What is chart rectification?

waybread · Sep 16, 2015

Dirius, I think we're actually reaching closure on this. You remain sceptical of the accuracy and testability of 24-hour rectification, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you of its accuracy. Hopefully you have now seen sufficient evidence that the field of rectification includes more than just a narrow window of fine-tuning a given birth time, however, independently of whether you think that's a good idea or not.

Some astrologers do not rectify charts at all, some do it if they have a decent birth time estimate, and some do wider windows or 24-hour rectification. This is a fact. Yet again, Dirius, rectification is incredibly time- and energy-consuming. If you haven't attempted it, trust me. You cannot infer that the scarcity of practitioners means anything more than that. I doubt that an astrologer of Steven Forrest's stature, who has practiced rectification, would give a primer on rectification including 24-hour rectification, if he didn't think it existed.

I can't speak for Starkman. Perhaps you can contact him yourself.

Dirius · Sep 16, 2015

waybread said:
Dirius, I think we're actually reaching closure on this. You remain sceptical of the accuracy and testability of 24-hour rectification, and that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you of its accuracy. Hopefully you have now seen sufficient evidence that the field of rectification includes more than just a narrow window of fine-tuning a given birth time, however, independently of whether you think that's a good idea or not.

I never denied that astrologers have attempted methods that try to find the correct Ascendant without any type of birth time indication. In fact, as this was shown, its been the case since the dawn of astrology.

I merely comment that those methods are unreliable, and as a start fail on many concepts, they don't guarantee an accurate chart, nor do they provide good results. There are too many factors involved that make these methods a failure more often than not.

Usually when a method is unreliable and does not posses a high succes rate, the technical defintion is that they "do not functionally work". And thus, are usually discarded. Anyone is free to use them though.

waybread said:
Some astrologers do not rectify charts at all, some do it if they have a decent birth time estimate, and some do wider windows or 24-hour rectification. This is a fact. Yet again, Dirius, rectification is incredibly time- and energy-consuming. If you haven't attempted it, trust me. You cannot infer that the scarcity of practitioners means anything more than that. I doubt that an astrologer of Steven Forrest's stature, who has practiced rectification, would give a primer on rectification including 24-hour rectification, if he didn't think it existed.

I can't speak for Starkman. Perhaps you can contact him yourself.

An author's opinion, is just that, an opinion. If they do not show the method working, its nothing more than a "take my word for it" statement.

The fact that they do not practice rectification is not an encouraging factor when analyzing those comments. If the authors would at least make an offer to do the method, would be evidence that they can validate those statements through their actions. Given that they do not, all that can be taken from their statement, is that its nothing more than an opinion, and not an actual method.

unique_astrology · Sep 16, 2015

JUPITERASC said:
for those to whom these ideas are unfamiliar, keep in mind that
when a Tropical solar return is calculated
and then contrasted with a precessed Tropical solar return chart
the effects of precession are noticeable

and
although the actual amount of precession is about 4 seconds of arc per year
the older we get, the greater the difference in the houses and angles of the Precession Corrected chart
and so

This is a strawman argument as it is related to the chart angles and house cusps not LSTs showing when planets are on angles. Check the comparison of my natal Sun and the precessed Sun from my 74th birthday solar return.

And if you would care to precess your natal planets to see how much the LSTs have changed for when they will be angular here are the formulas. Quick work with a scientific calculator.

Arena · Sep 16, 2015

Thank you very much for your examples above unique_astrology.
I am not yet so advanced in using Solarfire, but I need to practise.
What you are going through here is a lot of maths, and since I would like things simple

may I ask if there is a simple way to do this in Solarfire? I am used to casting a sidereal chart in solar fire and then pushing F6 button to calculate the mundoscope for that chart, no matter if it is a natal chart, solar return chart or lunar return.
This is what I usually use to see the precession (casting in sidereal) and then asking the program for a mundoscope to see the position of the planets according to the latitude I am looking at.

Is Solarfire the program you are using?

unique_astrology · Sep 16, 2015

Arena said:
Thank you very much for your examples above. I am not yet so advanced in using Solarfire, but I need to practise.
What you are going through here is a lot of maths, and since I would like things simple may I ask if this is maybe just the same as casting a sidereal chart in solar fire and then pushing F6 button to calculate the mundoscope for that chart, no matter if it is a natal chart, solar return chart or lunar return?
This is what I usually use to see the precession (casting in sidereal) and then asking the program for a mundoscope to see the position of the planets according to the latitude I am looking at.

To keep things easy for you I will just say no, precession correction and mundoscopes are not the same things.

