skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mystery chart – identifying the time of greatest danger
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ju0Spica



Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 18

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW:

The event chart shows AS = PL and MC = MA/SA=UR/PL meaning an explosive moment at that time in Weipa. When I looked for connection to the victim's chart, AS is conjunct natal MA/SA, but MA/SA=UR/PL is not linked to any significant natal point.

After noticing the accident UR/PL located at 22 Cap 44 is more than 1d 30' separated from an opposition to natal Asc located at 20 Can 58, a thought occurred to me: what if there is a transcription error in the recording or transmission of birth data and 6:31 is actually 6:41? When I looked at the directions for the time of the accident with the birth time of 6:41, the results were stunning:

Solar arc directed MA/SA opposition natal Asc (exact!) and
Solar arc directed MC sesquisquare natal Uranus (exact!)
Accident UR/PL(station) opposition natal Asc(orb 4')

i.e. the directions that I noticed for years 2000 and 2004(for 6:31) converged in April of 2002.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A thought occured to me too. What if that midpoint was not the critical factor? What if it was not the time that was wrong, but you?

From the opening post of this thread:
Quote:
I was told that the data was reliable so I had no reason to consider rectification, and didn’t ask for details of other life-events for the purpose of rectification.


Everything was explained at the start, and I very much doubt that the last two posts would have been made if the times offered by those contributors had come closest to the event. Since I've already gone over this, explaining how everyone had the option to query the data at the start, or to choose not to participate, I'll delete any further posts that argue for alternate data. Speculating now on connections that might have been made to a different chart to that which was used, is not only pointless, but bad form.

Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

I assumed that since the data came from Deb, that it was in some sense "verified" to be correct...as correct as CAN be or at least, CORRECT ENOUGH for this "challenge." In short, I accepted it in good faith.

I am convinced the birthtime is correct enough to "solve" the challenge and it was a mighty big question, "here is someone's birthdata and some background; now, when is it likely that they died?"

I find the Challenges and everyone's "methods" very interesting. I think they're productive. The problem comes in when it becomes Astrology as Competition, then there are emotions and egos deeply tied to the whole experience. Still, there's no way around it....so the hope is always that everyone is as mature as they each, individually (redundant, for emphasis), can be.

Deb, please don't let a few naysayings keep you away from this exciting and productive method of learning.

I do hope that you give some examples with a relatively verified birthtime AND at least a dozen events, so that everyone can rectify to their own heart's content and to the levels of security they need to be confident. I think that it could prove interesting what final rectifications various people come up with... and with some "extra" Events Wink some particular methods are likely to stand out as most effective in "highlighting the future". We all could learn a lot or at least some could learn a little... Of course, it could just turn into a giant pissing contest, but that has its own entertainment value as well.

Peace

TMC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks TMC

I tried to make the point a couple of times that there is a limit to what I know myself, and I cannot tell anyone more than I do know, but what I know has been reliably recorded and honestly shared.

Deb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RegulusAstrology



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 147
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the first chance I have had to get back to this topic since last week and just wanted to make a few follow-up comments.

to Steven on the Hyleg/Alchocoden.

No matter what the Hyleg is, I have less qualms about considering an angular planet as the Alchocoden. Referring to Bonatti, Dykes translation, pp. 1135-1136, Bonatti says to consider angular planets in the 1st or 10th, within 3 degrees before or 5 degrees after, as a participator with the hyleg whether he has dignity or not in the place of the hyleg. That’s why I chose Saturn as the Alchocoden. Besides placement in the 10th, Saturn is oriental, rules the term/bound of the Moon, is the in-sect malefic, and is within 25 days of its first station (not 7 days which would qualify it in a phasis condition (see footnote 120, page 1136) but still getting close. Saturn gives his 57 major years, less Mars’ 15 minor years, net is 42. Native lived less. I also suggested that since the prenatal Syzygy was an eclipse that in my experience the rules for longevity are often wrong and implied that for those cases eclipses would likely involved in timing death. Native did die during a nodal return when eclipses returned to the Gemini-Sagittarius axis.

Your observation that the Moon loses power in the 30th degree is insightful; the Ascendant/Mars Hyleg/Alchocoden combination leads to the correct longevity projection of 66-30 = 36 years. It’s not something I would have chosen at the outset. As you pointed out, Mars is placed in the sign of his own triplicity and tightly aspects the Ascendant (tighter than Saturn). Though Mars is the out-of-sect malefic and is conjunct the IC (not as strong as the MC as far as angles go), he functions as the empirical Alchocoden.

