Hello.

Does anyone have chart data for Amazing Randi? Wikipedia gives a birth date of August 7, 1928 Toronto, Canada.

He's got a Fire Grand Trine of Mercury-Saturn-Uranus. Rex Bills gives rulership of skeptics to Saturn and Mercury so at least it looks like, from an astrological perspective, he's sincere. Saturn is also within 6 degree orb of conjunction with his South Node so the Grand Trine hooks into his Nodal Axis.

The Wikipedia article says that he had emergency Heart Surgery on Feb. 2, 2006. Looks like Neptune was opposite his Sun at 15 Leo. And both his progressed Sun and prog. Mercury (retrograde) were at 1 Scorpio, the Sun having just changed signs which can be a doozy in my experience. His natal Pluto is in Cancer unaspected (unless angles and correct position of Moon changes that) and a Water Singleton. Uranus and NN are inconjunct his Sun right now, does this mean irregular heart beat?

Anyway, how could he not have had a Near Death experience under those transits? .

James Randi is an expert in show, he does not care about truth.

Read this sites:
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/magician.html
http://www.aiprinc.org/para-C05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

GarryP wrote:I've just posted an exchange between James Randi and Dennis Elwell - on the subject of JR's $1M paranormal challenge - on my site, url is:

http://www.astrozero.btinternet.co.uk/jref.htm

There will probably be two or three follow-ups added in the coming days.

A question which interests me, which hasn't been broached so far in the dialogue, is this: Is it in the nature of astrology for it to 'perform' on command in order to win $1M for an astrologer? Personally I'm very much inclined to think not.

I can`t find it in your site

Interesting comment by Bob Marks on manipulation of data in Gauguelin study:

One of the ?ordinary causes? that Dr. Dean refers to has been mentioned elsewhere. It has been alleged that parental tampering with the birth data has affected results. There are three objections here:

1) There is no direct evidence that this has taken place. It is not enough to simply raise a point like this and expect it to be accepted. A defense lawyer who simply tells the jury that the witnesses against his or her client were lying would not win many cases. It has to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually were lying. Perhaps if there were some sort of ?smoking gun? here to support the assertion, something like an autobiography titled ?Confessions of a French Midwife?, with quotes like: ?Oui, I held back the birth of the baby until Jupiter was on the Midheaven!?, this objection against Gauquelin would have more weight.

2) In the 19th century, belief in astrology in the West was at a low point. Astrology didn?t start to be revived until the advent of the Theosophists late in the century. That makes it more difficult to believe that there would have been enough believers around to produce an effect large enough to change Gauquelin?s results.

3) The biggest objection to the parental tampering hypothesis is the fact that Gauquelin found effects for ?malefic? planets and none for the ?benefic? Sun. In the 19th century (indeed, even today) it was widely believed in astrological circles that the planets Mars and Saturn had malefic results. What parent in their right mind would put either of those rising or culminating in their child?s horoscope? And which would be preferred to be in a strong position, the benefic Sun or the inconstant Moon? No, if there were parental tampering, there would have been effects for the Sun, Venus, and Jupiter alone. However, this was not what Gauquelin found.

Dr. Dean?s fourth point is that ?multi scrutiny can take time.? Agreed. But so what? It is time well spent.

Dr. Dean continues:

?Marks? second assumption, that an astrological force is necessary for astrology to work, seems unwise because there are non-astrological factors that explain why astrology seems to work.?

But I was not taking about astrology seeming to work. I merely stated that if astrology were to work, there would have to be something that made this possible, e.g. an astrological force. The alternative would be that something could work for no apparent reason at all. Please note that I did not state that astrology did work. Rather I was proposing a hypothetical if-then situation.
Dr. Dean concludes:

?This does not deny the possibility that an astrological force may exist, but at present there is no convincing evidence that such a force needs to exist.?

We are in agreement here. And that is why I am doing statistical research. Two papers have already been published and are available on the internet at www.astrologyresearchjournal.org

A third paper is to be published shortly. It is always up to the one making the assertion to provide the evidence. Therefore, skeptics don?t have to disprove astrology. It is up to astrologers to prove their assertion that astrology works. This is a challenge that I accept.

The missing link (ref post before last) is:

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/astroscience/randel.htm