Proposal: Earthquake Research

[Guest guest]

At 09:06 AM 1/11/04 -0000, Matthew Quellas wrote:

>Therese,

>... If you look at

>Gary Duncan's article in the Ayanamsa file, you'll see that they

>(Duncan and Bradley) used legitimate methods. This quotation from the

Rainfall2 file shows just how " significant " some of the statistics are:

 

[i couldn't find the rainfall2 file. I'll look again...there were more than

two megs of articles...I should have stayed with a large computer screen

instead of this little notebook screen which tends to become blurry to my

eyes as the day goes on...)

 

> " The meridional distance of Jupiter at the CAPLUNAR INGRESS moments

>preceding the 12 dates of heaviest rainfall at each of thousands of

>rain-recording stations strewn across the nation--a total of 49,576

>precipitation maxima--are calculated and plotted as running sums. Not

>only does Jupiter prefer the upper-culminating region, but a striking

>90 degree wave in its distribution exists! Any student of astrology

>can recognize the pattern...(remainder of quote deleted to shorten post)

 

>I would say that using 45,576 instances is a sufficiently large

>sample, wouldn't you?

 

Yes, Matthew, definitely. The only problem here is that although I was

trained in statistics many years ago and participated in statistical

research, I now have trouble comprehending the technicalities, which I

expect is the story for most astrologers. Yes, it all sounds very good,

but...it is only one type of research and it involves progressing charts.

 

This isn't saying that the research isn't valid or meaningful. I'm only

saying that we still don't have the raw data, exact techniques, and figures

to check it all out. We must accept the research on faith and trust.

 

One important point: accepting the research as valid, the pattern would be

much the same for the Krishnamurti ayanamsa because of the approximately

one degree difference between F-B and K. Only the Moon would show

significant differences between the two ayanamsas.

 

I'd like to propose a more simple research experiment. Would you have

time?? I'd like to take the Fagan-Bradley sun-into-sign ingress charts and

compare them to the Krishnamurti sign-ingress charts for some major

earthquakes. I'd do the Krishnamurti calculations and you'd do the

Fagan-Bradley calculations. We'd both set up the ingress charts and then

compare them to the chart of the earthquake event for significant angular

contacts relating to the earthquake tension aspects.

 

I'd suggest we take the sun-into-sign ingress immediately preceding the

event rather than the cardinal ingresses. This for a start, because some

preliminary work I've done seems to point to their significance, and the

time period between ingress charts and event would be less than 30 days.

Transits would fill in for progressions. Progressions open up a whole new

can of worms and is a secondary technique compared to transits.

 

Since F-B and K are 59 minutes apart, the ingress angles will be somewhat

close, but not exactly the same. There would be a day's difference in the

Moon's position, so it's the angles and Moon that would show the difference

between F-B and K.

 

Essentially we'd be comparing two sets of angles (including foreground

planets) and the Moon with the actual chart of the earthquake. I'd expect

some consistency in types of contacts between the ingress and quake charts.

Planets/angles in the quake chart should contact angular stress patterns in

the ingress chart. The ingress Moon positions would be of prime importance

as well as the quake Moon contacts to ingress charts.

 

If results look interesting after say, 10-20 earthquake charts, the whole

project could be submitted to more precise mathematical study. There would

be no debate about types of progressions because we're working with actual

timed ingresses and actual earthquake charts (transits to the ingress chart).

 

There is more than one way to check out ayanamsas. What do you say,

Matthew?? Would you be willing to spend a little time on this experiment?

I've already taken some earthquake data off the internet which I could

post here. We can begin with San Francisco 1906 and a few other important

earthquakes. Five at a time to see where we're going...

 

>I have used the populated areas where lives were lost rather than

>epicenters for the quakes.

 

I completely agree with this approach. For quakes that are not centered in

a town or city, we could take the closest affected city for the locale of

the quake.

 

> (data deleted)

>As you can see, even late in the period covered by the ingress, the

>divergence is not great.

 

Thanks for this data, Matthew. Very interesting!

 

P.S. Based on a few preliminary earthquake charts, I have to agree with

Bradley that the Lahiri ayanamsa doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The

Krishnamurti ayanamsa looks much more interesting, and, of course, it's

almost a precise degree different than Fagan-Bradley. Based on research,

both ayanamsas were refined by 6 minutes. So comparing these two ayanamsas

could be very interesting!

 

There is just enough difference in the ingress charts to make this a very

worthwhile study. Wouldn't it be interesting if one ayanamsa or the other

rather consistently had closer orb interaction between the ingress and

quake charts?

 

Hoping you'll be interested, Matthew,

Therese

 

P.P.S.

Please don't think I'm out to cut down Fagan and Bradley and their

research. My only interest is to settle on a precise and correct anyanamsa.

For some reason (I've forgotten why...) I changed from Fagan-Bradley to

Krishnamurti sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. The change was probably

based on research with the navamsa chart.