I think either Saturn or Mars as giver of years has its merits; this is a good example of mixed testimonies encountered in real life chart examples. And at the end of the day, either choice indicates an early death by the Hyleg/Achocoden method which is really what the exercise was designed to test.

to Martin on Primaries and the Sun as Hyleg.

As you point out the ‘converse direction of the Ascendant’ moves to the square of Mars very close to the time of the accident. There are similar directions of the Ascendant to the square of Saturn, depending on the choice of latitude, which fall in the year before or the year following the accident. I mention the possibility of the converse direction of the Ascendant to the square of Saturn because in the 2001 solar return, Saturn falls 2 degrees from the 4th cusp and by definition is in mundane square to the Ascendant (Kirk’s observation). Considering Morin’s rule that a direction is felt more strongly when it agrees with the solar return, this would be a good example of Morin’s rule since the ASC square Saturn direction would mirror the ASC square Saturn by mundane position in the return.

On the quandary of accepting the Sun as the Hyleg given the fact that at death transiting Saturn afflicted the Sun more closely than any other Hylegical point (by partile conjunction), you are probably aware of this direction by Ptolemy’s method: sinister trine Saturn d. => Sun for 28-May-2002. A bit late but close. So do we take the Ascendant or the Sun as the empirical Hyleg? Basically I don’t think it matters. You could also just consider the collective influence of the Ascendant moving by primary direction to set off the Saturn-Mars opposition as well as the Saturn-Sun direction just mentioned as forming a ‘train of directions’ which kill. I would also refer to comments on another thread made by Steven concerning the variety of rules which exist concerning the Hyleg doctrine. For instance, I have often found that the in cases when the Moon is not the ‘official’ Hyleg that it is often afflicted at the time of death because the Moon is a significator of the physical body. Same thing with other Hylegical points including the Part of Fortune.

The POF as a Hylegical point for this nativity is an interesting example of what I am talking about. Falling in the cadent 3rd house of the natal, the POF is ruled out as a hylegical point. But consider the following recapitulations of the POF-Saturn hard aspect found in the natal chart. For the 2001 solar return, POF recapitulates is natal sign, falls on the 8th cusp of death, and is partile square Saturn! For the event date and time, POF also recapitulates its natal sign and is square both Saturn and the Nodes! So even though the POF is ruled out as the Hyleg because by theory it falls in a cadent house (not to mention the figure is of the diurnal sect); the POF is nonetheless a Hylegical point and appears to offer testimony on the native's death because the natal affliction from Saturn was recapitulated in the return prior to death as well as at the time of the accident.

Congratulations again to Aquastella. Nice to see the 90 degree dial and solar arc directions at work. Why is why I continue to use solar arcs along side primaries.

And thanks to Deborah for a great exercise!
_________________
Dr. H.
World Class Research in Medieval Predictive Astrology
www.regulus-astrology.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RegulusAstrology wrote:
you are probably aware of this direction by Ptolemy’s method: sinister trine Saturn d. => Sun for 28-May-2002. A bit late but close.

That was indeed the direction I wrote about in my first post. Traditionally it would have been called 'Sun to the trine of Saturn by direct motion'. It was been preceded by Sun to square of the Moon by converse motion and followed by Sun to the sextile of Mars by direct motion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Martine



Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 70
Location: France

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello

In Regiomontanus mundane directions, Ptolemy key, with Morinus software, I find the following directions :

- Saturn direct sesquiquadrate Mars - 2002-04-01

- Pluto direct trine Saturn - 2002-04-19

Knowing that Saturn, Mars and Pluto all three square the Sun in the natal chart and Saturn is lord 8th, I find these directions meaningful.

Regards
_________________
Martine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unique_astrology



Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 141

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also accepted the given time as correct or nearly so because it came from Deb.

But after submitting it to a technique which had been correct in thousands and thousands of cases over decades using very tight orbs and having it not even come close to an appropriate chart for an answer I was faced with ignoring thousands upon thousands of successful endeavors in favor of 1 unsuccessful result.

Those decades of work and thousands of charts may be seen as research as well as successful attempts. No ego was involved here, just the scales of reality. What would any of you have done? Am I to believe you would have ditched decades of successful research in light of the results in 1 case?

I am not trying to start anything here but why is everybody getting in a huff because a preponderance of the evidence when a very successful technique is applied to a chart leads me to believe that the given time was probably in error? Who is it that can't stand to be questioned? This is 1 case being measured against thousands.

Nobody here has, to my knowledge, taken the minimal amount of time necessary to learn and apply the technique to charts with verified recorded birth times and seen the extremely accurate results I have never failed to see and without being aware of its history, dismiss its veracity. Ego and close mindedness may also exist in the camp which only sees techniques viable because they have been in existence for a long time. I have seen where all of those techniques have failed to work consistently, something I have yet to see with progressed lunar returns.

That never in bold above means success every time. I am not afraid to make the statement nor have it tested.

Bob
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olivia



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 866

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UA, does that mean that in those thousands of cases you have absolutely rock-solid verified AAA by whatever your standard is birthtime data? It seems pretty unlikely.

Deb stated everything in the first post. If you object, then you might want to simply withdraw your participation instead of arguing about it after the fact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SIDERUM



Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 200
Location: Salta, Republica Argentina

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much DEB, was a great challenge and congratulations to Aquastella!!!
Regards
Mario
_________________
www.siderum.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
SIDERUM



Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 200
Location: Salta, Republica Argentina

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb!!!
I would give my opinion about the possible day of death.
The Solar Return in 2001 in Weipa, AU, has ASC = 16 º 56'Cancer Contrantiscio with Pluto in the MidPoint of Mars / Uranus in 17º18'Capricorn aspect which repeats the radix.
The MH of the Solar Return is in 25º32'Aries with MP Mars / Uranus = 25 º 24'Capricorn, and Radix Uranus in aspect.
The Lunar Return to April 20, 2002 for Weipa has 48'Sagitario ASC = 11º48'Sagitarius and Saturn = 12º 19'Geminis.
If we progress the MC of the Solar Return (1º = 1day), we have MC = 15 º Pisces (April 23, 2002) and the ASC = 12º Gemini (23 April 2002).
This could serve to make a small fix in time, but in my opinion it is correct and verifies that the day of death was 23 or April 24, 2002.
Kind REgards
Mario
_________________
www.siderum.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
His method is simple...if the results don't agree with the facts then rectify the chart until it does. As a professional engineer in applied science, this is the most ridiculous and pompous and arrogant BS I have ever heard.

But isn't that the point and procedure of all (everyone's) rectification? Confused Granted, some people may go about it better than others.

We don't build bridges and stadiums with astrology. Ours is an activity of insight, and insight comes in flashes – flashes that can be inhibited or misdirected by unnecessary or extravagant feats of engineering.

Relevant to the topic, I would like to hear of participant's experiences of insight – intuition – as to where to begin and how to proceed with this project. Did anyone have an 'Ah-ha, I should look here using this method' moment, or did you start (and faithfully continue?) with a procedure you usually use?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AquaStella



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 194

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk:
Quote:
We don't build bridges and stadiums with astrology. Ours is an activity of insight, and insight comes in flashes – flashes that can be inhibited or misdirected by unnecessary or extravagant feats of engineering.


Well said !

Then again, engineers and mathematicians need flashes of insight, too.
For the best results one should use both sides of the brain as one "wholistic" unit. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Isaac Starkman



Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 116
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
I wonder if the desire to reduce this event down to a statistical probability sort of 'misses the wood for the trees'? It seems to me that the most fundamental key is a very dramatic signature in the birth chart, and it was the reinforcement of this signature which brought its potential into manifestation at the particular time. Everything else is a pointer towards that. I have never been interested in trying to track the minutiae of people’s lives; and here I think the task involved finding the bigger picture and keeping the emphasis on that. Will someone get a 'reproducible method' out of this? I don't think so for a second. I hope to write more about the themes that struck me later in the week, when I have a bit more available time.


It is the right and the duty of every serious astrologer not to accept blindly every technique, either traditional or modern, no matter how impressive is the result for one single event. I don't recognize any better test method than statistics, of course if one knows how to do it properly.
AquaStella:
"Astrology is not calculus"
Psychology is also not calculus, yet every high level psychology book or journal have a lot of statistics, the same for any natural or social sciences.
"Astrology is a celestial art"
Fine, therefore it is a combination of symbols and numbers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AquaStella



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 194

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Psychology is also not calculus, yet every high level psychology book or journal have a lot of statistics, the same for any natural or social sciences.


The fact the "psychologists" use statistical methods and graphs for publishing "scientific" papers (publish or perish) still doesn't prove psychology is a valid science. It only proves psycholgists wish to present it as such. They often "engineer" and "design" their "research" in order to come up with "desirable results".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 10 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated