Beyond the (Dolstice Pa a by QDeciination Leigh Westin An Illustrated Introduction to Declination, Planets Out-of Bounds at the Solstices with Data Tables, and the Three MavericksMoon Out-of-Bounds.... 23 Planets Out-of-Bounds. 27 Jupiter Out-of-Bounds.. 31 Uranus Out-of-Bounds.. 37 39 Pluto, The Known Rogue.. Marauding Mars..... 45 Aberrant Aphrodite. 53 Contents Introduction vii Important Notes Concerning Data ix An Explanation of Declination... aoa Accounting for Maximum Declination. 7 Celestial Body Relationships. apie, The Primary Concept. eit Out-of-Bounds Si ificance... ae x 4B Zodiacal Sign Relevance. =. 15 Maverick Planets. 7 a aA Declination Premise.. Finding the Active Point..... Off-the-Ecliptic by Celestial Latitude..... Final Thoughts... Bibliography... Ephemeredes References are listed Important Notes Concerning Data Appendix! Meandering Moon. Appendix Il Moon Pearls .. Appendix Ill Crystallization. Table 1 Eccentricity & Inclination of Planetary Orbits. Table 2. Jupiter’s Out-of-Bounds Cycles Related to Stations (1900's). Table 3. Jupiter’s Out-of-Bounds Cycles - 1600 to 2100.. Table 4. Uranian Out-of-Bounds Cycles -1600 to 2100... Table 5 Plutonian Out-of-Bounds Cycles -1200 to 2400... Table 6 Martian Out-of-Bounds Cycles in Non: Benfering Solstice Signs -1600 to 2100.. Table 7. Venusian Out-of-Bounds Cycles in Non-Bordering Solstice Signs - 1600 to 2100. Table 8 Moon’s Major and Minor Standstills from 1900-2030. Table 9 Moon’s Out-of-Bounds Cycle in Non-Bordering Solstice Signs - 1900-2030.. Table 10 Out-of-Bounds Celestial Bodies (frequency by data source’ Table 11 Moon, Venus, Mars Out-of-Bounds in Fixed Signs (frequency by data source). 63 69 7 81 83 I 101 59 84 87 100 101g major providers of declination publi- cations, have been Charles Jayne and Kt Boe- hrer. Charles Jayne drove a tradition for ex- cellence in declinations and opened a path for others to follow. Kt Boehrer followed with ‘over 30 years of research yielding many de- finitive answers and original thoughts, includ- ing an aspect of declinations that begged for attention—the out-of-bounds condition. Originally the reason for writing was to offer an in-depth explanation of declination as had been encouraged by Kt Boehrer. However, or such, a greater power has decreed a longer time span. In the meantime, data was found concerning, out-of-bound bodies that had not been re- ported in the past. Two planets when out-of- bounds, other than Pluto, were found in dif- ferent zodiacal signs than Cancer/Capricorn or Gemini/Sagittarius. Additional insight into the out-of-bounds state became apparent and to understand more, 500 years were ex- amined for most of the planets. Several in- triguing factors became visible that affect in- terpretation. It seemed most relevant that these data be made known so others would have the advantage of their use. ‘Thus, the major intent of this book was to es- tablish parameters for planets out-of-bounds. Data are included for 500 years (1600 to 2100) of Jupiter and Uranus, 1200 years (1200 through 2400) of Pluto, then 500 years (1600 to 2100) for Mars and Venus but only for the times they are out-of-bounds in signs other than those bordering the Solstice Zero Point. Introduction A second intent was to lay a simplified base on which an understanding of declination could be built. So little has been written on declination and yet so much more than just an astronomical measurement is implied, that basic concepts required explanation before approaching the out-of-bounds condition. Thus, this book begins with a simplified ex- planation and a little astronomy sprinkled in for good measure. It is strongly felt that un- derstanding declination in its many dimen- sions greatly assists application of its con- cepts, as does any subject. Summarized con- cepts in boldface at the end of sections were an effort to assist in the learning process and to serve as reference after the meat of the mat- ter had been digested. A third intent was to bring together facets of declination into a proposed premise to clarify that the simple mechanics of locating an ac- tive point for out-of-bounds planets snugly nestled within the big picture. Feedback indi- cated that the concept of how to apply the out-of-bounds condition in interpretation is easier to understand than the adaptation of the mechanics involved. Of course, an on-site instructor that can offer immediate feedback is the easiest method for learning. In lieu of this, perhaps different phraseology will offer clarity. Kt Boehrer originally developed both mechanics and out-of-bounds application. Boehrer’s forte in, Declination: The Other Di- mension! was relating her research to practical application—an emphasis of Librian analysis. The balleywick of this publication hopefully- will be to substantiate and encourage the use of her valuable findings by presenting the how and why of a declination prem-ise— a Sagittarian emphasis. It is hoped the two zodiacal influences will complement each other in this case, as well as they do in theory and friendship. Finally, it is hoped that the words herein will lend a different perspective concerning the idea that humanity was alienated from a sense of reality when Copernicus designated the Sun as the center of the solar system be- cause that which we experienced was no longer true. Each day we see the Sun, Moon and other celestial bodies rise in the east and set in the west, but science taught that this was not reality — that it was Earth rotating on its axis creating the illusion of rising and set- ting bodies. This idea promoted that scientific truths were useful in understanding the uni- verse, but that humanity in the process was left with less power becanse the truths did not coincide with our experiences. Although harm is not intended — it must be said that such thoughts make a flying leap over salient truths and perpetuates illusion to the neglect of the source of true empowerment. One fact must be clarified. Copernicus did not prove that Earth and the other planets re- volved around the Sun. Copernicus offered a better theory than did Ptolemy, who with his followers found 80 wheels within wheels were needed for just the five known planets in order to make calculated motions fit obser- vations, Copernicus by his theory provided a simpler explanation than the alternative theory of Ptolemy. In the 17% century after Newton discovered the universal law of gravity, there was still no direct proof, only a growing belief based on a universal force of gravity. It was not until 1838, 295 years after the death of Coper- nicus, that Bessel, a German astronomer who with the greater perfection of the telescope, found a shift in the position of a nearby star that finally could be measured, and thus proof was obtained. xili Regarding the alienation of humanity, fore- most, the truth sets us free. True esoterical studies teach to see beyond the illusion to re- ality. Thus, power is gained, not lost. Left out in the questionable thought process was Earth as a body of energy and the effect on life of Earth’s unique orbit while rotating on its fixed axial tilt, resulting in the seasons. The seasons in turn, symbolize life’s existence as gestation, birth, maturation and contrac- tion. Without the light of the Sun, life might not exist; yet it is Earth’s orbit and fixed axial tilt that creates the renewal of life. For this, it is not the Sun, but rather Earth that is respon- sible. The unique power of Earth in its own right is being denied by saying humanity lost power by understanding the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Where astrology needs to change is to fully embrace astronomy as its warp and woof. Astronomy is the foundation on which astrol- ogy is based as the source of data used. Es- sentially astrology, brings down that which is in the heavens and shows how it is reflected in human experience. Without the scientific facts of astronomy, this is an impossible feat. Earth is a smaller universe than that of which it is a part—the solar system. To acknowl- edge any less, is also to deny reality. The atom of which all manifestation is composed, is only one example. The idea in question in- corporated that the very humanness of astrol- ogy threatened the order so treasured by con- ventional science, The simple argument to this incredible notion is that the very order and system of the universe creates astrol- ogy—which by its very definition, is the epit- ome of humanity. To restate in a few famous. words, that which is above, is that which is below, and that which is below, is that which is above.Important Notes Concerning Data Qe is probably as good a time as any to bring up differing issues concerning available resources of empirical data. The more data that were accumulated, the more questions arose. On hand were published ephemeredes for most of the 1800s, and all of 1900 and 2000. Fortunately even some of these were different sources with some duplications in the 1800's, and 1900's so accuracy between the printed ephemeredes could be checked and was. However, as interest in the 1600's and 1700's, mounted, then in even earlier centuries, the only source available was a well-known astro- logical computer program equipped with an ephemeris generator which generous friends allowed use thereof on their computers. Later it was found while determining the point through the centuries at which maxi- mum declination of the Sun could be rounded off to a prevailing maximum in minutes, the computer generated ephemeris did not agree with the printed ephemeredes for the 1800's, 1900's or 2000's. In trying to determine the cause of the difference, it was found by look- ing at the seconds that the computer program rounded down to a 23°27' maximum Solstice declination at 23°27'59" rather than 23°2729". As a result, the computer-generated data was showing the change from 23°28! to 23°27" in 1789 rather than 1860 and 23°27" to 23°26' in 1917 instead of 1990. Unfortunately the prob- Jem could not be totally overcome by using data including seconds, because of further discrepancies found between the computer generated ephemeris and published ephem- eredes Before going further, these statements should not be taken as a criticism of computer gener- ated ephemeredes. However, the issue that they may not match with published ephem- eredes is a fact that should be known among all astrologers. It can be said, further, that even among different computer programs, different data is found. Asa result questions arose concerning this project. The primary question was: could the out-of-bounds data that seemed so different from what had been reported in the past and not available in published material, stand up against a test in other computer programs. A number of charts were set and it was verified that data among programs could be off a few days and with some minor difference in decli- nation. However, the important factors, out- of-bounds positions in different zodiacal signs, were duplicated in other computer pro- grams. Although data in the ephemeris generator could be off as much as four days in either di- rection of an out-of-bounds date when com- pared to data in published ephemeredes, there was practically no difference shown in degrees of maximum declination reached by a body and only minor differences shown in 20- diacal degrees and minutes that occurred si- multaneously. Such effect is probably due to the hovering effect of the planets and Moon when found close to or beyond maximum. declination. Even so a bit more explanation is necessary. Although data in the printed ephemeredes were from highly reputable sources ixand is known to be accurate (as much as is possible currently), there is much that we still do not know concerning orbits of many of the planets when predating data for planets re- cently discovered. First, the mechanics for computing planetary placements is highly complex. The planets have wobbling effects within their orbits caused from many factors, including, the pull among the planetary bodies themselves. Re- cently published ephemeredes are based on the same factors that the Jet Propulsion Labo- ratory applies in setting up such data for the US. Naval Observatory. However, there are factors concerning the planets that are still unknown, especially Pluto, and to some ex- tent Neptune and Uranus as well, since the technology applied has not been around through one complete cycle of any of the three. Even though Pluto was discovered in 1930, no where near its complete orbit of 248 years has occurred since that time; and even though Uranus (1781) and Neptune (1846) were discovered much earlier, there are cy- cles within cycles that affect these planetary positions. ‘As for determining when maximum declina- tion could be rounded down in epochs prior to 1800, it was decided to use an average amount. This amount was derived from two pieces of information. One from printed sources and the other from the computer- generated source. The difference between the two known changes at the Spring Solstices in 1860 and 1990 (from printed sources) were subtracted and yielded 130 years difference. ‘The amount of difference was determined be- tween the different rounding down to the next minute in the ephemeris generator from 1200 through 2200. The average difference was also close to 130 years. Thus, 130 years was subtracted from 1860 to find when the approximate change to 23°28' occurred (1730), from 1730 to find the change to 23°29' (1600), etc. The figure of 130 years was added to 1990 (yielding 2120) to arrive at the potential date for the change to 23°25'. It is to be un- derstood that this is not a totally accurate reckoning. Yet from the overall picture, such, method seemed to be the best available solu- tion for this particular printing. In summary, there was no question concern- ing the data from printed ephemeredes cover- ing years 1800 to 2100. However data prior to and after these dates may or may not be to- tally accurate, thus the long-term trends may be only tripping the light fantastic. On the other hand, from an overview standpoint, the long-term trends may be closely accurate, in particularly for Venus, Mars and Jupiter since these are visible planets and their orbits have been known and described through the centu- ries. Trends shown in data from 1800 to 2100, appear to be backed by that from earlier as well as future data. However, even if this is not the case, the data and trends shown from 1800-2100 is significantly conclusive and de- serves to be incorporated within the astrologi- cal premise. Printed Resources: Raphael's Astronomical Ephemeris 1801 - 1819 (Gingle issues) Die Deutsche Ephemeride Band 1 1850 - 1889 (Noon) ‘The Astrologer’s Ephemerides 1890 - 1900 (Aries Press - Noon) Raphael's Astronomical Ephemeris 1900 - 1999 (Gingle issues) The Rosicrucian Ephemeris 1900 - 2000 (Midnight) The Rosicrucisan Ephemeris 2000 - 2100 (Midnight)An Explanation of Declination @ ike a mother lode of untold wealth dec- lination exists. But this is no uncut stone—no mining or polishing is necessary. Declination isa brilliantly faceted treasure though ob- scured by currently acclaimed altars. Yet that which obscures is dependent on declination and its inferences. Declination is one of the ‘most important factors in the astronomical puzzle—so much so that it is truly amazing it is only now in this century coming into its ‘own and being associated with the enormous value it offers. Itis highly suspected that this was not the case in the ancient past. The value of declination is too immense for it to have been ignored or even overlooked. On this one factor too much of the unique quali- ties of Earth and of life itself, hinges for that to have occurred. Actually there are bits and pieces of information (some written in stone such as ancient artifacts of Stonehenge, the Avery Circle, the Great Pyramid at Giza, etc.), that cataclysmic events, persecution of the an- cient ways by the Church and burnings of the great library in Alexandria, Egypt, failed to eradicate. As cycles passed and attitudes changed more and more information has sur- faced and falls in the category of rediscov- ery —but as always has been, time continues to be the great healer. The Hidden Hinge Pin Declination rings a familiar note as one of the celestial measurements of the equatorial sys- tem, right ascension being the other. In this context, declination is the north/south meas- urement from the equator and right ascension is the measurement around the equator. Thus, one explanation of declination is the latitude measurement in the equatorial system (Figure y. In ephemeredes that offer declination, it is given usually for the Sun, Moon and the plan- ets; however, not all ephemeredes include this, important data. The Rosicrucian and Raphael versions do, but the American Ephemeris does not~something of a tragedy since over half of the information available for astrologi- cal consideration is not addressed! And that is the point. Declination is just as important, than that which appears to have been ac- cepted as the mother tongue of astrology, celestial longitude. Equatorial Plane or The angle distance between the South equator and the Pole ecliptic 1. Note 0°Aries/Libra, the hinges which join Earth’s Equator to the Ecliptic Plane, the points at which the Ecliptic and Equator intersect. 