Proving and improving astrology

For those who wish to pursue new theories based on the Old Wisdom and who wish to look more deeply into our vastly changing world from a different perspective.

Moderators: Noel Eastwood, James Strom

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Sun Mar 20, 2016 10:28 pm

First I shall present the problem(s), later I shall come up with my solution(s). If you have questions, please come forward with them.

Astrology is mostly known by the 12 signs in the zodiac. Originally the signs were asociated with the rising sign (= the ascendant), but since Alan Leo (,_Alan) altered astrology to become more about psychology than fate, the focus has been on the Sun sign instead, at least in Western astrology. The 12 signs in the zodiac seems to be immortal, they have survived thousands of years and many attempts to kill them by e.g. modern science. The descriptions of the 12 signs appear in many versions, but the contours remain very much the same. And since they cannot die, they must hold some kind of truth.

But the Sun sign or the rising sign alone is never sufficiently descriptive of the person. Of course you can also make a combination of Sun sign and rising sign. Joan McEvers wrote a book about these 144 combinations entitled "12 times 12" in 1980. But even with that book a person can find it hard to recognize himself or herself in the book's interpretation text.

The next step is to get your chart set up and interpreted. For a relatively low price you can have your chart interpreted by a computer programme. The result is so-called cook-book astrology: Many details in the chart (e.g. the Sun sign, the rising sign, etc.) are interpreted seperately in a text, which can be from 6 to 50 pages long. It is up to you put the jigsaw puzzle together and to draw the final conclusions from all the many statements in the text - and that can be very cumbersome and confusing.

Some years ago I tested 7 different interpretation systems. I found a celebrity chart, and got several biographies about the celebrity from the library. Then I read the biographies and created a character description based on the content of these books. Finally I compared my character description with the astrological cookbook texts. In the worst example 50% of the statements were true and 50% were false. In severaly of the systems 66% persent of the statements were true and hence 34% of the statements were false. In the best system 75% of the statements were true and 25% were false.

Of course you could proceed and consult a real, living astrologer. But how do you know that the astrologer doesn't "cold-read" you, i.e. interpret your personality from your appearance and your body language instead of interpreting the chart? That is why blind-tests are useful, when you want to find out how precise astrology is or isn't.

This is the problem description. In the following comment I shall try to explain how I have attempted to solve the problem.

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:39 pm

The problem with at computer-generated interpretation of a natal chart is that it consists of text pieces, which are detached from the whole chart. Let me give you an example. When you look at a portrait photo, your brain does not "read it like a text", i.e. read it pixel by pixel. Instead your brain takes in the entire photo and intutively recognize it as e.g. your aunt. If we could do something similar with astrology, a huge problem would have been solved.

I have rectified Rebecca Knapp's chart here: viewtopic.php?f=88&t=2849, and I will use it as an example for the following description of my solution to the problem. It's a bit technical, you probably have to be an astrologer to comprehend it fully, but if that is not the case just skip the technical stuff and go straight to the end.

The solution I shall present to you came to me in a dream. I had been pondering the problem for years, when suddenly one morning I woke up having "seen" how to solve it. It's a points system based on the best chart interpretation system in combination with Gauquelin's research and some ideas from horary astrology.

First of all: The Sun sign is (in my opinion) overrated in Western astrology. Yes, the Sun sign is important - if you want to do a psychological analysis of the chart. But when it comes to fate, the ascendant and MC are far more important. This is my claim - based on the idea that anything in the natal chart derived from birth time and birth date is far more important than anything derived from the date alone.

Secondly: I only work with rectifed charts. The exact birth time is so important, that it's too risky to accept a chart, which has not been rectified first. The rectification process is described here: viewtopic.php?f=88&t=2849

Thirdly: I work with 12 signs and 12 planets (which include the Sun and the Moon, even though they are not planets from an astronomical point of view). The task is to find out: Which planet is the strongest in the chart? Each planet "rules" a specific sign, meaning that the sign and planet are on the same vibration.

