An exploratory investigation is reported in which physiognomic evidence for seasonal alternant-sign periodicity with predictable directionality was sought in the photographic portraits of Caucasoid and Negroid males. The portraits, which were taken from published biographical directories that also list birth dates, were examined for specific physiognomic traits that were postulated to be characteristic of either the odd-numbered sun signs (or solar months), traditionally associated with extraversion (E), or the even numberred sun signs, associated with introversion (I). The results are corroborative, but the method is not without its shortcomings: (1) the test instrument, which consists of several thousand small photographic portraits mounted on 3 x 5 inch cards, required much time and effort to prepare and cannot easily be reproduced for replication studies; (2) judges with sufficient talent and motivation to learn face reading are rare; (3) despite repeated efforts, a unitary physiognomic trait capable of dichotomizing the protratis was not found and it was only by weighing several traits in each face simultaneously that significant scores could be achieved; (4) the proprotion of photographic subjects with prototypic faces is small (less than 10% for each polarity); (5) a small but significant excess of smiling faces was found among the E sign portraits, so the possibility of cueing by astrologoically sophisticated photographic subjects cannot be excluded.

The author’s previous research with M. and F. Gauquelin data confirmed the existence of planetary effects for eminent professionals. However, the present research casts doubt on Gauquelin’s physical explanation. (1) For sports champions the planetary effect was unrelated to astronomical variables (distance of Mars from Earth, its angular size, apparent magnitude, declination, right ascension, solar elongation, and radius vector). Further, the effect did not diminish during Mars-Sun conjunctions. (2) For ordinary people, Gauquelin’s claim that geomagnetic activity enhanced the planetary correspondence between children and parents was not supported. Nor did the planetary effect for eminent professionals covary with geomagnetic activity. lt seems that Gauquelin’s positive results with geomagnetism are due to random oscillations. (3) Gauquelin’s claim that planetary effects decrease after 1950 – a presumed side-effect of applying obstetric drugs – could not be veried with professionals’ data. However, the number of post-1950 births was insufficent for a definite conclusion. (4) The accuracy of birth times on official documents increased markedly through decades 1830 – 1950 but produced no corrresponding increase in planetary birth frequencies. In the light of these results, Gauquelin’s midwife hypothesis, seems to be untenable, in which case an interpretation of planetary effects in terms of physics and physiology must be replaced by something else.

Previous attempts to quantify the agreement between astrologers’ keywords for the planets and the Gauquelins’ independently derived lists of planetary traits have been marred by the use of less than ideal data. A fresh analysis, with new data and a different method, is presented here. The results show quite high, non-random agreement, especially for Mars, Saturn and Moon though arguments are also presented for regarding the measurements as only rough estimates. Improvement in astrologers’ accuracy over time was anticipated but the evidence supporting it was slight.

A study of the accuracy of “ancient” astrologers’ keywords on planetary temperaments is reported, using astrological material different from that used by Francoise Gauquelin in her study (Traditional Symbolism in Astrology and the Character traits method, LERRCP, Paris, 1980). The astrology of “ancient” authors who lived in Elizabethan times or before was tested. Its accuracy was evaluated using 50,000 character traits systematically collected from the biographies of 2000 successful subjects. Results strongly suggest that “ancient” astrologers are doing as well as the modern ones. The results seem to vinidicate the idea that the origin of the astrological planetary temperaments is very old and probably far more ancient than the “ancient” astrological keywords investigated.

Modern scientific research and astrology are different kinds of activity. Astrology is derived from given Principles, research from theory and empirical data. The author argues that the two activities come from different world-views and one cannot validly be regarded in the light of the other. Questions about the direction of astrological research are posed.

John Nelson has claimed that heliocentric planetary aspects are an important factor in predicting short-wave radio disturbance. But a correlation analysis of his predictions and observed radio quality showed that the claim was not substantiated. In assessing his own predictions, Nelson used a method of anlaysis that gave an accuracy of around 90%. This is shown to be an artifact arising from the high proportion of undisturbed days. A valid system of predicting must do better than both chance and baseline conditions, but on the basis of conventional statistical tests Nelson’s planetary system does not.

After outlining briefly a control study for the analysis presented in Part 1, this article discusses four theories fo the posssible origins of the planetary types. The first three theories are often upheld by astrologers, by their critics, or by both, but all of them, it is argued, are unsatisfactory as they stand. The fourth theory, which is new in some respects, is based partly on widely accepted historical data and partly upon speculations derived from scientific methodology. It is claimed that this theory makes it possible to construe the astrological enterprise, from its beginnings to the present, as far more rational than is usually supposed by astrologers and their critics alike.

Opposite extremes of the E and N dimensions of the EPI differ in personality as basically as it is possible to differ. To test the hypothesis that such extremes should differ in their planetary positioins at birth, subjects with the most extreme scores on the EPI (108 for each of E+, E-, N+, N-) were selected from a sample of 1145 subjects mostly from the southern hemisphere. The frequencies of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon and Venus in the Gauquelin “plus zones” was determined for E+ vs E- and N+ vs N-. Half of the results were in the expected direction but no result wwas significant either individually or in combination.

The hypothesis that ordinary (I.e., unexceptional) people should show a planetary effect in personality similar to that shown by famous people was tested by three studies involving, respectively, vocational interest (300 subjects), planetary psychology self-reports (846 subjects), and scorers on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (561 subjects). Only the last showed (marginally) significant results: Mars correlated in the expected direction with E+ and P+, and the Moon with L+. Results for the other planets, and for N+, were either inconsistent or not significant. The deficiencies of some existing personality questionaires are discussed and alternate approaches are suggested. The best approach seems to be the same as for famous people, namely the generation of biographical data followed by the character-traits method

According to Dean’s parental tampering hypothesis (PTH) Gauquelin planetary effects of AD 1800 – 1950 are due mainly or entirely to the reporting of wrong birth hours by superstitious parents. Parental superstition is also deemed manifest in various other ways of tampering with birth dates and birth times such as midnight avoidance, or full Moon, lucky number, Christian feast adjustment etc. It is well-known that due to increased population, education, and urbanization, superstition declined in European countries from AD1800 to 1950. I calculated Dean’s eight purported indicators of superstition individually for successive birth cohorts of Gauquelin professionals. If Dean’s hypothesis holds, his indicators of superstition should decline accordingly. An analysis of successive birth cohorts, however, showed that Dean’s purported superstition variables did not decline. Hence they do not indicate superstition. Dean’s parental tampering hypothesis, devoid of validity of its key variables, cannot possibly be right.