Considerations

GarryP · Moderator Joined: 23 Oct 2003 Posts: 189 Location: UK

Yonks - now for a feast...

http://www.freeconsiderations.com/

- here a person may find copies of 'Considerations' (an erstwhile journal) for free download. Thanks to Nick Campion for the heads-up.

Astraea · Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Posts: 174 Location: Colorado, USA

Garry, thank you so much for letting us know and for providing this link. Considerations was one of my favorite astrological journals. It was one of the first periodicals to publish studies of Morin's techniques and ideas, and so many other intriguing facets of astrology. Your post is much appreciated.

Atlantean · Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 104

Thanks for posting this.

We've all won the lottery, even if we don't immediately realize it yet.

WOW!!!

TMC

Isaac Starkman · Joined: 13 Dec 2007 Posts: 74 Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Ken Gillman's new book "One After Another, Rectification & Prediction Using Planetary Sequence", 418 pages is also available free in this website.

janeg · Joined: 25 Nov 2008 Posts: 98

Wow! This is a treasure trove, thanks so much for the link Smile

Richard Vetter · Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Offenburg, Germany

Why was the journal ended? Though Ken Gillman seems still alive?
_________________
http://astroinfo.astrologix.de/english.htm

Deb · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:41 pm Post subject:

I suppose life moves us on. I'm still alive even though the Traditional Astrologer Magazine is no longer breathing Smile

I want to add my own praise because this is an amazing contribution - a full 21 volumes of past issues. Ken must have put so much time and effort into getting all those magazines online; he really deserves our thanks. And it was always such an interesting magazine – one of my favourites.

Richard Vetter · Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Offenburg, Germany

Atlantean · Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 104

Re: Considerations

Yes...what a treasure trove!

For rectifiers, there are MANY approaches and interesting articles.

Additionally, not just the Olivia Barclay stuff, which we all know if we've read her books, but there are many horary question examples from many authors. They would likely be especially good examples to work through. (Some issues have a half-dozen or more examples)

Especially, there are VARIED topics...so there is very likely something in there for EVERYONE...and what a glorious search it is. (not to mention all of the DATA!)

The funniest comment on this thread, was Vetter's comment that "Ken SEEMS still alive" (emphasis, mine)... I pictured someone taking Abe Vigoda's pulse and looking up indecisively, "well, is he alive or isn't he?!".

Atlantean

Atlantean · Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 104

Since this thread is about the "Considerations" journals that were put online recently, I wanted to comment to one of the authors of an article, since they are here in the Forum.

To Richard, I read an article in Considerations and I notice that you have the same hyphothesis/opinion stated on your (link-provided) website, so I would like to ask a question...

The quote that stuck out (please correct me if you have altered your opinion in the intervening years since '97) was:

"I principally mistrust every rectification unless the difference from the time recorded only amounts to a couple minutes and/or the chart's owner himself had done the correction, after some long-time observation."

I find this interesting, because it presents a paradox of sorts. Let me explain. I have been an astrologer for just over 20 years now. In those intervening years, I was doing basically as you said. I took my birthtime (officially recorded as 6:18 am) and through adjustment (a few seconds here a few seconds there), came to 6:16:44 as the "actual" time that works best. It was a) 20 years in the making and b) varies only slightly from the documented time and c) the chart owner himself has made the correction. The paradox is that a certain piece of software that did NOT go through any long-time observation (unless you want to count that events relating to a long period of time were fed into the software) and that functioned INDEPENDENTLY of the chart owner (ie. anyone could have fed my events in and arrived at the same birthtime) has arrived at the exact same birthtime.

The question is... you have commented that in PRINCIPLE, you reject any rectifications unless they fit those initial conditions that you stated...so, how is that principle SOUND when other methods that don't fit those conditions arrive at the EXACT SAME TIME (to the second), thus over-ruling coincidence?

Thanks...

Atlantean

Richard Vetter · Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Offenburg, Germany

Atlantean · Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 104

Hello Richard,

Thanks for your reply....only one comment...

Re: "If a technical method or software finds out the right time, it's in my view - I hate statistics, though Wink - pure chance..."

Let's think about this. I take 17 Events from my life. I enter those events into a particular software and the software gives me the exact same time (in seconds) that I had slowly arrived at over 20 years time.

Okay...24 hours in a day...that's 1440 minutes... or 86,400 seconds. The probability of that happening (the computer finding the exact same time that I had derived) is 0.0012%.

The software also worked to find Susan Boyle's birthtime. Now, though the software derives the birthtime to the second, the birth certificate only shows the minute, so for this discussion we only need to consider that the minute was correct. Now, the probability of this is 1/1440 as previously mentioned. Now, that makes 0.07%.

The chances that BOTH would be right, yep, you guessed it... (0.0012% x 0.07%) = 0.0000008%. The exact calculations show that to be only ONE chance in 124,416,000.

We're already in "win the lottery" territory as far as probabilities.

That's quite some odds to beat. Are you sure you don't want to amend the "pure chance" idea?

Re: "sorry for the bad English"

Sounds fine to me. Sind Sie im Deutschland? Seit 2005 bin ich...

Peace

Take care,

Atlantean

Richard Vetter · Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Offenburg, Germany

Atlantean · Joined: 14 Aug 2009 Posts: 104

Hello Richard,

If we were talking about human perception, then "subjectivity" might come into it. However, we are talking about a computer program. Once you enter the data and hit "Enter", there is no more room for subjectivity...unless you're putting forth that the computer's opinion had something to do with the outcome. To me, it was pure math and machine-language instructions being executed. Wink

Still, the probabilities are correct... the CHANCES of it agreeing with both my slowly arrived at time over 20 years and the chances of it agreeing with Susan Boyle's birthtime, BASED SOLELY ON THE DATES OF EVENTS, makes it somewhat miraculous just based on the odds that it "beat."

Actually, it's not all THAT miraculous. You could flip a coin 27 times, calling the correct landing on EVERY flip and be in the neighborhood of the same probability.

Re: Two Cases

I limited it to two cases so that I wouldn't have to type so many zeros to show the long odds. Wink

Take care,

Atlantean

Richard Vetter · Joined: 03 May 2008 Posts: 28 Location: Offenburg, Germany

Hi Atlantean,

regarding "subjectivity": As long as you figure out and use your own chart, in scientific view this procedure is considered "subjective".

Yet, I confess your figures are impresssing...

Tace care,
Richard
_________________
http://astroinfo.astrologix.de/english.htm