Let's take a look at Rebecca's chart:
1) The rising sign is in Leo. That means 2.5 points to the Sun, since the Sun rules Leo. MC is in Taurus, so Eris is assigned 2.5 points, because Eris rules Taurus.
2) Any planet in a Gauquelin sector is assigned 2 points: Mars, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Makemake.
3) As for aspects, a conjunction to an axis means 2 points. (I use the orbis system suggested by John Addey in "Harmonics in Astrology", i.e. 12 degrees for conjunctions, 6 degrees for oppositions, 4 degrees for trines, 3 degrees for squares, 2 degrees for sextiles, 1:30' degree for semisquares and sesquisquares, 1:20' degrees for noviles and 1 degree for semisextiles and quinqunx'es.) Uranus is in conjunction with the ASC, so Uranus is assigned 2 points. The Sun, Mars and Neptun are in opposition to MC, they are allocated 1.5 points each. A trine would also mean 1. points, but there are no trines to any of the axes. A square would mean 1.3 points, noviles, semisquares and sesquisquares mean 1.2 points, and semisextiles and quinqunxes mean 1 point. Since Makemake is having novile to MC, Makemake gets 1.2 points.

The final score looks like this:

Sun: 6.0 points
Moon: 0.0 points
Mercury: 0.0 points
Venus: 0.0 points
Mars: 4.5 points
Jupiter: 2.0 points
Saturn: 3.0 points
Uranus: 4.0 points
Neptune: 4.5 points
Pluto: 3.0 points
Makemake: 5.2 points
Eris: 2.5 points

The next step in the process is to evaluete the scores. The 3 stronges planets are: Sun (6.0 points), Makemake (5.2 points) and Mars (4.5 points). I can decide to settle for the points - or I can decide to check the planets' strength in the signs. Whatever I do, I must be consistent. I have decided early, based on my dream, to always verify the planet's strength in sign.

The Sun is in Scorpio, where it's strength is "neutral", i.e. it is neither strong nor weak. But the Sun is having a mutual reception with Uranus in Leo. Uranus is exalted in Scorpio - according to my system. Temporary conclusion: The Sun is the strongest planet in the chart, because it has the highest score and because it is alos "strong".

Makemake is in Leo, where it has its fall, i.e. Makemake is "weak". So, even though Makemake's score is 5.2 points, it can be surpassed by Mars, unless Mars' score is more than 2.5 points below Makemake's score. Mars' score is 4.5 points, which means that Mars can surpass Makemake, but only if Mars is not "weak". Mars is in Scorpio, where Mars is "strong", because Mars is co-ruler of Scorpio. Final conclusion: Rebecca is a Sun-Mars personality - or if you prefer it: A Leo-Aries person.

If Rebecca had been my client, I would now present her with a report describing Leo and Aries - as presented in popular Sun sign books like e.g. Linda Goodman's "Sun Signs". In fact I don't even have to bother to make a report - instead I present her with a copy of Linda Goodman's "Sun Signs", thereby avoiding conflicts with the authorities for plagiarism. Or I suggest the client to borrow the book from the library. Are the clients happy? Yes, indeed.

(To be continued)

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:56 pm

As for any further details about Rebecca: I have a collection of celebrity charts, which I have already rectified. Right now it consists of 1539 males and 1353 females. So I list all the other women, who are of the Sun-Mars type:

Marge Champion
Irene Cara
Karen Black
Shirley MacLaine
Sonja Oppenhagen
Nina Hartley
Janet Leigh
Connie Nielsen
Grazia Bordoni
Elisabeth Vreede
Charlotte Duncan
Marion Woodman
Diane von Fürstenberg
Marjorie Scardino
Nathalie Collin
Anne Finucane
Marion Jones
Mary Decker
Jennifer Capriati
Mary Pierce
Regine Mösenlechner
Kristi Yamaguchi
Dorothy Hamill
Regina Halmich
Jo Durie
Felicia Ballanger
Tanni Grey-Thompson
Geena Davis
Krisztina Egerszegi
Anna Ancher
Anne Brontë
Jennifer Kane
Kristina Leigh Hammer
Ilse Rogengel
Lillian Cedeno
Giulia Pasini
Milena Penkowa
Kate Bush
Sheila Gahagan
Elsie Inglis

and all the women, who are of the Mars-Sun type:

Maria Teresa de Filippis
Linda Carbonetto
Karen Magnussen
Nicole Duclos
Kitty Carruthers
Susan Notorangelo
Rebecca Twigg
Patricia Girard-Leno
Jelena Dokic
Mae Faggs
Althea Gibson
Shane Gould
Annette Klug
Petra Kvitova
Charlotte Bonnet
Maria Rørbye Rønn
Ellen Kullman
Jayne Mansfield
Gloria Swanson
Aly Michalka
Denice Klarskov
Elle Macpherson
Eleonora Duse
Edith Evans
Vanessa Hudgens
Ashley Judd
Shirley Temple
Els Borst
Caylee Anthony
Dawn Brown

If you look up these women with a google search, you will see, that they can be very different, even though they all belong to the same planetary type combination. The next thing I do is to take (in this case) the 70 women's charts and transform each of them into a string consisting of 33120 numbers. I use the first 180 harmonics in the 3 astrological circles (zodiac, diurnal and aspect circle) for the process: In each harmonic I ask: Is the planet in the first or the second 180 degrees? If first then I can assign a 1, if not I can assign a 0. Instead of 1's and 0's, which is the simple way, I can transform each position to it's sinus or cosinus number, thereby getting a much more nuanced expression of the chart.

Conclusion: Each chart is now a long string of numbers, and these strings can be compared to each other. Or, in other words, I can take Rebecca's chart and compare it to the other celebrity charts and find out which celebrity she looks like the most. I shall not do it here, because that would be wrong to Rebecca, and it is also a very "expensive" process, when it comes to time. The point is that I can come up with a much more precise character description this way than if I merely followed the suggestions in the astrological text books.

Now, the strength of my system depends on the charts in my collection. If my collection consists of a sufficiently big number of female academics and female sex symbols, my system will easily determine, if Rebecca is an academic or a sex symbol - or even both. But if Rebecca is e.g. a philosopher, and I don't have any female philosophers in the collection, my system will not be able to tell me the full truth about Rebecca.

(To be continued)

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:13 am

Ups! I have suddenly discovered that I forgot something, when I described the points system: Each planet is assigned 1 point for each guest it has in the sign it rules. The Sun has e.g. 2 guests, Uranus and Makemake, hence it gets 2 points - and so on.

Now, let's proceed. The headline for this thread is "Proving and improving astrology". So far I have only shown, how the points system can be used to improve astrology. What about proving astrology? Here is an example of how it can be done: I have rectified the charts from 250 male and 250 female solo athletes. Then I have run them through the points system I have described above. Here are the results:
250 Male Solo Athletes.jpg
250 Male Solo Athletes.jpg (18.69 KiB) Viewed 1551 times
250 Female Solo Athletes.jpg
250 Female Solo Athletes.jpg (16.14 KiB) Viewed 1551 times
The 0 line expresses the expected result. If a planet has more athletes than expected the column or bar is above 0, otherwise it is below 0.

It's amazing, isn't it? Michel Gauquelin discovered the Mars effect with Mars in Gauquelin sectors among athletes; when the charts are rectified and run through the points system I dreamt up, the Mars effect becomes so much stronger.

Please notice that the bar diagrams for men and women are almost identical, except for two things:
- The Mars effect is stronger for the women - probably because when men do sports, they are on home "turf", while women still have to fight to get attention for their athletic achievements. In other words: More is required from a female athlete's chart than from a man's chart.
- Venus is weaker among the male athletes than among the female athletes. Francoise Gauquelin discovered that male homosexuals have Venus in Gauquelin sector more often than can be expected, and female homosexuals have Mars in Gauquelin sector more often than can be expected. In other words: While lesbians are tolerated in the locker room, male gays are not.