2. Note the difference in the angle between the Equator and the Ecliptic, approximately 23°26-8' This is a key about which much ado will be made.Celestial longitude of course, is also a meas- urement of astronomy ~albeit from the eclip- tic system —accounting for degrees around the ecliptic plane, while its associated partner, ce- lestial latitude, measures north and south of the ecliptic (Figure 1). As the acclaimed mother tongue of astrologese, this is extremely familiar territory. Declination as a latitude measurement in the equatorial system is only one of its defini- tions. Declination also refers to Earth's tilt on its equatorial axis which in turn defines the ecliptic angle from the equator. In astronomi- cal measurements, this is shown as declina- tion of the Sun. In fact the term, declination, has been thought to be so associated because of the Sun's apparent incline and decline of height in the sky over the course of an Earth year. Yet we know and the astronomers know that it is not the Sun that is moving, rather Earth. Astronomy-hence its measurements~was de- signed to describe the celestial sphere as seert from Earth. Both measurements, celestial lon- gitude and declination, are required to de- scribe Earth's orbit in space relative to the Sun. Thus, declination describes Earth rotat- ing on its fixed tilted axis as it travels around the Sun, Whereas, Earth's orbit measured around the Sun, is shown by the Sun's appar- ent celestial longitude. In effect, it is more ac- curately to say Earth declines, rather than the Sun declines. ‘These two measurements, celestial longitude and declination are the only two coordinates ever given for the apparent Sun. Celestial latitude for the apparent Sun is never given, because obviously, Earth cannot move in rela- tion to itself. However, one definition of decli- nation used in particular by astronomers, is as the latitude of the apparent Sun. The clincher is without Earth's polar axial tilt, Earth would not set at a 23°+ angle to its equa~ tor. (Figure 1). Instead, the plane of the eclip- tic—Earth’s orbit— would be its equator. ‘Thus far, declination can be defined as: 1. The north/south measurement of the equatorial system 2. A type of latitude 3, The Sun’s apparent latitude; and referred to as: 4, The 23°+ angle between the equatorial and ecliptic planes 5. The tilt of Earth on its polar axis, 6, Earth's decline. Without Earth tilted on its polar axis, the Sun. would always be overhead at the equator yielding an eternal equinox. The four seasons ‘would not exist, nor would the Tropical Zo- diac or the symbolism of life, as we know it. The seasons reflect earthy life, and define the cycle of change. Every materialized form, be it stone, vegetable, creature or human, partakes of a cycle of life that includes gestation, birth, maturation, and contraction of growth with a final culmination. On this basis, the Tropical Zodiac would be unknown —non-existent. The entire premise of the Tropical Zodiac is dependent on the four seasons, and would have no basis without all the ramifications that go along with gestation, birth, maturation and contraction of life. For the same reason, the Cardinal Points would not exist. With one eternal equinox the year long, all days and nights would be equal, instead of two days of the year singled out as. having equal day and night known as the ‘Vernal Equinox (the first point of Aries) and the Autumnal Equinox (the first point of Li- bra). Equinox is from Greek equi meaning equal and nox meaning nights. Because the Sun would not appear to incline to and de- 2cline from the Tropics of Cancer and Capri- corn, the Solstices (the first point of Cancer and Capricorn) would not occur with their ex- treme lengths of unequal light and darkness. The cardinal points (cardinal meaning of pri- mary importance) were so named for the sig- nificance they carry in consideration of decli- nation as the hinge and hover points. The first point of Aries and Libra are the only points that the ecliptic and equator intersect or join, thus it seemed befitting to coin them the hinge points. The Solstices are compli- ments as the hover points where the Sun ap- pears to hover or standstill (sol- meaning Sun; - sitces from the Latin, meaning stand). Without declination, all the days of the year would be the same length every day with more or less light or darkness, depending where on the Earth one might be. Since all nights (and days) would be the same length, a difference would not exist showing a primary importance. Since the Sun would no longer appear to in- cline to and decline from the Solstices, the phenomena of antiscia as understood today, would be unknown. Antiscia are the phe- nomena that mirror the same declination posi- tion in the Sun's ascent and descent, but at dif- ferent celestial longitude positions. An an- tiscion is always parallel to its reflected point. Some refer to antiscia phenomena as Solstice Points, a misnomer that most probably was derived from the mechanics of determining antiscia as equidistant from the Solstice Zero Points, 0° Cancer and 0° Capricorn (Figure 2) By definition the words, Solstice Zero Points literally mean the points at which the Sun stands still. The Sun stands still only at the Solstice points and certainly not at all antiscia. Whereas, antiscia from Greek anti- meaning opposite and -scia from ski meaning shadow, is literally opposite shadow and describes the phe- nomenon much more distinctively. In summary, the following are dependent on the Earth’s decline, thus declination: 1. The Four Seasons 2. The Tropical Zodiac 3. The Cardinal Points 4. Antiscia When it is seen that so many significant fac- tors hinge on Earth’s declination, it not only seems incredible that so little attention has. been given to declination, it also becomes eas- ier to understand the remarkable power asso- ‘The table identifies which are north or south dectination signs. ‘The side beside signs in the table are related by having the same dec- lination, i, the antiscion or mir- ror point of 2 will always be found in I and vice versus. 0° Capricorn is theantiscion of 29° Sagittarius and vice versus 1° Capricorn is the antiscion of 28° Antiscia Cancer Gemini North Declination | Taurus Leo Aries: Virgo Pisces Libra South Dectination | Aquarius | Scorpio Capricom Sagittarius Figure 8 Sagittarius, ete. ‘The antiscion of a cardinal is always found in a mutable sign and vice versus. The antiscion of a fixed sign is always another fixed.ciated with declination in practice. Obscuring declination are factors used on a daily basis, celestial longitude, the Tropical Zodiac, the Cardinal Points—and for some people, antis- cia as well. Yet, when the obstacles masking, this multi-faceted treasure are peeled away, their true source is revealed, allowing the power of the true hinge pin to stream forth in all of its magnificence. Relating Declination and Celestial Longitude Crucial to understanding declination is the concept that celestial longitude and declina- tion describe Earth in its orbit. What really is, described by celestial longitude is Earth’s mo- tion around the Sun. What really is described by declination is the tilt of Earth spinning on its polar axis as it orbits the Sun. Both celes- tial longitude and declination measurements are references to Earth— occurring at the same time to the same body. Complete understanding of the relationship between celestial longitude and declination is sometimes hindered by the manner in which astronomy is written. Both measurements are given as they appear from Earth. Appears is the key word. We know and as- tronomers know that the Sun only appears to move from Earth's vantage point. Celestial longitude and declination are from different measurements when looking from Earth to the celestial sphere; but back on Earth where the action is occurring, they represent two parts (Earth's rotation around the Sun and spinning on its fixed axial tilt) of one activity (Earth's relationship to the Sun). It must be recognized that celestial longitude and decli- nation are simply words used to describe ac tivity from a particular viewpoint. When the activity is separated from the viewpoint, then the activity can be applied to a different per- spective. Earth’s relationship to the Sun is shown in an ephemeris as the Sun's positions in celestial longitude and in declination. Both measure- ments are appearances from the perspective of Earth and looking toward the celestial sphere. In the case of celestial longitude, the Sun is shown in an ephemeris as it appears against the degrees of the opposite zodiacal position from Earth. In the case of declination, the Sun is shown, as it appears to incline to and decline from the Solstices in degrees of lati- 1. Note the line through the | Earth representing its North/ | South Pole, showing that no matter where Earth i, in its orbit around the Sun, itis fixedly skewed ina tilt toits | polar axis—thus to its | ‘equator—-and at an angle of approximately 23°26. 2. Note that the Earth is simultaneously rotating on its polar axis, once every 24 hours (in Earth time), allowng the Sun’s light to move across its surface, / | Zodiacal Background Earth's North Pole Axis, appearing to point to Polaris, the North star Earth's Orbital Path ‘Around the Sun Figure 3MS @S SB SB SB SBS SBS SS RSFSE SSE REESE EE Figure 4 tude. In reality, declination are degrees simi- lar to Earth’s latitudes (north and south meas- urements from the Earth equator) which Earth presents to the vertical light of the Sun as Earth rotates in its orbit on its fixed tilted axis (Figure 3). The Sun‘s position in a particular degree of north or south declination directly relates to a specific degree of a particular zodiacal sign in its ascent and another specific degree of a dif- ferent zodiacal sign in its descent —and the cor- responding positions every year. For this rea- son, degrees of declination can be directly equated to degrees of celestial longitude. For example, when the Sun appears in declination 2N22, its celestial longitude in ascent to the Solstice, will be 5°757 and will occur on about March 27 year after year. In its descent at 2N22, the Sun’s apparent celestial longitude will be 247003 on September year after year. This can be checked out readily in any ephem- eris for any year. Also, this relates to antis- cia~5°P57 is the antiscion of 24 1203 and vice versus (Figure 2, page 3). Because these two positions of different zodiacal placements are parallel (both having the same degree and di- rection of declination), they are reflective of that fact— thus, 5°57 is the opposite shadow of 2411003, and naturally, vice versus. Ifa line were drawn on the globe from: 1) 0°700 on the equator, upward to the point where 90°00’ right ascension would intersect the Tropic of Cancer; 2) back down to 0-00; 3) then on further to where 270°00' right as- cension would intersect the Tropic of Capri- corn; 4) and finally, upward, connecting to its Tropic of Cancer clptc traced onto Earth Earth's Equator Tropic of Capricorr Figure 5starting point (0°00); this line would describe the ecliptic path reflected back on Earth in re- lation to the equator—and literally— declination on Earth (Figures 4 and 5). Since degrees of declination can be equated to the Sun’s celestial longitude, then the path traced by the Sun's apparent declination and the path of the Ecliptic across Earth’s surface match and are in reality, the result of two ac- tivities of Earth, itself—rotating on its tilted axis and orbiting the Sun. Hence, this is how the seasons occur—how the cardinal signs came to be—how antiscia results—how we arrive that celestial longi- tude and declination can be equated—and how, because they are occurring simultane- ously, these two measurements represent the same event in time. In summary: 1. Celestial measurements of the Sun de- scribe Earth because Earth is the body in motion. 2. Celestial Longitude describes Earth’s po- sition in its orbit around the Sun. 3. Declination describes the angle of the fixed tilt in Earth’s annual orbit, that aligns with the Sun. 4, Since both describe Earth simultane- ously, degrees of declination can be di- rectly equated to degrees of celestial lon- gitude.ver the long haul, the amount Earth tilts 4n respect to its equator, fluctuating from a ‘maximum amount to a minimum amount. In ‘other words, a change occurs in the amount of distance between the ecliptic plane and the ‘equatorial plane. The fluctuation as currently understood is extremely long, 40,000 years; and the change is minute, from about 22°36' to. 2612. Regardless of the lengthy cycle and the seem- ‘ingly small amount of change, it is relevant to "the out-of-bounds circumstance. Although ‘several mechanical factors are involved in this ‘process, for the out-of-bounds issue, the main point is that the current amount of declination can always be determined by the Sun’s maxi- _ mum declination at the Solstices. It is critical to remember that it is Earth's tilt and orbit "that are shown in an ephemeris by the Sun’s positions respectively, in declination and ce- Testial longitude. Presently Earth is in the decreasing phase of the cycle and its inclination (or declination) to ‘the equator in 1999 is about 23°26'. However, ‘the change occurs in ebbs and flows in a zig- ag fashion®. For example, 1975 was the first that maximum declination decreased be- Jow 23°26'30" in a very long time. Yet, in 1987, ‘maximum declination was more than 23° 2630". It was not until 1990 that the figure ‘reached the stage that it would not return to ‘an amount greater than 23°26' rounded off— “and for many eons. ‘These factors offer two considerations when dealing with out-of-bounds positions. First, Accounting for Maximum Declination maximum declination (shown by the Sun's ap- parent declination) determines the point at which a planet becomes out-of-bounds. In other words, when a celestial body’s declina- tion is more than the Sun's apparent maxi- mum declination, it has reached the out-of- bounds state. In the 1600's, maximum declination was on an average about 23°29); thus any celestial body that reached declination higher than this amount was out-of-bounds. Whereas some- where around 2120, maximum declination will have dipped to 23°25), allowing bodies to reach out-of-bounds four minutes of distance earlier than in the 1600's. Each decreasing mi- nute theoretically offers greater opportunity for celestial bodies to step into the nethers be- cause less declination is necessary to exceed the prevailing maximum. second consideration deals with the ebbs and flows of change within a century. Al- though some authorities may disagree, it is recommended by others to use the current maximum declination shown by the nearest Solstice when working with specific events. Of course, if the ultimate in accuracy is de- sired, the seconds could be taken into consid- eration as well, depending on the degree one might enjoy being obsessive-compulsive—at least in the general informational context. Such detailed attention should occur when working in a natal context. In developing the database for out-of-bounds planets, the figures used were the overall maximum declination for the period. Usinga the 20% century as an example, 23°27' was used as the limit until the June 1990 Solstice, when the ecliptic angle could be rounded off to 23°26' for the final time. In fact 23°27' was used from June 1860 through June 1990, since June 1860, was the final Solstice that maxi- mum declination could be rounded down: from 23°28' to 23°27". Because of these ongoing changes, most authorities use the encompassing figure, 23° 26-28' for general reference. A variation of minutes implies there is an ongoing shift and takes into account current mean declination into the future as well as times past in which we have vested interests, such as when revo- lutionary forces established this country. One other point bears mention. Some authorities include the Sun's apparent radius from Earth in determining the angle between Farth’s equator and the ecliptic. The Sun’s apparent radius is 0°16. When this amount is, added to the Sun’s apparent maximum decli- nation for the majority of the 20% Century, the figure becomes 23°42’ (23°26' + 0°16' = 23°42!) The resulting figure is sometimes used when a reference is made to the obliquity of the eclip- tic. In respect to the mental gyrations that the term, obliquity of the ecliptic, may bring—the meaning is ultimately simple. All it means is the angle between Earth's equator and the ecliptic—the difference between Earth’s fixed tilt (Earth’s decline) and its equatorial axis (Earth’s equator). Now going back to the fig- ure derived above, 23°42’, this is the same as saying that when the Sun reaches its apparent maximum declination as shown in an ephem- cris, maximum declination is increased by 0° 16\. The figure 23°26! (rounded off maximum declination in 1990) is based on a measure- ment to the center of the visible Sun. If the point to the edge of the visible Sun is used, then maximum declination becomes increased by 0°16' and would be 23°42’ ‘A thought may come to mind, should the Sun's diameter be taken into consideration of ‘maximum declination. The answer is a re- sounding o—based on the source—that from ‘whence comes the necessity for a considera- tion of declination in the first place. It is not a moving Sun, that occurs—it is a moving Earth. Earth is declined in a fixed tilt to its equatorial axis thus, creating the obliquity of the ecliptic. Put very simply, the obliquity of the ecliptic is the angle at which Earth tilts to its own equator as Earth orbits the Sun. This is a unique quality of Earth. Therefore, the il- lusion of the moving Sun is just that—an illu- sion and not the source—the source is Earth. Maximum Declination: 1. Changes over eons of time. 2. Is currently ina decreasing phase. 3. Can be determined for a specific event by the Sun’s apparent maximum declination at one of the bordering Solstices found in an ephemeris. 4, Refers to the angle between the ecliptic plane (Earth's orbit) and Earth’s equato- rial plane (Earth’s equator). 5, Equates to the obliquity of the ecliptic.Primers rOWN ET IRE Celestial Body Relationships A the Earth spins on its tilted axis, plan- ets and the Moon are seen in their obits above or below the Earth, How they are appear in declination will depend on both the Earth’s position in its annual orbit and the positioning of the other bodies in their orbits. Nonethe- less, in measuring their declination, planets and the Moon are considered as if they were on a plane north or south and parallel to Earth’s equatorial plane (Figure 6). If two or more bodies are aligned on the same parallel, they are therefore in parallel aspect with the energies being brought together as the Earth turns on its axis. From this, it easily should be seen that two types of declination parallels are possible: 1. Parallels in north declination, ie., both at 22N23. 2. Parallels in south declination, ie., both at 22823, If two or more planets fall on the same degree and minute of parallel, with one or more in north declination and one or more in south declination, a third type of aspect is formed called: 3. Contra-parallel—one or more positions on the same degree and minute of parallel in both north and south declination, ie, one at 22N23 and another at 22523. Now, if all the celestial bodies fell within the range of maximum declination, there would bea pretty little package all tied up and neatly ready to go. But that is not the case. There is a fourth type of condition —celestial bodies found outside the boundaries of maximum declination and the Earth’s orbit. Because this condition falls outside the limits of maximum declination, Kt Boehrer coined it out-of-bounds. spheres oriented on parallel planes| to Earth’s equator. The orbits of the planets are not shown Planet A is on the same parallel as Planet B in north declination, thus Planet A & B are parallel. Planet Cis on the same parallel as Planet Din south declination, thus Planets C & D are parallel Planet A & B are at the same declination degree as Planet C & D, thus, Planet A & B are contraparallel Planet C & D. Planet E is out-of bounds in north declination Earth's equator Figure 6Four types of moving celestial body condi- tions occur in declination: Parallels in north declination. Parallels in south declination. Contra-parallels. Out-of-Bounds positions. BeNe The thought might occur that antiscia belong in this category and they do, but not as sepa- rate conditions since they already are in- cluded —antiscia are parallels and contra- antiscia are contra-parallels. Only the out-of- bounds condition will be considered from this point on. 10@ @ SS SS SSS SS SS SSE ERE ES The Primary Concept ny celestial body that reaches beyond the ecliptic plane — beyond the prevailing maximum declination—is out-of-bounds. Be- fore going on, it might be a good idea to re- view Figures 4 and 5 on page 5, which shows how declination and the ecliptic coincide. This is a primary concept that must be grasped before the phrase, out-of-bounds of the ecliptic, becomes totally meaningful. By referring to the ecliptic in this way, the question could arise as to what does this have to do with declination. Only by understand- ing two points will the phrase out-of bounds of the ecliptic make good sense: 1) the Sun’s posi- tions in celestial longitude and in declination represent Earth; and 2) as a result celestial longitude and declination can be equated. Again, this is readily seen in ephemeredes with the Sun found in approximately the same celestial longitude degree along with the same declination degree year after year, i., when the Sun is ascending and is at 2N22 decli- nation, it will be at 5°57 in celestial longitude. When the Sun is descending, the celestial longi- tude will be different than that found when. the Sun is ascending, ie., when descending and the Sun is at 2N22, it will be found at 24703 at least in the current time frame. As the angle between the ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane decreases, celestial longi- tude degrees become compressed relative to degrees of declination (as shown by the Sun's positions in an ephemeris). This can be visu- ally contemplated by understanding that the curves shown in Figure 5 (page 5) become slightly squished or flattened at the Solstice points. As the Earth's tilt decreases, the ap- parent moving Sun reaches less distance above and below the equator at the Solstices, a measurement shown by declination. Declina- tion decreases, but celestial longitude does not. Though the Sun is reported in lower dec- lination at the Solstices, it still will appear to travel over 360° of celestial longitude in every Earth year. As example, through most of the 1800's, 360° of celestial longitude were spread over 23°28' x 2 (23°28' in north declination and 23°28" in south declination). By comparison, sometime in the 224 Century, 360° of celestial longitude will be spread over a lesser amount of declination, 23°25! x 2. As declination changes, the number of de- grees and minutes of celestial longitude will remain constant, but will be equated to less declination. This is a visual effect related to the sine curve shown in Figure 5 (page 5). The sine curve of the ecliptic can be likened to a shadow reflected back onto to Earth of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Earth’s orbit (the eclip- tic measured in celestial longitude) will not be getting any smaller, but there will be less dis- tance between the plane of Earth’s orbit (the ecliptic) and Earth’s equatorial plane (Earth's equator). In other words, the angle between Earth’s equator and its tilt on its axis is less— hence, there is less obliquity of the ecliptic. In its higher degrees where declination is moving the slowest, the changes will be the most evident. Even though declination moves at graduated speeds during the year, from 12’ at the Equinoxes to less than a minute at the Solstices, celestial longitude is relatively con- TTstant throughout the year. With a relatively constant celestial longitude, at positions where declination is the slowest, the same number of celestial longitude degrees will be spread over lesser declination. Even though this is a minute change, it is still relative long-term. Most of the tables avail- able today that equate declination to celestial longitude, were based a maximum declina- tion of 23°27. Eventually these will have to be revised, especially the further distant the time being investigated is from the effective date of the table being used. Tables equating celestial longitude to declination are found in Kt Boehrer’s book'. Tables are also available through RightLeft Graphics*. For a celestial body to be located beyond the limits of the ecliptic, it must be beyond what ever those limits might be at the particular time being examined. The out-of-bounds state is determined by the maximum angle of decline or tilt to its equator, at which the Earth sits, This amount is shown in an ephemeris by the Sun’s apparent maximum declination at the closest Solstice to the date being sought. For example, in 1991, the Sun's maximum declination was 23°26'. Therefore, in 1991, any celestial body shown in an ‘ephemeris at greater declination than 23°26 will be out-of-bounds, Earlier in the 1900's, maximum declination was 23°27’. Bodies at that time would have had to be one minute higher in declination to have been out-of- bounds. ‘The potential exists at least theoretically, for the Moon and all the planets to step out-of bounds. Yet as reported by others and shown, by researching a period of approximately 500 years (in some cases more), this does not al- ‘ways occur. Special orbital factors are some- times involved, such as in the cases of the Moon and Pluto. These special differences are important factors that can and should be applied to interpretation as will be discussed. Henceforth, it should be understood when- ever a figure is written with a capital N or S or even N/5, the figure represents declination with N referring to north declination and S referring to south declination, i.e. respec tively, 2N22, 2522 or 2N/S22. When written with an astrological sign, the figure represents celestial longitude, ie., 5757. In summary: To be out-of-bounds by declination, the celestial body must exceed maximum declination described for the Sun at the Solstices during the same time frame. 12Out-of-Bounds Significance CG. important to understand that the out-of-bounds condition is not the normal state of a planet's orbit and herein lies the im- portance of recognizing these periods. It was Boeher’s 30-year research that brought to light its significance. Even though others may have noticed that this occurred, it was Boehrer that dug in her heels and produced the initial and broad evidence that substantiated its rele- vance. It was she that first stated the out-of- bounds state manifested as beyond normal con- ditions or expectations!. In elegant simplicity, this is a phrase reflecting the pure astronomy of the out-of-bounds condition. When any celestial body is out-of-bounds in whatever sign, its energy becomes abnormal, but not necessarily categorized as either good or bad. Taken quite literally, the energy is unleashed, occurs without reins, and is not limited by normal controls. ‘Two of Earth's physical factors, not often rec- ognized, offer great potential as contributors to the documented, out-of-bounds results. One is the difference of revolution speed on different parts of Earth and the other is mag- netic attraction. Earth is not quite round from top to bottom. Actually it is an ellipsoid, meaning that it bulges at the equator and is slightly flattened at the poles. The effects are: 1) at the equator, Earth revolves faster than it does at the poles since there is more mass that must be covered in one revolution; 2) as a re- sult there is greater magnetism at the poles, than at the equator. Above the Tropics of Cancer-Capricorn, in other words, above geo- centric latitude 23°26-28', magnetism gradu- ally changes. Between the poles a difference also exists. The South Pole was found to be best used to con- serve and draw in; whereas the North pole al- lowed energy to be personally dispersed. The magnetic flow is the opposite, inward from the North Pole and outward at the South Pole, allowing energy drawn in to be dispersed, but best to be conserved with south positions be- cause of the outward magnetic flow. Separating north and south extremes is 0° dec- lination, defined by the equatorial plane and the equinoctial axis, 0° Aries/Libra, the axis on which the change from north to south dec- lination (or vice-versus) hinges. Briefly, when bodies cross the zero line, changes tend to oc- cur—changes of all kinds, marriage, divorce, careers, moves, births, etc. Generally, when planets enter north declination, an opportu- nity for closure on some major factor in life oc- curs and a new beginning or major change re- sults which tends to expand or be dispersed. ‘The effects in north declination tend to be based more on personal effort with greater control than in south declination. South decli- nation, found in the hemisphere of the pole dispersing the magnetic energy gives the op- portunity to conserve and draw information in, thus where learning occurs, compared to the North Pole where the opportunity to dis- persed the drawn in energy occurs. The equi- noctial hinge is thus a power line. By follow- ing this line of thought, the potential exists for a rationale explaining why the cradle of civili- zation (as we currently understand it) took place in the Northern Hemisphere. Another power axis is the Solstices, 0°Cancer/ Capricorn; in fact, the Solstice axis is an even iygreater power line because of the hovering ef- fect shown by celestial bodies where the turn appears to be made from ascent to descent. Normally speaking, compared to the equinoc- tial axis where the greatest speed of motion occurs, the Solstice axis is where speed of mo- tion is the slowest. Just like astronomy de- picts, a celestial body at the Solstice axis gen- erally effects a turning point in life. Similar to the fire that tempers avery fine sword, the concentration of energy over a longer period establishes the basis for the inevitable change at the demarcation line, 0° declination, thus 0° Aries/Libra. At this time in history, a celestial body out-of- bounds can only occur beyond the prevailing declination point, approximately 23°26-28'. This is normally the Solstice Zero Point at which a concentration of energy exists. Any celestial body found close to this point is a powerhouse to begin with, but out-of-bounds beyond the ecliptic, it becomes an unleashed fireball for good or otherwise. One more point should be made. The out-of- bounds condition can occur in any type of as- trological premise, including natal , secon- dary, solar arc, midpoints, transits, horary, etc. How the energy manifests will be accord- ing to the planet's nature, sign, and condition in someway exaggerated. However, it is very important to recognize that the manner will not necessarily be abnormal from a negative connotation. Some of the most gifted indi- viduals for either good or evil will be found to have one or more out-of-bounds, natal posi- tions. In secondary progressions, out-of- bounds bodies will tend to bring to the sur- face out-of-the-ordinary situations —thus op- portunity. As taught esoterically, every situa- tion that life presents, positive or negative, is an opportunity. Within the total declination framework, the out- of-bounds condition presents an area of interpreta- tion that leads to even greater understanding. As Boehrer stated, the out-of-bounds condition turns on the proverbial light bulb with answers to many questions about a life that otherwise confounds us all. Hence, an understanding of celestial bodies ‘out-of-bounds is one of the major contributions that a study of declination offers with highly con- sistent results. In summary: The out-of-bounds state is a deviation from the celestial body’s normal energy, that in some form or manifestation, is exaggerated. 14Zodiacal Sign Relevance Mirre exception of Pluto, one defining criteria has been that out-of-bounds by decli- nation only occurs when bodies are in corre- sponding celestial longitude degrees of the four signs bordering the Solstice Zero Point, Cancer-Capricorn and Gemini-Sagittarius. This is true most of the time, but not all the time. The Solstice Zero Points in celestial longitude (0° Cancer-Capricorn) represent the limits of the Sun's apparent path north or south of Earth's equator, and where the Sun appears to ‘standstill as it makes its turn to descend to the equator. Bordering the Solstice Zero Points is not only the remaining degrees of Cancer or Capricorn, but also all of Gemini or Sagitta- rius as shown in Figure 7. Given these crite- ria, out-of-bounds planets would be expected in the zodiacal signs of Cancer or Capricorn, and Gemini or Sagittarius, and indeed, these are the signs in which the out-of-bounds state normally occurs. ‘The key word is normally. When correlating astronomical data to human existence, what- ever factor differs from the norm becomes proportionally important to the amount it dif- fers. Datum that occurs the most frequently is considered to be the norm and correlates to the normal or expected manifestation. The more data deviate from the norm, the more aberrant become the correlated experiences. Herein lies the rub. Because most of the time planets and the Moon are traveling within the ecliptic, a body traveling outside the ecliptic is in itself, a de- viation from the norm. Results of Boehrer’s research and the application thereof, substan- tiates this fact quite nicely. To goa step further, there is a norm even for a deviation. In this case, the norm is out-of- bound planets are found within the signs bor- dering the Solstice Zero Point—Cancer- Capricorn and Gemini-Sagittarius. When out- of-bounds planets are found in yet, different zodiacal signs, a further deviation occurs, and even more extreme manifestation is highly likely. Said another way, the less frequent the occurrence, the more important the datum. Even within the out-of-bounds state, there are variables that potentially add further unique- ness. Often, out-of-bounds placements hap- pen concurrently with a retrograde cycle, an- other deviation from the norm, When a planet is both out-of-bounds and retrograde, Signs Bordering the Solstice Zero Points o apricom ae i ENS a QP oS 7 ae Gemini Figure 7 cEthere is double jeopardy with two deviations, leading to a manifestation would be even more extreme or different, Other variables are: the number of days a planet stays out-of- bounds with the greater the number, the greater the extreme; and the amount of dis- tance a planet travels beyond the ecliptic with the greater distance from the ecliptic, being the greater exaggeration. Depending on what is being correlated, a natal chart, a mundane event, or whatever, these variables need to be acknowledged and applied for the greatest ac- curacy to be achieved. In summary: 1, Although celestial bodies out-of-bounds by declination, are deviations from the norm, usually their celestial longitude positions are found in the Solstice Point Signs, Cancer-Capricorn and Gemini- Sagittarius. 2. When out-of-bounds planets occur in non- bordering Solstice signs, a further deviation occurs. 3. Other deviations that may occur simultaneously with the out-of-bounds condition are the retrograde phenomenon, stationing, extreme degrees of declination, and extreme duration. 16Pu is the one planet heretofore recog nized as an exception to the norm. While out- of-bounds in declination, Pluto's correspond- ing celestial longitude has been found in the non-bordering Solstice signs, Leo and Aquar- ius, a factor that has been attributed to Pluto's eccentric orbit. The word eccentricity applied to a body's orbit in astronomy refers to the amount its orbit differs from a complete circle. Pluto's orbit differs by 0.249, almost 25% from a complete circle, making it highly elliptical. This amount is the greatest difference compared to that of any of the other planets (Table 1, page 20). In fact, astronomers have seriously debated Pluto's status as a planet, partly because Pluto’s elliptical orbit is more akin to that of a comet than those of the planets. Pluto's orbit is so unusual that for 20 years Pluto tracked on the Sun-side (inside) of Neptune’s path un- til February 18, 1999, when it spun beyond Neptune and once again, became the further- most planet (as far as we know). Since Pluto's orbit, is such an exception among the planets, this could be the basis of Pluto's powerful ef- fect~Pluto presents the most eccentric orbit, thus, its correlated time frames have the po- tential for great impact. When we couple the eccentricity of Pluto's or- bit with Earth being tilted on its polar axis, the effects in declination are profound. Gener- ally, Pluto's declination, unlike other outer planets, has less correspondence with its ce- lestial longitude whether it is in-bounds or out-of bounds, than any of the other planets Maverick Planets or the Moon. In other words, Pluto's celestial longitude is generally a far cry from corre- sponding with the solar equivalents of celes- tial longitude to declination. As an example, when Pluto entered 0° Sagittarius in Novem- ber 1995, its declination was 07535. When 07535 is found in solar equivalent tables, the corresponding celestial longitude is 1922. This is a sign and half away from Pluto's ac- tual celestial longitude at 0° Sagittarius. None of the other planets ever correspond with such distance between their actual celestial longitude and the solar equivalent of declina- tion in celestial longitude. Cases have been seen of planets being about a sign away in the correspondence, usually Venus; but when this occurs, the planet is coupled with some other contributing factor such as being retrograde. No such mitigating circumstance was in effect when Pluto entered Sagittarius. One fine day, while thumbing through an ephemeris, a planet other than Pluto, was no- ticed quite unexpectedly — out-of-bounds in Leo. As if this was not enough of a surprise~ an even greater one was in store. Not one, but two planets were found out-of-bounds in signs other than the ones bordering the Sol- stices! These two additional mavericks—are none other than—Mars and Venus! How can that be? The reason involves the or- bits of the planets in relation to Earth. If you have ever had the occasion to view several planets in a row, beginning at about 10 o'clock down to the eastern horizon or 2 o'clock down to the western horizon, many times they will be in a diagonally straight line. In 17the early evenings of February 23 and 24, 1999, such an example was visible in the west- em sky at about 32° North Latitude in the US. At that time, there was a spectacular conjunc- tion between Venus and Jupiter with Mercury visible at a lower position and Saturn above the conjunction —it was truly, a cosmic ex- travaganza. The planetary lineup in the sky was an almost straight diagonal line—almost, but not exactly. Herein, lies part of the answer. ‘There are two factors to deal with, first the di- agonal situation. As stated many times and probably many more—the ecliptic is actually Earth's orbit. With Earth rotating at a fixed tilt to its equator in its orbit around the Sun, sometimes the view from Earth is tilted to the rest of the solar system hence, a view of sev- eral planets at one time is more than likely to be a diagonal lineup. However, just how the sky appears depends on from where on Earth the view is made and the time of year. At the equator, the view will be different from the arctic circles at the same time of the year. Most of the time the area in between, the tem- perate zones, will yield a diagonal view. As was indicated, the view described above was at about 30° North Latitude and in February. The second factor has to do with the almost but not quite straight lineup. Planets revolve around the Sun on a somewhat flat plane — buta plane of depth. Variation exists in planetary orbits up and/or down in relation to each other, including Earth. Thus, the solar system itself, or at least that part containing, the Sun and the planetary orbits, is shaped like a thick disk (Figure 8). As a result, most of the time, planets and Earth’s Moon appear to be within the 23°+ band on either side of our equator projected to the heavens (thus, in- bounds of the ecliptic)—but sometimes not. Before continuing, a most important point begs to be emphasized concerning our disk- shaped solar system. Some have referred in- accurately to the solar disk on which all the planets orbit, as the ecliptic plane. This is a misnomer of the highest order and has led to confusion and complication in understanding. astronomy and—astrology. Sometimes this disk has been called the zodiacal belt, a more descriptive term since belt implies width, and a much more accurate term, since the zodiacal belt is predominately the area of the heavens against which the planets are seen to orbit. However, the ecliptic plane, when used to de- scribe the orbital path of the other planets, is totally inaccurate. By definition, the ecliptic is associated with the word eclipse, and was so named because it Earth's orbit Figure 8 (Orawing is noto scale.) The solar system disk, encompassing the | planets, and asteroid | belt can be likened to a | thick plane with its | width defined by planetary orbits at a maximum north/south | relationship to the Sun. Beyond this disk and basically on the same | plane, are found the | Zodiacal constellations. 18was the plane on which eclipses took place as seen on Earth. An eclipse as, viewed from Earth can only take place over a very small area of space defined by an exacting align- ment among the Sun, Moon and Earth. In no way could a narrow alignment in space re- quired for an eclipse, include all the orbits of the other planets. The ecliptic plane is solely the orbit of one planet—and only one, Earth. To continue with the major thought process, two background descriptions of a planet's or- bit are helpful in conceiving the maverick cir- cumstance. One is eccentricity, described above as the differing amount in a planet's or- bit from a perfect circle or the degree to which an orbit is elliptic. The other description is the inclination to Earth's orbit—in other words, the amount of angle the flat plane of a planet's orbit differs from the flat plane of Earth’s or- bit (the ecliptic). Thus, inclination refers to the difference in angle to the ecliptic and re- sults in celestial latitude, the amount that a planet's orbit is seen on the north or south side of the Earth’s orbital plane. Declination and celestial latitude are two dif- ferent measurements, both a type of latitude because both are north and south measure- ments (the north/south measurement from Earth’s equator is declination and celestial longitude is the north/south measurement from Earth’s orbit, the ecliptic). When a con- junction in celestial longitude occurs between two or more planets, it will look like a con- junction with close to or the same celestial latitude. The same process exists with declina- tion When a conjunction in celestial longitude oc- curs between two or more planets, it will look like a conjunction from Earth if the planets have the same or very close to the same declination, in other words, are parallel also. Unless celestial bodies conjunct in celestial longitude are par- allel, they will not always look like they are in conjunction from Earth. This is a most impor- tant point because the effect is more than just appearance and explains why planets in con- junction by celestial longitude and parallel by declination have been reported to have a more powerful effect than when only in conjunc- tion. When celestial bodies are conjunct by celestial longitude and parallel by declination, it is sug- gested that the energies can enter Earth's elec- tro-magnetic field more readily because they are aligned with the equatorial axis. Declina- tion works off the equatorial axis, thus decli- nation is the factor that allows this to take place and is responsible for much of resulting, power. The powerful occultation belongs in this category, too. An occultation can result when celestial bodies are exactly aligned in ce- lestial longitude and declination; the closer body to Earth occults the body further away. To say another way, the closer body moves between Earth and the more distance body, and obstructs the view of the body further away from Earth. Even though similarities exist between decli- nation and celestial latitude, celestial latitude remains a individual factor with which to reckon. Planets can be off-the-ecliptic by celes- tial latitude. Yet, even though both types of latitude, celestial latitude and declination, are capable of creating an off-the-ecliptic situation they are two entirely different ballgames. Be- ing off-the-ecliptic by celestial latitude is dif ferent from being off-the-ecliptic by out-of- bounds declination — including different pa- rameters—and to some degree different ef- fects. Even though less research is available for celestial latitude than declination what is known is valuable, too much for it to continue to be neglected as will be shown later. 19Table 1 shows the eccentricity and inclination of planetary orbits and infers some of the re- sultant factors. First, notice the amount of each planet's inclination (the angular differ- ence between their orbital planes and that of Earth). In order of greater difference is Pluto (17°19), Mercury (7° 00'), Venus (3°24), Sat- urn (2°29), Mars (1°51'), Neptune (1°47), Jupi- ter (1°18), and Uranus (0°46'). Saturn and Neptune are shown at a greater angle (greater inclination) to Earth's orbit than either Jupiter or Uranus, but neither of the first two has been shown out-of-bounds for over 500 years. In fact, Saturn has not been shown to reach beyond 22°59’ in either north or south declination. The same can be said for Neptune. Even so, both Jupiter and Uranus regularly reach beyond the limits of declination, and Uranus, even with both low eccentricity and inclination, at a greater amount than Jupiter. ‘Any planetary orbit that appears to be out-of- bounds from Earth occurs partly because of Earth's orbit itself and its tilt— plus the orbit of the other planet and whatever is affecting it, such as the pull from other bodies. Each planetary orbit is always normal for that planet, just like Earth is always in its normal orbit, Thus, the explanations given are just that~partial. Of major importance however, is the difference in the amount planetary bod- ies appear from Earth to deviate from their normal path. When a planet is out-of-bounds, it is more of- ten than not, coupled with its retrograde cy- cle. Usually a planet's maximum declination occurs close to one of its stationary points With some planets, maximum declination tends to occur close to stationary retrograde, others when stationary direct. Although both cases are a frequent occurrence, it is not an ai- ways situation. Sometimes Mars, Venus and Mercury out-of-bounds do not coincide ex- actly with their stationary periods. At the same time, the retrograde phenomenon is an- other effect that appears to occur from Earth's view —but in reality, the apparent retrograde planet is traveling on its normal path and in no way has changed its direction of orbit. So if all the planets are always in their normal orbits and some of these phenomena are just appearances, where does that leave the known significance? It is Earth in its orbit, yet another planet in its orbit, and the Sun that creates relationships and thus the flow of en- ergy amongst all. Illusion lays in the path of understanding — and not just one illusion, but two. First a moving Earth exits, not what appears to be a moving Sun. Everyone knows this intellectu- ally--but this fact must be translated into its total ramifications —the major of which is that the ecliptic is Earth's orbit around the Sun. ‘This means that Earth not only owns the ecliptic, Earth is the ecliptic. Therefore, energies affect Earth because its plane of orbit is effected. ‘The second illusion has to do with the unac- knowledged relationship of Earth to the Sun. The illusion is that aspects from other bodies occur to Earth because they match up with an Table 1 — Eccentricity & Inclination of Planetary Orbits? Orbit Earth | Mercury | Venus | Mars | Jupiter | Satum | Uranus | Neptune | Pluto Fecentricity | 0.017 | 0.206 0.0068 | 0.093 | 0.038 0.056 | 0.047 0.0086 | 0.249 Inclination | 000 | 700 | 328 | ror] ms | 77 | o4e | rar | 179angular relationship. Where does that leave, for example, the celestial longitude conjunc- tion? With what is it matching? Why it is im- portant to Earth that two planets are found at the same degree of celestial longitude? All of the celestial longitude degrees relate to Earth’s orbit and all of the planets are found somewhere in celestial longitude, yet the ef- fects are difference when certain angular rela- tionships exist. What makes the difference? Like much in the study of astrology, we are taught to accept the basis of a conjunction and other aspects because they work. But when we really get down to brass tacks, does it really make any sense? The Sagittarian qual- ity of why should come into play. Is it any wonder that the scientific world will not ac- cept astrology when we cannot answer how some of the very basic concepts work? Earth is alwoays positioned against the back- ground of the opposite zodiacal constellation from the Sun, giving Earth a 180° or opposi- tion relationship to the Sun (Figure 9). This one concept expresses a major rationale for the derived energy from aspects with other bodies, as well as the power solar aspects gen- erate‘. When a solar aspect occurs with another body, the power comes from Earth being op- posite the Sun. Every aspect is a triangular re- lationship involving at least three bodies. Al- ways the Sun and Earth are two of the bod- ies— because of their 180° relationship. The conjunction is the most powerful celestial longitude aspect because is a concentration of energy at one point on Earth’s orbital plane but interacting with the Sun at the same time—not just a single position in the sky of two planets located somewhere on the eclip- tic. The concentration of energy at opposite points on Earth’s orbital plane is why the op- position is considered only slightly less pow- erful, but in this picture again is the Sun. Al- though more could be written about aspects, suffice to say, the cyclical differences in the or- bits of the planets and their relationship to each other, cause the appearance of these phe- nomena, as well as the relationships that cor- relate to effects, There is action, but also illu- sion, because the action is not what it appears to be. To explain the differing factors that will arise especially concerning the maverick out-of- bound planets, the following terms as defined will be used: 1. Solstice Sign—Cancer or Capricorn. 2. Solstice Zero Point—0° Cancer or Capri- corn, the position between 29°59'59” of Gemini-Sagittarius and the remaining de- grees of Cancer-Capricorn. 3. Solstice Point Signs —signs that border the Zero Solstice Point, the rest of Cancer- Capricorn and all of Gemini-Sagittarius. Shown is the relationship between Earth and the Sun at Winter Solstice, in the Tropical Zodiac. From Earth, the Sun is against the background of Capricorn. From the Sun, Earth is in the Cancer section of the Tropical Zo- diac. (Drawing is not to scale.) Zodiacal Background Earth's NS polar axis Eart’s orbit Sun4. Non-bordering-Solstice signs — signs that do not border the Solstice Zero Point. The out-of-bounds condition can weld much influence and behooves us to take a closer look at the divergent cycles of Jupiter and Uranus as well as the three maverick planets, Pluto, Mars and Venus. In researching, the 1900's and 2000's, were considered at first, but side issues began rearing their heads. To make sure that conclusions would hold for other centuries, the task drew in 1600-1800 and 2100. One conclusion, not too surprising, was that the findings were parts of greater cy- cles extending over eons of time—much, much longer than 500 years and for Pluto, even 1200 years. Just how long these cycles are has not been determined, and may not be possible with available resources. Maverick Planets: 1. Are those that exceed prevailing maxi- mum declination and are in celestial lon- gitude degrees of zodiacal signs that do not border the Solstice Zero Points. 