Dr.Landscheidt rejects Professor Ertel’s dismissal of the golden section link with the Gauquelin “professionals” effect and discusses his reason for so doing.

Astro Sleuthing Contests are aimed at reaching consensus on what works and doesn’t work in astrology, ranging from individual factors to entire techniques. Each contest is based on a case similar to those commonly encountered by working astrologers but with two important differences: each case has a clear-cut outcome, and the data are of the highest quality. The required chart judgments are therefore both realistic and assessable. Astrologers are invited to send in their judgments together with details of their methods. A pilot study using six contests during 1992-94 produced much interest and some encouraging results but had to be discontinued due to lack of participants. The general indications were alarming. They confirmed what has long been known, namely that astrological methods are afflicted by total confusion, and that astrologers are generally unwilling to reduce this confusion by putting their methods to the test. Furthermore, astrologers whose methods clearly failed continued to use them as though nothing had happened, while methods showing superiority were ignored. This is no way to run a “profession”. The problem will need to be addressed by astrologers as a whole when co-operation for the common good becomes a priority. Until then the professional astrologer will remain a contradiction in terms.

This paper explains the true locations of the main horoscopic angles for charts cast in respect of events that occur within the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. In view of continuing controversy, it includes descriptions of apparent motions both of the ecliptic and the Sun, observed from within the northern Polar region. The study of Circumpolar horoscopy, though largely ignored, demonstrates perhaps more than any other how far practitioners have become removed from the real sky. It has been the subject of much misguided debate, with erroneous opinion gaining undue credibility. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that most current astrological software yields either incorrect circumpolar charts, or none at all. The paper is the first of a series and conclusions outlined are further developed in subsequent articles.

According to John Addey, harmonic analysis of the Gauquelin trait data reveals the existence of planetary harmonics in the diurnal circle beyond the simple emphasis on key sectors. This result became central to Addey’s dream of a unified astrology based on harmonics. But both the data and procedure are problematic. First, the trait data were not extracted blind and can be shown to contain bias due to Gauquelin’s knowledge of planetary postions during the extraction process. Second, Gauquelin’s own statistical tests were faulty, leading to conclusions that have led everyone astray. Third, the author’s computer simulations show that Addey’s sample sizes are too small, and the sampling errors too large, for his results to be meaningful to the extent required. (The sampling requirements in harmonic analysis are more stringent than in other types of analysis.) Other weaknesses are ineffective criteria for selecting amplitudes, non-independence of traits, sector bias (which creates spurious odd-numbered harmonics), incorrect expectancies, non-uniform expectancies, and subjective follow up. Collectively these weaknesses are fatal. Notwithstanding Addey’s inspiring vision and astonishing labor, it seems that most of his results can reasonably be attributed to artefacts and the rest to Gauquelin bias in trait extraction. The conclusion is drawn that planetary harmonics do not exist beyond the emphasis on key sectors. The same procedural weaknesses apply to Addey’s harmonic work in general, which leaves his harmonic theory of astrology with no secure basis.

A summary is given of each of the 29 entries to the Truth of Astrology Competition. Roughly half the entries conclude in effect that the truth delivered by astrology is actually satisfaction (it provides meaning, it enriches life, it does good) rather than accuracy (freedom from error), which due to the fallibility of astrologers is held to be undeliverable despite the underlying Greater Truth. By contrast the other half focused on accuracy, either by implication, observation (I.e., experience), statistical tests, or chart interpretations, to show how astrology delivers accuracy and therefore truth. This division of truth into satisfaction vs. accuracy matches the division obtained and discussed four years earlier in KT1. Although the entries collectively provide stimulating reading for the uncritical reader, for the critical reader they contain a disturbing level of error and faulty inference even among the big names, indicating an urgent need for a better general education among astrologers right across the board. Some possible requirements for a better education are discussed.

The French skeptics (CFEPP) attempt to replicate the Gauquelin Mars effect used a sample of 1,966 sports champions taken from two biographical sources. They reported an insignificant surplus of births in Mars key sectors upon which they concluded that a Mars effect was non-existent. The surplus became larger but remained insignificant when the CFEPP’s own critic, Dr, Nienhuys, mathematician at the Technical University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands, at my suggestion corrected the CFEPP’s wrong expectancy. However, Nienhuys missed an opportunity to correct another flaw, namely the CFEPP’s inclusion of cases that were not eminent enough to meet the requirements of “supreme eminence”. A Mars effect becomes manifest only with eminent professionals. On the one hand, the CFEPP rightly argued that champions listed in both biographical sources were more eminent on average than those listed in only one course. But they did not use this criterion for all 36 sports disciplines except for two that lacked appropriate records of successes. When all double sources (= more eminent) champions out of the CFEPP’s total were picked, a significant Mars effect (p = .02) resulted. In addition, the Mars effect for double-source champions was significantly (p = .04) larger than that of single-source champions, whose proportion of births with Mars in key sections did not deviate significantly from chance. In order to remove doubts of critics, a number of competent and independent researchers were invited to scrutinise the counts of the CFEPP’s published data as well as to analyse them using their own procedures. Six of them replied and all confirmed the counts. Four confirmed the significance of the Mars key sector deviations. Three confirmed the conclusions without reservation and one with some reservation. Two considered the CFEPP data and methodology as inappropriate which view is shown to be untenable.

This article gives a brief outline of pyrrhonism, the “skeptical way of life”, as it was described by the Greek physician Sextus Empericus. More extensively, it discusses his book Against the Astrologers, which describes and crticises astrology as it was practised in the 2nd or 3rd century AD. From Sextus’s description it is evident that the basic concepts of astrology have not changed much over the past 18 centuries. Surprisingly, much of his criticism seems fairly modern.

The present state of research on the Gauquelin data is re-considered in the light of more recent Darwinian theory and the ecology of family systems. New testable predictions are derived which are not subject to allegations of possible fraud by the Gauquelins. Important features are explained including curvilinear eminence and gender effects, and it is suggested that CTH (Character Trait Hypothesis) and inheritance effect need to be reconsidered if the predictions can be verified. A small study is presented which supports the theory, and further testing is invited.

Astrology on the Internet during 1996 is surveyed, including the newsgroup alt.astrology, mailing lists and the World Wide Web. Special attention is given to the topics, the numbers participating, and the quality of discussion. Almost all public astrology on the Internet is social or commercial talk of little interest to researchers. Included is an annotated list of useful Internet addresses.

The author argues for an alternative model of how astrology works. He proposes that only a few percent of people are “enhancers” or “starborn” and for those people astrological indicators work well. This theory accords closely with the Gauqulelin findings and also with his own work on time-twins. Finally, he presents evidence from questionnaire research that the starborn (as a small proportion) can be found among “ordinary people” by discerning planetary traits from their answers to carefully selected questions. It is suggested that the significance of this work would be much enhanced by independent replication.