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!

No problem Isaac, If I ever get good at this I will put paying clients first too!

Matt

Sorry I missed your previous post. I would certainly not ask an astrologer to predict death but health issues,although legally a problem are not an ethical one. From memory my prediction about Brown was that he would be out of office by 25th june. I was wrong ,demonstrably so. Last weekend he admitted that he felt like resigning and on Monday respected political commetator Trevor Kavanagh declared that he was leader in name only and that others were pulling the strings.

Had I been a little more vague and symbolic in my words I could be now claiming a success