Chart Puzzle
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2015 1:21 pm
This is a different kind of mystery chart and in fact it is really more of a puzzle, but a true life one. It requires a bit of background. In 1933 a Dutch astrologer named Leo Knegt (I have no idea how to pronounce that) was given a test by a lawyer friend who also knew astrology. He gave Knegt 10 charts all believed to be well timed, and asked for comments on the lives of the natives focusing on health, career, and unusual personal characteristics. According to the paper I read, he nailed 10 out of 10. By that I don?t mean that every word he wrote was 100% accurate, but that he hit the big stuff and much of it was dead accurate.
Here is the sick part. No one knows how he did it. In other words there are no records found of the specific techniques he used to obtain the accuracy. We have to guess, but in one chart, the one we will discuss, it gets worse.
Knegt, was troubled by this one chart (remember, he had no information other than gender). He qualified his delineation by noting that he was assuming the time he was given was accurate. Had the birth occurred a few minutes later the ?wickedness? might not have developed. From there he went on to describe a man who was in fact a swindler, and con man. He nailed it.
Here is an explanation by the author of the paper I read, one Rudolf Smit, ?Knegt began this interpretation with a consideration about the correctness of the birth time. He notices that if the birth time of this subject had been a few minutes earlier, certain negative character traits would have had lesser chance to develop or probably would have remained dormant forever. According to Knegt, with the birth time given, or a few minutes later, these negative traits, which all point to serious dishonesty, would have developed.? [Emphasis in the original]
OK so what did he see in the natal chart that would tell him that if the birth time was accurate, a) the native was a crook, and b) had he been born a few minutes earlier or later, the terrible things would not have developed?
A quick look rules out the most obvious, sign change on the angles. The angles are all mid sign. Planets don?t move significantly in a few minutes of clock time, so that?s out, too.
This is the challenge, what did Knegt see to cause him to make such a statement? Here?s the rub: Since he left no notes, there is no way to determine if anyone gets it right. I only ask that we limit ourselves to what we know he used (and we don?t know much) and didn?t use.
Early on in his career he used Placidus cusps. Later he changed to Regiomontanus and still later he used Campanus. We don?t know for certain what he used in 1933, when this test was performed. I used Regio. Make sure your comments include the house system used. Use one or use them all, just tell us what you used so we can follow your train of thought.
We do know that in 1933 he did not use Pluto. He did use Uranus and Neptune. I suspect after doing two charts in addition to this one, that he used them as co-rulers of Aquarius and Pisces, but I?m not certain. He may have limited himself to traditional rulers. Scorpio belongs to Mars. I strongly suspect if very late degrees were on a house cusp that he used the ruler of the following sign as a co ruler of the house. I also suspect he used very wide orbs 10 degrees or so in many cases.
Antiscia plays a role in the other charts I?ve looked at. However that could simply supporting other things. I have no idea if he used antisca or not.
I seriously doubt and found no evidence that he used midpoints. Witte?s Rules for Planetary Pictures was published, in German, in 1928, so it is possible. We know for a fact he did not use any hypothetical planets despite being introduced to them early in his studies. If he had, I would have posted this in the General Nativities section. He used fortuna, but I found no evidence that he used any of the other lots. Keep in mind I?ve only seen three charts, so my opinions are based on a minimal amount of data. There is precious little in any of the ten charts that can be called predictive. The purpose of the test was to describe what could be verified ? not things that would happen.
What did he see that made him speculate that a birth time of ?a few minutes? later or earlier for that matter would have changed this life from one of corruption to one much better behaved.
So here is the chart:
Here is the data:
Male
August 13, 1886
3:24:30 PM GMT
52 N 05?
05 E 08?
16 Sagittarius 45 rises
I?ll try to answer questions, but the odds are the answer is going to be: ?we don?t know.?
Here is the sick part. No one knows how he did it. In other words there are no records found of the specific techniques he used to obtain the accuracy. We have to guess, but in one chart, the one we will discuss, it gets worse.
Knegt, was troubled by this one chart (remember, he had no information other than gender). He qualified his delineation by noting that he was assuming the time he was given was accurate. Had the birth occurred a few minutes later the ?wickedness? might not have developed. From there he went on to describe a man who was in fact a swindler, and con man. He nailed it.
Here is an explanation by the author of the paper I read, one Rudolf Smit, ?Knegt began this interpretation with a consideration about the correctness of the birth time. He notices that if the birth time of this subject had been a few minutes earlier, certain negative character traits would have had lesser chance to develop or probably would have remained dormant forever. According to Knegt, with the birth time given, or a few minutes later, these negative traits, which all point to serious dishonesty, would have developed.? [Emphasis in the original]
OK so what did he see in the natal chart that would tell him that if the birth time was accurate, a) the native was a crook, and b) had he been born a few minutes earlier or later, the terrible things would not have developed?
A quick look rules out the most obvious, sign change on the angles. The angles are all mid sign. Planets don?t move significantly in a few minutes of clock time, so that?s out, too.
This is the challenge, what did Knegt see to cause him to make such a statement? Here?s the rub: Since he left no notes, there is no way to determine if anyone gets it right. I only ask that we limit ourselves to what we know he used (and we don?t know much) and didn?t use.
Early on in his career he used Placidus cusps. Later he changed to Regiomontanus and still later he used Campanus. We don?t know for certain what he used in 1933, when this test was performed. I used Regio. Make sure your comments include the house system used. Use one or use them all, just tell us what you used so we can follow your train of thought.
We do know that in 1933 he did not use Pluto. He did use Uranus and Neptune. I suspect after doing two charts in addition to this one, that he used them as co-rulers of Aquarius and Pisces, but I?m not certain. He may have limited himself to traditional rulers. Scorpio belongs to Mars. I strongly suspect if very late degrees were on a house cusp that he used the ruler of the following sign as a co ruler of the house. I also suspect he used very wide orbs 10 degrees or so in many cases.
Antiscia plays a role in the other charts I?ve looked at. However that could simply supporting other things. I have no idea if he used antisca or not.
I seriously doubt and found no evidence that he used midpoints. Witte?s Rules for Planetary Pictures was published, in German, in 1928, so it is possible. We know for a fact he did not use any hypothetical planets despite being introduced to them early in his studies. If he had, I would have posted this in the General Nativities section. He used fortuna, but I found no evidence that he used any of the other lots. Keep in mind I?ve only seen three charts, so my opinions are based on a minimal amount of data. There is precious little in any of the ten charts that can be called predictive. The purpose of the test was to describe what could be verified ? not things that would happen.
What did he see that made him speculate that a birth time of ?a few minutes? later or earlier for that matter would have changed this life from one of corruption to one much better behaved.
So here is the chart:
Male
August 13, 1886
3:24:30 PM GMT
52 N 05?
05 E 08?
16 Sagittarius 45 rises
I?ll try to answer questions, but the odds are the answer is going to be: ?we don?t know.?