Hello,

First, Isaac...thank you for taking the time to do the rectifications and post the results. As always, very impressive.

Second, Tom, Yuzuru...you have made it plain that there is some "resolve" amongst you that Isaac's methods do not work.

This is fine as an assumption, but then, there is no actual refutation. If Isaac's rectification isn't necessarily correct, then find something factual (events in the life that don't have appropriate symbolism) that might indicate the timing is wrong.

Certainly from what I have seen posted, there are plenty of SYMBOL APPROPRIATE aspects and with TIGHT ORBS that match the events. (If that's not what we are looking for in a rectification, then what ARE we looking for?) If Isaac's are in error and to have any credibility in judging them, then one of two things HAS to happen. One, you have to have a better time that shows demonstrably that it works better or two, you have to show inherently how Isaac's rectification does not work with several events from the life that don't have appropriate symbolism.

To me, neither of these have been done...it's only been argued from an armchair philosopher point of view.

In short, to refute carefully arrived at scientific data requires some sort of DATA, not just opinion, in order to truthfully refute it. If you want to show that Isaac's rectifications are NOT correct or NOT reliable, then there is only one way...show how they don't work or how something else works better.

You either can or you can't. I'm interested to see the RESULTS, either way that it goes...

On another forum, BEFORE Susan Boyle's time was available (the internet is well-connected, when an event happens, astrologers go to work trying to get the appropriate data, yet NO ONE on any site had gotten Susan's birthdata), Isaac did a nice rectification and using not too many events and came up with a birthtime for Susan. Well after the fact, a Scottish astrologer was able to come up with a birth certificate for Boyle. If I remember correctly, the difference in Isaac's rectification from the birth certificate was about 32 seconds. It is obvious, since the rectification is producing definitive aspects with tight orbs that the birth certificate was rounded off to the next minute.

Instead of saying it can't work, or one can't find the Epoch chart, or using the general unreliability of rectifications IN THE GENERAL CASE as some sort of doubt-casting on someone's SPECIFIC methods, it's much more productive to have at least one teeny, tiny shred of evidence that shows why it DOESN'T work.

James

(My first post and..... they're off, out of the gate!)

CentralScrutinizer wrote: (If that's not what we are looking for in a rectification, then what ARE we looking for?)

The 'correct' time, though no one has bothered to properly define what this is, but maybe we can take steps to get there. What do you think is the "correct time"?

CentralScrutinizer wrote: If Isaac's are in error and to have any credibility in judging them, then one of two things HAS to happen. One, you have to have a better time that shows demonstrably that it works better or two, you have to show inherently how Isaac's rectification does not work with several events from the life that don't have appropriate symbolism.

If the whole premise is specious, then does it matter?
If we all do not agree on what it is we are looking for, then can there be any agreement on what is it is we have found?
What is meant when you say "appropriate symbolism"?

CentralScrutinizer wrote: In short, to refute carefully arrived at scientific data

When I see a jumble of numbers and squiggles, and have it presented to me as "scientific data", I feel this beggars belief. It may be called data, but to imply some sort of special value to the data before any consideration of its value has been made is already some sort of bias. I'm not sure it is even useful data, and if what appears to me to be extremely loose word associations that are called "appropriate symbolism" are the proof of the pudding, this is not going to end in an affirmative manner.

The 'correct' time, though no one has bothered to properly define what this is, but maybe we can take steps to get there. What do you think is the "correct time"?

To me, the "correct time" is the time in which a chart is rectified TO so that the most correct inherent symbolism matching events is as tight as can be found in a reliable "prediction" method.

If I can jump forward three more posts and cut right to the chase, most people are used to transits (especially), progressions, and solar arcs where the timing is a little wishy-washy. In Topocentric Primary Directions, because a tiny change in the birth time makes a large change in WHEN an aspect is partile, it makes a perfect system for rectifying charts. The fact that the ASPECTS HAVE A CONSISTANT SYMBOLISM in this system means that not only can aspects be analyzed, but more importantly aspects can be weighted based on how correct the inherent symbolism is.

Bottom line is, in a rectification...fact, Isaac has a time so precise that the very birthtime-exacting Topocentric Primary Directions show the relevant symbology and at the appropriate timing. You mentioned "loose word associations". The planetary symbols and the House references have, generally speaking a USUAL meaning connected with them. Isaac did a rectification of Barbara Hutton (heiress to Woolworth fortune, married Cary Grant, never really happy, Mother committed suicide when Barbara was 4). Now, if we look at an event in her life, say, when her Son died, if the appropriate symbolism is there, it should be obvious. Isaac's orbs are very small for PD's, so that LOCKS it to that timeframe. ie. the particular aspects are not only correctly WHAT, they are also correctly WHEN

Here are the aspects

Nep 180 Asc 3'
V 30 Plu 2'
Nep 0 Sat 8'
Nep 45 Mars 2'
Secondaries:
Mars 0 MC 2'
VIII 60 Mars 2'
Moon 90 Plu 10'

When you look at this symbolism, what do you see? Very specifically a dissolving relationship, mourning, painful alone time and quite possibly issues of death. With the 5th House and 8th House specifically referenced, one can't help but think of possibly one's children and issues of death. This is just one striking example.

The point is, one can't help but see that this particular rectified time gives accurate "linkage" between aspects and events through time. These same aspects would NOT have worked for a different event on the list...say the birth of her Son. (more flowing aspects and Venus-Jupiter, etc.)

One last question... if Isaac's methods or Isaac's adaptation of Alexander Marr's methods for his own program Polaris, have given birth-certificate times, pre birth-certificate, there is more reason to "support" the idea that it does correct rectification than to "refute" it.

I hope this helps...

James

Second, Tom, Yuzuru...you have made it plain that there is some "resolve" amongst you that Isaac's methods do not work.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I questioned in a much earlier post was the idea of rectification - Issac's or anyone else's. I did not aim it at Issac and no one else. For example, noting the time of MJ's death and then plotting a chart so that something happens on that date (ex post facto obviously) is not terribly impressive regardless of who does it.

Rumen Kolev did the same thing with JFK's chart. Knowing the precise time of the assassination, he then rectified that chart so that a Saturn direction occurred exactly on Nov 22 1963. That doesn't make the rectification correct or incorrect for that matter. Hindsight astrology is always easier to do than prediction.

Astrology simply isn't that precise. We wouldn't tell a native that he or she will marry on a partidcular day. We would give a much more broad prediction. If we won't predict to the instant with a known birth time, why should we rectify that way? Furthermore, if any method is that precise, prove it by taking a rectified chart and predict to the day a future event. That would be much more impressive.

Now if you wish to argue that rectification is not aimed at producing a birth time but rather a workable chart, fine. Dr. H made this argument many months before Issac came to this board, and it makes sense to me. Issac knows his stuff, in my opinion. I'm just not as enthralled with rectification as he is. We discussed Jackson's birth time over a month ago and with all the discussion no one predicted his death. We had one mention of a health issue, and it didn't come about as the result of a rectification or primary directions.

Tom

Isn't the purpose of rectification finding an accurate chart on which to base future predictions? Looking at celeb charts is a good training exercise but what practical use is it? If I went to a real astrologer and expressed concerns about my health I would not be impressed if he waited a fortnight until I died before he passed judgement.

Matt

Hello Tom,

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. You DO make it hard to discuss, when suddenly we have segued somewhere else. As to the "idea" of rectification, what is there to question?

If you convenient-rectify a "famous" chart so that some magical measurement is spot on, you have done nothing except make that one event look "explained." Nothing else comes into place... ie. rectifying to the one event, makes the one event look good. The proof of the rectification is how the OTHER items (especially ones that were NOT part of the original rectification fit.

This is where Isaac's examples shine. They don't fit one item with amazing accuracy and the rest are hit and miss. Once the time is found, we have the best fit and it can't be that amazing that suddenly, the other events of the life have corresponding aspects of a NATURE and ORB that makes it definitive.

Re: Kolev

That's Kolev. If he lined up a rectification based mainly on one item and tried to make that fly, then he is not as smart as he appears. We are talking about Isaac's rectifications, which use a drastically different method than Kolev's. Truly apples and oranges.

Re: "Why should we rectify that way?"

Again, you comments "indicate" that perhaps you don't understand just how the software works. It takes the birth time and varies it through the range given (we usually have SOME idea of the birthtime, usually within 24 hours at the least) and with each alteration of the birthtime, a composite score is given based on how exactly the aspects and the event fit (in more than 40 categorical types of events). All of these "results" are then given a weighted score and one can see by looking through time just which ones line up the best and by using other methods (for protection AGAINST the same routine being "self-satisfied") a definitive time can be found.

The EXACT point you make about Kolev reverse rectifying based on one main event is EXACTLY what Isaac's program, Polaris, does NOT do. It takes ALL of the events through ALL of the time period and finds the best fit for ALL the events (in terms of symbolic correctness and tightness of orb).

I just do not understand how, what would be ideal if done manually, is somehow wrong because it's all coded into one program and appears to happen mostly "under the hood."

