Declination: Conversations with Kt Boehrer

Dear Kt, I have some questions,

a) I'm studying your book : you speak about anomalous aspects; may I
understand it as follows: planets when in an eccentric orbit make
anomalous aspects, when I convert the declination positions in longitude
equivalent positions; they can make f.e. a trine (or another aspect) in
l.e., while in declinations they make a parallel, contra-parallel of even no
declination aspect. Therefore using declinations aspects like parallel and
contraparallel (and OOB) is not enough; the conversion is necessary.
(Luc)

That is correct. The whole point and purpose of conversion of the OOB
condition is the revelation of the aspects that are concealed within
these positions. (Kt)
b) Is this conversion technique from longitude to declination acceptable
by astronomers? I know astronomers convert also the two different
coordination systems, but than they work with some math (sinus, cosine,
tangent, etc) (Luc)
Whether this conversion technique from longitude to declination is
acceptable by astronomers is of no importance, in actual fact. You see,
astronomers, almost to a man, deride astrology as a '*******' science.
Astrologers are much more intelligent than that - we can (and always
HAVE) been intelligent enough to understand the hard science of
astronomy and apply it to the (so called) 'soft' science of astrology.
As a 'hard' science, it was the astronomers (my teachers at the
University) who recognized the hidden aspects of declination so 'yes', I
used the astronomers very techniques to identify these anomolous
aspects. As far as working with math - astrologers also work with math
- it is the basis of everything they do and if they don't understand the
math of astronomy they need to learn it as quickly as possible. In my
book I pointed out that the astronomers were the very ones who
recognized and worked with what they called 'anomolous' aspects that
were not apparent because of the extreme position of the planet (or
planets) making the anomolous aspects. They did not apply the effect to
the soft science of astrology (which is nothing more nor less than the
psychological/mental/spiritual result of the physical event(s) or
condition(s).) Kt
c) when interpreting declinations it's clear that OOB planets have a
special interpretation (= beyond normal conditions or expectations);
OOB is when a planet has a higher declination as the max declination of
the sun (2326-28'); some authors give also a special interpretation at
planets who are between the range of 20 and 2326-28'; what do you
think about that? (Luc)

I have found no authors who give the range of 20d to 23d26-28 any
special interpretation. Frankly, that is just silly - that is a perfectly
normal range that every planet achieves without special conditions or
unusual periodicity. The aspects made within that range of arc are
perfectly normal and constantly repeated and NOT subject to any
reduction or remarkable qualities or conditions. Just 'business as usual.'
Kt
d) When a planet is OOB, we had to correct or adjust declination (f.e.
Moon 27N45 results in 19N11 planetary codeclination). It's is like a sort
of mirror point with the corresponding point on the ecliptic - in this
case 23N28 - as midpoint. 19N11 has therefore the same 'value' as
27N45. How can we defend or explain it astronomically?

Thanks, Luc We do not HAVE to defend it astronomically - it is a

physical and mathematical fact that was discovered many, many years
ago and subsequently revealed by the astronomers - as an astrologer I
worked for years applying what the astronomers know (and knew) about
the physical fact of planets whose orbits exceed the angle of the
ecliptic periodically and applying it to astrological interpretation - this
is precisely what medical doctors do with the hard science of chemistry
when they prescribe medication to cure or create a specific physical
condition. The masters of the hard sciences are brilliant but the
masters of the soft sciences are the geniuses - astronomers are very
intelligent but accurate astrologers are very wise - wisdom is
intelligence applied appropriately. Kt
e) In your book you wrote p 25-26 (cycles & psychological of the OOB
planets at the end of this chapter) the lunar paradigma is the most
specifically definitive. What do you mean with the words: " specifically
definitive"? (Luc)
I mean that the Moon OOB is the most consistent in its pattern of
attitude and emotion. But ONLY when IT is the ONLY OOB placement
in the chart. I find that if another planet or even one of the major
asteroids (Juno, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta and Chiron are the only ones I have
researched) happens to be simultaneously OOB it alters the Moon's
pattern when also OOB. Ergo, when the Moon is the only OOB celestial
body in the chart at birth the emotional pattern of the Moon that I
described will be evident in the character and behaviour and life of the
native. (Kt)
f) Mercurius and Venus are never far away from the Sun (by longitude
respectively 28 en 48); how is it by declination? (Luc)

