i couldn't agree more with juan in his post here. thanks for saying all that and sharing your particular views here juan!

i also agree strongly with pauls 920am response as well.

Juan wrote:

Paul wrote:I'm curious in practice just how different the two would be if we don't rectify the chart (which arguably suits one system over another).

This is an important point. No matter how you put it, rectification is the fine-tuning of a horoscope to a specific system, not only of houses and primary arcs of direction, but also of the way of converting arc into time, as well as of all other idiosyncratic elements of that particular system. The more choices are implied, the more any assertion about the accuracy of the system becomes circular, fallacious, and non-comparable.

For example: in addition to several possible "keys" to convert arc into time, directions can be in mundo or in zodiaco, they can be according to Regiomontanus, Campanus, Placidus, etc., the Moon can be geocentric or topocentric (parallax), it can be adjusted to its own motion during the time of the direction (dynamic or "primary progression").

Add to this the proliferation of factors such as the semi and sesqui-square and the quincunx, aspects to other house cusps, rapt parallels...

The more "rectified" a birth time is, the more it is entrenched and forced into the idiosyncracies of a particular technique and of a particular astrologer. It is therefore a fallacy to assume that rectification represents a "closing in" of the true or correct time of birth.

Juan

Hello Paul,

Re: "This is, for me, making the conclusion before doing the investigation."

It's not the foregone conclusion, however it most certainly is the expectation. Relevant in understanding my perspective is that I've done this "Topocentric vs. Placidus" examination before with tightly-timed charts. (in one study, I checked 8 different House systems, made easier at the time by a special function inside of Kepler software, which I no longer use)

In other words, if I open up a pack of matches and light 20 of them in a row and we start talking about that 21st match...it would be understandable for me to say "when the 21st match lights". We don't know that it will light, but we certainly have a precedent, so it's expected lighting is understandable. As I've already done the "Topocentric vs. Placidus" comparison TWICE before (more than 30 charts total with multiple events analyzed), I must admit that I am biased into believing that a subsequent examination will behave similarly to the first two.

Re: "We need to first examine if the claim that rectifying by Topocentric does indeed produce the 'right' birth time."

This has been demonstrated. I have done (rectification) work for other Astrologers. When entering a few events in Polaris (which uses SOLELY Topocentric Houses) and watching the software hone in on a well-documented birth time, it doesn't (to me) leave that many questions. If we forget about the intricacies of Polaris for one moment and just imagine it to be this "black box" wherein events are fed in and a birth time is spit out; then we can focus on its performance instead of hanging on any philosophical/procedural problems. In other words, every single person that said that an airplane is too heavy for powered flight, was completely marginalized in their opinion, the very minute said plane took to the skies. When I (among many, many, many tests of Polaris) entered in 3 events from astrologer Ken Haining's life and the software immediately deduced his birthtime (out of 1440 possible minutes in the day, ie. 1439:1 odds against!), then any perceived problems with the program are just that, perceptions. Again, in other words, talking the talk, never trumps walking the walk. I don't know your mathematical background, so forgive me if I am presumptive, but picture the odds for a moment. Each and every single time that Polaris produces a well-documented birthtime (out of a 24 hour day) based solely on the input of events, then that is a probability of 1/1440. (1440 being the number of minutes in a day) Now, since EACH instance of this is mutually exclusive (ie. different event dates, different time of day), that means that the cumulative probability is found by multiplying the individual probabilities.
This means that (in the average State Lottery) you are 238,878 times more likely to win a State Lottery* (by chance with a single ticket) than for Polaris to just luck into finding the right birth time four times (ie. doing it strictly by chance)

Re: "With no objective way of discovering the right birth time all we're left with is to deduce a time which corresponds best to a set of events. The time we get from this may not be the correct birth time."

True; however, astrology depends on the idea that there WILL be appropriate astrology at the time of major events. The converse of this is also true... if we have a birth time and it does not generate appropriate astrology, then it can't be the right birth time.

Let's detour for one second, since you brought up Rodden-AA rated charts. Do a survey of the entire database and you will see drastically more birth times listed as x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 than other times. Now, unless you want to put forth that people actually ARE born more often on the even 15 minutes (absurd!), then it is obvious, just from what is given, that most of those times have to be off by at least a minute than can be correct.

Re: "If we use Placidus cusps perhaps we'll get the right birth time when we do it with events against those cusps - especially bearing in mind my point that in a lot of cases (not all obviously there are fringe cases to any examination) they will be very similar."

Polaris' methodology applied with Placidus cusps does not zero in on documented birth times. Nothing else to say on this point.

Re: "We cannot realistically compare Placidus and Topocentric whilst favoring Topocentric by rectifying a chart using it."