This link will take you to a discussion about this in case you want to peruse it and perhaps save it for another time.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7185&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=08db2c7a8a45b44fd53c59ed072bad60

JUPITERASC · Sep 16, 2015

unique_astrology said:
This is a strawman argument as it is related to the chart angles and house cusps....

On the contrary, that is a misleading statement because
when delineating the Solar Return
Chart angles of the Solar Return are of major importance :smile:

because

the ascendant of the Solar Return brings into focus for that one year, the house of the natal chart with which it corresponds

and since quite simply
the purpose of a Solar Return is to gauge transient influences for one particular year of the native's life
therefore
given that:

.....although the actual amount of precession is about 4 seconds of arc per year
the older we get, the greater the difference in the houses and angles of the Precession Corrected chart
and so

by the time of our 18th birthday
the difference between a solar return calculated with and without precession = six hours:

and then

the difference on our thirty-sixth birthday = twelve hours

and

by our seventy second birthday the difference = an entire day.

A geocentric view of a Solar Return
depends upon the Earth, Sun and star background all re-establishing the relationship that existed at birth.
This is not the same as the position in space
(relative to our orbit about the Sun)
where the Tropical Zodiac says our Solar Return occurred.

The added distance and time
required for the Earth to move past the Tropical Zodiac “return” point

and then
to reach the “Sidereal” or “Precession-corrected” position
is what makes a Tropical Solar Return chart different from a Sidereal Solar Return chart.

obviously then
the natal condition of the Solar Return ascendant ruler
as well as the condition of the Solar Return ascendant ruler in the natal chart
are important concerns when delineating the Solar Return for comparison with the natal chart promise
in order to determine the influences for that particular year

unique_astrology · Sep 16, 2015

unique_astrology said:
This is a strawman argument as it is related to the chart angles and house cusps not LSTs showing when planets are on angles. Check the comparison of my natal Sun and the precessed Sun from my 74th birthday solar return.

THE TIME A CHART IS STRUCK DOES NOT DETERMINE THE LST NEEDED FOR A PLANET TO BE ON AN ANGLE.

If anything, it determines the date a progressed angle will contain a planet but it does not change the right ascension (excepting the Moon), latitude or declination of the planets, or the OE, in the natal or return chart for the vast majority of people for whom returns are done.

See the attached speculum for a comparison of the right ascensions needed for planets in my precession corrected SR with the non-precessed SR for this year. For a 74 year old only the Sun and Venus require LST's different by more than 1 degree and only on 3 chart angles. For most younger people the differences would likely be less than 1 degree. At any rate a planet within 1 degree, or even a little more, of an angle is considered by most to be within orb of influence. Those differences amount to only about 2 hours of time of day in a progressed lunar return to be exact but that is 30 degrees difference in backtracking (reverse engineering) to a natal chart

You are trying to mix apples and oranges.

JUPITERASC · Sep 16, 2015

unique_astrology said:
An example showing the accuracy of a progressed lunar return

A time of birth chosen at random by personal preference
rather than medical records/birth certificate
can neither produce an accurate lunar return
nor
an accurate progressed lunar return

unique_astrology said:
.....my reason for using them to obtain a speculative birth time

and you agree that the birth times you obtain are speculative
and a matter of conjecture
not necessarily in agreement with various other speculative birth times
arrived at by astrologers who are using their own preferred methods

unique_astrology said:
in producing an appropriate chart for an event.

as has been said frequently on this thread
there are multiple 'appropriate charts for an event'
and deciding that' a chart is appropriate for an event'
is entirely dependent on the personal opinion and preference of the individual astrologer

furthermore
although you ignore the angles of the Solar Return
other astrologers consider the angles of the Solar Return important

and so obviously
although it is of no consequence to you
it matters to other astrologers
that a Tropical Solar Return
produced from a natal chart timed by medical records/official birth certificate
varies from a precessed Tropical Solar Return by six hours on our 18th birthday

and by twelve hours on our thirty-sixth birthday

and by our seventy second birthday the difference = an entire day

so regarding to your comment of 'mixing apples and oranges'

consider that the precessing of a Tropical chart
by mixing precession with a system that is based on a non-precessed 0 degrees Aries point
is likewise mixing oranges with apples

unique_astrology · Sep 16, 2015

Coming to this thread before logging in I see by your post that as you could not refute me you go off on a tangent to deflect attention from your obvious loss regarding my point.

You have not studied my technique. I therefore ask that you do not comment on it from now on as you are commenting on something you only have a surface knowledge about and some of what you post is disseminating wrong information about it. There are constraints imposed by the time of events so that there are not always multiple charts to be found to describe it when using my technique. I have 40 years of studying and using the technique. How much of either do you have with it?

waybread · Sep 17, 2015

To answer your question, Bob, JA and Dirius do not have experience in chart rectification.
Dirius, in your post #124 you wrote:

"I never denied that astrologers have attempted methods that try to find the correct Ascendant without any type of birth time indication. In fact, as this was shown, its been the case since the dawn of astrology."