2. Are Venus, Mars and Pluto. Important Note: If the section, Important Notes Concerning, Data, at the beginning of this book, has not been read, please do so before continuing. It is important to understand how the data in the following pages was derived and the is- sues that arose concerning differences be- tween resources. In writing, there was the im- petus many times to say “if the data can be counted on” or “if the data is correct.” Yet this detracts from trends that are apparent from 1800 to 2100 that can be verified by printed ephemeredes. When such trends are supported by data shown for 1600 - 1700, it simply will be treated as such. Regardless of the accuracy, printed or computer generated, this is the best that currently exists—so be it - the disclaimer for this publication has been made.Moon Out-of-Bounds 5 Earth’s own satellite, the Moon pres- ents a special case. Unique factors exist in the Moon's orbit that allows it to reach into the nethers beyond maximum declination. But even if that were not the case, these are factors that every astrologer should know because they bring home issues that form the founda- tion of the Moor’s influence in interpretation second only to the Sun. After all, the Moon is a satellite of the Earth— nota planet. Although said with tongue in cheek, this is a valid consideration from be- ginning astrologers. Of course, the Moon's great influence comes from the Moon being a part of Earth since it travels along in Earth’s orbit, creating enormous physical effects on Earth’s body. However, the Moon also re- flects astronomical actions of the Sun. (Could this be a part of the rationale that led to the interpretation of the Moon reflecting the Sun’s actions, rather than from the Moon reflecting the light of the Sun? Bear in mind that the planets also reflect the light of the Sun.) In addition to the Sun’s light, the Moon re- flects the Sun’s rising and setting points at the Solstices, in fact the Moon’s rising and setting extremes extend further than does the Sun’s, and by about 5°8', both north and south. Gradually as the Moon swings through its. monthly cycle, it extends further and further into higher declination until it reaches a maxi- mum of about 28°35-45' (Figure 11), This is similar to the Sun when it reaches its maxi- mum declination of 23°+ and appears to hover or standstill at the Solstices. Hence, when the Moon reaches these extremes and hovers, as- tronomers called it the Moon's major standstill. te (below the Ecliptic Ealetis at Minor Standstil) Ecliptic Plahe op (Descending Node . Position at Moon's Figure 10 Minor Standsti) Moon's Orbit | beyond the Ecliptic at Major Standstill 5°08 (+) Equator, (Ascending Node Psion al Moon's Ecliptic Plane Major Standsti) Figure 11 ‘The plane of the Moon's orbit is shown as a heavier,darker outline than the ecliptic. In Figure 10, at the Moon's minor standstill its orbit falls within the 23°26-8' arc between the ecliptic and the equator when its maximum declination can be as low as 18°10'. In Figure 11, at the Moon's major standstill its orbit reaches outside the 23° 26-8 area between the ecliptic and the equator, when its maximum declination can be as high as 28°35-45.Related to the 5°+ difference between the Moon’s maximum declination of 28+° and the Sun’s of 23°+, is the Moon's orbital plane which inclines at about 5°8' to the plane of Earth’s orbit . The Moon's approximate 5°8' incline to the ecliptic is a north/south meas- urement thus, this amount is also the Moon’s maximum celestial latitude. How- ever, the difference between the Moon's or- bital plane and that of Earth's also allows the Moon to appear to reach about 5°+ beyond the Sun’s maximum declination. ‘Atother times, the Moon’s maximum declina- tion as it travels to the Solstices can be as low as 18°10, about 5° less than maximum decli- nation of the Sun, Even though the Moon reaches only 18°10! in declination, it will hover as it makes the turn to return to 0° in declina- tion, and will continue to register in 360° of celestial longitude. Astronomers call this phe- nomenon the Moon’s minor standstill. The intersection points of the Moon’s orbital plane and the plane of Earth's orbit (the eclip- tic) are hinged together similarly to the hinge points of the ecliptic and equatorial planes. But instead of being stationary points like Ar- ies and Libra, they are constantly moving since the Moon is in motion around Earth. ‘These hinges or intersection points are called the Moon’s Nodes from the Latin nodus, meaning knof®. In other words, the Moon's Nodes are the knots that tie the Moon’s orbit to that of Earth’s. The North Node represents the point at which the Moon passes from south declination to north; its South Node represents the point at which the Moon passes from north to south declination. Form an educational standpoint, when the de- rivative of a word is brought into the picture much understanding is imparted. The impor- tance of the Nodes in utilization is empha- sized when it is understood that these are the points that tie the Moon and Earth together, discovered only by learning what the ancients knew and hence named them —knots—a highly visual and meaningful depiction. Nodal positions are important also because they play a major role in the Moon’s standstill cycle. When a major standstill occurs with the resulting extreme in declination, the North ‘Node is found at 0° Aries. At minor stand- still, the North Node is found at 0° Libra. In an ephemeris showing the middle of February 1997, the North Node is found at 0° Libra. (Figure 10 and 11, page 23). Yet, the Moon's maximum declination during that time was only 18+°— telltale evidence that a minor standstill was experienced. The Moon's major standstill is directly related to the Moon’s 10-year out-of-bounds cycle. It is only on the years centered on its major standstill that the Moon actually reaches ex- treme declination; then, the out-of-bounds status occurs about 2 to 2 and 1/2 days every 10 to 14 days. With trusty ephemeris still in hand, the Moon's 10-year out-of-bounds period can be seen more readily. Beginning in October 1992, and going backwards in time, the Moon went out-of-bounds every month until late 1982. Then it fell in-bounds until the fall of 1972, when once again, it began to go out-of- bounds. By the same measure, the Moon stayed in-bounds for 9+ years centered on its minor standstill. As of February 1997, the Moon was half-way through an in-bounds pe- riod with about 5 years to go before it would once more reach into the out-of-bounds neth- ers. Not only is cycling of the Moon's out-of- bounds periods defined by its major stand- 24still, the Moon’s Nodes offer clues as well Going backwards in the zodiacal signs, when the North Node is about 22” Sagittarius, through Scorpio, Libra, Virgo, and Leo to early degrees of Cancer (about 6°), the Moon will be found in-bounds. Only when the North Node is traveling on the rest of the ecliptic, does the possibility exist for the Moon to be out-of-bounds, ie., beyond about 6° Cancer through Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, ‘Aquarius or Capricorn through about 23° Sag- ittarius About the Moon: 1. At major standstill, its declination can reach 28°35-45' based on its inclination. Because of gravitational pulls from the Sun and Earth it can reach about, 10' higher than 5°08! plus the amount of an- gle difference between Earth’s tilt and its equator. At minor standstill, its maximum declina- tion is only 18°+. 3. During major standstill, it goes out-of- bounds for 10+ years. 4, During minor standstill, it remains in- bounds for about 9 years. It reaches out-of-bounds only when the North Node is beyond about 6° Cancer through Gemini, Taurus, Aries, Pisces, Aquarius, or Capricorn through about 23° Sagittarius. 6. When out-of-bounds from 1800 through 11900, it was found in the Solstice Point Signs, Cancer - Capricorn and Gemini - Sagittarius, plus in non-bordering Sol- stice Point signs, Leo-Aquarius and Taurus-Scorpio. 2Planets Out-of-Bounds Mu of the planets and some of the as- teroids reach beyond maximum declination. Of the planets, Mercury, Venus and Mars are the ones most likely to be found out-of- bounds, although Jupiter, Uranus and Pluto also make the mark. Saturn and Neptune have not been out-of-bounds from 1600 to 2100, according to available resources. Neither asteroids nor Chiron were researched for this writing. The only documented infor- mation currently known about these is from Sylvia Jean Smith of Canada. Smith re- searched Chiron and the four major asteriods, Ceres, Juno, Pallas Athena and Vesta for the 20t Century and reported that Ceres, Pallas Athena and Vesta had been out-of-bounds, but not Chiron or Juno® Out-of-bounds visits by the outer planets, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Pluto, are keyed to their sidereal cycle. A sidereal period is the amount of time from passing a particular point against the background of constellations, usu- ally a fixed star, until returning to the same position from the opposite direction’. For ex- ample, the sidereal period for Mars is 687 days, approximately two Earth years, to be ex- act, 1.88 Earth years. Mars will travel from the Winter Solstice to the Summer Solstice back to the Winter Solstice in that time period. ‘Therefore, Mars will have two opportunities to visit out-of-bounds in its sidereal period of approximately 2 years. One occurs when it travels to the Solstice Zero Point in north dec- lination and one when it travels to the Solstice Zero Point in south declination, or approxi- mately at intervals of one time each year. Jupiter's sidereal period is approximately 12 Earth years, specifically 11.8, thus Jupiter's op- portunities to visit out-of-bounds occurs at in- tervals of about 6 years. The sidereal period for Uranus is almost exactly 84 Earth years, actually 84.02, giving Uranus the potential in the neighborhood of every 42 years. Later on it will be seen that half of the sidereal period is the average potential for reaching out-of- bounds as the split between the two visits to the Solstices is close, but not exactly even. Like the other outer planets, Pluto's visits also are tied to its sidereal period of 248.4 years. Though Pluto will have the opportunity two times within that total span, its sidereal period is not split as closely into halves, partly be- cause of the length of time Pluto is found in some zodiacal signs and a lesser amount in others. Actually, Pluto's orbit is so erratic that even astronomers do not completely under- stand parts of it A brief overview will be given for Mercury; then Jupiter, Uranus, Pluto, Mars and Venus will be discussed in greater depth in separate sections. Suffice to say about Saturn and Neptune, neither one has reached or will reach much beyond 22° in either north or south declination from 1600-2100. This cer- tainly does not lessen their attributes or im- pacts, but from the out-of-bounds state in this time frame, very little more needs to be men- tioned. Mercury is usually found outside declination limits at least once a year and more often two or three times. The out-of-bounds duration of 7oye 2 eae Mercury varies from as little as one or two days to as much as a month, seldom reaching higher in declination than 25°+. Other planets go further out-of-bounds with more unique facets or do not go out-of-bounds as often, thus offering greater opportunity for change. It has been noticed that when Mercury is out- of-bounds and retrograde, its effects seem to carry more weight than when only retro- grade. More research is required to substantiate sev- eral theories, but based on Mercury's fre- quency of reaching the outer limits and being found only in the normal signs during the years examined, further investigation fell out- side the confines of this project. One especially relevant factor to planets out- of-bounds is the planetary nodes, the points at which the plane of a planet's orbit intersects that of Earth’s. From the discussion about the Moon out-of-bounds, the word node is de- rived from nodus meaning knot. Like the Moon’s nodes, the planetary nodes of another planet are the knots that tie its orbit to that of Earth’s and in effect, establish a relationship. Unlike the relatively short 19-year period for the Moon’s Nodes to travel the expanse of Earth's orbit, planetary nodes move very slowly taking thousands of years to travel the same distance. As planetary nodes move, the relationship between the Earth and the spe- cific planet changes and like the Moon’s Nodes, may provide an important clue to the planet's out-of-bounds cycles. Only a full planetary nodal cycle would offer the potential to explain why, for example, Sat- umm has not reached the out-of-bounds limits in at least 500 years, even though it directs a greater inclination than Uranus which has been shown to regularly reach the limits in the same timeframe. From such perspective, there may have been and therefore might be again, a time when Saturn did and will reach the out-of-bounds limits, and likewise Nep- tune. Following the pattern of the Moon's Nodes and the relationship to Earth, it is suggested that planets may demonstrate extremes simi- lar to the Moon with a phenomenon akin to the Moon's minor and major standstill. At the ‘Moon’s minor standstill, it will not reach into the out-of-bound nethers, whereas at its major standstill it will. Perhaps the 500 years inves- tigated fell within a phenomenon similar to a minor standstill for Saturn and Neptune and somewhere within a period akin to a major standstill for Uranus and Jupiter. However, to construct data so that such a the- ory could be verified is well-nigh impossible. Even publications from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the best source of astronomical data available, give disclaimers because not enough information is available from Pluto's lengthy (248.4 years) and eccentric orbit and its effects on other planetary bodies. For ex- ample, cycles exist among planets. Phuto re- cently left from tracking inside Neptune's or- Dit. A cycle of approximately 9000 years is thought to exist between the two with pertur- ations on both. The same can be said for Uranus since it is between Uranus and Nep- tune that Pluto travels when found on the in- side of Neptune's path. In turn, this affects the rest of the solar system to some extent. Itis further suggested that planetary nodes could reveal a clue to a planet out-of-bounds and found in a non-bordering Solstice sign, but only partially. A major contributing fac- tor in the maverick case, is found in inclina- tion (celestial latitude) to Earth's orbit, as dis- cussed previously, a primary example being Pluto with an inclination of 17°19’. But there 28is yet a third factor, the limited orbits of the interior planets (Mercury and Venus) and a fourth, the proximity of Venus and Mars to Earth. Both Mercury and Venus as interior planets fall inside Earth’s orbit with their smaller or- bits. Mercury with the second highest eccen- tricity (0.206) and inclination (7° 00') among the planets, definitely reaches the outer limits, yet it is found always no more than 28° from the Sun in celestial longitude. When the Sun is at the Solstices, Mercury can never be more than 28° away, two degrees less than the amount it takes to reach into a non-bordering Solstice sign. Although Venus can lay claim to the third highest inclination, 3°24, giving one basis for reaching out-of-bounds, this factor combines with others to offer a greater potential for ab- errant behavior. Like Mercury, its orbit is keyed to the Sun, but not as tightly. Venus. can be as a far away from the Sun as 48° in ce- lestial longitude, 18° more than the amount necessary to reach into a non-bordering Sol- stice sign. Another contributing factor is its proximity to Earth, Both Venus and Mars sandwich Earth. In each case, because of their nearness, any dif- ferences in their orbits are likely to be more evident to Earth than planets with greater dis- tance away —more so for Venus than Mars be- cause the orbit of Venus is twice as close to Earth, approximately 26 million miles com- pared to over 58 million for the orbit of Mars. However, the comparison does not mean that the body of Venus is always 26 million miles away from Earth or that Mars is always 58 million miles away. The numbers given are miles away from Earth's orbit, not from the body of Earth. Although the three bodies al- ways will be somewhere on their orbital paths, the actual distance between the bodies, Earth and Venus or Earth and Mars, will be close to double the figures given when one of the planets is on the opposite side of the Sun from Earth. Both planets revealed consistent maverick behavior through the centuries and again, Venus more so than Mars. Planets out-of-bounds: 1, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Pluto reach beyond out-of-bounds limits. 