skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Primary Directions
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rob



Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 101
Location: Budapest

Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Petr wrote:
Exquisitely.The zodiacal directions without latitude are correctly.The declination parallels(to Asc,MC)are as well.I will check the interplanetary de.par.


Hi Petr,
Thanks again for your help.
I have uploaded this afternoon an important bugfix (timing-bug fixed in changelog).
This is a Primary Direction-forum and not about me so I will contact you via your private email.

regards,
rob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Isaac Starkman



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 131
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:47 am    Post subject: Martin Gansten's book Reply with quote

Some thoughts and comments after reading Martin Gansten's book:
As an astrologer who is working with primary directions for 25 years I'm happy to see any new book on this subject, we have so few books in English devoting to this thrilling subject.
Martin's explanations are very lucid incomparable and for this he deserved a full mark.
Martin prefer to use the sidereal zodiac which is nowadays not the standard and I assume most of the astrologers, if they want to follow the examples, the first thing they done is to convert the charts to the more familiar tropical zodiac, but for 5 charts it is time consuming as Martin didn't gave the data, only the positions. This is very annoying, why I have to waste time in order to reconstruct the date, time and city?
Martin used only 3 famous personalities and the funny thing is that for all of them, at least judging by appearance and character, the Tropical Ascendant is much more suitable than the Sidereal. Aquarius rising for the Pope Ratzinger? He is perfectly Pisces rising. River Phoenix is perfectly Scorpio rising and not Libra and Anna Lindh, at least by the appearance is for sure not Sagittarius rising.
Martin used only the classical planets. OK, this is his choice, but just because the book is dealing entirely with the old Masters' methods, I personally don’t think that it is right to ignore the transsaturian planets as if we are living in the 17th century. Most astrologers working with primary directions will not ignoring these very important planets. I wish astrologers will also investigate Eris and Sedna. Primary directions are an ideal tool to examining the new planets.
In Chapter 2, Martin didn't mention the Topocentric primary direction even in one sentence, although he mentioned that in Kolev and Plantiko's programs there is an option to use this system. I don't know why he preferred to finish his history survey with Carl Kuhr as if nothing happened after 1936. Perhaps Topocentric system is too much provocative.
Martin mentioned that rectification is important but all the examples in the books are not rectified charts. Working with primary directions without rectifying the chart is like doing a physical experiment without calibration the measurement instrument. Of course the result will be a false. My rectification for River, based on 8 events is 40 seconds later and for Ratzinger, based on 20 events is 2 minutes earlier.
Martin of course chooses examples that do have primary directions for the events he selected. He failed to mention that there can be some events that don’t have any primary direction. In fact, I don't know of any system that it is covering 100 percent of all the events. I think that he mentioned the fact that can be primary aspects without events: this can be explained when one is using Alexander Marr's Dual Test method.
On page 52 Martin claimed that according to his experience directions with angles are NOT more important as planet to planet aspects. My experience with over 20000 events is that they are the most important. In fact, in most cases, angular directions are the most dominant aspects and the most important aspects for rectification as Martin wrote on p. 61.
Martin is using orb of 6 months and maybe more. What was good enough for the old Masters is not good enough for our era with computers and additional planets. On the other hand I don't accept Dr. H.'s zero orb dream.
Martin didn't find secondary directions helpful (p.140). I have found them very effective and in many cases, they are more important than the primary directions! But one should use the Solar Arc in Right Ascension for direction MC.
Two examples for River's chart:
On 27 Feb 1989 he received the Best Supporting Actor honor:
In primary directions using Topocentric system converse MC 60 Mercury orb 2 days and MC 180 NN orb 60 days. In secondary progress MC 60 Jupiter orb 5 days!
For his death, in primary directions, directed Asc 180 Saturn orb 5 days and directed cusp VIII 60 Mars orb 15 days. In secondary, converse MC 60 Saturn orb 60 days. (In secondary the orb can be 70 days for all the aspects).
Martin also didn't find Solar Return useful. Again, this is the result when one refuses to use modern techniques.
For the Pope, in the solar return with precession corrected, which is Martin's default return, Pluto exactly on MC.
In the converse solar return, Venus exactly on Asc.
In the tropical solar return for April 2004, covering John Paul II's death on 2 April 2005, Neptune exactly on IC.
Marin's book is neither a text book nor a tutorial and there is no example with several events. It is very easy to adjust a chart for one or two events; it is more difficult to do this for 15 events. Martin just described the techniques, which he did it very well, gave the list of the programs and as if saying: dear fellows, you have to tackle with this staff yourself. My heart is with the astrologers, especially the beginners, who have to test with several methods, several keys, in Mundo or in zodiac… as Tom once wrote one can go nuts trying to come up with a system.
All in all, I recommend this book to all astrologers, and as for all the faults (from my perspective of course) we have to wait for another book.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralScrutinizer



Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 57

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Isaac, for the mini-review

I am glad that you reviewed this book now, it was TIMELY. My wife had put the book in the ShoppingCart at Amazon.de and as I was looking at it, I told her to not order it, but wait until I made sure that it was something that I really wanted.

I must say, from reading commentary on here, that I was quite excited at the thought of a definitive book on Primary Directions. I had a feeling that it would be "history heavy" based on the title of the book, but I did not contemplate that the presentation would leave out so much newer material. ie. Embracing the past is fine as long as one doesn't ignore the present!

So much work has been done in refining this technique and I hate to see it ignored in a book that appears to be the "end all" guide to Primary Directions. In short, (in my opinion) writing a book about Primary Directions and leaving out the important work of Page, Polich, Marr, etc. is like writing a tome on 20th Century Popular Music and reducing Elvis and the Beatles to a footnote.

From my own studying of this technique, I can say that Topocentric Primary Directions DO WORK. When I was first trying to get Topocentric Primary Directions to function in my various computer programs (Kepler, Janus, Solar Fire, WinStar, Morinus...), I tried EVERY conceivable setting/option and 1) True Topocentric Primary Directions were nowhere to be found, despite what supposed options were available (even the Topocentric Houses and Topocentric Coordinates yielded some new creation, that was definitely NOT Topocentric Primary Directions) and 2) No setting or option gave symbolically correct results to the events in my life. (In short, I found the other systems useless in a practical sense!) A book that concentrates on other methods and ignores the one that actually gives the most reliable results seems inexcusable in this day and age of information proliferation. [Martin, were Marr's techniques and findings not studied and compared to see what actually works and what doesn't? It's a poignant question.]

The very first thing that I noticed when beginning my studies was that TINY changes in birthtimes resulted in relatively large changes in the timeline of the maturation of aspects. In short, a very exact birthtime is needed to use this technique. To have unrectified charts in the PREMISE only ensures that the conclusion must also be faulty.

Re: No trans-Saturnian planets

This one, I just do not understand. It's like saying, "I am an astrologer, but I won't use a computer because Morin didn't use one." It just makes no sense whatsoever. It is as if to say that all of these years of OBSERVATION has yielded nothing usable, which is ridiculous just on the face of it...more ridiculous upon deeper inspection.

Re: Only 3 famous examples

That's one of the things that I love about Alexander Marr's books. There are PLENTY of examples...many personages and many events. There is so much more that happens in the ocean than can be seen by looking at the surface! It is important to have these many examples, that is the "meat" of the technique, seeing the correspondences in a case-by-case, event-by-event way.

There are other "issues" with the book that you have mentioned. I can already see that, though you recommend the book, I can see personally that I will get more frustration at what was left out unnecessarily than at what was included gratuitously. I am not saying that it's not a worthwhile book, I am only saying that I am not really in its target audience. (I use: Tropical, NOT sidereal. All planets, not a self-limiting "selection". Topocentric!)

I do hope that this book sells very well. It just might be fuel for the fire in getting someone to write another book bringing this all up to date AND perhaps some of the people that have their interest in Primary Directions titillated by this book, just might take it further and incorporate the important findings from the 1960's onward.

As it is, the ShoppingCart is emptied; however, I am not saying that I wouldn't eventually buy the book. It just needs one magical word, perhaps, to convince me to buy it still; Addendum.

Peace

Central Scrutinizer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
3D



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 125

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Isaak and CS,

your critique – especially CS – sounds a bit harsh to me. I have to strike a blow for the book, I find it excellent. I liked the historic perspective and comparisons. I have not found that before.

The book is a paperback with 143 pages; including Glossary, Bibliography and Index it has 193 pages. Knowing this from the advertising, I did not expect heaps of examples. But what was packed together in 143 pages is really remarkable.

The question why Martin didn’t go more into detail with respect to Topcentrics and other recent developments (I think of the ideas of P. Svarogich or Vitaly Krivodub) must be answered by him.

René
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doesn't the title give us a clue? It clarifies that he is covering 'The Old Master's Technique'.

Although I have seen the book I haven’t actually read it all yet. But I’m sure that one of the reasons it is being so well received is because it communicates information that many modern astrologers find impossible to understand in other works. And many astrologers do specifically want to know how this technique was used by the older authorities.

However, it is probably fair comment to point out that this is not a fully comprehensive book or the last word on the subject. On the other hand, there are very few books that can be equally well received by both beginners and experts – they have to find their target. I can imagine that *most* astrologers will get something very useful from this book, and the fact that Martin has made it look so simple is to his credit.

Incidentally, I have spent the last few days attending Martin’s workshop and what was clear to everyone is that Martin knows this subject inside out and back to front. He is a great communicator and I recommend anyone thinking of running a similar workshop elsewhere to get in touch with him, as I know he is open to the idea of doing that kind of event elsewhere. I did try to get him to dump the sidereal zodiac and become a tropical astrologer, but he seemed resistant, as if he’d already thought the matter through beforehand Smile Still, it didn’t cause any problems to the examples or explanations given in the workshop.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1369
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too find these reviews a little harsh.

Many of us are not interested in modern techniques, and if the book was focused on them I would not buy it.

The only thing I agree that it's a pity data are withheld, like this it's impossible to re-do the examples.

I understand privacy need but maybe Martin could choose famous charts.

for the rest the book is perfect in my opinion

margherita
_________________
Traditional astrology at
http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Astraea



Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 352
Location: Colorado, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am a neophyte when it comes to primary directions, mainly because until now the math has seemed to be beyond me, and I was incompetent to assess the value of anything I read on the subject without a clear understanding of the processes involved. Martin's book has enabled me to follow the logic behind the numbers, and he has done this without sacrificing a sense of the beauty and interconnectedness of the structures he describes. He has included chapter summaries, footnotes, a glossary, bibliography and index which I have referred to time and again in my (now) three readings of the book, and each time I go to the well I find that I am able to dip the bucket a little deeper.

At just under 200 pages, I wasn't expecting this to be the definitive work on a vast subject; rather, I hoped that it would serve as an introduction to technique and a point of departure for further studies - and I've not been disappointed. The author assumes that his reader is traveling a long road, and this book offers guidance and signposts along the way. Martin neither espouses nor decries specific techniques, instead stating which methods and approaches he has found most reliable in his own work. In a field as rich and deep as this, I value the fact that he offers hints and "nudges" as often as broader, bolder statements.

I see this book as a thrust block to my own launch into the space of primary directions, and with the author's guidance and bibliography I will eventually be able to arrive at reasoned personal decisions about my own approach to the field. I suspect that the author had something like this in mind when he planned the book, and I can only imagine how much material he had to leave out in order to make the book accessible to someone like myself (at the same time offering insights for readers more practiced in the field of primary directions).

While I understand how people with a great deal of experience of primary directions might wish to see more detailed descriptions of methods and worked examples (with data, which I, too, would have appreciated), my sense is that the author's aim was to present an overview of traditional approaches to a subject whose subsidiary paths are many and winding. I think that he has succeeded, and in doing so he has laid the groundwork for further expositions (should he choose to write more on the subject).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
epurdue



Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 327

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really want to buy this book but I'm poor. Please make sure this book is in print for a while! I took Zoller's course, and I understand the math, but I'd love to see another treatment on the subject. I'm excited to read it.

I wanted to say something about this

CentralScrutinizer wrote:
Thank you Isaac, for the mini-review
Re: No trans-Saturnian planets

This one, I just do not understand. It's like saying, "I am an astrologer, but I won't use a computer because Morin didn't use one." It just makes no sense whatsoever. It is as if to say that all of these years of OBSERVATION has yielded nothing usable, which is ridiculous just on the face of it...more ridiculous upon deeper inspection.
Central Scrutinizer


First of all traditional astrologers today know about the outer planets. Some use them. I can't speak for all traditional astrologers, but I can definitively say why I don't use them.

The basic framework of traditional astrology was pretty stable for at least 1500 years, probably longer. Modern astrology is about 150 years old. In traditional astrology there is a lot you can do with those measly 7 planets. In fact it's a complete system. Why? Well, because countless numbers of astrologers worked with the system for millennia.

