The author scrutinises the results of the Mars – Redhead project coordinated by Hill and Thompson in the United States where birth data from nearly one and a half thousand redheads were gathered and tested to see if the position of Mars in the zodiac correlated with the colour of their hair. In this critique of that paper, suggestions are offered on alternative ways of testing future replications for clearer significance levels.

The relevance of character traits to extreme pathological subjects is discussed. Evidence is presented for a Gauquelin Effect in a sample of habitually violent criminals. The distribution of Mars positions is significantly different from the typical professional data for Mars, previously reported by the Gauquelins.

The claim based on a study by James David on Alice Bailey’s theory of “Seven Rays” that, using this theory, photographs of people could be accurately matched to their sun sign is tested in this paper.200 photographs were sent to James David of which he chose 58. After subjecting the choices made by James David to analysis the author concluded that they were no better than chance. James David’s response arguing that the author’s method of analysis could be disputed is included in the paper with a discussion of the grounds for that dispute.

Dr. Theodor Lanscheidt claims to have discovered effects by Mercury, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto and the Sun on birth distributions of Gauquelin professionals. His result, however, a smoothed cyclic curve, was replicable by random numbers. Landscheidt also holds that Gauquelin planetary effects obtain their pattern by the “golden Section”, i.e. peaks and troughs of birth distributions are allegedly governed by the proportions .382 and .618. It was shown that many other proportions, e.g., .202 fit better than the “golden” proportion but even the best-fitting “non-golden” proportions lack explanatory import.

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.