2, Saturn and Neptune have not been shown to do so from 1600 to 2100.Table 2 — Jupiter’s Out-of-Bounds Cycles Related to Stations (1900's) Year | Station | Reaches | Station | Second | Station | Out-of- | Station | — In- Before | Solstice | After | Solstice | After | Bounds | During | Bounds Solstice Solstice | Reach | Solstice ooB 1900-01 | 001d] 1/19/01 | 131903 r 03044 r | 031513 d | 061533 d 19842 | 23810 | 22839 8/13/01 | 23830 | 10/18/01 7/30/00 | (15 days) | 5/01/01 8/31/01 1906-07 | 26628d | 7/31/06 | 119504 r 0123500 r | 019541 d| 052548 d 18N36 | 23NO8 | 22N47 2/15/07 | 23N29 | 4/24/07 1/22/06 | (14 days) | 12/31/06 2/26/07 1918-19 | 011128 d | 7/13/18 | 152550 r 05a51 r | 052546 d | 079502 d 19N48 | 23N11 | 22N25 2/23/19 | 23N29 | 3/31/19 1/27/19 | (27 days) | 11/04/18 3/03/19 1971-72 | 26m,36 d| 2/07/72 | 0819 r | 7/24/72 | 28#29 d | 29745 d 031047 d 18837 | 23805 | 22853 | 23818 | 23824 | 9/23/72 10/25/72 7/25/71 | (17 days) | 4/06/72 | (5 days) | 8/26/72 1983-84 | 0104d | 1/19/84 | 12958 r 031914 r | 031908 d | 05¥548 d 19841 | 23808 | 22838 9/22/84 | 23829 | 10/11/84 7/30/83 | (27 days) | 4/30/84 8/30/84 1989-90 | 26806 d } 7/31/89 | 105053 r 009548 d | 002550 d 0495174 18N29 | 23N06 | 22N45 23N27 | 3/01/90 4/17/90 1/21/89 | (19 days) | 10/30/89 2/25/90 Note on abbreviations and symbols used in ALL planetary tables, above and following including those for Jupiter, Uranus, Pluto, Mars and Venus: NB = non-bordering Solstice Point Signs OB = out-of-bounds a = direct motion r = retrograde motion 2 = unusual dates RE: = reentry into non-bordering Solstice Point Signs (used in the Mars Tables showing the dates Mars reentered either Leo or Aquarius before coming in-bound). Continuous Interval = continuous length of out-of-bounds period Overall Length = from first step out to the last step including the Continuous Interval 30 ee ee lL ll eeJupiter Out-of-Bounds GQ an out-of-bounder, Jupiter is rather tame compared to the other planets. It sticks to the normal Solstice Point signs and ven- tures only a few steps before it quickly returns in-bounds with no further ado, unlike Uranus and Pluto. Both Uranus and Pluto take a few steps out and then step back in once or twice, sometimes more, before remaining out-of- bounds for a continuous interval. A zigzag type maneuver occurs. Each time the planet will reach higher in declination until attaining a point of no-return to the prevailing Solstice maximum declination. At the point of no- return, a continuous out-of-bounds interval of some duration takes place as the planet con- tinues to build declination in a zigzag fashion. Then before the end of the overall cycle, the stepping-in and out is seen again as the planet zigzags down to below the prevailing Solstice maximum declination Jupiter takes no part in such shenanigans. In- stead its actions are fairly straightforward, one step-out and one step-in for only one short interval of just under three months to 14 days. Although the opportunity for Jupiter to reach out-of-bounds will happen about every 6 years, the potential will not always be taken. Sometimes there will be almost 12 years be- tween cycles, for others around 42 or 48 years and several were found with almost 54 years between, all close to multiples of 6 and akin to its sidereal period. Since Jupiter's out-of-bound cycles are so straightforward, they offer an excellent exam- ple to understand how out-of-bounds cycles work as a rule. Generally, the higher in decli- nation that a planet reached, the longer it re- mained out-of-bounds. Of course, this is on a comparison basis only to one planet at a time, since the speed of travel of the planet, among other factors, comes in to play with out-of- bounds duration. Another factor that contributes to out-of- bounds duration is the timing of the retro- grade cycle. In Jupiter's case, the final step-in was made while direct although the first step- out occurred while either retrograde or direct. Unless Jupiter's maximum out-of-bounds dec- lination took place right at the Solstice Zero Point, it was found out-of-bounds longer if it started the interlude when retrograde rather than direct. In general, outer planets showed a tendency to increase in declination until around the stationary retrograde point, then decrease in declination until around the sta- tionary direct position. Bear in mind, this is- sue involved only three planets and each one demonstrated some differences in patterns. In the case of Pluto, declination increased around both stationary points. As the Pluto- nian cycle increased in duration, declination elevated after the stationary point. Then just before achieving maximum declination for the entire cycle, the opposite took place, and dec- ination began decreasing after the stationary point. As for a relationship to the Solstice Zero Points, in the past 900 years, the Pluto- nian cycle at no time was found thus cued, ex- cept to be found out-of-bounds after the Sol- stice Zero Points had been past. It is sus- 31pected that this may not have always been the case based on the data found in the 1200's; this will be better understood when Pluto is discussed in detail. It is further surmised, that the cyclical effects for each of the planets as shown over 500 or more years, could be parts of a greater overall out-of-bounds cycle, and covering thousands of years. Considering the reputation of the planet, it may seem ironic Uranus would demonstrate a very predictable out-of-bounds cycle. None- theless, this was the case as will be seen later. Because of the consistency found at least for the past 500 years, specific statements about its out-of-bound maneuvers can be made. Be- fore reaching the Solstice Zero Points, Uranus built in declination to the stationary retro- grade position, decreased at the stationary di- rect point, then built again directly afterwards in zigzag fashion. Around hitting the Solstice Zero Points in celestial longitude, Uranus maintained close to its maximum declination and hovered for as much as three months or as little as a few days. After hitting the Sol- stice Point, Uranus reduced declination more rapidly than when declination was on the in- crease, coming down more with each zigsag, and always returned in-bounds in direct mo- tion. Jupiter's out-of-bound periods were found to be much shorter than for either Pluto or Ura- nus on two counts. First, Jupiter's sidereal pe- riod is about 12 years compared to 84 for Ura- nus and 248 for Pluto— obviously, because Ju- piter is not as far from the Sun and moves more rapidly. Second, the overall out-of- bounds cycles for Pluto and Uranus extend over years. Because Jupiter moves more rap- idly and ventures only a few minutes beyond maximum declination, Jupiter's out-of- bounds cycles are at the most, just under three months and at the least, only days. ‘The combination of the stationary points with an out-of-bounds cycle can be a complicated matter and is discussed only in general trends for Pluto and Uranus. Because Jupiter's cycles are the shortest in length, they lend them- selves for this purpose more simply than do the others. It is not necessary to understand the entire process. On the other hand, it is helpful to obtain an overview and recognize there is a difference between an out-of- bounds planet retrograde and one in direct motion. Briefly, Table 2, page 30, shows the Jupiterian out-of-bound cycles and the relationship to. the stationary periods in the 1900's. The last direct station made, before reaching the Sol- stice Point affected each cycle, thus Jupiter's cycle usually began the year before the actual out-of-bounds event, Declination increased until the Solstice Zero Point was reached. For example in 1900, declination increased from 19642 at the direct station to 23510 at the Sol- stice Point. Generally, a hovering effect oc- curred at the Solstices shown by the number of days in parentheses under declination. Af- ter the Solstice Point had been achieved until the station, declination was on the rise again. If there were no other stations, Jupiter went ‘out-of-bounds retrograde and returned in- bounds after the direct station had been made. Jupiter’s increase in declination contin- ued to rise until the direct station at which point there was a rapid declination decrease and Jupiter became in-bound ‘Two cases are shown in Table 2 (page 30) that do not follow the general modus operands. In 1971-2, Jupiter reached the Solstice Point twice, and did not go out-of-bounds until af- ter the direct station, thus Jupiter went out- and in-bounds in direct motion. In 1989-90, the pitch for a second exact Solstice Point hit was missed by minutes, although the near 32miss was also the direct station. So once again Jupiter went out- and in-bounds in direct mo- tion. In looking through Table 3 (page 34-35), no preference is shown for either retrograde or direct motion when Jupiter steps out-of- bounds. Out of 33 examples and five centu- ries, 17 were found in retrograde motion and 16 in direct motion—almost a 50% split. There is one more important detail. Revealed in Table 3, an intriguing trend can be seen over the centuries—a reduction of Jupiterian out-of-bounds visits. Beginning with the 1700's, there was a long stretch from the previ- ous cycle, about 48 years, thena 12-year wait until a series of 6-year intervals took place, five 6 year intervals in all. Then a long period of about 42 years to 1794 was shown with the following cycle in 1806 after 12 years. Next was a series of three 6-year intervals, a 12-year wait to 1836 and the longest period, about 54 years to 1889. This last series of three 6-year, one 12-year and another of 54 years, was re- peated from 1895 through 1972. But then a change happened —check the table. Instead of Jupiter going out-of-bounds in another six years, it waited 12 years, to 1984; then it took one six-year interval in 1990 before waiting 12 years for its first new century venture in 2002 and almost 54 years later for its second in 2055. Another 12 years will pass to 2067 be- fore Jupiter will venture out again. There will be only one 5+ year interval in the 2000 epoch, between 2067 and 2073, and a final 12 year lapse to 2085. In all, Jupiter will take to the nethers only five times, one less than in the 1900's, two less than in the 1800's and three less than in the 1700’s— thus is shown a grad- ual, but overall, reduction in Jupiter's number of out-of-bound cycles through the centuries. The number of cycles over the years was not the only reduction, check out Jupiter's maxi- mum declination. That too was reduced, con- sequently so were the length of the out-of- bounds cycles, In the 1800's Jupiter was achieving 23N/S33; in the 1900's the max at- tained was 23N/S31. Following right along with the downward trend, in the 2000's, Jupi- ter will max out only at 23N27 and 23829, What seems so unusual about a downward trend in the 2000's is that the prevailing maxi- mum declination (the angle between the eclip- tic and Earth's equator) will be 23°25-6', di- minished from 23°27’ in 1860 to 1990 and 23° 28' from approximately 1730 to 1860. Jupiter will have to exceed only 23°25-6' to be out-of- bounds in the late 2000’s—yet it is out-of- bounds less often. Also its duration is less. Its, longest stay for the whole century is 49 days compared to 65 in 1901. Further, 15 days in 2055 and 8 days in 2085 will be the shortest Ju- piterian ventures in 500 years. Although two other events came close, 1634 with 20 days and 1794 with 17 days, the clincher remains: at a time when Jupiter would have a greater op- portunity to be out-of-bounds, it will be found out-of-bounds the least number of times and for the shortest duration — in 500 years! ‘A most interesting trend this is because it is not just with Jupiter that it was seen. Pluto and Mars also showed a similar trend—all causing much wonder from a mundane stand- point since it is on the mundane level that the largest reflection of great cycle changes occur. Of the outer planets, only Uranus showed that it would truck right on, going out-of-bounds on schedule every 39 to 40 years.Table 3 — Jupiter’s Out-of-Bounds Cycles -1600 to 2100 Epoch | Years from | FirstDate | Maximum. | Last date Overall Last period | Out-of-bounds | Declination In-bounds Length 1600 4lyrs 10+ mo Oct 1628 23832 Nov 1628 35 days (Feb 1587) 277551 040314 3+ yrs May 1634 23N30 May 1634 20 days 20112 d 020057 d 6+ yrs ‘Aug 1640 23835 Nov 1640 49 days 28704 r 061013 d $+ yrs Mar 1646 23N34 May 1646 42 days 27131 d 059523 d 6 yrs Tul 1652 23837 Oct 1652 89 dayso 041632 r o7sal d + yrs Jan 1658 23N36 May 1658 65 days 029511 d 062555 d 6+ yrs ‘Aug 1664 23831 Sep 1664 34 days 081003 r 08vs45 d 1700 47 yrs 2mo Oct 1711 23831 Nov 1711 24 days 29.706 d 031530 d T1yrs 11+ mo | Sep 1723 23834 Nov 1723 66 days 28725 r 05042 d $+ yrs Mar 1729 23N32 May 1729 40 days 291122 d 042532 d 6+ yrs ‘Aug 1735 23N35 Oct 1735 87 days 04.027 r o7vI24 d + yts Jan 1741 23834 ‘Apr 1744 89 days 015559 r 09S d 6+ yrs, Aug 1747 23830 Sep 1747 25 days 07052 d 08\049 d + yrs Feb 1753 23N33 ‘Apr 1753 57 days 065520 r 079554 d 41 yrs 10+mo | Oct 1794 23829 Nov 1794 17 days 29744 d 0sv18dEpoch | Yearsfrom | FirstDate | Maximum Last date Overall Last period | Out-of-bounds | Declination | _ In-bounds Length 1800 | Ilyrs 11+mo| Sep 1806 23832 Nov 1806 57 days 241d 0swisd 5+ yrs Apr 1812 23N30 May 1812 34 days 280148 d 04g504 d 6+ yrs. Aug 1818 23833 Oct 1818 39 days 034848 r 061845 d 5+ yrs Feb 1824 23N33 Apr 1824 72 days 019525 r 062501 d 12 yrs Feb 1836 23830 Mar 1836 38 dayso 049532 r o7gs12d 53 yrs 7mo | Sep 1889 23N30 Oct 1889 57 days 294024 04,045 d S+ yrs Apr 1895 23829 May 1895 33 days 291109 d 045017 d 1900 6+ yrs Sep 1901 23832 Oct 1901 67 days 039844 06%541 d 5+ yrs Feb 1907 23831 Apr 1907 68 days 01510 r 05539 d 12 yrs Feb 1919 23N29 ‘Mar 1919 36 days 052551 r 0625574 S3yrs 7mo | Sep 1972 23N29 Oct 1972 33 days 29745 4 030574 Iiyrs 1imo | Aug 1984 23830 Oct 1984 50 days 03014 6 051848 d St yrs Mar 1990 23829 ‘Apr 1990 47 days 00g652 d 045537 d 2000 Iyrs 1mo | Feb 2002 23N27 Mar 2002 27 days 052538 r 065537 d S3yrs 7mo | Oct 2055 23829 Oct 2055 15 days Nad d 021038 d 1lyrs 10mo | Aug 2067 23828 Oct 2067 49 days 034303 r 05.048 d 5+ yrs Mar 2073 23N27 Apr 2073 46 days 00g551 d 04e540 d 12 yrs Mar 2085 23N26 Mar 2085 8 days Osea1d 050555 d 35Table 4 — Uranian Out-of-Bounds Cycles -1600 to 2100 { Epoch | Years from | First Date Maximum | Continuous | Last date | Overall Last period | Out-of-bounds | Declination | Interval | In-bounds | Length 1600 44 yrs Jul 1612 23N46 2 yrs 4+ mo | Jun 1616 | 3 yrs 11 mo ; (1568) 241116 d 099523 d 39 yrs6+mo] Jan 1652 23846 | 2yrs4+mo | Oct 1652 | 4 yrs9 mo : 2423 d 09vss2d 44 yrs 9 mo Jun 1696 23N45, 3yrs 1+ mo | Jun 1700 4yrs 2411104 d 090533 d | win days 1700 [39 yrs6*mo| Dec 1735 23845 | 3yrs1+mo| Dec 1739 | 4yrs 24710d 091624d | windays | [44 yrs6+ mo] Jun 1780 23N43— [3 yrs 1+ mo | May 1784 | 3 yrs 6mo 242d o9cm31d | 1800. ]39 yrs 5+mo| Dec 1819 23843 [3 yrs 1+ mo | Nov 1823 | 4 yrs | 24453 d 09035 | windays 43 yrs9mo| Sep 1863 23N43._—_| 3 yrs 1+ mo | May 1868 | 4 yrs 7 mo 241146 d 09534 d 1 1900 | 39yrsSmo] Feb 1903 23842 | 3 yrs 1+ mo | Nov 1907 | 4 yrs 9 mo 24753d 09%540 d 1 44 yrs 5+ mo] Aug 1947 23N42 | 2yr83+mo | Jun 1951 | 3 yrs 10 mo 247101 d 09504 d 4 39 yrs 5+ mo] Jan 1987 23842 | 2yrs4+mo| Sep 1991 | 4 yrs7mo I 2504 d 094550 d 2000 | 44yrs6mo | Jul 2031 241 | 2yrs4mo | Jun2035 | 3 yrs 10 mo I 240147 d 095504 d 39,yrs5+mo| — Jan 2071 23841 | 3yrs1+mo | Dec 2074 | 4yrs I 24749 d oowisd | win days 36Uranus Out-of-Bounds ‘ore than in the case of any of the other planets, a curious uniformity permeated Ura- nian out-of-bounds cycles. In fact conformity was so evident that it could be called the Ura- nian out-of-bounds signature. That's quite a dichotomy —a predictable cycle for the planet when equated to human terms, is the most unpredictable of all! From 1600 to 2100, every time Uranus reached the Solstices and hence, the opportunity to go out-of-bounds, it did exactly that, unlike Jupi- ter, which was shown to sometimes do so and sometimes not. As Table 4 will show, close to every 39+ to 44+ years Uranus unwaveringly took the trip. The quantity difference in these years was interesting because it directly re- lated to Uranus heading into north from south declination and vice versus. After reaching its extremes in south declination, about 44 years elapsed before Uranus stepped out in north declination, but only about 39 years later, it took its turn again in south dec- lination, implying a longer amount of time spent in south declination than north. When added, the duration between cycles, 44 and 39 years, yielded 83 years, a figure close to the Uranian sidereal period of 84.02 years. Actu- ally it is not an even 44 or 39 years; it is more like 6 months plus for both intervals, bringing the added results even closer to 84.02 years. Even the celestial longitude degrees at which Uranus first stepped-out and last stepped-in were strikingly undeviating through the cen- turies. In each cycle, its first step out-of- bounds varied only one degree, from 24°04’ to 25°04’ in Gemini or Sagittarius. Still more re- markable was its last step out-of-bounds— every time at the same celestial longitude de- gree! Shown in Table 4, is 9° Cancer or Capri- corn, varying only from 04' to 52. Just how much more constant can a planet be! Even its maximum declination 23N/S41-6, although depicting a slight decline through the centu- ries, was constant for both south and north declination with a variation of only 5' in 500 years! An average of four years is shown in the table as the duration of each out-of-bounds cycle, from beginning to end—almost a constant reckoning. As far as continuous out-of- bounds intervals are concerned, only four of the total 12 cycles, 33%, differed from 3 years, ‘month +. Yet even then, each of these four was almost the same within themselves, 2 years plus 3 to 4 months. The difference be- ‘tween the two lengths of continuous out-of- bounds intervals was related to the retrograde period when falling within the out-of-bounds cycle and associated with maximum out-of- bounds declination. Uranus was seen to sit at one position of declination not varying even a minute for over three months. It is interesting too, that Uranus invariably began and ended an out-of-bounds cycle just after becoming stationary direct. One curiosity of the Uranian cycle that was not as exacting, but close enough to bear men- tion, was the time of year at which Uranus took the first step-out and final step-in. Both instances were depicted