This is very interesting and explains many things. Mercury and Venus
can both go OOB to a fair extreme and as a result the OOB Venus and/
or Mercury may be close to the Sun by longitude but nowhere near it by
declination - this then will alter the relationship of the planets involved.
Kt
g) Can you give me a general view about it? In different case these 3
personal 'planets' (Sun, Mercurius and Venus) are in the same
declination either North either South. What does that mean for the
personality when those three are in the same declination half? (Luc)

I am not sure what you mean by 'those three are in the same
declination half?' What do you mean by half? Do you mean North and/or
South? If that is what you mean the question is invalid because those
two planets will always be in the same declination 'direction' (north or
south) as that the Sun is in and as a result has no particular
significance. If you mean that, for example, the Sun might be 20 N 00
and the planets (Mercury and Venus might be at 24 and 27 North
declination then it tells you that they are not in the normal, average
relationship with the Sun therefore will espress their natures in a
rather eccentric or unusual fashion. Kt
h) The higher the degree of declination, the more pronounced the
effect of the OOB planet will be, and this in good or bad behavior ...
Because there is a gradation at that side of the boundary, Can we
conclude there is also some gradation at the other side of the
boundary. F.e. make it a difference wether my natal Uranus is
23N26-27 or 19N15 or 8N?

Answer: all planets in declination from 0 N/S 00 to 23N/S28 are in

normal declination range therefore there should be no abnormal or
unusual traits attributable to them. If such exicts in the chart the
source must some other than declination. Kt
i) How do you work with antiscia? (Luc)

Answer 1 The antiscion is simply the reflex point of the planet's natal
declination and functions as a turning point or reflex point. If a planet
moves by declination to the antiscion point of another planet it usually
causes some sort of reflex action or activity or reaction. Kt
Answer 2 The antiscion is the reflex position of a planet's position, in
that degree on the opposite side of the Cancer-Capricorn axis which is
always oriented to the 0 Cancer/0 Capricorn midpoints and may be
defined by both longitude and declination. Now that antiscion degree is
also sometimes referred to as the solstice point (or turning point
because it is the point at which the Sun appears to stand still and this
takes place when the Sun is at 0 Cancer and at 0 Capricorn. So there is
really no problem with this. It is a simple fact that when a planet's
declination is correctly identified and converted to longitude that
longitude is often quite different from the longitude attributed to the
planet in the Ephemeris. There is no specific way to 'handle' these
antiscia - you simply identify the influence areas that are revealed when
the longitude is translated into declination and the declination is
translated into longitude. Note what aspects are made from these
positions and what aspects are received at these points. This will give
you some surprises because you will most often discover that there are
aspects being made that were never revealed by longitude alone and
that these aspects explain the action going on in a chart far better
than the obvious longitudinal aspects that have been the only aspects
we had before I introduced this method. Treat these positions just like
you treat any positions - they are nothing more nor less than dimensions
revealed that were hidden prior to my work. Kt
j) How do you work with contra-antiscia? (Luc)
Just the same as above - there really is no difference in influence of
these two points. Kt
k) In your book you speak about the OOB cycli of the planets; can you
give me more information about the OOB behavior of the asterod
Cheiron, Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta? And what are the most
important and interesting interpretations? (Luc)

Well, that could be a whole book in itself but fact it is merely an

exaggerated action or reaction associated with the basic nature of the
asteroid. Kt
Even more Declination: Conversations with Kt Boehrer
l) For the Part of Fortune (ASC +/- Moon -/+ Sun) (and the other
Arabic points). How must I compute it in declination? Is this point by
definition on the ecliptic as is the ASC and MC?(Luc)

An interesting question and again deserving of a whole small book. The

Part of Fortune as we normally calculate it is often not very effective
at all because it may really tie in with the chart because without taking
into account the declination of the planets involved in the formulation
of the Part it may be positiones in a degree of longitude that really
makes no valid or potent aspects at all. In order to pin that point down
you may calculate the longitudinal Part and then find its equivalent
declination degree. OR you may make the conversion of the declination
of the planets involved to their true longitude and produce a more
potent Part of fortune that way. Kt
m) I'm now thoroughly studying the psychological effects of the OOB
body's. When I'm reading your book (Cycles & Psychological patterns of
the OOB planets) I find fascinating and interesting explanations about
OOB Moons. These examples are rather negative expressions of the
OOB Moon condition (the stepchildren of the zodiac, etc....). What are
positive expressions of the OOB Moon (the normal definition of OOB is
"beyond normal conditions of expectations", that can be good, that can
be bad)? I think we don't may associate The OOB Moon only with
alienation from the mother. How must I see these matters? (Luc)

