I didn?t see the call to move the comments yesterday; and to be honest I would find it hard to know where to cut into this discussion; and it is always risky when we try to move posts, because they might get deleted instead.
But at this point the discussion of SR does seem to be taking over the topic, and I would like to see the focus brought back to this example chart. So perhaps if anyone wants to continue talking about this particular point, they should begin a new thread, and I will create a link to this.

Regards
Deb

Pressing events have kept me from more than a few momentary peeks at the thread for the past several days.

Isaac Starkman wrote: Deb told us that the data is came from a relative, but we don't know if the birth time is recorded or maybe a rectification, and of course without any events no rectification or verification is possible.

The above may be the most meaningful statement in this entire thread. It is acknowledged by astrologers around the world that a verifiable recorded time of birth is a fundamental principle of astrology, essential to setting up an accurate birth chart and all of its derivatives, yet the statement received no acknowledgment nor elicited any response from anyone. I daresay most, if not all participants, are aware that birth times are not recorded on English birth certificates. I respectfully submit that the birth data may be regarded as DD (Dirty Data) according to the Rodden Rating System and hope that this post will be taken as commentary on the data source as we are aware of it at this time..

With that in mind and weighing one singular instance of apparent failure against thousands upon thousands of progressed lunar returns with successful results, whether using natal or mundane charts, I returned to the demi-anlunar return before the event and rectified to a birth time which produced an appropriate progressed return for it.

This time scored well with natal, progressed natal, solar and lunar return, when all were compared against each other and transits.

Bob

The above may be the most meaningful statement in this entire thread.

Then what a waste of time the whole thing has been.

I really cannot see your purpose in making this comment now, since all of this was explained very clearly, right at the start, in the preliminary thread which you yourself commented upon and agreed to.

Deb wrote:I have an unpublished chart for an ordinary (ie non-celebrity) man who went missing. ? I was given his birth data from a close relative.

I obviously can't release details about this man?s identity, but what we have here is a known time of birth (presumed to be reasonably accurate) and the knowledge of when the man died.

So if anyone had this objection they should have spoken up then, not now. Or chosen not to participate. The whole point of having the preliminary thread was to ensure that anybody who had any kind of problem with the criteria of this, could speak up first, and not wait to denounce the thing at the end.

This was not dirty data because it was given to me by close relative and it is obviously accurate because it is timed to the minute ? not the half hour; plus as far as I?m concerned it has been proven to be accurate by the contributors who noted the valid connections. Now, the situation was all explained in advance, with the informal and private nature of the data explained too. Nothing is intended to go into any kind of official collection and so the Rodden dating system is as irrelevant as a comment which questions the reliability of the data now.

FWIW:

The event chart shows AS = PL and MC = MA/SA=UR/PL meaning an explosive moment at that time in Weipa. When I looked for connection to the victim's chart, AS is conjunct natal MA/SA, but MA/SA=UR/PL is not linked to any significant natal point.

After noticing the accident UR/PL located at 22 Cap 44 is more than 1d 30' separated from an opposition to natal Asc located at 20 Can 58, a thought occurred to me: what if there is a transcription error in the recording or transmission of birth data and 6:31 is actually 6:41? When I looked at the directions for the time of the accident with the birth time of 6:41, the results were stunning:

Solar arc directed MA/SA opposition natal Asc (exact!) and
Solar arc directed MC sesquisquare natal Uranus (exact!)
Accident UR/PL(station) opposition natal Asc(orb 4')

i.e. the directions that I noticed for years 2000 and 2004(for 6:31) converged in April of 2002.

A thought occured to me too. What if that midpoint was not the critical factor? What if it was not the time that was wrong, but you?

From the opening post of this thread:

I was told that the data was reliable so I had no reason to consider rectification, and didn?t ask for details of other life-events for the purpose of rectification.

Everything was explained at the start, and I very much doubt that the last two posts would have been made if the times offered by those contributors had come closest to the event. Since I've already gone over this, explaining how everyone had the option to query the data at the start, or to choose not to participate, I'll delete any further posts that argue for alternate data. Speculating now on connections that might have been made to a different chart to that which was used, is not only pointless, but bad form.

Deb

Hello,

I assumed that since the data came from Deb, that it was in some sense "verified" to be correct...as correct as CAN be or at least, CORRECT ENOUGH for this "challenge." In short, I accepted it in good faith.

I am convinced the birthtime is correct enough to "solve" the challenge and it was a mighty big question, "here is someone's birthdata and some background; now, when is it likely that they died?"

I find the Challenges and everyone's "methods" very interesting. I think they're productive. The problem comes in when it becomes Astrology as Competition, then there are emotions and egos deeply tied to the whole experience. Still, there's no way around it....so the hope is always that everyone is as mature as they each, individually (redundant, for emphasis), can be.

Deb, please don't let a few naysayings keep you away from this exciting and productive method of learning.

I do hope that you give some examples with a relatively verified birthtime AND at least a dozen events, so that everyone can rectify to their own heart's content and to the levels of security they need to be confident. I think that it could prove interesting what final rectifications various people come up with... and with some "extra" Events some particular methods are likely to stand out as most effective in "highlighting the future". We all could learn a lot or at least some could learn a little... Of course, it could just turn into a giant pissing contest, but that has its own entertainment value as well.

Peace

TMC

Thanks TMC

I tried to make the point a couple of times that there is a limit to what I know myself, and I cannot tell anyone more than I do know, but what I know has been reliably recorded and honestly shared.

Deb

This is the first chance I have had to get back to this topic since last week and just wanted to make a few follow-up comments.

to Steven on the Hyleg/Alchocoden.

No matter what the Hyleg is, I have less qualms about considering an angular planet as the Alchocoden. Referring to Bonatti, Dykes translation, pp. 1135-1136, Bonatti says to consider angular planets in the 1st or 10th, within 3 degrees before or 5 degrees after, as a participator with the hyleg whether he has dignity or not in the place of the hyleg. That?s why I chose Saturn as the Alchocoden. Besides placement in the 10th, Saturn is oriental, rules the term/bound of the Moon, is the in-sect malefic, and is within 25 days of its first station (not 7 days which would qualify it in a phasis condition (see footnote 120, page 1136) but still getting close. Saturn gives his 57 major years, less Mars? 15 minor years, net is 42. Native lived less. I also suggested that since the prenatal Syzygy was an eclipse that in my experience the rules for longevity are often wrong and implied that for those cases eclipses would likely involved in timing death. Native did die during a nodal return when eclipses returned to the Gemini-Sagittarius axis.

Your observation that the Moon loses power in the 30th degree is insightful; the Ascendant/Mars Hyleg/Alchocoden combination leads to the correct longevity projection of 66-30 = 36 years. It?s not something I would have chosen at the outset. As you pointed out, Mars is placed in the sign of his own triplicity and tightly aspects the Ascendant (tighter than Saturn). Though Mars is the out-of-sect malefic and is conjunct the IC (not as strong as the MC as far as angles go), he functions as the empirical Alchocoden.

I think either Saturn or Mars as giver of years has its merits; this is a good example of mixed testimonies encountered in real life chart examples. And at the end of the day, either choice indicates an early death by the Hyleg/Achocoden method which is really what the exercise was designed to test.

to Martin on Primaries and the Sun as Hyleg.

As you point out the ?converse direction of the Ascendant? moves to the square of Mars very close to the time of the accident. There are similar directions of the Ascendant to the square of Saturn, depending on the choice of latitude, which fall in the year before or the year following the accident. I mention the possibility of the converse direction of the Ascendant to the square of Saturn because in the 2001 solar return, Saturn falls 2 degrees from the 4th cusp and by definition is in mundane square to the Ascendant (Kirk?s observation). Considering Morin?s rule that a direction is felt more strongly when it agrees with the solar return, this would be a good example of Morin?s rule since the ASC square Saturn direction would mirror the ASC square Saturn by mundane position in the return.

On the quandary of accepting the Sun as the Hyleg given the fact that at death transiting Saturn afflicted the Sun more closely than any other Hylegical point (by partile conjunction), you are probably aware of this direction by Ptolemy?s method: sinister trine Saturn d. => Sun for 28-May-2002. A bit late but close. So do we take the Ascendant or the Sun as the empirical Hyleg? Basically I don?t think it matters. You could also just consider the collective influence of the Ascendant moving by primary direction to set off the Saturn-Mars opposition as well as the Saturn-Sun direction just mentioned as forming a ?train of directions? which kill. I would also refer to comments on another thread made by Steven concerning the variety of rules which exist concerning the Hyleg doctrine. For instance, I have often found that the in cases when the Moon is not the ?official? Hyleg that it is often afflicted at the time of death because the Moon is a significator of the physical body. Same thing with other Hylegical points including the Part of Fortune.

The POF as a Hylegical point for this nativity is an interesting example of what I am talking about. Falling in the cadent 3rd house of the natal, the POF is ruled out as a hylegical point. But consider the following recapitulations of the POF-Saturn hard aspect found in the natal chart. For the 2001 solar return, POF recapitulates is natal sign, falls on the 8th cusp of death, and is partile square Saturn! For the event date and time, POF also recapitulates its natal sign and is square both Saturn and the Nodes! So even though the POF is ruled out as the Hyleg because by theory it falls in a cadent house (not to mention the figure is of the diurnal sect); the POF is nonetheless a Hylegical point and appears to offer testimony on the native's death because the natal affliction from Saturn was recapitulated in the return prior to death as well as at the time of the accident.

Congratulations again to Aquastella. Nice to see the 90 degree dial and solar arc directions at work. Why is why I continue to use solar arcs along side primaries.

And thanks to Deborah for a great exercise!

RegulusAstrology wrote:you are probably aware of this direction by Ptolemy?s method: sinister trine Saturn d. => Sun for 28-May-2002. A bit late but close.

That was indeed the direction I wrote about in my first post. Traditionally it would have been called 'Sun to the trine of Saturn by direct motion'. It was been preceded by Sun to square of the Moon by converse motion and followed by Sun to the sextile of Mars by direct motion.

Hello

In Regiomontanus mundane directions, Ptolemy key, with Morinus software, I find the following directions :

- Saturn direct sesquiquadrate Mars - 2002-04-01

- Pluto direct trine Saturn - 2002-04-19

Knowing that Saturn, Mars and Pluto all three square the Sun in the natal chart and Saturn is lord 8th, I find these directions meaningful.

Regards

I also accepted the given time as correct or nearly so because it came from Deb.

But after submitting it to a technique which had been correct in thousands and thousands of cases over decades using very tight orbs and having it not even come close to an appropriate chart for an answer I was faced with ignoring thousands upon thousands of successful endeavors in favor of 1 unsuccessful result.

Those decades of work and thousands of charts may be seen as research as well as successful attempts. No ego was involved here, just the scales of reality. What would any of you have done? Am I to believe you would have ditched decades of successful research in light of the results in 1 case?

I am not trying to start anything here but why is everybody getting in a huff because a preponderance of the evidence when a very successful technique is applied to a chart leads me to believe that the given time was probably in error? Who is it that can't stand to be questioned? This is 1 case being measured against thousands.

Nobody here has, to my knowledge, taken the minimal amount of time necessary to learn and apply the technique to charts with verified recorded birth times and seen the extremely accurate results I have never failed to see and without being aware of its history, dismiss its veracity. Ego and close mindedness may also exist in the camp which only sees techniques viable because they have been in existence for a long time. I have seen where all of those techniques have failed to work consistently, something I have yet to see with progressed lunar returns.

That never in bold above means success every time. I am not afraid to make the statement nor have it tested.

Bob

UA, does that mean that in those thousands of cases you have absolutely rock-solid verified AAA by whatever your standard is birthtime data? It seems pretty unlikely.

Deb stated everything in the first post. If you object, then you might want to simply withdraw your participation instead of arguing about it after the fact.