more frequently than not with a relationship to the time of year and zodiacal sign in which the Sun was found. Re- a7peatedly, this occurred within three months on either side of the zodiacal sign where the Sun is found each year during the same time period. For example in 1903, Uranus reached into the nethers in February and in Sagitta- rius; when it stepped in for the final time, it was in November and in Capricorn. Most of the time the connection was much closer— more like a month. Only in two instances was the correlation a four-month spread. Both oc- curred in September, one in 1863 when Ura- nus first stepped-out and the other in 1991 at step-in finale. Although the four Solstice Point Signs, Can- cer-Capricorn and Gemini-Sagittarius are nor- mally signs in which out-of-bounds planets are found, the cycles of Mars, Jupiter and Pluto, the other outer planets, were not found to relate in this manner, Such a relationship to the time of year and solar zodiacal sign ‘would be expected of Venus and Mercury, but not of Uranus. Because trends were shown in the reduction of out-of-bounds visits by Pluto, Jupiter and Mars (in non-bordering Solstice signs), Ura- nian data was compiled through the 2100's for comparison. As can be seen in Table 4 (page 36), Uranus will keep right on trucking out-of- bounds according to its schedule every 39 to 4 years, stepping out- and in-bounds in di- rect motion at about the same degree. For all the non-conforming connotations asso- ciated with Uranus, unpredictability, surprise, revolution, iconoclast, rebel, genius, etc, a di: chotomy exists in the steady, unwaveringly fixed manner in which its out-of-bounds cycle takes place. Is this a reflection of the idea that Uranus is predictably unpredictable? Cer- tainly, the Uranian conformity found within its out-of-bounds cycles is in direct contrast to those of the other planets. Thus, one more time Uranus presents the unexpected — conformity amidst non-conformity.Pluto, the Known Rogue Men the Plutonian study began, it was with only four out-of-bounds periods (1600 to 2100). Even then, evidence vividly depicted a pattern of a lengthy, but changing cycle. ‘Table 5 shows Pluto's cycle in the 1600's be- ginning deep in a Solstice Sign. Each succeed- ing period Pluto entered an adjacent sign ear- lier until the 2000's when it stepped out- and in-bounds only in the adjacent non-bordering, Solstice sign. Pluto began each of these four cycles visiting out- and in-bounds until it reached enough declination that it would not dip below the prevailing maximum when it zigzagged up and down between stationery retrograde and direct. Then a continuous out- of- bounds interval of years took place, 14+ years in the 1600's, with less and less time in ‘each epoch until the continuous out-of- bounds excursion will be only five months in the 2000's. Following each continuous inter- val, Pluto journeyed in and out-of bounds meeting lower and lower declination until it traveled consistently below the limit. A pattern was clear. The less overall declina- tion Pluto achieved within an era, the less be- came its definitive parameters, including the amount of time spent in a Solstice Point Sign. ‘As captivating an issue as the data yielded, a nudging curiosity led deeper and deeper into ephemeredes, each time with significant re- sults until discretion won and halted nudging, at eight cycles and 1200 years. It was time well spent. By increasing the database, two even more remarkable details were found. First, since the 1200's (and a surmise would be even further predated), Pluto has been taking the out-of-bounds plunge, then in the 2100's— doesn’t. Ultimately this was a surprise, then revelation that the new datum further sub- stantiated the pattern the Plutonian cycles had drawn. The difference yielded a much greater dimension and an appreciation for cycles within cycles. Secondly, although data from the 1400's and 1500's were in line with subsequent findings in that these cycles were respectively longer with greater maximum declination, longer continuous intervals out-of-bounds and longer overall periods —the most remarkable features were the zodiacal signs represented No longer can it be said that the only non- bordering Solstice signs Pluto has visited out- of-bounds is just Leo-Aquarius. In the 1300's and 1500's, Pluto reached beyond the nethers in Pisces — and in the 1400's in Virgo! 1200-1300 ‘The brakes of discretion only allowed a peak at the late 1200's to the 1300's—well maybe a little more. Pluto began this epoch in July 1276, at 12\916 and didn’t come back in- bounds until February 1307 at 292229 —a con- tinuously out-of-bounds interval of 32+ years! At first this seemed to depart from the pat- tern, since there were no out- and in-bound excursions before embarking on a continuous period. However, the conclusion became that out-of- bounds eras from 1276 through 2100, were only parts of a greater cycle existing over many more than the 1200 years researched. 39Table 5 — Plutonian Out-of-Bounds Cycles -1200 to 2400 Epoch | Years from | First Date Continuous | Last date | Overall Last period | Out-of-bounds Interval | In-bounds | Length 1200 88 yrs Jul 1276 26833 | 30,yrs4mo | Jan 1309 | 32 yrs4mo (1188) 12,016 r 0043 d 1400 |160yrs6 mo] Feb 1437 25N50 | 25 yrs9mo | Jun 1466 | 29 yrs 4 mo 145509 r oomeos d 1500 | 88 yrs2mo | Jun 1525 25839 | 17 ¥rs6mo| Oct 1553 | 28 yrs4mo 19%818r 298851 5 1600. |161yrs6mo| Jan 1687 25N03. | 14yrs1mo | Jun 1710 | 23 yrs 4mo 205556 r 260.18 d 1700. | 84yrs6mo | Aug 1774 24849 11 yrs 8mo | Nov 1795 | 21 yrs3 mo 23™819r 258828 r 1900 }163 yrs6mo| Feb 1938 24N06 [8 mo 22 days] May 1953 | 15 yrs 3 mo 175517 5 299.23 d 2000 | 87yrs7mo | Sep 2025 23847 | 5mo2 days | Nov 2035 | 10 yrs 2 mo sags 178314 2100 163 yrs N/A 23N09 9-119 | N/A NA NA (approx.) Apr 2192-93 2200 84 yrs NIA 28509-1188 | N/A N/A NA (approx.) Oct 2276-77 2400 163 yrs NA 22N11 10-119] N/A vA NIA (approx.) Apr 2438-39Do they ever repeat? Much more investiga- tion would be required for such an answer. One differing factor on which all circum- stances seemed dependant was the amount of out-of-bounds declination attained. Pluto's maximum declination was 26533 in 1290 and 1291, the highest found through 2200, but from April 1282 until March 1299, Pluto was never below 25S00—that’s 17 years above 24 degrees declination! By 1300, Pluto was over halfway through Aquarius and still reaching 25846. Then, there is the astonishing sojourn in Pi- sces. Pluto first entered Pisces in-bounds in March 1307, hit stationary retrograde at 00X49 in May and by mid-June had climbed out-of- bounds at 00Pisces45 where it remained for 50 days, re-entering Aquarius in August. Stay- ing continuously in the outer limits, Pluto re- entered Pisces in January 1308, for one day be- fore coming in-bounds. Later in mid-May, this maverick touched stationary retrograde at 0206, 23508, and climbed out-of-bounds again at 0142 in July. Reaching as high as 24506, Pluto was in Pisces for 95 days until it re-entered Aquarius in October. Still out of bounds in November, Pluto hit stationary di- rect at 293254, then bid Aquarius farewell and took on Pisces, all the while unceasingly out- of-bounds for 42 more days until it came in- bounds at 00X43 in January 1309. In all Pluto spent 188 days in Pisces out-of-bounds reach- ing 24506. 1400 Only a tad less dramatic was Pluto's out-of- bounds journey in the 1400's. In February 1437, Pluto left the limits and dipped in once before ceaselessly staying out-of-bounds for almost 27 years. Celestial degrees covered in the continuous interlude were slightly less than the previous epoch—from 16154 to 262848, Pluto reached a max declination of 25N58, but never dipped below 24° from Oc- tober 1440 to April 1461 —about 19 years (although this is a degree less than the com- parison made in the earlier cycle). From the beginning of the former epoch to this one, 160.5 years had passed with the former lasting 32+ years and this one, a little over 29 years. Just as striking as Phuto’s sojourn in Pisces, was its visit to Virgo. Pluto first landed in Virgo in October 1464, in-bounds at 22N53, then it stationed retrograde in November at 0071230, 23N00, and re-entered Leo in January 1465, where it dipped out- and in-bounds, tak- ing on Virgo once more in August at 23N02. In November, Pluto stationed retrograde at 0211229, 22N38, and stepped out-of-bounds in February 1466, at 0071208. Maverick Pluto was in Virgo out-of-bounds for 57 days before re- entering Leo in April, then bid Leo a final ado in May and headed into Virgo at 23N36, all the while outside the limits until June at 0071208 when it stepped in-bounds for the final time. A total of 68 remarkable days had been spent in Virgo, reaching 23N36 in declination. 1500 Although the 1500 era probably will seem tame compared to the latter two, it was one of the most exciting when the data was being compiled because it turned the first clue showing Pluto out-of-bounds in non- bordering Solstice signs, other than Leo and Aquarius. Like the previous cycle, Pluto made only one dip out- and in-bounds before it began a con- tinuous interval in April 1527— this just was- n’tits longest, only 2.5 years. Pluto stepped- out and in again before its second and longest continuous trip beginning in April 1531, this aone for 17+ years. Pluto hit out-of-bounds five more times after its longest continuous interval before the final in-step, compared to three final out- and in-steps in the previous era. Overall, the pattern in each forward era, ‘was more out and in intervals prior to and af- ter its longest continuous cycle. ‘Then in 1552, Pisces appeared on the scene. Pluto went back and forth in Pisces and ‘Aquarius twice. On the second jaunt in the fall of 1553, Pluto sat out-of-bounds for 6 days at 0°Pisces, then re-entered Aquarius once more, There was a brief zigzag in and out of the nethers just prior to touching 29749 sta- tionary direct. The final and third Piscean en- trance was made in-bounds. Even though Pluto was out-of-bounds in Pisces only 6 days, when first discovered, it was quite a revela- tion. 1600 Originally the earliest examined cycle began in 1687 and ended in 1710, only 64 years be- fore Pluto started the next cycle in 1774. Pluto was out-of-bounds off and on in Cancer from April 1687, until September 1692, before it em- braced Leo; and it was not until May 1694, that Pluto waved is final farewell to Cancer. Maximum declination was 25N01, the con- tinuous out-of-bounds interval, 14 years, and the overall cycle, 23+ years. In comparison to previous cycles, almost all parameters were diminished to some degree. ‘The one increased factor was steps-out and in before and after the single continuous inter- lude, two before and 7 after, compared to one before and three after in the previous era. ‘This seemed related directly to the lesser amount of overall declination achieved. 1700 Pluto's next out-of-bounds period began in ‘April 1774, at 23° Capricorn and concluded November, 1795, at 25°+ Aquarius, reaching a ‘maximum of 24S43 in 1783. Although there were others, two important differences be- tween this visit and the following were: 1) Pluto remained out-of-bounds continuously from April 1777, until halfway through March 1789, almost twelve years; and 2) traveled 43° further into the nethers. Although Pluto's achieved declination was consistently reduced in greater amounts through the centuries, the reduction seemed less in proportion from south declination to north declination, than form north declination to south declination. For example, from 1200 (south) to 1400 (north) yielded 33’ (26533 - 25N50), yet from 1400 (north) to 1500 (south) only 11’ (25N50 - 25839). Another example ‘was 1700 (south) to 1900 (north) with a 43° dif- ference (24549 - 24N06), yet from 1900 (north) to 2000 (south) only 18" (24N06 - 23847). ‘This seemed to indicate that Pluto reached further out-of-bounds in south declination than north declination as was seen likewise in the case of some of the other planets. 1900 Pluto's next stride into the nethers was 123 years later in the 20% Century totally skipping the 1800's, the only century skipped in over a thousand years. As Pluto reduced its maxi- mum declination, its overall duration in a cy- cle, from first step out to final in-bound, be- came less and less. For example, between the ending of the 1400 cycle in 1466 and the be- ginning of the next in 1525, there were only 59 years, even though this was the short side of lllthe years between cycles, 84-88 years as op- posed to 160-163 years. Also, out-of-bounds periods in comparison to the later cycles were much longer, about 29 years in the 1400's, 28 years in the 1500's, and even about 23 years in the 1600's. Although the timeframe between the cycle in the 1600's and the 1700's, was the short side again, the overall cycle in the 1700's was only about 21 years. Had Pluto been out- of-bounds for even 6 more years, the cycle would have overlapped into the 1800's. From February 1938, to May 1953, Pluto was out-of-bounds at some point each year, reach- ing a maximum of 24N06 in 1945 and 1946. Pluto began its out-of-bounds journey in Feb- ruary 1938, at 28°+ of Cancer, left Cancer for the last time in June, 1939, and finished its outside visits in 1953, at 20°+ Leo. Incom- parison to the 1700's, Pluto stayed out-of- ‘bounds only: months at a time, the most being 8 months plus 21 days in 1945, when it hung onto its max declination attained for 25 days. In 1945 and 1946, the shortest time in-bounds was 25 days on either side of Pluto's longest outside stay. 2000 In 2025, 78 years after its last journey in the 1900's, Pluto will reach the nethers again. In September 2025, beginning at 1°+, Pluto will sail beyond the ecliptic, remaining in Aquar- ius for the full stint. Pluto will conclude its out-of-bounds jaunts in November 2035, at 17°+, with its greatest declination being 2347 in October 2030. This cycle differs even more from the others. Although Pluto will step out- and in-bounds throughout the period, similar to the 1900's, there will be eleven out-of-bound intervals that vary only from 81 to 150 days. However, the most striking differences are: 1) this cycle begins and ends in Aquarius (the latter direct); and 2) the entire period lasts only 10 years and a couple of months. In direct contrast to greater opportunity for the out-of-bounds condition to occur, attributed to the decrease of Earth's declination, Pluto will reach less be- yond the ecliptic than in previous eras investi- gated, only 23N47. Another difference in this example and the 1900's will be Pluto's position in its orbit. In the 1900's, Pluto was heading into its cycle of traveling inside the orbit of Neptune, which begin in the 1970's. In 2025, its out-of-bounds stay will be the first after it has returned to be- ing the most distant planet (as far as we know). In other words, Pluto will be in a less eccentric placement during its next out-of- bounds venture. If we are to conclude that the more extreme the out-of-bounds cycle, the more extreme the correlated action, then shorter duration and less declination may be a more than welcomed fate. 2100-2400 The second big Plutonian surprise occurred in searching the 2100's —no Pluto out-of- bounds —none—nil. The highest declination found to be attained was 23N09, to be reached twice in 2192 and 2193. Curiosity overcame discretion enough to search the 2200's and 2400's —still an in-bound Pluto and with even less declination. Pluto will reach less than 23°, and both times will continue to decrease re- spectively to 22550 and 22N11. ‘As would be expected, even though the time frames of Pluto being out-of-bounds varies from about 84 to 163 years, the cycle from 1687 to 1938 (251 years) from the Winter Sol- stice sign to the Summer Solstice sign back to the Winter, computes closely to its sidereal pe- riod of 248.4 years. ‘The 84 to 163-year vari- aance between out-of-bounds periods is related to the varying time Pluto remains in the dif- ference zodiacal signs which in turn, goes back to its unique orbit. Although several conclusions about Plutonian out-of-bound cycles have been drawn, the ‘major objective was to establish parameters for the zodiacal signs involved. It has been shown that these signs have at one time or an- other been Virgo and Pisces as well as the known non-bordering Solstice signs, Leo and ‘Aquarius. One point not mentioned, concerns the Solstice Point Signs, themselves. Al- though it is known that Pluto travels out-of- bounds in Cancer and Capricorn, Pluto was not found in the other two, Gemini and Sagit- tarius—even though these are considered the norm. This is not to say that Pluto has never been out-of-bounds in these two signs, only that it has not done or will do so from 1200 to 2400—a total of 1200 years! The deeper one delves, the more intriguing the Plutonian cy- cles become.Moran out-of-bound cycles will be re- viewed from two standpoints. First as a nor- mal out-of-bounder from 20" century data, then secondly and more completely as a mav- erick from 1600 to 2100. As a Normal Out-of-Bounder ‘Asa regular stepper, Mars reached beyond the outer limits, once a year and rather faith- fully at that. This coincided quite nicely with the Martian sidereal period of a little less than two years indicating that every opportunity to stride out into the nethers was taken. Every so often, two cycles occurred within an Earthly 12 months and that too, with some regularity. Generally, for its out-of-bounds beginning date, Mars progressed backwards through Earth's months in a four-month forward