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:03 am

At this point in the presentation you might still be skeptical. In the following I shall present examples to prove my point - even though I am aware that scientists will call my "proof" "anecdotic evidence, which isn't worth a lot in the scientific world.

Please take a look at my portrait photo:
Me 2010.jpg
Me 2010.jpg (127.47 KiB) Viewed 1550 times
And then compare it with this photo:
Bodo Zinser.jpg
Bodo Zinser.jpg (70.56 KiB) Viewed 1550 times
It's amazing, almost shocking to see the similarity between the two guys on the photos. Add to this that our fates are very similar too. The guy on the second photo is a German astrologer called Bodo Zinser. You can find his chart here:,_Bodo. The text below the chart says:
German alternative healing practitioner, meditation instructor, reincarnation therapist, parapsychologist, astrological software developer since 1982, entrepreneur and astrologer. He is the distributor of software products such as "Cosmo-World," "CosmoData," SunLight," "‘SunWorld," "Astro-Text" and SolaNova." He is the author of "Paranormale Chirurgie auf den Philippinen," 1982.
As for me, I work with software and astrology too, I am a certified Reiki healer (level 2), I have consulted reincarnation therapists to experience several previous incarnations, and I am an author of several books about psychology and astrology. In other words, Bodo Zinser and I have very much in common. But he was born in 1947, 15 years before my birth in 1962, and we are not related in any way - we do not share any DNA, as far as I know.

In my astrological typology Bodo Zinser is a Mars-Pluto (or Aries-Scorpio) type, while I am a Uranus-Pluto (or Aquarius-Scorpio) type. Apart from that both our charts have a heavy load of Capricorn. The main differences between Bodo Zinser and me is that while he is very much a succesful business man and executive (thanks to Mars), I am a more nerdish science type, eager to gain knowledge and make discoveries (thanks to Uranus).
(To be continued)

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:12 am

Now take a look at the next photo:
Michel Gauquelin.jpg
Michel Gauquelin.jpg (8.98 KiB) Viewed 1550 times
It is Michel Gauquelin, whose chart you can find here:,_Michel

I think it is needless to say that I identify very much with Michel Gauquelin and his fate. In my planetary typology Michel Gauquelin is a Pluto-Jupiter (or Scorpio-Sagittarius) type. Once again we see that I have Pluto in common with my "astrological twin". So, now you may ask: "What about the Uranus-Pluto and Pluto-Uranus celebrities in your collection? Who do you resemble the most?" My answer is kind of embarrasing (for my system): When I make the comparisons, I end up with a person, which I can identify very much with - but I do not think that I have much in common with him otherwise. It's a fictional character, my favourite comic series. Take a look at lieutenant Mike Steve Blueberry: :lol:
bbr.jpg (42.85 KiB) Viewed 1550 times

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:03 pm

Mersenne has published a thread presenting his work with pysicians' charts at viewtopic.php?f=87&t=2573. Prior to entering Astrologers Forum I was already doing a minor research project on health workers' charts. A health worker in my definition is anybody working seriously with curing diseases: Physicians, nurses, dentists - but also healers, physical therapists, nutritionists, chiropractors, etc. In other words, this category is much broader than physicians only. I try to balance the data this way:

- The number of males and females shall be the same.
- There number of each subcategory shall contain an equal number of each gender, e.g. for every male physician, there shall be a female physician, for every male healer there shall be a female healer, etc.

Once the total number of charts passes 250 for each gender (i.e. 500 in total), I can begin to research subcategories like e.g. male physicians only.

Another difference between my project and Mersenne's project is that Mersenne's data collection only consists of AA data, and they are not rectified. In my data collection each and every chart is rectified. This means that I don't have to consider if the data source is AA, A, B, C, DD or even X. With sufficient information about a chart-owner, I can make a speculative chart for him or her, no problem. But doing all those rectifications is very time consuming. On average a rectification takes 1 hour to do.