Re: Birthtime vs. workable chart

The POINT of getting the birthtime (to astrologers) IS to get a workable chart. If you solve the second one, for all intents and practical purposes, you have solved the first. In other words, if you yourself, Tom, were born at (say) 8am, but using all your methods, you find much greater synchronicity with 8:07am as the birthtime, you would likely be convinced the 8am time was rounded or simply in error. The bottom line is...astrologers need the best working charts that they can get.


I have done "this" over 20 years now. While this is not a boast, it is an indication that I have been engrossed in astrological symbolism a long time. During that time I had, through great pains, rectified my chart to 11:16:44. This took a lot of time and various little refinements throughout the years. I recently received Polaris (yesterday actually) and put my 18 dated events into the program and a range of time and it found a "PEAK" correlation at 11:16:43. What took me years of refining was something that I got from Polaris in about 90 mins with the program. It would have been shorter, but this was my first attempt with a brand new program. (By the way, add about another hour to the worktime and I had the Epoch chart. Before we start on the "how would you ever know?" sidetrack, it just works. The Epoch chart, as it is timed, lines up with the events of my life....the symbology is just THERE.)

Isaac's program is automated, but it is not automatic. One does have to apply some "brain" to it, but it is such a great tool. It gets you from A to B with the minimum muss and fuss.

Because it tries to "best fit" ALL of the events to matching symbolism, it basically seeks to do just what an actual astrologer would do, except, since it has FIXED rules relating to which symbols fit which events, it does so more objectively than the average astrologer would.

Check it out!


James

Hello Steven,

Again, we have a refutation on theoretical grounds.

If you are going to say that there is doubt about Isaac's methods, then there still needs to be something concrete that shows why it's WRONG, not philosophy about why it could/should be wrong. See?

I guess I just don't understand your point.

If I take a famous person (doesn't have to be famous, they're just more detailed in events and with less leeway in what happened when), let's say Bill Clinton for the heck of it. If we take 20 events from his life and use Polaris to find a birthtime and upon examination using Topocentric Primary Directions AND other methods, and THEN using events NOT in the 20 event rectification list and STILL the symbology lines up, then for all intents and purposes, the chart IS rectified.

Think of it as a black box, good event data in... more accurate birthtimes out.

By the way, I am not just arguing...I really am stating, Isaac's methods WORK. Want to show that they don't? You'll need something better than opinion with which to do it.

James

Hello Matt23z,

Re: "Isn't the purpose of rectification finding an accurate chart on which to base future predictions?"

Not exclusively. They also help us to understand about past events.

At any rate, looking at celeb charts is good as a learning/training tool. This should be obvious (and I thought it was) to all astrologers.

I don't know personally of a single astrologer who hasn't used famous people and events in order to hone their skills. THAT is the practical use in it, better astrology.

Again, we dance all around the topic while not getting close to it.

Topocentric Primary Directions are ideal for chart rectification. Prove that statement false. Find one of Isaac's rectifications, find a "better" time and show how it's better. At that point, we have something real to talk about. I mean, the ultimate proof that a certain birthtime is NOT the correct one, would be to find a better time that better fit the events of the life.

Your comment about waiting "...a fortnight until I died before he passed judgement" is full of drama but doesn't have any relevance to the topic.

Where does this "fortnight" come into it? There has to be SOME life lived in order to do ANY rectification from any method. Can you RECTIFY an infant's chart before he has his 2nd experience? (birth being the first) If not, then we have to take events and slide the birthtime around until it "fits." That is what Polaris does...it does the sliding around FOR US and uses Topocentric Primary Directions, which change relatively quickly and have rich, reliable symbolism. Additionally, the program uses secondary progressions and lunar cycles to help confirm the correct birthtime. (At any time in the program, you can go and SEE the Topocentric Primary Directions or Secondary Progressions to EACH Event!!! The bottom line is, it's a time-saving TOOL to help astrologers do what EACH of us should be doing... making sure the birthdata is correct and proceeding to utilize the best info available for our clients.)

How do you make sure that the birthdata you are using is correct, if you DON'T rectify? (In my experience, more birth certificates are OFF by more than a minute than are correct to the minute)

James

CentralScrutinizer wrote: By the way, I am not just arguing...I really am stating, Isaac's methods WORK. Want to show that they don't? You'll need something better than opinion with which to do it.

I'm no moderator, but your way to express IS arguing, and it offends myself.

Simply put, no retification method really "works" unless you land at least one prediction dead on, and preferentially, with enough details to grant it is really a prediction. Without the prediction, hindsight is purely guesstimate, even if it fits, you can not prove your point neither theoretically nor empiricaly. Astrology can and will commonly run away from the established "theoretical" perspective, also because it does not fit the general world view of today, but it can not run from the empirical one, since no world view will be very succesfull in denying our reality or what we perceive of it for a long time. You die even if you delude yourself that you will not. So is for everything that should come to pass.

Do some predictions with this method you say that work, publish then beforehand at least 5-10 times and we'll respect you. It's not up to us to prove it does work or not, it's YOUR method. So shove a proof up our face if you can (and please, a proof is much more than sicronizing events of PD with transpersonals in a chart) and do not try to oblige us to prove "it does not work", we have more important things to do. The onus is yours, not ours. Otherwise, I suggest you stay quiet or express yourself in a more polite way, like a newcomer should do (and try to read some older posts to see into what these arguments you refute are based. Actually, I think that if you wanna argue, at least read everything in the forum, like I did, except maybe the horary section, that's really too big and have some things that can be skipped).

And do not forget, philosophy is way more important to astrology than technique. Although technique can teach the underlying philosophy.

Tom wrote:

Second, Tom, Yuzuru...you have made it plain that there is some "resolve" amongst you that Isaac's methods do not work.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What I questioned in a much earlier post was the idea of rectification - Issac's or anyone else's. I did not aim it at Issac and no one else. For example, noting the time of MJ's death and then plotting a chart so that something happens on that date (ex post facto obviously) is not terribly impressive regardless of who does it.

Rumen Kolev did the same thing with JFK's chart. Knowing the precise time of the assassination, he then rectified that chart so that a Saturn direction occurred exactly on Nov 22 1963. That doesn't make the rectification correct or incorrect for that matter. Hindsight astrology is always easier to do than prediction.

Astrology simply isn't that precise. We wouldn't tell a native that he or she will marry on a partidcular day. We would give a much more broad prediction. If we won't predict to the instant with a known birth time, why should we rectify that way? Furthermore, if any method is that precise, prove it by taking a rectified chart and predict to the day a future event. That would be much more impressive.

Now if you wish to argue that rectification is not aimed at producing a birth time but rather a workable chart, fine. Dr. H made this argument many months before Issac came to this board, and it makes sense to me. Issac knows his stuff, in my opinion. I'm just not as enthralled with rectification as he is. We discussed Jackson's birth time over a month ago and with all the discussion no one predicted his death. We had one mention of a health issue, and it didn't come about as the result of a rectification or primary directions.

Tom

First, I posted my rectification for MJ on 11 June in this forum, so obviously his death wasn't in the list of the 30 events I used for rectification. Actually, the last event is from 2006. The fact that AFTER the rectification was published we can see such aspects for his death as cusp 8 conjunct MC orb 8 days, cusp 12 conjunct MC orb 8 days, Regressed Moon in opposition to Neptune orb 6 days, transit Pluto conjunct cusp 8 with orb of 30', NN and Neptune exactly on MC in the solar return-to use only the Radix- these should speaks for themselves.
I assume that because you saw my analysis only for his death you probably thought that I fixed the birth time to line up for his death only, but as James explained, better from me, I never use only one event and never use only one method. Written a full analysis for all the 30 events would be too long.
There are 2 groups of predictions:
A. The date is fixed ahead like elections, contest
B. No date is fixed ahead
I already mentioned several of my predictions, all belong to group A, such as the failure of Suzan Boyle (no astrologer even dared to predict failure), that John Kerry will be defeated in 2004 (99 percent predicted victory for him) but I assume that these doesn't impressed you and you like to see predictions from group B ? but "to the day" NO LESS! And if it will be within a range of 30 days is it will not be good enough for you?
In my post from 21 May I tried to explain why there is a great difference between rectification and prediction. These are not two-way, symmetrical direction. Everyone who ever try to perform predictions either type 1 or type 2 know how it is difficult! It is not a piece of cake.
After reading a lot of the posts by you, GR, Steven, Pen, Kirk, Yuzuru,- I don't remember that I saw any rectification or any prediction. If I'm wrong ? correct me. Of course it is much easier to criticize other's work than to perform rectification and prediction.
I already published in this forum and in Tyl forum some predictions from group B, but we have to wait until Oct 2009 or until Nov 2010.
The only prediction that I saw is by Matt: he predicted that Gordon Brown would be forced to resign up to 26 June. I predicted that he will not resign.
By the way: I never predict death.

James, kindly take the trouble to read my posts on the MJ birth time thread before you accuse me of being irrelevant.

matt23z wrote:Isn't the purpose of rectification finding an accurate chart on which to base future predictions? Looking at celeb charts is a good training exercise but what practical use is it? If I went to a real astrologer and expressed concerns about my health I would not be impressed if he waited a fortnight until I died before he passed judgement.

Matt

Sorry Matt, I was very busy with my clients' charts- they are paying to me!