and three-month backward fashion from Decem- ber to January taking about 14 years to make 15 journeys to the Solstices. Therefore, once ina while two cycles fell within the same year. Another oddity was about 9 to 10 out-of- bounds periods per 100 years that were be- tween 166 to 200+ days duration. Although unevenly spaced through the years, these pe- riods usually were accompanied with extreme declination and began in either the fall lasting until spring or in the reverse order, depend- ing on whether Mars was in north or south declination, respectively. Sometimes occur- ring between was a sequence of years—such as 8, 12, 8 and 10, but not always. Even num- Marauding Mars bers of days out-of-bounds declination at- tained were closely repeated. Although in- triguing, this patterning was not followed through to determine exactness since the mav- erick data was the primary objective. It is sus- pected that the regular out-of-bound periods intermesh with the maverick events in some manner. From an overall viewpoint, these general statements pretty much held true over the centuries. In the 20" century, Mars remained out-of- bounds from a minimum of 14 days in 1933 to a maximum of 206 days in 1960-1. Maximum declination attained was 28554 in 1907 and minimum was 23534 in 1971. Like all outer planets, Mars showed a tendency to increase in declination until around the stationary ret- rograde point, then decrease in declination until around the stationary direct position un- less it was close to the Solstice Zero Point, where it would tend to continue to increase. Similar also was its tendency to hover for as. much as a seven-day stretch when its maxi- mum declination was achieved. Only three to four times in the entire century did Mars step out- and in-bounds before remaining out-of- bounds for a continuous duration, and then with only one sequence of steps. Many times Mars was found taking its annual trip out-of bounds within minutes of the same degree, on almost the same day, reaching within minutes of the like declination, remain- ing in the nethers for a near equal span and returning in-bounds close to the degree and day as had been found in previous years, Clearly a pattern existed. This will become Seven more evident in the tabled data for Mars as an out-of-bounds maverick. As A MAVERICK Mars has less of an excuse than does Pluto to skip out-of-bounds in other than the four Sol- stice Point Signs, since the Martian orbit is less inclined to Earth’s orbit. Even so, several cir- cumstances create its potential. Mars is the first superior planet outside Earth's orbit and as a result, its orbit is greater than Earth's. Further, with such close proximity (as planets go), any deviation from the norm in the Mar- tian orbit more likely would be magnified, than if greater distance were involved. Be- cause of its nearness and containing within its orbit that of Earth's, two other factors come into play: 1) the elliptical shape of the plane of the Martian orbit, 5.47 times more elliptical than Earth's orbit; and 2) the tilt of the orbit of Mars relative to Earth’s orbital plane, 1° 51' (Table 1, page 20). When Mars as an out-of-bounder embraced a non-bordering Solstice sign it was usually at the beginning of the out-of-bounds period in early degrees of celestial longitude, and when retrograde, Nevertheless, Mars, like Pluto, danced in Leo and Aquarius, just not as con- sistently. It is probably worthwhile to look at the mav- erick data for the 1900's in detail since the dates will more than likely jog the memory of concurrent historical events. With precious little historical knowledge, the relevancy of noting when maverick out-of-bounds visits ‘occurred, will be driven to the focus they de- serve. In the 20! century, Mars danced as a maver- ick only four times and only one of these was in Aquarius. Other elements added even greater significance to the sole Aquarian visit in comparison to those in Leo. On June 24, 1939, at 04242, the day after becoming sta- tionary retrograde, Mars took to the nethers, remaining for 28 days before it slipped into 29° Capricorn still retrograde and very much ‘out-of-bounds, Mars attained a max of 27523 for five full days (August 11-15) before turn- ing stationary direct on August 24 at 231356. At that point, the red planet had been out-of- bounds for two full months. On September 25, Mars left Capricorn to once again enter ‘Aquarius for 5 days before it slipped in- bounds at 012355. Although not the longest Martian out-of- bounds visit, this 96-day sojourn was one of its 10 longest in the entire century. Further, its distance out-of-bounds, 27533, rivaled only three others: 28554 in 1907, 28525 in 1954 and 28543 in 1986. It should be noted that the Martian most extreme out-of-bounds degrees always fell in south declination. The major distinctions of this 20 Century event are: 1) the longest duration of Mars out-of-bounds in a non-bordering Solstice sign, 33 days; and 2) the only time that Mars went out-of-bounds and in-bounds in a non-bordering Solstice sign. In the three cases of Mars leaving the ecliptic in Leo, Mars returned in-bounds in Cancer. The first date Mars ventured out-of-bounds while in Leo was February 2, 1931, at 041.51. Mars had already been retrograde for a month and a half, the stationary degree being, 16849. For 14 more days, Mars remained in Leo before returning to Cancer and continu- ing out-of-bounds until late March. The second Leonian journey took place De- cember 23, 1945, at 000.44, with the retrograde station having been made 18 days earlier at 03614. Mars remained in Leo only three days 6before re-entering Cancer, still out-of-bounds. The third and final case began January 16, 1978, at 049.00;. Note an almost exact repeat of the degree, so emphasized in these four di- vergent cases. In late November and all of December, Mars had been continuously close to its retrograde position, 119.34. Mars re- mained in Leo for eleven more days before re- turning to Cancer and later in-bounds. In reviewing the data of the 1900's shown in Table 6, page 48-50, several intriguing factors emerged. First, a pattern of years will became visible. Looking at the column headed as Years from Last Period and the first maverick visit in 1981, it will be seen that 32 years elapsed since the previous sojourn in 1899, then eight years to the one in 1939, six years to 1945-6 and 32 years, once more, between 1945-6 and 1978. A pattern of 32, 8, 6 and 32 years, was found throughout the data cover- ing six centuries, from 1726 through 1773, 1805 to 1850, 1931 through 1978, and the last from 2010 to 2057. At first, data for Mars was compiled for 1600 to 2100, Then the 2100's through 2229 were added to see if the pattern would hold true. ‘The 1500's were also investigated. However, only the data for the 2100's was included in ‘Table 6 with the original information. This ap- peared adequate to demonstrate the point since the pattern was found to hold true over seven-plus centuries (1500-2229). After two repeats of the sequential years, 32, 8, 6 and 32, the pattern tended to break down, then be picked up again. Even at the break- down point, consistency was evident, at least in the total time covered, about 46 to 47 years. Twice a secondary pattern of 40 years was fol- lowed by about a 6-year interval. This is shown in Table 6 between 1899 and 1852 as. well as between 2104 and 2058. In the 1600's, 47 years is shown, but broken down as 8+ years followed by 38+ (between 1694 and 1647). In the 2100's, amid 2151 and 2182, 32 years will pass, but will be separated as two inter- vals of 25+ years and 6+ years (adding to 32 years). Nevertheless the following maverick Visit will occur 32 years later in 2215 and the pattern was found to continue with the re- mainder of the sequence, 8, 6 and 32. With the sequence substantiated, even though curi- osity was still running rampant, discretion called for a final halt. One final observation concerned the 32, 8, 6, and 32 sequence. While there appeared to be a breakdown with the 46-47-year increment, it was actually the sequence in disguise. A 32- year interval occurred in the 2100's under the guise of 25+ and 6+ years. In the 1600's, 46-7 years was disguised as 8+ and 38+ years, not to mention 40 and 6+ years in the 1800's and another 2104 and 2058. If 8 years were sub- tracted from 40, 32 years would be the results, and thus the sequence. Although Mars skipped a maverick interval every once in a while, a sequence is shown; it is just that every 156 years or so [(32 + 8 + 6 + 32) x 2] Mars seemed to take a breather and probably to the benefit of humankind. A most curious irregularity was found in the 1685. For close to two days, Mars was found out-of-bounds in the last degree of Scorpio. Although included in the data since Scorpio is a non-bordering Solstice sign, it was not counted in deriving the Leo-Aquarius pattern- ing sequences. Similar datum was found when the date was checked in two other com- puter programs. No repeat was found in the 1500's or in any of the compiled data for that matter, even though ephemeredes were rigor- a7eur eure eit weet vense | won9z | 82NbZ zros1z orero ZOwIT ze ell IPL wiz | onze | oper OPN9T sscobT TPNET 4 pEsoel £6500, 9PSTO 9 TOP vesue | gbsre | beST/6 =u vere PeILT/9 oso | goxe0 | ges9z U1 +9€ ru) 6Se2L0 8 vel 9TIPTIE OT/B/E 9T/OE/L SUBLTL LENPT 17o587 bZNbT SI-rl Leonor 95150 TIS9L we 9TLI 00LT ‘pelSib PvO/LT/T P6/P/T 6/6/71 wonsz | oogs9z | ZZNbZ ol 681 oz seo LOWRO OF 691 Ss/97/01 S8IS/L SB/CU/L S8/STIP 91897 OTAET O€SET +1 LU W6T 6h W67 Werl VIN S891 ssiozie | posre | ssivzieul ssieee ssisv9 sscuo zrsiz_ | epext0 I1s9@ $460 obATZ zis ecaz€0 8 $591 Lel6cIe LvISIE TINSZ PISoLT SENPT el 9SSBET we LP9ol slr suvee | ruscer gensc | sigosz | 90NtZ “9 LSomS1 s015z0 9 Si-FI9l 80/r1/6 80/E/6 80/87/L 80/S/L orsrz | ssex90 | opsez 8¢ $0290 sexi 805291 8 8091 oosiove | 0091 | sosiozci } (gost) 6ONbZ S8ONPT 9I-st 6SFB8T Br UFO 67U81 we 0091 0091 spog “xe | spunog-uy | u3ig GN UI | UBIS aN UE] —uonKIS 4100 woneis | yseqwosy esas | poumay | paq-xew | sea goo | pasta possug | apeafonoy | sieaq | aeaq | yoodg 001Z 9} 0091- sUBIS arnsjos SuLiapsog-uON Ul Sapa) punog-jo-3nO ULHAeW — 9 aIquL49 8LILIb 8Uitie 8L/91/1 Lense | pson9z | 8cNvc Ligott oro +e 8261 ovolle gvrece | spiezicl sensz | ssoorz | chez + 90e5r1 851500 riseo 9 9-Sb61 Losre | ocircio a} oeivers 6eir7/9 oe/et/9 eUSLz sosoz | 9S +87 SSAET are crezbo 8 6e61 Le/pe/e TE/6/e 1e/eie O€/6L/Z1 genre | cpooee | LINtZ sil seBLE Is sro 6F N91 ze te6t_| 0061 66/S/b 66/87/E 66/L/1 86/01/21 sonst | pigo9z | LeNbe 01-6 S7oa61 Izse0 orsg0 +9 6681 76/716. T6/P/6 OTB TOISIL ogsre | zeeLo | orstz Ie sozzL0 tsar or z681 zsi8cie zs/sie zs/ezt consz | seoouz | 1eNrz a peoorT sur ze zs8l oc8ir owoze | et/oezt 6enoz | ozonsz | ooNrz “9 0€591 ozwzo 9 0z-6181 e1/0e8 eeu SPssT Srsst 99 81%20 los 8 £181 SO/LIIE SOLE SO/I LIZ pO/LT/TL osnez | zson6z | 6sNtz oz £567 81 oro S086! ze sos! | 0081 ‘pad “xe | spunog-uy | wats aN UT | UIs aN UE | HoNTIS 400 wig | se TwOY we29 | pauaney | -paq-xew | skeadoo | pana passqug | apesdonoy | sazaq | sea, | qoodg panuguos sapx) ueyaew — ¢ 21qeL BRPEBRReEeHREeEeHReHRtHRtRPRteFRPtEPtePEeteRBeraArA Ff Ty€s/IE/E ea/eie €B/L1/1 ze/Pl/z1 OzNsz OZo5L7 bENDT +01 osoaee at ah SCT +9 781 OL/L1/6 9LIS/6 SLILIB SL9IL E1She r080 E1SbZ 9 PO=80 Isewtt Tee 4 LIT 1S/OL/y Isicue OS/PZ/ZI os/9/z1 osnsc | ocenst | Lpnec € tesorl 907500 yEBEO +9 Ist ‘pe/T/OL LySez | wh/6z/6 PU) HHIITE vbirl/9 yrisl/9 6PSLZ 80x10 ZISSt E+1Z Lenoz 6eeeT0 pre 8 vrle eect SE/8/E OEibIT Seouel 6INbT FOID6T SINGZ o1 ZOTSRT rrsro ECWLI zee 9€IZ Orbiy yO/6z/Z vO/Ol/T EO/ZL/Z1 opnst | Lzg597 TZNZ +6 Ssom6l 80580 907560 +9 volz | O0lz + L6/81/6 LONE LONTL LoL 9eSSt ress 9tSst 09 cee siextt 8rZE1 OF L607 sigue Lsisit LS/ET/T 9s/SU/Z1 SSNbZ £09587 STNYZ £1 olgas7 or SrO 8CUPT zee L-9S07 Sulit stvee ve/OEiZl pULiel vINST Isoosz ZONFE “9 1OSBLI FOTO 017590 +9 s-ve0 Ble vOSst | 81/01/65) BI/8Z/8 SUL 81/L7/9 SPSSt Sse 67s9z | EL +BLE] LEAST es80 £13260 8 8107 OMe ove oven 60/IZ/Zt OSNEz 97300 OSNEZ ii 81800 zuro IVI we o1oz | 0002 “pag “xey | spunog-uy | UIs GN UI | UBS AN UT | vouTS 400 wopes | ysuTmoIy te1249 | poumoy | ‘Pea xe | sMeaqgoo | PANG pasayug | apexsonoy | sivax away | oda panuyguos sapA> ueysew — s a1qeLously searched, spurned on by several near misses, in particularly in the early 1500's and in the 2100-2200's. The Scorpionic datum may or may not be a computer fluke. It is possible at least in theory, that this instance might be a final exit from an earlier cycle of out-of- bounds appearances in Scorpio and Taurus. Another possibility is a one-time occurrence every 500 to a 1000 or so years due to the Mar- tian retrograde cycle. Even though a defini- tive explanation could not be determined on this score, the Martian tables lent intriguing inferences. One of the most fascinating discoveries in Ta- ble 6 was an almost exact repeat of degrees and dates and correlated to particular inter- vals. For example, looking again at the col- umn, Years From Last Period, notice that at each 32-year interlude, the out-of-bounds so- journ began in Leo, but more even more sur- prising, notice the celestial longitude degree, always 4° Leo and minutes in change. Now check the dates—out-of-bounds either in January or February and in-bounds always in March, except for once on April 1 in 1978, but then how much closer could a planet get than within a day. Note the maximum declination in the column headed Max. Decl. In NB Signs —always 24N plus change There is one more detail concerning the 32- year interval. Mars is shown always return- ing in-bounds in Cancer with one exception. In 2010, Mars will return in-bounds in Leo. This one event has the distinction of being the only instance found of Mars being out-of- bounds in Leo and not returning in-bounds in Cancer. Because this will be such a singular event, found only once in seven centuries, this could relate to an exceedingly important junc- ture in history. There's more. After a 32-year sequence and when eight years had elapsed, the Martian journey was always in Aquarius. Unlike the 32-year interlude, after the 8-year stint, de- grees were not as exact, in fact they ranged from 0° to 13°; but the month Mars left the ecliptic was always June or July and the in- bounds return in September—with one excep- tion. In 2144, October 1 was the in-bounds date. However, it must be remembered, the prevailing maximum Solstice declination after 2120 will be lower, 23°25;, which could ac- count for the one day into October. Another peculiarity of the 8-year interlude was these were the only times Mars stepped out-of-bounds in Aquarius, returned to Capri- corn, then re-entered Aquarius where it stepped in-bounds. Of the seven 8-year inter- vals shown, five depicted this maneuver. The other two showed Mars entering and exiting solely in Aquarius. The final distinguishing point ofthe 8-year periods involved direct mo- tion, Only two of the 31 maverick events were begun out-of-bounds in direct motion, the first in 1655 and the second to come in 2144, another arrow pointing to great potential. Unique traits of all the sequential intervals can be found. In the 6-year frames, Mars always left the ecliptic in Leo and returned in Cancer. The out-of-bounds range was only from 0° to 3° of the sign; the date was always in late De- cember or early January over a tight 15-day clinch; and Mars always returned in-bounds in April. Days out-of-bounds were the least of all intervals, ranging from two to no more than seven days. Overall, maverick Mars indicated a decided preference for Leo over Aquarius. When the 31 maverick events were sorted by sign, 17 were found in Leo compared to only 10 in Aquarius, close to a two to one split. During the 10 Aquarian events, Mars always returned 31in-bounds in the non-bordering Solstice sign, however just five episodes represented Mars remaining solely within Aquarius. The other five involved leaving Aquarius and re- entering Capricorn before returning in- bounds in Aquarius. Only once in seven cen- turies was Mars found to skip out-of-bounds and exit in-bounds in Leo, 2010. Only twice in seven centuries was maverick Mars found to enter out-of-bounds in direct motion, 1655 and 2144, both times in Aquarius and both times after an 8-year interval. Although all Martian maverick visits are im- portant, those uniquely singular within seven. centuries should obviously head the list. At the same time, the best use of Martian energy is to do battle with vigilance and reason be- fore a major crisis arises. From the most an- cient of times, Mars has been associated with the raising of cattle, working the fields and with steel and metals. Thus, there is great merit to the phrase, beating swords into plow- shares from the viewpoint of the few, but the other way around, beating plowshares into swords for the benefit of the many. From the most ancient of times, Mars has been associated esoterically with sight, imply- ing watchfulness, analysis, reconnaissance, in- quiry and vigilance. Vigilance must be main- tained to guard against the would-be kings and dictators of Leonian and Aquarian energy that would once again enslave the many un- der the guise of protection. Such resulted in Germany in 1933 after the stage had been set by a correlation to a maverick Mars out-of- bounds in Leo in 1931. Much bloodshed has occurred in the name of freedom from bond- age for the many and the right to bear arms like the few, thus, the right of individual pro- tection. This one right protects all the others. ‘Thus, let not the swords of the many be taken away. 52