San Francisco Quake (reply to Matthew)

[Guest guest]

Matthew wrote:

 

I've created a folder called " San Francisco 1906 " in the file area. It

contains several .jpgs of ingresses for the San Francisco quake and fire of

1906. The longitudes are all in terms of the F-B ayanamsa, even though the

calculations of the Krishnamurti ingresses were done with the K ayanamsa.

Solar Fire doesn't allow charts with two different ayanamsas to be pulled

up in the same run; so all these are in F-B to allow the side-by-side

comparisons...

 

The Quake/Fire chart is dramatic in itself, with the T-square Uranus-

Neptune-Mercury in the foreground. Saturn trine-sextiles into the

opposition...Even Jupiter gets involved in the T-square by quincunx and

semi-sextile.

 

[TH](I am leaving out repeating the minor aspects because it's easier to

get the over all picture without too many details.) Yes, this is the

obvious pattern for the quake.

 

[MQ] So where's the Fire? Well, Mars semi-squares all three planets of the

T-square with less than one degree orb. The fire burned for four days, so

it is not a small part of the event.

 

[TH] The only other way you'll see the fire in this chart is the quincunx

of Mars to the Desc. And perhaps the trine of Pluto to the same angle, plus

the quincunx of the Moon's South Node--which is said in India to be of the

nature of Mars. The quincunx is also called an aspect of Mars.

 

[MQ]Both the F-B and the K CapSolar ingress charts point to an event in

different ways. The F-B ingress shows an applying Moon-Mars opposition in

the foreground, certainly appropriate planetary symbolism. Jupiter is

bodily about five degrees below the DESC, square Saturn, which in turn

squares the ASC under two degrees. Jupiter-Saturn aspects often point to

financial stresses, definitely the case after the quake/fire.

 

[TH] All perfect symbolism, I'd say. The one major argument against the

chart is that the angular Moon-Mars and Jupiter-Saturn don't aspect the

quake chart in a significant way, that is, they don't make major hard

aspects to the angles.

 

[MQ] The K CapSolar shows Pluto nine degrees above the DESC in longitude,

but nearly thirteen degrees above in body.

 

[TH] I wouldn't count Pluto as significant.

 

[MQ] Mars closely squares the ASC. Moon applies to oppose Saturn. Mercury

squares the MC.

 

[TH] I wouldn't count any of those aspects as particularly significant

because they're singleton contacts and Moon-Saturn isn't angular. In my

opinion this K Capsolar doesn't suggest a major earthquake.

 

[MQ] Both AriSolar ingresses have similar angles with Mercury at the IC in

T-square with Uranus-Neptune... In the F-B ingress, Moon applies a little

widely to conjoin Uranus and oppose Neptune. In the K ingress, Moon closely

opposes the angular Pluto. (I like the Moon-Pluto.)

 

[TH] The major difference in the two AriSolar charts is the Moon. In the K

chart the Moon helps to emphasize the Pluto/Asc opposition and Mars

quincunx from Aries to the Asc/Moon (4 minutes exact to the Moon). It's

this configuration that I'd point to as a major fire indicator in the K

Aries Ingress chart. The Moon's north node also gets into the act with its

partile (by degree) trine to the ascendant/Moon.

 

The position of the Moon is also significant in the F-B Aries Ingress

because it's conjunct Uranus, which is at the MC of the quake event chart.

It is something of a toss-up between the two AriSolar charts. They are both

excellent quake charts--very similar.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

[TH] I'd like to suggest at this point that for the time being we eliminate

the Caplunar (and any other lunar chart) in the interests of not driving

ourselves and anyone else who is reading these posts crazy with too much

complexity. The lunar charts can be another study altogether so the lunar

symbolism can be kept clear. So I'll quickly comment on the Caplunar

charts, and I hope we can drop them for the time being.

 

[MQ] Going on to the CapLunar ingresses, where the angles will *not* have

the similarity of solar ingresses, we see the F-B emphasizes the T-square

with the Uranus- Neptune opposition right on the horizon...

 

The K CapLunar has the Moon's Nodes at either end of the Meridian...

 

[TH] Plus Mars is square the nodes with a 2 degree orb and Pluto is

sextile/trine.

 

I'd call these charts a toss-up.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

[MQ]Finally we can look at the mean quotidian Q1 progressions of the

CapSolar to the event.

 

In the K CapSolar Q1, Moon has progressed to oppose ingress Saturn;

transit Moon...opposes Q1 Moon.

 

[TH] Whether this partile contact of Moon opposite Moon (22 minute orb) is

important or simply a fluke depends on how the Q1 Moon relates to the

transit (quake) Moon in other quake charts. Something to look for. Is a Q1

Moon aspect to the quake Moon a significant trigger or not?

 

[MQ] Q1 ASC squares ingress Uranus closely. Q1 Mercury...is close to the

MC, though bodily three degrees off. So we have the Q1 Moon-Saturn

opposition trine-sextile a foreground Mercury.

 

[TH] More importantly we have the quake angles repeated in the Q1

progressed chart. That is, the significant quake MC anchored t-cross is

angular in the Q1 chart. It's not exact: Q1 Asc is 11 Pisces with Mercury

at 14 Pisces; Q1 Uranus at 12 Sag/Quake MC at 17 Sag, Neptune at 14 Gemini.

Close enough if only major hard aspects are used. (Conjunction, square and

opposition) Significant IF it happens in other quake charts. Otherwise, it

would be a fluke.

 

[MQ] The F-B CapSolar Q1 shows angular Moon opposing Mars, Pluto at IC.

Bodily Moon is 2

degrees 6 minutes above the DESC; Q1 Mars is 1 degree 15 minutes below the

ASC; Pluto is 2 degrees 29 minutes west of the IC, as measured in Prime

Vertical longitudes.

 

[TH] A very significant looking configuration. Again, though, this aspect

pattern doesn't connect with the quake angles. (That is, the planets linked

to the quake MC.)

 

LST/RAMC of the Mean Q1 is 17:17:29;

Q1 Mars rises with 17:23:51;

Q1 Moon sets with 17:28:09;

Q1 Pluto crosses IC with 17:23:43.

So we have a close paran Mars-Pluto in body.

Transit Saturn rises with 17:21:25 (equates to longitude of 20 Aqu 52);

transit Pluto to IC with 17:23:14...

 

[TH] Very significant IF similar patterns happen in other Q1 quake charts.

 

[MQ] In summary, I think we can debate the appropriateness of ingress

charts calculated with either ayanamsa, especially the solar ingresses.

Both ayanamsas score points.

 

[TH] I think if there's a final answer, it will be in some kind of

consistency found amoung maybe 10 or 20 major quake charts--as a beginning.

 

[MQ] But I think we need to remember that Bradley refined the F-B ayanamsa

using quotidians and lunar ingresses. Lunar ingresses will show about a

two hour difference in LST and thus on the angles.

 

Then the lunar ingresses should be a separate study so as not to have too

many figures dancing around in our heads. So how about we limit a few

additional quake studies (the additonal three I posted a day or so ago) to

the CapSolar (for your sake), and the ingress preceding the quake (for my

sake) plus you can progress the CapSolars by Q1. Is this O.K., Matthew?

We'll be looking for some kind of consistency after 5 or 10 quakes....not

an easy task.

 

I presonally can't mentally cope with the solar ingress charts plus Q1 plus

the event charts AND the lunar ingress charts. As I said, I'd like to see

the lunar studies as a separate project. That would really single out the

Moon as significant--or not.

 

Later if we're not totally burned out, we can tackle the Caplunar ingresses

which siderealists are so fond of. I'd like to see these compared to the

monthly New Moon charts--though I know that Bradley didn't think they

worked as well as the CapLunars.

 

Sincerely,

Therese