Well, yes and no. If we have two rectifications, one based on Topocentric and the other based on Placidus, then I don't see how they couldn't be compared point-by-point for appropriate aspects to appropriate (intermediate) cusps for each event. Again, using a well-documented birth time seems like the ideal approach. (Neil Armstrong, anyone?) [Let's just use 12:31:30, the documented time and I can list the appropriate aspects using Topocentric. Anyone else that has the interest/ability/inclination can do a similar study using the Placidus cusps. My assertion...the Topocentric ones will way and above have tighter orbs than the Placidus ones. This is a time-consuming, but relatively easy, statistical survey to do...]

Re: "I doubt, however, that realistically speaking there will be any major difference in a given secondary progression will be noticeable based on a timing difference of a couple of minutes..."

A timing difference of two minutes is 0? 30' on the Midheaven. In a measurement system that works within 0? 11' we won't see a major difference if there is a 0? 30' error on the placement of the angles/cusps??? If you're two minutes off (in time), then what exactly were you hoping to find in the Primaries and Secondaries? Any error of 44 seconds (or more) will take the "real" aspects in effect at the time of the event and disappear those right off the aspect list and replace the true aspects with bogus aspects based on this (given) bogus birth time.

Re: "- do you progress to house cusps?"

Yes. The "sensitivity" of intermediate House Cusps is exactly what the whole survey is based upon. Without this sensitivity, there would be no way to really determine which cuspal positions are the better. Additionally, don't forget that we progress the house cusps as well. (though by right ascension, not longitude... I hope I don't have to explain this point as well)

Re: "Regarding Armstrong, and by extension all charts, I do not believe for one moment that anyone can accurately record the time of a baby's birth - for one thing people time it differently."

On the one hand, you are suggesting using Rodden-AA data, which can be mathematically (and quickly) shown to be grossly in error in the main and yet, someone sitting there watching the clock's second-hand and documenting the time becomes an obvious problem?

Re: "Secondly I am not familiar with any mother or midwife who keeps a perfectly accurate watch or clock such that it is accurate to within seconds."

Correct...it appears to have been between 2 and 4 seconds in error. Not bad, relatively speaking.

Re: "Would the real time please stand up?"

Yes, but on those grounds, no examination is possible. Why are we not contemplating with proceeding along the most logical lines. We have a tightly-defined birth time that appears to be correct to only a couple of seconds... this appears to be the best that we have at the moment. In other words, other than Neil Armstrong, do you have a better suggested chart to use?

Re: "...but again we'd have to do it on the topocentric rectified chart and also on the placidus rectified chart. Otherwise we are not making an intellectually honest comparison."

I have NO problem with the Placidus chart being rectified, based on Placidus cusps. Still, I would love to wager as to which one will consistently have the tighter orbs. When both are held to the same constraints, it seems fair.

Re: "We can then further look at what you say about secondary progressions also corresponding..."

And should because that is one of the very main features... rectify with the Primary Directions and (seemingly) miraculously, the cusps are suddenly in the exact right places for corresponding Secondary Progressions.

Re: "If we start with a foregone conclusion that topocentric is the best rectification then we have already made our conclusions before we even start to investigate."

We're not starting with that foregone conclusion, only *I* am. I've already done this with well-documented times which were confirmed. Across the board, Placidus introduces more accumulative error in order to tie into the appropriate astrological aspects.

Re: "The whole point (at least for me) isn't to necessarily demonstrate one house as superior to the other..."

I understand that we do differ on this point. On something like this, the collectivist-style approach (every house system has something wonderful to offer) is a Neptunian dream of confusion and obfuscation. My whole point in this discussion is that the cusps actually ARE in some particular defined place. My contention is that Topocentric (when using the correct birth time) is that particular, defined place and all the other house systems are arrows congregated AROUND the bulls-eye, some closer than others, but none touching the Topocentric arrow.

Re: "Will there really be that much difference?"

It depends on which systems are being used. If you're trying to use Progressed Sidereal Solar Return aspects (as an example), then a Rodden-AA, non-rectified birth time, using Placidus houses will perform on a par with a randomly chosen birth time. In other words, "will there really be that much difference?" can only be answered with "that depends on how particular and precise the observer is." If we're using sloppy birth times, non-rectified, and mostly considering it using Transits, then many birth times will APPEAR to work. [Just look at how many astrologers rectify celebrity charts and arrive at different conclusions to their peers.] Hopefully, you can see that if you're forcing agreement among Primary Directions, Secondary Progressions, Progressed Sidereal Solar Returns, and Age Harmonics that there is less chance of these all being in agreement with particular cusps, than if we're only looking at it from the perspective of a single system. If you don't see this, then we have to have another discussion strictly on statistics and probability.

Re: "Or is it just that the apparent success is due to reformatting the entire chart to suit one particular house system due to rectifying via that house system."