The reason why I don't personally use them has a lot to do with the essential dignities. If you can say you don't understand how we can't use the outers, I can say I don't understand how most modern astrologers can't use the essential dignities. I couldn't do a chart without them. The outers aren't part of them at all. There is no term of Neptune or Uranus decan. Their modern rulerships of signs are practically useless to me, and the best I can do with the outers is use them like fixed stars. However whenever I did this, all it did was add to what I already saw in the chart. It was as if the chart already said "here is a round orange", and the outer planets were telling me "yeah but it's a round ORANGE orange". So I decided to keep to the basics. It gets right to the point.

You don't have to use every point in the sky. I also don't use asteroids, satellites, or the moons of other planets. Somehow I squeak by.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralScrutinizer



Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 57

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sorry that the review or commentary comes across as harsh to some people.

It was impossible for me to keep some of my DISAPPOINTMENT out of my comments. As I mentioned in that very commentary, I was VERY excited at the idea of a book coming out that would finally present Primary Directions in a way that they deserve. I see that this is more a historical retrospective of the technique and more along the lines of what "traditionalists" perhaps would be looking for...though, hopefully, they also scratch their heads at the sidereal examples.

Some elements of astrology are art and some are science. To me, presenting Primary Directions without any REAL look as to what has happened in the MANY intervening years, would be similar to writing a book on ancient navigating and leaving out the idea that in the meantime, we've discovered the Earth isn't actually FLAT.

I don't want to argue about it. If you want to buy the book, by all means do so. Isaac suggested that everyone SHOULD buy it. I can't think of anything NICER to put in a book review, except (hypothetically) "order it and I'll pick up the tab."

As for me, I read Isaac's review and compared what APPEARS to be in the book with what I would WANT in such a book, with what I think SHOULD be in the book. It's totally from my perspective that I write. I cannot be surprised that OTHERS, WHO ARE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THE BOOK, have a different perspective. This is life.

My bottom line is, THINGS THAT WORK AND HOW TO MAKE THEM WORK BEST. I have no inherent loyalties to any particular technique. Show me something better and the old is suddenly so much flotsam and jetsam!!!

As an example... if you (anyone) worked with Solar Returns and suddenly, when using precession-correction, everything GELS; you would be put off by a book about Solar Returns that suggested no need to precession-correct because Somebody de Somewhere suggested that they don't need to be, WHEN YOU PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE. That is my problem with leaving out the newer information, it OBSCURES what works best. I vote for LESS OBFUSCATION, NOT MORE.

As I said, I am not here to argue about it and I don't want to argue about it. Now, at least my PERSPECTIVE is understood and from that hopefully an understanding of where my "harsh" commentary comes from.

I would love a comparison of the old master technique side-by-side with newer "revelations" about Primary Directions. I mean, if the old ways STAND, because they could STAND THEN, then they should (if they are to continue having value) STILL BE ABLE TO STAND NOW.

Central Scrutinizer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Estebon_Duarte



Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 134
Location: West Coast USA

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's confusing why anyone who has their "Technique" down and can't understand why astrologers write what they do even buy and read new books.
with all the ridiculous ways to "do" Astrology it is just as ridiculous to think any one book is going to "do it for you", that's why every astrologer feels it necessary to write a book.
i guess the disclaimer with Martin's book should be "only buy if interested in traditional astrology!"
If you follow the Traditional way to do PD's, Martin's book is fabulous and right on the mark. Interestingly enough, this topic is in "Traditional Techniques"!
don't be perplexed at the lack of TransSaturn planets in this forum or in books written for people in this section.
I say if you have the book and don't like it, put that baby on Amazon for cheap! There are alot of people like Mithra6 who would like to have a copy!
_________________
Western Predictive Astrology by Estebon Duarte Independent Researcher AMA MACAA
Natal Chart & Annual Solar Revolution Reports
www.organic-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5039
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree very much with what Astraea has already written here. There has clearly been an immense amount of work and if I may say so love put into the production of this work.

Siderealism? So what? it really has little relevance to the technique of primaries what zodiac the author is putting over. The author is only being true to his own vision of astrology.

Too much history? Far from it. Its great to have a book that puts the astrological technique of Primary Directions into a clear historical context.

Too traditional? I guess some people do miss the outer planets. However, many traditionalists will be relieved to see them left out. Either way I dont think anyone reading the book wanting to use outer planets will be at a serious disadvantage. One point I want to particularly emphasize is that the book underlines the importance of a planets position by dignity, house, aspect etc in the radix in asessing their influence by PD. You find none of this in Rumen Kolev's booklets. He just emphasizes the influence of the planets as natural sifgnificators by primary direction.