Truthfully, the relationship to the mother is most often in the eye of

the beholder (in other words, created by the child's perception of the
mother rather than founded on any factual concepts.) As I explained in
an earlier post IF there are other planets or asteroids simultaneously
OOB at birth that nullifies the reading of the OOB Moon as given
above. And in such a case, the reading will be entirely different. Kt
n) In your book you talk on page 35 (in The chapter about The
declination chart) in the fourth paragraph, about 6 specific points; I
find only five: 1) the longitude 2) and his anti-scia 3) the declination 4)
in conversion the longitude equivalent 5) and the co-declination (anti-
scia). What is the sixth? (Luc)

The six points that I refer to here are: 1. the given longitude 2. the
given declination 3. the equivalent longitude for the given declination
and 4. its solstice point 5. the equivalent declination for the given
longitude and 6, its solstice point. Kt
o) In the above mentioned articles the most astrologers don't speak
about conversions, with the exception of Leigh, who wrote that article
with the title: "Declination in the round chart, a different dimension of
insight". How must I interprete these facts? Perhaps these astrologers
don't know this conversions (I can't believe that astrologers writing in
an issue special about declinations don't know it), or they don't use it,
and this because the software programs don't give these conversions
(except Halloran's) and than it takes more work to count it , or because
they don't need it.... Do you understand my question here, and can you
clarify? (Luc)

You are right, Luc. My work on declination is unique - Jayne never really
understood declination and never made the conversion from declination
to longitude and vice versa. No one did, in fact, so when you get into my
work the only author who understands it thoroughly is Leigh Westin. Do
not try to apply what Jayne said to my work with planets in declination -
he didn't have the remotest idea of what was going on or what
happened there. Sorry about that but that is the way it is. Astrology
like everything else is NOT written in stone - there is much to be
learned yet and many errors of the past that need to be identified and
deleted. The Halloran program is the only computer program that comes
near to the correct presentation of declination and the conversion of
declination. Kt I hope this helps, Luc. The most important thing for you
and all other astrologers to recognize is that the astrologers who went
before us were not possessed of the information and understanding of
the astronomical knowledge and understanding that we have now. Its
like ancient (and not so ancient) doctors who didn't know about DNA
and the doctors who now work with DNA every day. Do you see what I
mean? When I wrote my book in 1994 (had been writing and working on
it since the very early '70s) no one else had dreamed of the
understanding that I had arrived at. And there is still so much research
that needs to be done with it.
Astrology is a very inexact science in the hands of most astrologers
(surgery used to be a very inexact science in the hands of all doctors
but now it is incredibly more exact than ever before in the history of
mankind) but with declination correctly understood and converted
astrologers can be incredibly more exact than ever before. DO NOT let
the ignorance of the past limit the acquisition and use of current and
more accurate information and techniques!
p) I have another question: in your book, I find something about it p
32, ...(title = Latitude ) also a little bit astronomical, but very important
too (I guess): how do you relate longitude, latitude and declination. I
know we speak here about to coordination systems. The one equatorial
system with declination and right ascension; the other ecliptic system
with (celestial) longitude and (celestial) latitude. I understand we can
work with longitude and declination together (and thus mixing two
coordination systems), because that's the way what we experience as
earth, travelling around the sun (longitude) and the obliquity of the
earth, what give us the declination, seasons, solstice points, antiscia,
etc ...and we experience both measures on the same moment in one and
the same experience... And then we have celestial latitude, all planets of
the solar system travel within a narrow band of 8 above or under the
ecliptic (except the very eccentric Pluto, and also the eccentric
asterods) ; do we have to sum up latitude and declination to define of a
planet is really OOB or not? If so, than is looking for declination not
enough, and we always have to consider the latitude of the planet.... If
we had to sum up latitude and declination than a planet with f.e. a
declination of 25N15', can lose his status of OOB, when the planet has
a latitude South of more than (25N15' minus 2326-28')?? A planet
can be off-the-ecliptic (by latitude) but not OOB (in the meaning of a
declination above 2326-28'). In that case you speak about: 'more than
should be expected within normal limitations and conditions'. In the
case of OOB you speak about 'beyond normal conditions or
expectations': is it a question of gradation or not?(Luc)

When a planet's declination is calculated, its latitude is taken into

account in the process so there is no reason to be concerned about the
any adjustment of a planet's declination because of its latitude. The
only latitude that is of importance (and there are several different
types of latitude -have forgotten the classifications right now) is the
latitude that is given for planets north or south of the Ecliptic which
may occasionally place a planet that is within the 23N/S28 maximum
ecliptic limit declination OUTSIDE the ecliptic while NOT OUT OF
BOUNDS. It will never move an OOB planet inside the ecliptic limit.
This means that we occasionally have a planet that is outside the
ecliptic but NOT outside the Ecliptic maximum declination - these
planets are very individualistic in their influence - indicating traits and/
or characteristics and/or events that are unusual but NOT completely
outside the realm of reason (if you see what I mean!) I have written
about that in my book, too. Kt
Some basics and why declinations is so important?

When you ask for the declination of the degree of 8 Sc 15 and its
antiscia (or solstice point) that the declination will be given for that
degree on the ecliptic and will be 18S38 declination but a planet may be
in 8 Sc 15 AND NOT BE ON THE DEGREE OF THE ECLIPTIC THAT IS
ASSOCIATED that degree of declination. IN other words, the ecliptic
is simply the supposed arc of the Sun in relation to our planet earth and
its equator - it simply measures the Sun's decline either North or
South of the earth's equator.
There is NO planet (other than Earth) whose relationship to the Sun is
defined by the same arc of measurement. Since every degree of
longitude may be measured from north pole to south pole (vertically) a
planet may be in 8 Sc 15 BUT its arc may be so extreme that it is not
ON the Ecliptic (where the Ecliptic and longitude intersect) and it may
be in a very different degree of declination while in 8 Sc 15
DEPENDING ON THE ECCENTRICITY OF ITS ARC AT THAT
MOMENT IN TIME. - IN OTHER WORDS IT MAY BE IN AN 'OTHER'
DECLINATION.
In other words, 8 Sc 15 longitude extends, in its elevation above and/or
below ecliptic, through every degree of declination. The planet Pluto is
an excellent example of this right now. Longitudinally it transited
through the sign Scorpio from Nov 1983 through Nov 1995 but its
declination, due to the eccentricity of its arc continued to register in
the sign Libra. You see, any single degree of longitude will extend
through EVERY DEGREE OF DECLINATION and it is declination that
measures the planet's arc above or below the equator (around the
Earth's circumference) and the Sun's 'apparent' arc above and below
the the Earth's equator. Longitude simply measures the simple
circumference
You have to understand that when we say a planet is in any given degree
of longitude we are identifying only one measurement and that
measurement extends in a huge circle of 360 degrees of space so that
planet could be anywhere above the arctic circle or below the arctic
circle.
When we say that a planet is in a specifc degree of longitude AND a
specific degree of declination it tells us EXACTLY where to look for
that planet because it tells us the degree of inclination above or below
the ecliptic. Without longitude the given declination could be anywhere
in a 360 degree circle AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE
EARTH.
Without DECLINATION A given a planet could be anywhere AROUND
THE POLAR (NORTH POLE TO SOUTH POLE - A 360 DEGREE CIRCLE
FROM POLE TO POLE) CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH.
And there is the added benefit that the declination will give us the
degree of longitude where its specifc degree and sign intersect the
Ecliptic (where the action is - at least for us Earthlings because we live
on planet Earth and the ecliptc angle activated by the Sun in its cycle
(or conversely, the Earth in ITS cycle) establishes the Ecliptic and
makes life on this planet not only possible but largely pleasant!
So when you are using both longitude and declination you are using a
system that allows you to pinpoint the 'hot spots', so to speak, in space,
in relation to the planet where we live.
When you check a planet's declination to a degree of longitude
different from its given degree of longitude you have discovered and
identified another 'angle' or 'aspect' of that planet's influence (hidden
safely away in it declination, just waiting for someone to discover the
hidden dimension(s) of that planet.
Today, March 7, 2002 Pluto is in 17 Sag 35 by longitude BUT by
declination it is in 12S57 declination - a degree of declination that
intersects the longitudinal 4th degree of Scorpio. Now, when Pluto
finally enters 0 Cap in March 2008 it will be at 17S declination where it
still registers in the longitudinal sign of Scorpio. Kt.

Kt Boehrer, Declination, The Other Dimension, Fortunata Press, 1998.

You can buy through American Federation of Astrologers (AFA) see
their bookshop under B from Boehrer, the booklet costs +/- $18,95 in
US$$
Kt Boehrer, the declination lady