Again, rectifying with Primary Directions (based on ROTATION) and having those same exact cusps confirmed with Secondaries (based on REVOLUTION) bypasses the particulars of the rectification, since the rectification system and the dynamic system used in the analysis are completely different.

Re: "The point about secondary progressions is interesting but as I say I'm skeptical to what level accuracy we might expect from the secondary progressions..."

Appropriate astrological aspects acting within an orb of 0? 11' for all planets, except the Moon, which works a bit wider. If you're less skeptical than that, you will be right... if you're more skeptical, you will be wrong.

Re: " ...and again the only true comparison is with a placidus rectified chart versus a topocentric rectified chart"

As I've said...I really have no problem with that. Still, best is to use a tightly-defined (time-wise) birth chart which has shown to be correct in the Angles... then we can start hammering back and forth about those intermediate house cusps, which is what we are ultimately looking at when we start comparing Placidus to Topocentric, since the Angles are the exact same in both systems.

Take care and thanks for taking the time...

James

Hello Juan,

Thank you for your comments...

To me, you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Rather than think of this as 16 approaches that we have to hammer out, obviously making the whole examination over-whelming, might I suggest a slight paradigm shift.

Instead, consider that someone is putting forth that this one system is ideal... present that...and then leave the naysayers and THEIR time and effort to find a system that works better.

What appears as a mountain (the 16 approaches), quickly becomes navigable.

We still hang on one fundamental point...let me address that...

I am putting forth that rectification with Topocentric Primary Directions DOES lead to the correct birth time. It's perfectly okay that we disagree on this point.

My question then becomes... HOW is it possible then, for the mere entering of events into software to lead to a well-documented birth time? (this is easily demonstrable) Remember, the odds against Polaris lucking into the right minute is 1/1440 odds. [As an analogy... you have written the correct birth time on one single piece of paper and written bogus birth times on 1439 other pieces of paper and have put them all together in a large bag. Polaris has reached into that bag and pulled out that one piece of paper with the correctly written birthtime. Your response is (paraphrased) "that doesn't actually mean anything." My response is..."yes, it actually does, if you understand probability and statistics."]

Take care

James

Atlantean wrote: When I (among many, many, many tests of Polaris) entered in 3 events from astrologer Ken Haining's life and the software immediately deduced his birthtime (out of 1440 possible minutes in the day, ie. 1439:1 odds against!), then any perceived problems with the program are just that, perceptions.

Well this seems exceptional, and not the rule surely? I was given to understand you do not summarily deduce a birth time based on three events and no narrowed down window.

Another way of doing this test is to examine the rectification claims, though really I was hoping not to do this. We might for example get an anonymous but accurate time of birth, offer three events and let you deduce the time based on that with no further information given. This would be along the same style as you suggest to Juan about letting you prove your claim whilst leaving the naysayers to one side. I would be incredibly surprised if the Polaris software managed to do this. In fact I would even allow a 30 minute window to be an accurate hit in this system (much easier odds than the minute for minute odds you suggested). That would be 1 in 48 chance of being a hit - I still would doubt that 9 times in 10 it would work. I don't think it's possible in Placidus or any other house system either of course.

But if rectification is a fundamental tenet upon which your use of Topocentric houses rests, then I guess the only fair comparison is rectification by Topocentric vs rectification by Placidus.

True; however, astrology depends on the idea that there WILL be appropriate astrology at the time of major events. The converse of this is also true... if we have a birth time and it does not generate appropriate astrology, then it can't be the right birth time.

That is certainly one conclusion, the other is that astrology is not capable of this level of accuracy. Of course if you can truly narrow down the birth time accurately you will not have just proven your house choice, but you will have proven astrology works. This would be monumental. I understand you already believe this which is why you are, perhaps, so passionate about this subject.

I am by no means cynical, but I prefer to show healthy skepticism to any major claim like this - partially because a part of me desperately wants to believe it. Wanting to believe something is normally a warning bell for me to show some caution and skepticism.

Let's detour for one second, since you brought up Rodden-AA rated charts. Do a survey of the entire database and you will see drastically more birth times listed as x:00, x:15, x:30, and x:45 than other times.

Well this is sort of my point, I don't think anyone who documents a 'right time' is necessarily capable of measuring time correctly for something which may or may not be a single event, but rather a continuum of events. We have to choose a birth time but which one? Neil Armstrong's mother may have accurately (I doubt it but let's pretend) recorded the child's first breath, but she may instead of accurately recorded when the baby was fully delivered, or when the cord was cut. Which one is it? This idea of having a correct time to the very second seems a little too sensational to me because of that. The very fact that Neil Armstrong's mother says she's recorded it to the very second is actually what raises a question mark over the chart for me.

We use the Roden rating not because I believe the time is actually the REAL time of birth, but just because it is a time that is independent of any house system - ie has not been rectified to a time which may bias the test toward one system over another.

Polaris' methodology applied with Placidus cusps does not zero in on documented birth times. Nothing else to say on this point.

Well isn't this what we would like to examine? I actually was hoping to differentiate the house cusps based just on the natal chart, but if rectification is where the real claims lie then I guess we have to test that instead. So be it.

Let's just use 12:31:30, the documented time and I can list the appropriate aspects using Topocentric.

Well we can use Neil Armstrong's chart if you like. We would also have to agree upon what bodies/points to examine. Obviously the more we do the more chance our system (both of them) will be of showing some correlation. Maybe we could stick to the classical planets? Or should we include outers? How about arabic parts? Or TNOs etc.? Eventually we'll have enough included that it would more unlikely to NOT get some hits. Perhaps instead we need to see something that is symbolically meaningful - accidents with mars or uranus etc.

These are all things which would need considering. It wouldn't be very compelling for me if the test subject broke his arm and the only hit we get is venus conjunct the 5th house cusp or something. And for marriage having Uranus conjunct Chiron. The signification needs to be meaningful I would think.

But who determines what is meaningful?

A timing difference of two minutes is 0? 30' on the Midheaven. In a measurement system that works within 0? 11' we won't see a major difference if there is a 0? 30' error on the placement of the angles/cusps???

I'm not sure to what extent you use secondary progressions. I seldom expect them to demonstrate accuracy even down to a day let alone anything more than this. Even if we use an 11' min orb for a secondary progression, this is roughly a tenth of a degree, which could amount to a tenth of a year - just over month. Which is two months in total. Do you work with this level of accuracy?

With regards 'progressing' the angles or house cusps, I've always been a bit skeptical about this as well. Progressing a point means, being simplistic, converting one day with a year - but the angles and the points make a full circle within one day, so this would essentially mean that the MC would move about one degree every day, rather than one degree very year.

The only other way of doing this seems to be by directions, but surely that's something else right? It is not following along with the 'day for a year' logic. Now we really enter on the shaky ground that Juan highlights with regards the different methods of doing all this and different keys etc. Do we do consider the house cusps to be the real boundaries of the houses, what about latitude, do we direct in zodiac?

Out of interest what key is used in topocentric primary directions? It might be nice if someone like Martin Gansten lent their knowledge to this?

Unfortunately I do not have enough of a full grasp of these concepts but clearly we have differing thoughts and if we were to explore this it might be similarly interesting to experiment with keeping everything else the same but performing the directions using a different key, or using in mundo rather than in zodiac or vice versa, and then question whether doing something in mundo makes sense to use a zodiacal 'cusp' as the boundary of the house.

I don't know if I'm overthinking it, but at the same time if we want to compare two systems we need to keep everything else the same, but at the same time we need to accept that a lot of ingredients goes into this comparison and it may well be that changing one of those variables leads to better results with some other house system.

Yes, but on those grounds, no examination is possible.

Not really, we can still examine and compare and make deductions, what we cannot do is say "this is the 'right' time of birth" all we can say is that "the system I use corresponds very well to this time of birth". That may sound like just being pedantic, but the point is that some other system may correspond better and just as regularly to some other time of birth.

In other words, other than Neil Armstrong, do you have a better suggested chart to use?

I don't know yet, I'm more concerned with understanding the problem and defining the parameters through which any study might take place. We can surely find a subject once that's been done. If nobody has any reason to object to Armstrong then why not, though I wouldn't see that time as any more convincing than a time rounded to the nearest multiple of five minutes because of the reasons I gave above.

Take care and thanks for taking the time...

Thanks to you too James. I would like to caveat that I do not dismiss Topocentric houses in any way, though I am familiar (even if I do not fully understand) some of the arguments that have been employed against it, or the criticisms that those who use Topocentric have against Placidus. I think for me what's very interesting is that actually ignoring polar regions, in the majority of cases the two cusps are actually very close, and seeing as most of us do not have truly accurate birth time (it's almost impossible to do) I speculate that the apparent success might be down to rectifying a chart to suit a particular system and that this may work for other house systems. But I do not know, I have not done that study.

Atlantean wrote: Instead, consider that someone is putting forth that this one system is ideal... present that...and then leave the naysayers and THEIR time and effort to find a system that works better.

The only thing I would say on this is that the basic claim is probably more along the lines of "topocentric is more accurate than other house systems" and the only way to discover that is to also look at other systems.

But within that logic is also the idea that using this house system, with this key, with this form of directions, etc etc works better. But what about the same house system with the same key and a different form of directions?

Or what about saying okay, how about we change the house system and the key, and we get an even more accurate version than Polaris with topocentric?

It is not quite enough to just let Polaris do its thing and conclude "wow topocentric must be better than others" unless we actually also examine the others. And unfortunately, that may well mean several comparisons.

Otherwise our only conclusion would be that that Polaris gives an impressive result but we must remain agnostic as to whether that result could be improved by changing its variables, or indeed if another house system either with the same or altered variables performs better.

Atlantean wrote:To me, you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Finding a system of primaries that works best is not that complicated. But some of your assertions are much more complicated that you seem to believe. Those simplistic assertions is what my comments refer to.

Consider that someone is putting forth that this one system is ideal... present that...and then leave the naysayers and THEIR time and effort to find a system that works better.

You can demonstrate that a system works very well, very tight orbs for a specific event. There is no problem with that. But you are making some common assertions that are in my opinion unwarrated:

1) the rectified time is not necessarily the time of birth. You provide only anecdotical examples, but you know one can find similar examples of the opposite, and of all possibilities in-between.

2) Your results depend on the key to convert arc into time as well as on many other factors, not just the domification system.

3) You are working inside a small time-window defined apriori by the result that you are claiming to obtain.

I am putting forth that rectification with Topocentric Primary Directions DOES lead to the correct birth time. It's perfectly okay that we disagree on this point.

This is ok as a hypothesis. But if you don't add: "using naibod's arc and in zodiaco geocentric positions, ignoring the true motion of the planets during the time of the direction", I think you are distorting the truth. It is not the "topocentric primaries", but the combination of the choices mentioned. So things are more complicated than the way you present them.

My question then becomes... HOW is it possible then, for the mere entering of events into software to lead to a well-documented birth time? (this is easily demonstrable)

If it were so easily demonstrable, everybody would have adopted it already, many years ago.

I don't think your assertion is meaningful: how many "well documented" birth times to the minute (or seconds) do you think there are? According to what clock? The answer is very few. And where are the statistics?

It's OK if you present some good demonstration cases. But to go from this to making universal categorical statements of accuracy based on a simplification of the variables involved is a different matter.

Remember, the odds against Polaris lucking into the right minute is 1/1440 odds.

This is a challenge, quite an olympian one. How many events do you need? Anybody else reading this wants to accept the challenge besides me?

Juan

Atlantean wrote: Well, yes and no. If we have two rectifications, one based on Topocentric and the other based on Placidus, then I don't see how they couldn't be compared point-by-point for appropriate aspects to appropriate (intermediate) cusps for each event. Again, using a well-documented birth time seems like the ideal approach. (Neil Armstrong, anyone?) [Let's just use 12:31:30, the documented time and I can list the appropriate aspects using Topocentric. Anyone else that has the interest/ability/inclination can do a similar study using the Placidus cusps. My assertion...the Topocentric ones will way and above have tighter orbs than the Placidus ones. This is a time-consuming, but relatively easy, statistical survey to do...]

Neil Armstrong is from just over latitude 40N, his 8th cusp changes between systems by about 0?11'

I looked over Queen Alexandra quickly with this in mind, which was from 55N, the opportunities to show contrast are what counts.

I didn't use placidus intermediate cusps when I went over Armstrong. I'm mostly angle-ocentric.

I'm more interested in topocentric house information itself than comparing. Not blackboxed, but actually how to.

I can offer some guidelines for a potential comparison though. I think both the Placidus champ and the Topo champ would both rectify. If they agreed approximately(handful of minutes different) then a comparison could begin. But if they did not agree, it would be overly complex to compare. The implicit assumption being that smaller orbs are worth points.
----
http://astrowisdom.net/articles/in-sear ... system.htm

Instead of looking at the Earth from outer space, drawing Great Circles on it and dividing them in various ways as other house systems do, the Topocentric House System looks at the heavens from the point of view of someone standing at the location itself. With the location fixed in our reference frame, the Earth rotates around an axis parallel to the North-South Pole once in 24 hours. This time period is divided into 12 equal sections, and the house cusps are defined as the degrees of the zodiac that are ascending at each 2-hour interval?at different poles, or latitudes. There is also a different pole of the Ascendant for polar latitudes (more on this important topic in a future article). This feature is a key point in the Topocentric House System.

What is even more significant is that the astrologers who discovered this system did not do so by contemplating the celestial-terrestrial sphere and pondering how to divide it. They discovered it by experiment! For example, Mr. Polich recorded the exact time?to the second?of every single small event that happened every day for three weeks: when he awoke, when a letter arrived, when a visitor came. Without exception, every one of over 1,000 events occurred within one minute of the time of transit of the mundane Ascendent. Numerous similar tests were conducted.

------
http://www.freeconsiderations.com/magazine.shtml

Astro Speculum:
___RA__________De________MDO_______PHI_______OA/OD
JU 305?07'35" -20?18'57" 29?11'59" 21?09'02" 296?53'29"

It's not like I showed before. I thought MDO probably was an acronym for Meridian distance offset. PHI is a function of the MDO. Using PHI and the OA/OD to create the great circle:

If I set the Latitude to match PHI and the Longitude so the RA is equivalent to the OA/OD then the line hits JU much much better.

that white dot is JU, it is 0?46' south of the ecliptic for scale reference, the yellow line is the ecliptic, and the red line is the great circle created using Astro speculum data.

The curiousity still is why PHI would not be a function of the OA/OD. It's like deliberately out of focus. I could follow the red line back to the ecliptic to get an ecliptic longitude and it will match the value given by doing a primary direction to an age of zero.

But this is not the same as a topo house line like I showed I could(spherically), the kind used to calculate an ecliptic position. If I calculate that line, in this case the 4.98th house, and follow that line to the ecliptic the value will not match.

Presumably some hideous transformation through a cone is helping to create MDO?

Paul wrote: Out of interest what key is used in topocentric primary directions? It might be nice if someone like Martin Gansten lent their knowledge to this?

This is what I've got so far.

Naibod, backwards and forwards. Which has implications for the Morinus user.
(In Morinus I can set the AS, and MC as promissors(this then measures along the declination of that angle--I think Martin called this 'traditional converse' in his book) -- but I can't promitt the intermediate cusp(in morinus). And in Astro I can but not using the Placidus since it only operates using Topo. so there is a software gap in trying to compare ONLY the house system. The directional systems of our software are in the way too.)

set of 16 aspects. 0, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 150, 180
mundane, aspected from house lines to the ecliptic.

Hello Paul,

Re: "Well this seems exceptional, and not the rule surely?"

Correct. This is why I mentioned this specific person by name. My point, though, is that the algorithm, when it is able with just a very few events to go right to the person's documented birth time, this 1/1440 chance of success, having been realized, is a statement to the fundamental correctness of the algorithm.

Re: "I was given to understand you do not summarily deduce a birth time based on three events and no narrowed down window."

What you say is correct...normally, we have many, many more events (every event helps and is EQUALLY weighted in Polaris) and often we have a shortened search range due to knowledge of that person's "birth myth." (ie. "you were born right after Gilligan's Island started at 4 pm" --- negating any reason to consider times much before 4 pm or very long thereafter.)

Re: "In fact I would even allow a 30 minute window to be an accurate hit in this system (much easier odds than the minute for minute odds you suggested). That would be 1 in 48 chance of being a hit - I still would doubt that 9 times in 10 it would work. I don't think it's possible in Placidus or any other house system either of course."

With a 1 in 48 chance defeated for a single try, we must realize that if Polaris WERE to replicate the 9 out of 10 times that you mentioned that we are actually talking much steeper odds than Polaris getting the time to the right minute four times consecutively. On a skeptic site where we were discussing a similar test (they chickened out in the end), we had devised the idea of a 5 minute window, since that would take care of slightly incorrectly recorded birth times, while still maintaining relatively long odds. (1 in 288)

Re: "But if rectification is a fundamental tenet upon which your use of Topocentric houses rests, then I guess the only fair comparison is rectification by Topocentric vs rectification by Placidus."

Yes, this appears to only way to appease those that would assert that the rectification favored one particular house system (despite the majority of the rectification hinging on the angles which of course are the same for Topocentric or Placidus).

Re: "That is certainly one conclusion, the other is that astrology is not capable of this level of accuracy."

Astrology definitely is capable of that level of accuracy... it does require an accurate, very accurate, birth time though. [Think about something for one moment... if we have an approximate birth time, then of course the orbs of aspects at events should be larger (cumulatively) than if we have the exact birth time. Many authors have talked about Progressions (Secondaries) having orbs of like 1?. If my birth chart accuracy were off by nearly a degree, then that would be about right. If I'm working with the correct birth time, then we will see appropriate aspects within 0? 11' orb. (a bit larger for the Moon)

Re: "Of course if you can truly narrow down the birth time accurately you will not have just proven your house choice, but you will have proven astrology works."

Thank you that you say that. This was the original thrust behind the test designed for the skeptic site (mentioned above). My assertion was, "if I can use Astrology to deduce your birth time based only on the dates of events in your life, then Astrology must work on some level, or else how could I possibly deduce the correct birth time against such long odds?" [As soon as they realized that there actually was a provable conclusion to the experiment, there was ZERO interest in the experiment, even though they originally agreed to the terms.]

Re: "This would be monumental. I understand you already believe this which is why you are, perhaps, so passionate about this subject."

Yes, I fully understand the ramifications. Additionally, my pet peeve is inaccurate birth times being used in Astrology presentations...so this is really my killing of two birds with one stone.

Re: "I am by no means cynical..."

Okay, let's call you a realist. To the outside observer, both are indistinguishable.

Re: "...partially because a part of me desperately wants to believe it."

This was my initial stance. I had been lamenting the plethora of rectification methods and how they (depending on who was applying them) could come up with any number of "answers" for a given rectification. I happened to see a few posts by Isaac Starkman and went and analyzed those charts in depth. Many of those had subsequent events (to the rectification) and so made excellent tests of the derived angles from the rectification. I was continuously astonished by the subsequent confirmations. I started looking into these systems, first with the free Astro program (because it does Topocentric Primary Directions) and then later with Polaris. Finding my exact birth time was really not very difficult using either method and since then I have added at least 6 major events, all of which have confirmed the original angles and intermediate cusps. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Re: "This idea of having a correct time to the very second seems a little too sensational to me because of that."

But doesn't it follow that someone watching the clock so closely to record the seconds is likely (though not certain) to be at least as accurate as someone who is merely aware of the minutes, casually after the fact? In other words, if I measure a flag pole with a meter stick marked in centimeters and someone else measures it with a meter stick marked only in decimeters, who is more likely to end up with a more precise answer (with all other things being equal)?

Re: "The very fact that Neil Armstrong's mother says she's recorded it to the very second is actually what raises a question mark over the chart for me."

Illogical. You are stating that her stating 12:31:30 implies less precision and less believability than if she would have self-rounded the time off to 12:32. In other words "my farm is 12 miles from here", is more believably accurate than "my farm is 11 miles, 278 feet, 7 inches from here." I don't follow the reasoning. To me, the fact that she was watching the clock so closely to catch the seconds implies that she didn't come along (as is usually the case) and try to guesstimate the birth time by imaginatively counting back from the paperwork to the birth moment.

Re: "We use the Roden rating not because I believe the time is actually the REAL time of birth, but just because it is a time that is independent of any house system - ie has not been rectified to a time which may bias the test toward one system over another."

Yes, but because we already KNOW that most of these charts can not be correct to the minute, they are completely unusable for Primary Directions and severely diminished in being usable with tight Secondary Progressions because of the error of the Angles/Cusps.

Re: "Well we can use Neil Armstrong's chart if you like. We would also have to agree upon what bodies/points to examine."

Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Asc, MC, POF, Intermediate House Cusps, all aspects based on 30? as well as Semisquare and Sesquisquare.

Re: "How about arabic parts?"

Only the Part of Fortune.

Re: "Perhaps instead we need to see something that is symbolically meaningful - accidents with mars or uranus etc."

Exactly. For an accident, we would tend to expect (firstly) the 3rd cusp, MC, and Asc configured with Mars, Uranus, and Saturn. There are others that show up empirically, but these are the main ones to be expected.

Re: "These are all things which would need considering. It wouldn't be very compelling for me if the test subject broke his arm and the only hit we get is venus conjunct the 5th house cusp or something."

Correct. Venus and the 5th Cusp have no correspondence to an accident and broken arm. Saturn with the 12th House Cusp would have been an appropriate aspect for the incident, but I'm not sure that you would have known that ahead of time.

Re: "And for marriage having Uranus conjunct Chiron. The signification needs to be meaningful I would think."

Yes,...for example, a marriage (for a male) would leave me to most expect the Descendant, MC, or 5th Cusp to be configured with Venus, Moon, the Node, or Jupiter.

Re: "But who determines what is meaningful?"

Empiricism. Tens of thousands of individual events have already been analyzed. (Primary Directions and Secondary Progressions) Mostly, it's pretty much "standard" astrological ideas that apply. ie. 3rd cusp for birth of siblings... 5th cusp for birth of children and beginning romances/weddings... 8th cusp for issues of death... 9th cusp for travel... 2nd cusp for monetary losses. Can't we basically agree on the House cusp meanings at this point?

Re: "I'm not sure to what extent you use secondary progressions."

Extensively for confirmation of Topocentric Primary Directions-derived rectifications. The important points are 1) the orb and 2) correct symbolism...

Re: "Even if we use an 11' min orb for a secondary progression, this is roughly a tenth of a degree..."

My math is different. I have 0? 11' orb as more than a sixth, but less than a fifth of a degree.

Re: "Which is two months in total. Do you work with this level of accuracy?"

Great question. In Primary Directions, we get about 0? 5' of movement per month. If the aspect is anything other than the conjunction or opposition, the corresponding event(s) should be within +/- one month. If it's the conjunction or opposition, the corresponding event(s) should be within +/- two months. Now, most events are symbolized by several aspects and in several systems, so the idea of OVERLAP can help to define more tight timing for the event(s). ie. the event(s) will tend to happen when the aspects relative to it are still within orb... since we are looking for the overlap of all of these significant aspects, you can see that it narrows it down within that larger framework... Now, as for Secondary Progressions, it depends on which is the moving factor as there is quite some variance!

Re: "With regards 'progressing' the angles or house cusps, I've always been a bit skeptical about this as well. Progressing a point means, being simplistic, converting one day with a year - but the angles and the points make a full circle within one day, so this would essentially mean that the MC would move about one degree every day, rather than one degree very year."

Philosophical. I am going with what is working. Advancing progressed angles/cusps by longitude gives no tight connection of aspects to events (unless we fudge with large orbs). Advancing by right ascension keeps the appropriate angles within the 0? 11' orb.

Re: "Now we really enter on the shaky ground that Juan highlights with regards the different methods of doing all this and different keys etc."

I can only verbalize relating to what I have seen that works. I have nothing to add in a discussion about what doesn't work. Naibod IS the key and we are basically using Carl K?hr's method with the addition of Tococentric House Cusps.

Re: "Do we do consider the house cusps to be the real boundaries of the houses..."

The cusp is the "hot point". That's really the only consideration. We are looking for aspects to those POINTS. If one says that the first house starts 5? before the Ascendant, we are STILL LOOKING AT ASPECTS TO THE ASCENDANT ITSELF...same with the cusps.

Re: "It might be nice if someone like Martin Gansten lent their knowledge to this?"

I have no problem from that, with the one possible exception of Martin having already shown a strongly traditional stance on this technique and so very closed-minded about the idea that an inconjunct (for example) can be considered an aspect in Primary Directions. It most certainly is. Additionally, we have other differences as our approaches are strikingly dissimilar. To me, if your Brother was born and you have Mars conjunct your 3rd House Cusp, I have no further questions as the answer is obvious. Martin has found fault with some aspects that to me are as obvious as anything in Astrology. As for the details of calculating them, Martin might be fundamental to your understanding. As the arbiter of what is correct in their USAGE, he is vastly underexposed to various fundamental developments made in the last hundred years or so and deaf-eared to their relevancy. (Carl K?hr, Topocentric Houses, etc.) Additionally, I have been contacted recently on this forum by someone who wanted to see how Primary Directions worked with their chart and events and had stated to me, " I read Martins Book, but as I said, since I could not find any hits in primary directions with my chart, I just discounted the technique." Now, after demonstrating their events and Primary Directions, they have asked me if I would write an E-book both on proper rectification and on this (working) system of Primary Directions.

All in all, I think there is much that could be examined. Many have expressed an interest (as well) in using Primary Directions, but so very many have commented on problems of finding the right key/system and of finding any real correspondence of astrology to events in a reliable way. That is exactly what I am stating WILL be seen in this, so it goes considerably beyond a "Topocentric vs. Placidus" debate/analysis.

I am offering the possibility of seeing a method of Primary Directions that works with appropriate aspect symbolism and very tight orbs... To several, this will likely stand out as more important than the "Topo/Placidus" debate.

Take care

James

Here is a list of events of a well-known personality. I wonder if this is or should be enough to close-in on the the time of birth as claimed (I mean without looking it up in a celebrity database):

1865, 8 Dec. : birth (61n00 / 24e24)
1868, 31 julio : father dies of hunger typhus
1892, 10 junio : marriage
1893, marzo : birth of 1st daughter
1893, junio : death of aunt who played role of mother
1895 noviembre: birth of 2nd daughter
1897, nov : death of biological mother
1898, noviembre: birth of 3rd daughter
1900, 10 feb : 3rd daughter dies of typhus
1902, enero : birth of 4th daughter
1908, mayo : throat tumor operation (unsuccessful)
1908, junio : Berl?n: 13 operations of the tumor
1915, 8 dic : national holiday in his honour - awarded as "the greatest son of his country"
1918, 28 enero : civil war
1918, 13 feb : Russian Red Guard takes possession of his home
1918, marzo : moves to the capital to live with brother (looses 40 pounds)
1924, 2 marzo : completion of his last and greatest work
1925, 8 dic. : receives "the greatest honor of the republic"
1957, sept 20 : dies.

Juan

Paul wrote: The whole point (at least for me) isn't to necessarily demonstrate one house as superior to the other, but just to examine how truly different the house cusps are for one another, in a basic chart (ignoring potential problems in extreme latitudes etc). Will there really be that much difference?

declination intervals of 0?15'
RA intervals of 0?01'
The red line is a topo house line, while the orange line is a placidean house line(hand drawn). The yellow line represents an arc from the IC(again hand drawn)

It's just one random example; here JU is 0.32441457 of a nocturnal semiarc from the IC; hugging the 5th cusp which has 0?12'09" difference in ecl. longitude between Placidus and Topo
my calculations show a 0h00m42s difference in RA, or 0.175 degrees=10'30" =~65days at the naibod key rate.