matt23z wrote:Doc,

I checked in the ephemeris and it was true node.Good question though. It had occured to me too.

I got the idea from Ronald Davison's "Technique of Prediction" If you know the exact birthtime you can predict something will happen after (or rarely before) an eclipse if it falls at say, the degree of the asendant. By treating this like an equation you reverse it by going back from the incident to the previous eclipse. When I looked at the 1hr35 I was convinced "This is it!" and posted. I had avoided reading other posts up until then but when I saw someone else had put 1hr24 to 1hr35 I looked again and wasn't sure if I had applied my idea consistently but I am pleased nonetheless.

Matt

Sorry Matt, but your credibility is at stake. Dr. H. and I asked for details how you got your rectified time. If you can't explain how you got the time it will raised a suspicion that you obtained the time through non-astrological way, such as the Internet. It is enough to google 2 dates, 19/05/1976 and 18/01/1979 and within second you got the article and the answer.

yuzuru wrote:This is the answer to the Mystery Rectification Chart

If you don?t want to know the final answer, please, don?t read further.

The original test was published by the astrologer Alexey Dodsworth in the link below:
http://www.constelar.com.br/revista/edi ... cacao1.php
and
http://www.constelar.com.br/revista/edi ... cacao1.php



The time of birth as measured by the astrologer - 19.8.1966, 1h38m10s AM - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 22s54, 43w15.

The Birth certificate had a time of 2 AM, if you like it better.

Very thanks for everybody who played, and I hugely appreciate your participation and the considerable amount of effort that member of this forum invested in this question.

Best regards to all, and I hope the exercise has been a good learning experience.

Yuzuru: it was very unwise to publish a test that one can easily find out the answer in the Internet and you even lead everyone to the info that it was in an astrological magazine, which would make one think that it might be Googleable.

Isaac,

Your credibility is at stake. I do not need to cheat to beat you.

Matt

Hi, Isaak

I discussed this with Deb, and we concluded that the test may possibly be found, but not easily, so the person would need a concious will to deceive.

I think that two important components of a community are trust and maturity. If any person was trying to find the real date just to show off on skyscript, I would say that this person has more issues than just astrological

But I don?t think that was the case, and I trust all forum member have enought maturity to play a test at fair game. At any case all of this was already discussed on my first post, so there is nothing much we can do right now.

Best regards to all.

RegulusAstrology wrote:But keep in mind the developers of the Trutine of Hermes technique (Babylonian, Hellenistic, Medieval), probably had few or no clients at those high latitudes. It's quite possible that a technique like this simply fails at extreme latitudes.

You could be right. Perhaps there is also something that 'weakens' the Ascendant at higher latitudes.

Calculating the conception for natal Moon = conception Ascendant I got 2:23:02 AM 11 november 1965, this gives a Conception Ascendant of 27?4'Virgo, so too far off the natal Moon position. For natal Ascendant = conception Moon I got 2:43:59 AM. Here conception Moon is 14?55'30" Gemini.

Playing a bit with the charts looking for an exact trutina moment (if this is possible/necessary) and with 1:39:05 I got a very close Ascendant 14?55' Gemini and Moon 4?05' Libra.

But I don't think this is necessary to do. Perhaps there is something like a wave pattern and most likeable moments of trutina related birthtimes but probably it doesn't exactly occur at the peak moments.

Hello Yuzuru, Matt, Isaac,

(Oh bloody hell, it's for everybody)

Don't misinterpret what Isaac seems to be saying. He doesn't appear to be saying that Matt "cheated" by looking the information up on the internet. That would be assuming facts not in evidence.

What he DOES appear to be saying is that, IF MATT DOESN'T SHOW HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE TIME, THEN IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT HE EITHER 1) CAN'T or 2) WON'T. IN EITHER CASE, IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF FINGERTIP ACCESS TO SO MUCH INFO, IF YOU CAN'T/WON'T SHOW *HOW* YOU DID IT (ie. THE ASTROLOGY), THEN WE ARE LEFT WITH THE QUESTION WHY?

As this is a learning Forum, (ie. we do these exercises so that we all can learn something), it is logical that someone who was able to post an accurate birthtime (+/- 3 mins) from three events, should also somehow be able to (as my Differential Equations teacher always demanded) "SHOW YOUR WORK."

Re: "But I don?t think that was the case, and I trust all forum member have enought maturity to play a test at fair game."

On a Forum where Topics/Threads are occasionally locked (etc.) because of various "troublemakers", I don't think that you have reached a reasonable conclusion. In other words, IF we ALL were so mature and trustworthy that all postings can be assumed genuine, then it follows that we're all too trustworthy and mature to leave any posts that need to be deleted, users barred, topics locked, etc. It can't be both ways, see?

I made a really silly error...and though I had a very WRONG answer, I can certainly show you HOW I ARRIVED AT IT.

Someone just pulled a rabbit out of a hat, as this is not a magic show where it is EXPECTED, I have to stand next to Isaac and ask, "how did you do that?"

How is that NOT reasonable?

If there's not SOME type of explanation or demonstration, then I, personally, will have the conclusion that it was bogus.

Central Scrutinizer

Just to say, that I tried to cheat at this test, and failed at my attempt to cheat. And I am quite good at getting information off the internet if it is there. I was concerned about this at the start which is why I did the cheat test for myself.

Yes, technique is important, and the ability to explain the technique - but let's not put too much importance on this one trial experiment. This is an opportunity for posters to experiment with systems under the semi-nervous conditions of anxiety brought about by not knowing an answer which will shortly be revealed. It is not designed to make or break reputations. At the start Yuzuru and I were both doubtful about whether there would be any real interest in the experiment. Now that we know how useful and interesting it proved to be we can repeat it with improvements. But always, the onus here should be about learning techniques and calculations and trying them out for *personal* satisfaction and discovery. No one's credibility can be undermined here, because this forum is only a playground for lively discussion.

Deb

Hello Deb,

Thanks that you try to "clear the air" so to speak.

You mentioned that you had tried to "cheat" and failed and that you are quite good at getting information off the internet (if it is there).

I typed in "astrologia 19/05/1976 18/01/1979" in Google. It gives one relevant link. That link takes you directly to the article!!! (Constelar, "Bruno" rectification... it took 30 seconds tops)

Nice, you ARE....Sherlock Holmes, you are NOT.

Cheating at this is actually easier than sitting in the back of the class next to the school wizkid and looking off the neighbor's paper while the instructor reads a book. (Because, in that scenario, there's at least the POTENTIAL of getting caught while cheating. On the internet, there's no potential for getting caught unless you, ahem, can't show your work.)

Please, whatever the motivations behind the "challenge" or whether it is for personal learning, etc.; I request that in the future, no instantly-Googleable information is used. Then, there can be no real question.


Thanks!


Central Scrutinizer

Well let me ask - did you do that before or afterwards? At the start of the thread there was no reason I could think of to type that particular phrase into Google. Then again, I only ever try to cheat in English, so I admit to being instantly stumped if the search term relies on other languages.

But I *do* agree with you. I think it is important that the information is not available on the internet. It has stopped me from contributing to some of the mystery chart threads, because the information has been too easy to find via Google. But all the moderators are aware of the problem and are trying to find ways to improve the challenges - whilst not trying to turn them into scientific studies! I said to Yuzuru at the start of this that I would like to offer a thoroughly robust test and add to the fun by offering a prize, so maybe that's something to think about. In the meantime I don't think that anyone's integrity should be questioned here; not least because the people involved strike me as being thoroughly deserving of their credibility. I didn't know the answer myself and wasn't able to contribute any meaningful thoughts as I became far too busy, but I'm sure I would have been completely wrong because this is a very hard challenge. Let those who did well enjoy their moment - we wil get them next time

Hello Deb,

Thank you again that you spend the energy to reason this out and the time to comment on it.

I admit that I typed it in AFTERWARDS, ...I think it obvious that going for a VASTLY WRONG answer surely demonstrates that I didn't look it up beforehand... LOL There was no INVESTIGATION, though. I thought Yuzuru would probably have gotten it from a Portuguese periodical, so put Astrologia instead of Astrology...but really, it was child's play to find the article.

I noticed the same type problem on Noel Tyl's Forum. (An excellent forum, I am not trying to demean the forum!) Noel put up a chart for the users to synthesize. The wording of some of the example answers made it obvious that there were people that KNEW who it was, which of course, NEGATES any delineation, in terms of blind reading a chart. [If 15 people make a try at it, seeing an anonymous chart, they can be EXCELLENT astrologers and have hits and misses. Another user, who KNOWS who it is, can seem BRILLIANT without even looking at the chart.]

We sure are talking a lot back and forth about something that could so easily be solved by Matt, in good faith, posting his methodology.

By the way...prize or no prize...I absolutely LOVE the idea that perhaps you make another (real) challenge and see how everyone does. In some sense, it can be a real confirmation for astrology as well.

Do it. (Please...no less than 12 Events, though. I am bald already and would have to use tweezers to pull out any more hair!)

One last thing, you said, "No one's credibility can be undermined here, because this forum is only a playground for lively discussion."

In that case, please leave a post that you feel "Uranus is the obvious, eternal, sole ruler of Aquarius". Let me know if you get any EMails from colleagues asking if you've lost your bloody mind.

Central Scrutinizer

This has become a very entertaining thread indeed

This test has demonstrated that astrologers who make claims of arriving at a unique time for a given set of events in the life of a person are full of hot air. If a person is taking pains to arrive at a time measured to the nearest second and if the actual birth time differs from the rectified time by more than 2 minutes it has to be considered a huge error and no amount of "came within 15 minutes" cries will change the fact of failure. After all the need for a rectified time is to aid future predictions and if the techniques that will be used for prediction produced such errors what good are they?

I am glad now I did'nt post the time 1:37:15(when URANUS was exactly sesquisquare AS/MC) as it would have produced lingering doubts of cheating. I concentrated on the times when MC opposed Uranus-Pluto conjunction and when AS squared them and found the latter time had much better hits. Still, it is nice to know that my initial premise that Uranus has to be involved prominently has been vindicated.

I think Mark had a couple of post explaining what he was doing with regards to rectifying the figure, though he didn't post all his 'scratch paper', if you will. Is this what people are complaining about? Doesn't seem to merit it ...