Hi

This is what astrocom says about relocated Moon in MC over much of europe:

"

Along this line, your private and social lives combine well, you may also appear more prominently in the public eye. It can be difficult to keep intimate secrets hidden. You strive for public recognition and seek fulfilment in your social status. "

Yet it is in my country,where Moon is at the nonagesimal in 10th house that I find it hard to keep my secrets secret,because my mum tells everything everybody,which annoys me a lot. The MC planet J?piter however seems to be weak.
I recall Margaret Hone saying that the MC isnt necessarily at the highest point in the ecliptic ,but only at its highest point from the horizon.
Any comments appreciated

I recently received an interesting message by an anonymous person

" I happened to run across your Nov. 3 post on the Nonagesimal, so thought I'd offer some comments since it's a particular interest of mine. I use it in lieu of both the MC and houses, and think of it as where you were in the zodiac at the moment of birth. (I don't give credence to signs either, but they do serve to determine the angular distance between factors and therefore natal and transiting aspects.) I got the idea of the Nonagesimal from Grant Lewi's Astrology for the Millions, in which he traces the public careers of famous individuals, most notably Adolf Hitler, seeing turning points as Saturn crosses the angles and differences in the phases when Saturn is going from one angle to the next ? the obscure period between the Asc and 4th house cusp, the period of first rise as Saturn goes from the 4th to the 7th, the period of second rise beginning with Saturn crossing the Descendent when the subject emerges into the public sphere, a climax of influence when it reaches the 10th, and a period of consolidation as Saturn moves from the 10th to the 1st at which time a new obscure period begins. It seems to me you can see these same phases in the lives of ordinary people, but they're not as sharply drawn as in the lives of Hitler, Napoleon et al. Finally, whereas many astrologers who've found Lewi enlightening have fixated on those four phases, what struck me was that there are four turning points leading into and determining the nature of those phases as Saturn crosses each angle in turn.

Inspired by Lewi I did my own studies of people's lives and found similar turning points, but it seemed to me that the turning points occurred at the Asc and Dsc and the two points halfway in between, regardless of how close or far from 90? the MC-IC axis was from the Asc-Dsc axis. In Margaret HTextbook of Astrology I discovered that the upper point was called the Nonagesimal, and was the point on the ecliptic closest to the birth place. That is, if you draw a line from the birth place to the ecliptic that's perpendicular to the ecliptic the point at which it crosses it is the Nonagesimal. The Nonagesimal is by definition 90? from both the Asc and Dsc, although I think it's more accurate to say that these two points are 90? from the Nonagesimal. That is, the Nonagesimal is the birthplace projected onto the ecliptic and the Asc and Dsc are the points that are square to it and the birthplace, which is to say to you yourself.

Puzzled by my results, which seemed to disagree with Astrology for the Millions, I wrote to Carl Payne Tobey, Lewi's longtime associate, and he wrote back that Lewi actually used the Nonagesimal, that he used the MC in his book because that's what people were familiar with and because he was nonconfrontational, but that in his own work he used the Nonagesimal instead of it. Since the MC varies from about 60? to about 120? from the Asc (and Dsc, of course), it averages 90? from them and therefore approximates the Nonagesimal. Therefore, given my experience studying transit cycles in people's lives, and given what Tobey said about Lewi's usage, I have long suspected that the upper peak in the Gauquelin results shows because the MC approximates the Nonagesimal, and that if the latter were used the peak would be even more striking. I haven't yet been able to test this out, but a colleague and I are working on a follow-up to one of the Gauquelin studies that might shed light on it.

I've noticed, by the way, your various posts in which you've turned up interesting materials, especially the 1980 BBC program on astrology, which I thought was quite fair and open-minded and the best popular treatment of the Gauquelin work that I've seen. Paul Kurtz does not come off at all well, nor does he deserve to since he rather flagrantly cherry picked the athletes whose data he forwarded to Rawlins. Kudos to you for tracking down this and other materials. Curiosity being my most notable weakness I did a survey of your posts to Skyscript and surmise, from the scattered bits of personal data you let drop, that you were born in January 1962, probably on or about the 10th. That was quite an interesting year in my life, as well as the year my favorite book, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was published. For what it's worth.