Disappointing? Well I guess you cant please everyone and we are all entitled to a view. Personally, I find the book fascinating and very well crafted. I am not sure what more could really be asked of one book.

Example charts? The witholding of data in example charts was a tad disappointing. It might have been better to use well known celebrities instead. This is the only criticism of the book I would concede but I dont see it as a serious flaw. Its the kind of book that motivates you to go off and look at your own chart examples. Its the detailed explanation of the the varying texchniques I needed not lots of chart examples. I suppose if he chooses the author could follow this up with a book more focused on delineation.

Perhaps this isn't the book for die hard veteran practitioners of primary directions wanting to get into the more obscure intricacies. However, it is probably the first book to make primary directions accessible for the average astrologer not gifted with a strong mathematical ability. For that alone I know many astrologers will be very grateful to Martin for writing the book.
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3510
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't finished Martin's book yet, and when I do I will post something, but the two reviews above are more than harsh they're self-centered, and I thought I'd add a few observations. Starkman's main complaint seems to be that Ganston doesn't do things his way. Sorry Issac that is not mandatory.

Starkman also disagrees with River Phoenix' chart. OK let's assume for the sake the argument that Starkman is correct. So what? The purpose of including that chart was to demonstrate a technique. Ganston was not hired to delineate the chart for River Phoenix. He is writing a book on primary directions and demonstrating the technique with a chart. The chart selected, he did not make up the data, and the example made the intended point quite well.

He doesn't devote enough time to Starkman's favorite technique. Again so what? No one is preventing anyone else from writing a book that disagrees with Ganston or that promotes the topocentric system. But again this book is introductory, and from what I've read so far on that point the book is highly successful. Why not write to Rumen Kolev and tell him to eliminate all other systems of primary directions from his program? That is the level of this criticism.

Ganston doesn't use the outer planets. One reason for this is to hide the chart data. Martin has reasons for keeping it confidential. That should be good enough for a reader. If it isn't, too bad. He is not required to divulge his reasons for doing this, either. I would have liked the data, too, but it's not a deal breaker.

Again if Martin chooses to stick to the traditional outlook that is his business. After all he is writing the book about a technique that is associated with traditional astrology. The sub title is Astrology's Old Master Technique. I'm sure, with that title, no one expected obsessing over Uranus, Neptune and Pluto much less directions to asteroids or midpoints. If you think those methods are valid, write a book about it.

No one is required to accept everything or anything Ganston writes, but the idea that it is wrong because "he didn't do it my way" is plain silly. This is the book, judge it on its intent and it merits, not on whether or not you would have written it the same way. That may be true, but it is not a valid criticism of what he has done.

The criticism above is a thinly veiled assertion that Ganston doesn't know what he's talking about. While his book probably contains errors, he is human after all, such a blanket assertion, direct or implied, is simple nonsense.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom, you've taken the words out of my head and have probably written them better then I would have. If Mr. Starkman and Mr. Scrutinizer want a book that emphasizes their techniques, then they should write one themselves. The same goes for any sort of gripe, e.g., translation issues, word choices, time period(s) of concepts or techniques, etc.
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Ju0Spica



Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ganston doesn't use the outer planets. One reason for this is to hide the chart data.

I have seen this reason expressed in another forum by another astrologer also,but I was able to get the date easily. The longitudes of Saturn and Jupiter are sufficient to filter out the year. The longitudes of Sun and Moon will give the month,date and hour/minute. If anyone needs an example post the longitudes of the lights and 5 planets and I will supply the date and time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3510
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Ganston doesn't use the outer planets. One reason for this is to hide the chart data.

I have seen this reason expressed in another forum by another astrologer also,but I was able to get the date easily. The longitudes of Saturn and Jupiter are sufficient to filter out the year. The longitudes of Sun and Moon will give the month,date and hour/minute. If anyone needs an example post the longitudes of the lights and 5 planets and I will supply the date and time.


My remark quoted above is really quite beside the most important point. Ganston was criticized for withholding data. It doesn't matter why he did that. If he was asked to withhold data, to do otherwise would be seriously unethical and probably downright dishonest. The criticism of his decision to withhold data is without merit. Out of respect for Martin, if I see the data posted here, I will delete it.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
Page 6 of 17

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated