San Francisco Fire & Quake (Response yet again)

[Guest guest]

At 09:34 AM 1/27/04 -0000, Matthew wrote:

> ---------------

>[MQ] Yet, Therese, you dismiss the semi-square and sesqui-square (as

>in the SF Quake chart where Mars ties into all three planets of the T-

>square with orbs of less than one degree) as " minor aspects " than can

>be ignored. I don't pay attention to a -45- or -135- aspect with more

>than +/- two degrees orb. And I don't think that half a sign distance

>from the quincunx is " too close " to make a distinction.

 

I don't dismiss the minor aspects. I just haven't used them, but I

appreciate seeing them diagrammed in the quake charts, and am duly nothing

them. I do think the quincunx needs more than one or two degrees of orb,

however.

 

>[MQ]...By their very definition, quotidian angles are progressed

>angles for a specific date and place. Since with the Mean Q1 Rate,

>the quotidian sidereal time increases 3 min 56.6 sec *a calendar

>day*, the Q1 MC increases in longitude about a degree a day with the

>ASC moving in proportion to it. Thus the contacts to quotidian angles

>*must* be tight...

 

The quotidians, yes. I should have distinguished between the actual

transiting planets (which can have wider orbs to a natal or ingress chart)

and the Q1 progressions--which I have no experience uisng.

 

>[MQ] You keep complaining about our not being able to replicate

>Bradley's research on determining or refining the ayanamsa.

 

I meant the actual type of rainfall study itself.

 

>Yet that is what I have been trying to do with these earthquakes by using

>quotidian progressions of the ingress angles to a given event.

 

You are trying to replicate his **methods** but not his study. There's a

difference (from the scientific viewpoint). That's fine--using his methods.

However his methods included statistics. We're at level one right

now--simply looking at charts--no counting up figures or using statistics

or looking at probabilities.

 

>That is how Bradley did it. He used both solar and lunar ingress charts.

>He (and other early sidereal pioneers) found that the Cap ingresses

>were most indicative and showed that with quotidian progressions and

>transits to the static ingress chart angles. He used earthquakes,

>disasters, accidents -- all sorts of events with the ingresses.

 

Again, if Bradley did all this, where is the raw data? Where are the lists

of figures, the actual horoscopes??? I'm not saying that Bradley didn't do

the work, but we really have little to go on except his own words. For a

good study, angle transits need to be separated from progressions. At the

end they can all be put together, but you can't substitute one for the

other. **We don't know exactly how Bradley conducted these studies.** We

can't judge his results.

 

> And I actually don't feel it's necessary to replicate that study.

 

This is the siderealist perspective. Replication isn't necessary. The final

word is in. O.K. Most siderealists (as far as I can tell) are over 50. Who

is taking up the sidereal banner? Who will be the siderealists in 10-20-30

years? If it's all so convincing, where are the new young up-and-coming

brilliant siderealists?

 

>If you look at the

>Rainfall files in sidereal.zip again, you'll see that his work was

>evaluated by non-astrological researchers in a government-funded

>study that was never finished.

 

Again (sigh...) where are the letters or articles from these professionals,

explaining the studies and giving us all the pertinent information?

Matthew, an entusiastic research summary by someone who wants to be

convinced at all costs does not a convincing study make. Sure, Supposing

that his work was evaluated by professionals. Who are they? Where is their

evaluation???

 

I'm not saying that if we had all the figures and procedures in front of us

that the research wouldn't be convincing. I'm saying that we **don't** have

it all in front of us and so we **can't** evaluate and judge. It all boils

down to acceptance and belief.

 

>Take a look at my post quoting his own material and look at the

>Jupiter Rainfall graph.

 

Where is the graph? (If you have it, you can email it to me as an

attachment.) But even if there is a graph, that's all it is. One (out of

many?) graphs. Still, no base figures and only skeletal information on how

the statistics were performed.

 

We are more or less wasting time trying to discuss Bradley's research.

Siderealists take his research on face value, I reserve my opinion because

all I've seen is Bradley's summary of the study, plus a few words from

other siderealists.

 

There are thousands of charts we can study, and this is what we should be

doing. Less talk, more figures. I'm waiting for your charts and

progressions for the other two quakes I posted.

 

Therese