you mean by this: >> >> " What is interesting is that when the ingress for Laheri is looked at >>en mundo, the difference between the RAMC of the ingress or its >>progressions (Neo-SQ) and the RAMCs for the malefic crossings, when >>converted to UT, is very near the difference between the UT for the >>ingress as calculated using F/A and Laheri. This suggests,, but by no >>mean proves, that the difference between a valid determination and >>one that is off is this difference. " >he Fagan ingress and the UT of the Lahiri ingress >> >>I can't get this -- I think you're saying: >> > > What I am saying is that when the LaheriIngress is corrected to make the RAMC the same as that for the angular planet, the resulting UT, is often very nearly the same as that for a F/B ingress with the proper planets on the proper angles. > The progressions are a bit more tricky. Frankly I am going to have to get out the calculator and try reconstruct what I did in this regard. > >Bert > >PS: I will be back to this, once I have had some sleep and had a chance to use my calculator and a piece of paper. > >B > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 fimtinnegan wrote: >Cool so far. I'm totally with you, EXCEPT regarding RA Sun returns >as a relevant point of research -- the return of Sun in longitude >occurs the same moment as the return of Sun in ex-precessed RA. > >But what do you mean by this: > >1) The ingress based on the Laheri fiducial >2) examined in regard to mundane placements >3) has an RAMC >4) and its neo-SQ progressions have proportionally corresponding >RAMC's >5) which are, respectively, the same difference from >6) the RAMC's >7) of the malefic crossings >8) and, that difference (or those differences) >9) when converted to UT >10) is nearly the same as the difference between >11) the UT of the Fagan ingress and the UT of the Lahiri ingress > >I can't get this -- I think you're saying: > >The planets progress to the angles of an ingress chart for >fiducial " A " after the passage of " X " amount of RAMC. The planets >progress to the angles of a nearly-contemporary ingress chart for >fiducial " B " after the passage of " Y " amount of RAMC. The difference >between " X " and " Y " will be proportional to the difference >between " A " and " B. " As a general example, here is the way to proceed with the SQ progression. To get the SQ progression: 1. RAMC Ingress- RAAS Ingress= LHAS 2. LHAS + RAAS TX Sun (at time of event) = RAMC SQ event Then if the RAMC of the SQ is correct to make the appropriate planet angular (Same as in rectification): 1. RAMC SQ (corrected)- RAAS TX Sun=LHAS(Corrected) 2. RAMC ingress- LHAS= RAAS corrected ingress 3. Interpolate for exact time that the Sun has this RAAS on the date of the ingress. By the way, regarding the Capsolar ingress 2005. With both the F/B and Laheri, the Ingress occurs on Jan 14,2005. The F/A begins at 20:59:36 UT, while the Laheri begins at 00:10:52 UT. This is a difference of 20 h 40 m 44 s between the two. Not only will the angles be different, but the longitude of the Moon,(which moves about a degree every two hours) will be radically different. This latter has drastic implication when using the Anlunars out of the Capsolar Ingress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 2005 Report Share Posted September 10, 2005 fimtinnegan wrote: >Bert -- > } But what do you mean by this: } " What is interesting is that when the ingress for Laheri is looked at }en mundo, the difference between the RAMC of the ingress or its }progressions (Neo-SQ) and the RAMCs for the malefic crossings, when }converted to UT, is very near the difference between the UT for the }ingress as calculated using F/A and Laheri. This suggests,, but by no }mean proves, that the difference between a valid determination and }one that is off is this difference. " Here are some figures On the Cansolar Ingress: Using Solar Maps: F/B July 17,2005 @ 07:17:16 UT For New Orleans the Neptune MC line was 4 16' east of the city. Laheri July 16,2005 @ 09:02:27 UT Uranus MC 1 49' west of New Orleans Neptune Dec 2 49' west of the city. The reader can see the large space of time between the inception times of the ingress with the two determinations. It is 22 h 14 m 49 s. In the case of Laheri the Moon is in 14 53' 46 " Scorpio and in the case of F/B 27 30' 51 Scorpio. That is 12 37' 05 " That is about a days difference in the time for the start of the Anlunar for the hurricane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Hey all, try the Krishnamurti Leo Ingress for New Orleans: August 16, 2005 10:02:33 am CDT Ascendant: 15 Vir 28 (Biloxi Asc is 16 Vir 27) MC 15 Gem 58 Moon 15 Sag 49 Uranus 15 Aqu 33 (cusp 6) Mars 16 Ari 37 (cusp 8) With Uranus forming a Yod to the ascendant Mercury 14 Can 58 (Mercury is asc lord and conjoins Saturn) Jupiter in 1st 21 Vir 55 Ketu in 1st 22 Vir 26 Neptune trine 22 Cap 09 When Katrina moved into the gulf coast, the Moon had come to the ingress MC (from the ingress IC), Ketu (mean S Node) had retrograded to within 10 minutes of Jupiter in 1st and Venus had moved to conjoin ingress Jupiter as well. Mars had moved to the quincunx aspect to ingress Jupiter-Ketu in 1st and was squaring ingress Neptune (14 minute orb). I don't think anything will beat this ingress chart. Mars on cusp 8 for death, Uranus on cusp 6 for trauma and disaster, wet Venus and Jupiter on either side of the ascendant. Venus is in its fall in Virgo and Jupiter isn't so good there either. Set up the chart to see the very close grouping of aspects near the ascendant degree. Then there's the Neptune-Node-Jupiter configuration. Equal house cusps, in this case in synch with the MC/IC. Therese At 06:31 AM 9/10/05 -0700, Bert wrote: >fimtinnegan wrote: > > >Bert -- > > > >} But what do you mean by this: >} " What is interesting is that when the ingress for Laheri is looked at > >}en mundo, the difference between the RAMC of the ingress or its >}progressions (Neo-SQ) and the RAMCs for the malefic crossings, when >}converted to UT, is very near the difference between the UT for the >}ingress as calculated using F/A and Laheri. This suggests,, but by no >}mean proves, that the difference between a valid determination and >}one that is off is this difference. " > > Here are some figures On the Cansolar Ingress: >Using Solar Maps: >F/B July 17,2005 @ 07:17:16 UT >For New Orleans the Neptune MC line was 4 16' east of the city. > >Laheri July 16,2005 @ 09:02:27 UT > >Uranus MC 1 49' west of New Orleans >Neptune Dec 2 49' west of the city. > > The reader can see the large space of time between the inception >times of the ingress with the two determinations. >It is 22 h 14 m 49 s. In the case of Laheri the Moon is in 14 53' 46 " >Scorpio and in the case of F/B 27 30' 51 Scorpio. That is 12 37' 05 " >That is about a days difference in the time for the start of the Anlunar >for the hurricane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Therse: I can see you use equal ecliptic houses, based on the projection of RAMC onto the ecliptic on the midheaven -- it seems the ecliptic is the only reference-frame of relevance to you, except insofar as the meridian intersects it. I can see that you also consider 5/12 division of the ecliptic not only relevant, but relevant enough to justify casting charts for the sun's transit of 5/12 (or, I assume, any multiple of 1/12) of the way past the fiducial. Jupiter is on the western horizon in the solar ingress chart you describe for August 2005 in New Orleans, within a degree or so. Because you prioritize the ecliptic -- and even its divisions by twelve from the midheaven -- I presume you find this Jupiter placement of little relevance, relative to points such as Jupiter's ecliptical position in trine to the midheaven, since that point correlates for you to the " sixth house cusp " and thus has certain associative meanings. But I must say that I find the August solar ingress chart you've referenced to be one that would not lend confidence to the methods you're using were I to be testing them for their effectiveness. Perhaps you've found Jupiter to be among the worst indicators? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Therese: Sorry for the typo on your name, my mouse makes the cursor skip around. RE: 5/12 -- should have said 1/3 re the August ingress, but I presume you'd look at the September ingress, too. But the main point, again: Jupiter precisely on the western horizon at the moment of your ingress chart for New Orleans: really not worth commenting on? or at least explaining via some contradictory factor or different interpretation of Jupiter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.