OK, here are the preleminary research results with 100 health workers of each gender, with the 2 strongest planets (or signs) for each chart:
100 Male Health Workers.jpg
100 Male Health Workers.jpg (17.32 KiB) Viewed 1547 times
100 F Health Workers.jpg
100 F Health Workers.jpg (16.63 KiB) Viewed 1547 times
As you can see, there are differences and similarities between the 2 genders. Both genders seem to accentuate the Eris-Taurus type, but the males have the Uranus-Aquarius type as the second strongest, while the females have the Jupiter-Sagittarius type as the second strongest. Apart from that it is too early to draw any further conclusions - a 100 charts for a particular category is a very small number.

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:59 pm

Of course it is not possible always to have an equal distribution between the two genders. With military officers, I only have 9 females compared to 221 males. In these cases I have to treat the category as one group only.
230 Military.jpg
230 Military.jpg (16.85 KiB) Viewed 1545 times
The interesting thing about the military officers is that Pluto and Eris seem to be more prevalent than Mars, the planet normally associated with military careers in astrology.

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:11 pm

The gender problem is also present, when it comes to murderers and their victims. Murderers are predominantly male, while their victims are predominantly female. Here you see the bar diagram for 100 male murderers' rectified charts:
100 Male Murderers.jpg
100 Male Murderers.jpg (16.68 KiB) Viewed 1542 times
The dominant planetary types are Jupiter-Sagittarius and Eris-Taurus. I have no explanation for that, except that (once again) 100 charts is a very small number for making any statistical conclusions.

When it comes to Sun signs and crime, there are some interesting sites on the Internet, commenting on a FBI's statistic on crime: ... eir-signs/ ... i-data/02/ ... unnnn.html
According to the website of FBI, Cancers are the most dangerous criminals of all signs, followed by Tauruses in the second position. Third come Sagittarius and in the fourth position come Aries, followed in descending order Capricorn, Virgo, Libra, Pisces, Scorpio, Leo, Aquarius and Gemini which are last in the list since their crimes are rarely associated with violence, but mostly with frauds and scams.

Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Proving and improving astrology

Post by Rapsody3 » Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:02 am

Here you see the profile for the female murder victims:
200 f homicide victims.jpg
200 f homicide victims.jpg (16.6 KiB) Viewed 1541 times
As you can see the Makemake-Virgo type dominates with +68% above the expected level, followed by the Pluto-Scorpio type with +44% above the expected level. The question is: Can we trust this result? I am not sure. If you die a natural death, you will most likely die old, and if you are killed, you will most likely die in a younger age. What if the bar diagram simply shows the likelihood for dying young?

Below you see the the profile for female short lives, i.e. females, who died before they reached the age of 30 years.
264 f short lives.jpg
264 f short lives.jpg (17.44 KiB) Viewed 1541 times
Again we see how the Makemake-Virgo type dominates - even to a larger degree than with the murder victims. I think the conclusion so far is that the Makemake-Virgo type is more about a short life for the females than it is about being murdered. This conclusion is supported by another observation made, when I divide the female short lives into 3 groups according to age when they died:

1) 0-9 years old
2) 10-19 years old
3) 20-29 years old

I can see that the Makemake-Virgo type dominates the youngest group with +136%, while the other two groups have +66% Makemake-Virgo respectively. Apparently Makemake is the big baby-girl killer. According to traditional astrology and mythology it is Saturn, who "eats his children"; Saturn comes in third for the 0-9 years group with +51%. Number 2 is Pluto with +66%. But then again: Ancient astrologers didn't know about Pluto and Makemake.

When I made these observations I was bewildered and confused, because the Makemake-effect is actually very strong, and the conclusion is that to some degree the length of our lives seem to have been decided at our birth - or maybe even before we were born. Astrology presupposes that we have a free will, so that we can influence our lives - but how much influence does a baby girl have over her life?

If the length of our lives has been decided even before we were born, then what mechanism makes this decision? The only logical answer is reincarnation and karma. According to a Danish philosopher, Martinus (,_Martinus), a lot of decisions have been made about our lives, before we were born, based on our karma from previous lives; as we get older, we gradually gain more and more control over our destinies. And only after we reach the age of 30 years, do we have complete (or maximum) control over our lives.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest