It seems to me that to rectify a birth time ? which means to to correct it or put it right ? would require having access to the actual true birth time for verification. How can you correct something if you don't even know ? and can't prove ? what 'correct' is?

What is called astrological rectification is simply using one's choice of factors and methods to find what satisfies that particular astrologer as being a more likely birth time. The astrological factors and methods used, the astrologer's understanding and use of astrological symbolism, along with the number and type of events from the native's life that are considered, will produce various birth times by various astrologers. That's a long way from finding the correct or right time.

That means that each client who comes to me, and in most cases with only approximate birth time, before starting the delineation I should send him home back with some predictions, wait some years and then see if my rectification was correct? Very impractical way.

So is putting words in people's mouths to make a shaky point. To be quite blunt, just because you believe your methods have perfected the rectification process to a drop dead certainty doesn't require the rest of us to accept it. Rectification is a claim - nothing more.

What is called astrological rectification is simply using one's choice of factors and methods to find what satisfies that particular astrologer as being a more likely birth time. The astrological factors and methods used, the astrologer's understanding and use of astrological symbolism, along with the number and type of events from the native's life that are considered, will produce various birth times by various astrologers. That's a long way from finding the correct or right time.

Exactly.

Tom

Isaac Starkman wrote: I think that I demonstrated that primary directions do pinpoint an exact event (exact means very small orb, 2 weeks in average).

OK, feel free to call me a stickler, but when I hear or read exact, I think exact. 2 weeks is, under this eye, inexact.

Isaac Starkman wrote: It is impossible to rectify a chart if we see only the "periods"; only the concrete events with exact dates are valid: birth and death in the family, accidents etc.

While I am tempted to say, "It is impossible to rectify a chart" , it might be better to ask some questions such as:

• What do we mean when we say "to rectify a chart"?
  What is the "correct" birth time?
  Is there such a thing, and how may it be found?

Isaac Starkman wrote:It is a waste of time to delineate a chart, and definitely to perform predictions without identifying the exact angles.

If it is a waste of time to delineate and predict from a chart without the "exact" angles, how does one know whether or not they are the "inexact" angles to begin with?

I will say this, and honestly Robert Zoller says it better in his course then I will, that the very act of delineation is, in itself, predictive. We may not to be able to run off exact days when the various events of the native's life may occur, but we should be able have a general idea what has, is, and will occur to the native.

Well, delineation is predictive by nature, and so is rectification.

Delineation is a very predictive practice: the client is rich, can I see it in foresight or only on hindsight? Most people can?t, and that is the reason most astrologers couldn?t find the real ASC on Obama?s chart.

It doesn?t matter if the ASC is in Aquarius (correct) or the false one in Scorpio, these astrologers all found "something" to prove that their chart fitted Obama?s. This show the lack of proper study of mystery charts.

Rectification is also a very predictive technique. I saw an astrologer "rectifying" a chart based on a transit of venus to the possible DSC. Well, how many charts with a known time have venus transiting the DSC on the day of the marriage? Obviously he never tested this with real charts, but tought that it should work. This kind of thing show that, without proper knowledge on prediction, rectification is only a game.

Most astrologers "rectified" Obama?s chart based on the dirty data of 1:38 pm. Several of them confessed their mistakes, but you can find one or another in the net that will swear to you that the birth certificate is a forgery based on their rectification!

I remember a "mystery chart" test that was made one time. The time of birth was measured by an astrologer, friend of the family. Participants were given an an interval of about 3 hours to find the real degree of the ASC, and several dramatic events on native?s live. The only participant that found the real ASC used a traditional approach, trutine of hermes.

That could be an interesting suggestion for future mystery charts, Tom. As Andrew would say, everybody could put their money were their mouth is.


Best regards
Y

Lisa Jensen
Indsendt fredag den 11. november 2005 klokken 12:19:
________________________________________
August 7, 1928, Toronto, Canada, 01:20 hrs.
James Randi

I found this on internet some time ago.
I rectified the time 1h20m given before 11 november 2005 by Randi as 1h19m33,5s +4h.

Andries H. Cats wrote:Lisa Jensen
Indsendt fredag den 11. november 2005 klokken 12:19:
________________________________________
August 7, 1928, Toronto, Canada, 01:20 hrs.
James Randi

I found this on internet some time ago.
I rectified the time 1h20m given before 11 november 2005 by Randi as 1h19m33,5s +4h.

The fact that he gave the same data to Lisa 4 years ago and to me doesn?t assure us that the birth time is true.
What are the events that help you to rectify his chart?

Hello,

First, Isaac...thank you for taking the time to do the rectifications and post the results. As always, very impressive.

Second, Tom, Yuzuru...you have made it plain that there is some "resolve" amongst you that Isaac's methods do not work.

This is fine as an assumption, but then, there is no actual refutation. If Isaac's rectification isn't necessarily correct, then find something factual (events in the life that don't have appropriate symbolism) that might indicate the timing is wrong.

Certainly from what I have seen posted, there are plenty of SYMBOL APPROPRIATE aspects and with TIGHT ORBS that match the events. (If that's not what we are looking for in a rectification, then what ARE we looking for?) If Isaac's are in error and to have any credibility in judging them, then one of two things HAS to happen. One, you have to have a better time that shows demonstrably that it works better or two, you have to show inherently how Isaac's rectification does not work with several events from the life that don't have appropriate symbolism.

To me, neither of these have been done...it's only been argued from an armchair philosopher point of view.

In short, to refute carefully arrived at scientific data requires some sort of DATA, not just opinion, in order to truthfully refute it. If you want to show that Isaac's rectifications are NOT correct or NOT reliable, then there is only one way...show how they don't work or how something else works better.

You either can or you can't. I'm interested to see the RESULTS, either way that it goes...

On another forum, BEFORE Susan Boyle's time was available (the internet is well-connected, when an event happens, astrologers go to work trying to get the appropriate data, yet NO ONE on any site had gotten Susan's birthdata), Isaac did a nice rectification and using not too many events and came up with a birthtime for Susan. Well after the fact, a Scottish astrologer was able to come up with a birth certificate for Boyle. If I remember correctly, the difference in Isaac's rectification from the birth certificate was about 32 seconds. It is obvious, since the rectification is producing definitive aspects with tight orbs that the birth certificate was rounded off to the next minute.

Instead of saying it can't work, or one can't find the Epoch chart, or using the general unreliability of rectifications IN THE GENERAL CASE as some sort of doubt-casting on someone's SPECIFIC methods, it's much more productive to have at least one teeny, tiny shred of evidence that shows why it DOESN'T work.

James

(My first post and..... they're off, out of the gate!)

CentralScrutinizer wrote: (If that's not what we are looking for in a rectification, then what ARE we looking for?)

The 'correct' time, though no one has bothered to properly define what this is, but maybe we can take steps to get there. What do you think is the "correct time"?

CentralScrutinizer wrote: If Isaac's are in error and to have any credibility in judging them, then one of two things HAS to happen. One, you have to have a better time that shows demonstrably that it works better or two, you have to show inherently how Isaac's rectification does not work with several events from the life that don't have appropriate symbolism.

If the whole premise is specious, then does it matter?
If we all do not agree on what it is we are looking for, then can there be any agreement on what is it is we have found?
What is meant when you say "appropriate symbolism"?

CentralScrutinizer wrote: In short, to refute carefully arrived at scientific data

When I see a jumble of numbers and squiggles, and have it presented to me as "scientific data", I feel this beggars belief. It may be called data, but to imply some sort of special value to the data before any consideration of its value has been made is already some sort of bias. I'm not sure it is even useful data, and if what appears to me to be extremely loose word associations that are called "appropriate symbolism" are the proof of the pudding, this is not going to end in an affirmative manner.

The 'correct' time, though no one has bothered to properly define what this is, but maybe we can take steps to get there. What do you think is the "correct time"?

To me, the "correct time" is the time in which a chart is rectified TO so that the most correct inherent symbolism matching events is as tight as can be found in a reliable "prediction" method.

If I can jump forward three more posts and cut right to the chase, most people are used to transits (especially), progressions, and solar arcs where the timing is a little wishy-washy. In Topocentric Primary Directions, because a tiny change in the birth time makes a large change in WHEN an aspect is partile, it makes a perfect system for rectifying charts. The fact that the ASPECTS HAVE A CONSISTANT SYMBOLISM in this system means that not only can aspects be analyzed, but more importantly aspects can be weighted based on how correct the inherent symbolism is.

Bottom line is, in a rectification...fact, Isaac has a time so precise that the very birthtime-exacting Topocentric Primary Directions show the relevant symbology and at the appropriate timing. You mentioned "loose word associations". The planetary symbols and the House references have, generally speaking a USUAL meaning connected with them. Isaac did a rectification of Barbara Hutton (heiress to Woolworth fortune, married Cary Grant, never really happy, Mother committed suicide when Barbara was 4). Now, if we look at an event in her life, say, when her Son died, if the appropriate symbolism is there, it should be obvious. Isaac's orbs are very small for PD's, so that LOCKS it to that timeframe. ie. the particular aspects are not only correctly WHAT, they are also correctly WHEN

Here are the aspects

Nep 180 Asc 3'
V 30 Plu 2'
Nep 0 Sat 8'
Nep 45 Mars 2'
Secondaries:
Mars 0 MC 2'
VIII 60 Mars 2'
Moon 90 Plu 10'

When you look at this symbolism, what do you see? Very specifically a dissolving relationship, mourning, painful alone time and quite possibly issues of death. With the 5th House and 8th House specifically referenced, one can't help but think of possibly one's children and issues of death. This is just one striking example.

The point is, one can't help but see that this particular rectified time gives accurate "linkage" between aspects and events through time. These same aspects would NOT have worked for a different event on the list...say the birth of her Son. (more flowing aspects and Venus-Jupiter, etc.)

One last question... if Isaac's methods or Isaac's adaptation of Alexander Marr's methods for his own program Polaris, have given birth-certificate times, pre birth-certificate, there is more reason to "support" the idea that it does correct rectification than to "refute" it.

I hope this helps...

James

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

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

Hello Tom,

I don't mean to put words in your mouth. You DO make it hard to discuss, when suddenly we have segued somewhere else. As to the "idea" of rectification, what is there to question?

If you convenient-rectify a "famous" chart so that some magical measurement is spot on, you have done nothing except make that one event look "explained." Nothing else comes into place... ie. rectifying to the one event, makes the one event look good. The proof of the rectification is how the OTHER items (especially ones that were NOT part of the original rectification fit.

This is where Isaac's examples shine. They don't fit one item with amazing accuracy and the rest are hit and miss. Once the time is found, we have the best fit and it can't be that amazing that suddenly, the other events of the life have corresponding aspects of a NATURE and ORB that makes it definitive.

Re: Kolev

That's Kolev. If he lined up a rectification based mainly on one item and tried to make that fly, then he is not as smart as he appears. We are talking about Isaac's rectifications, which use a drastically different method than Kolev's. Truly apples and oranges.

Re: "Why should we rectify that way?"

Again, you comments "indicate" that perhaps you don't understand just how the software works. It takes the birth time and varies it through the range given (we usually have SOME idea of the birthtime, usually within 24 hours at the least) and with each alteration of the birthtime, a composite score is given based on how exactly the aspects and the event fit (in more than 40 categorical types of events). All of these "results" are then given a weighted score and one can see by looking through time just which ones line up the best and by using other methods (for protection AGAINST the same routine being "self-satisfied") a definitive time can be found.

The EXACT point you make about Kolev reverse rectifying based on one main event is EXACTLY what Isaac's program, Polaris, does NOT do. It takes ALL of the events through ALL of the time period and finds the best fit for ALL the events (in terms of symbolic correctness and tightness of orb).

I just do not understand how, what would be ideal if done manually, is somehow wrong because it's all coded into one program and appears to happen mostly "under the hood."

Re: Birthtime vs. workable chart

The POINT of getting the birthtime (to astrologers) IS to get a workable chart. If you solve the second one, for all intents and practical purposes, you have solved the first. In other words, if you yourself, Tom, were born at (say) 8am, but using all your methods, you find much greater synchronicity with 8:07am as the birthtime, you would likely be convinced the 8am time was rounded or simply in error. The bottom line is...astrologers need the best working charts that they can get.


I have done "this" over 20 years now. While this is not a boast, it is an indication that I have been engrossed in astrological symbolism a long time. During that time I had, through great pains, rectified my chart to 11:16:44. This took a lot of time and various little refinements throughout the years. I recently received Polaris (yesterday actually) and put my 18 dated events into the program and a range of time and it found a "PEAK" correlation at 11:16:43. What took me years of refining was something that I got from Polaris in about 90 mins with the program. It would have been shorter, but this was my first attempt with a brand new program. (By the way, add about another hour to the worktime and I had the Epoch chart. Before we start on the "how would you ever know?" sidetrack, it just works. The Epoch chart, as it is timed, lines up with the events of my life....the symbology is just THERE.)

Isaac's program is automated, but it is not automatic. One does have to apply some "brain" to it, but it is such a great tool. It gets you from A to B with the minimum muss and fuss.

Because it tries to "best fit" ALL of the events to matching symbolism, it basically seeks to do just what an actual astrologer would do, except, since it has FIXED rules relating to which symbols fit which events, it does so more objectively than the average astrologer would.

Check it out!


James