The dawn of astrology goes back to Sumer, not horoscopic astrology, and there is some debate as to whether horary was practiced by Hellenistic astrologers.

Second, here are excerpts from your previous posts:

From your post #2:

you can't "rectify" a chart without a time of birth.

This is why its called "rectify", because you take the time of birth you are given and change it to the actual one.

A speculative chart with no actual time of birth, its not really a rectification.

From your post #6:

you can't "rectify" a chart without a time of birth.

This is why its called "rectify", because you take the time of birth you are given and change it to the actual one.

A speculative chart with no actual time of birth, its not really a rectification. ....Rectification is done with an estimated time of birth, to turn it into the real time of birth. Like someone saying "I was born in the evening, between 9 or 10", and doing the rectification method to find he/she was born around 9:22 pm.

It is not about blind Ascendant finding.

From your post #12:

As I said, it can't be done.

From your post #16:

We are not discussing rectification techniques itself, I think we all know how to do that, but rather arguing if a rectification can be done without any sort of given birth time. (as you call it, 24 hour rectification).

I could excerpt more of your comparable posts indicating that you denied the existence of rectification without a birth time estimate, but the main thing is that you accept its existence now.

I merely comment that those methods are unreliable, and as a start fail on many concepts, they don't guarantee an accurate chart, nor do they provide good results. There are too many factors involved that make these methods a failure more often than not.

Usually when a method is unreliable and does not posses a high succes rate, the technical defintion is that they "do not functionally work". And thus, are usually discarded. Anyone is free to use them though.

The problem, however, is that the best you can say about any rectification is that one cannot say with certainty or "proof" whether it is correct or not, because even if we have an official birth record, it could be wrong. Let's put the "burden of proof" on you, and ask you to demonstrate with hard evidence, that 24-hour rectification is worthless. This wouldn't be on the basis of your logic, but on the basis of facts.

Maybe the best we can do, as per Bernadette Brady's technical article linked above, is to find a chart that is radical.

An author's opinion, is just that, an opinion. If they do not show the method working, its nothing more than a "take my word for it" statement.

The fact that they do not practice rectification is not an encouraging factor when analyzing those comments. If the authors would at least make an offer to do the method, would be evidence that they can validate those statements through their actions. Given that they do not, all that can be taken from their statement, is that its nothing more than an opinion, and not an actual method.

Dirius, Bob and I have linked or shown you many specific examples of rectification methods. What parts of these sources didn't you read? I am not going to type out the code of someone else's software program, cite verbatim a 300-page book, or duplicate an extensive thread from Astrodienst. Are you able to follow Bob's posts? But I draw my own conclusions from your (a) refusal to read or acknowledge sources with extensive information on methodology, followed by (b) your assertion that such sources somehow don't exist.

Steven Forrest and Chris Brennan certainly described their methods in sufficient detail for anyone to follow them.

Your strategy of drawing assumptions about professional astrologers is equally unsubstantiated. I asked if you had ever attempted rectification, even with a birth time estimate and if you have any idea of how time- and energy-consuming rectification is? These questions have as yet had no response. So you try your hand at a few rectifications yourself, Dirius, then let's talk.

[edited by request - Moderator]

waybread · Sep 17, 2015

Just out of curiosity, JA, when did you ever work with lunar returns, precessed, progressed, or otherwise? Since you're such a fan of Vettius Valens, you might wish to discuss his methods of rectification.

there are multiple 'appropriate charts for an event'
and deciding that' a chart is appropriate for an event'
is entirely dependent on the personal opinion and preference of the individual astrologer

This is patently incorrect, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. The whole point of using multiple cold hard dates and computer programs is to minimize the effect of "personal opinion and preference." You haven't digested any of the links I've posted or references I've cited. Why don't you replicate Bob's methods for a nativity of your choosing, and then come back and say how much of them are based upon some kind of idiosyncratic subjectivity.

Why should you be bothered by different astrologers using different methods? We accept in any area of life (except, it seems, astrology) that people will try to improve on existing methods to accomplish a task.

It's easy to criticize methods that you've never attempted.

Dirius · Sep 17, 2015

waybread said:
To answer your question, Bob, JA and Dirius do not have experience in chart rectification. I've asked Dirius, and his silence says all.
"I never denied that astrologers have attempted methods that try to find the correct Ascendant without any type of birth time indication. In fact, as this was shown, its been the case since the dawn of astrology."

First of all, the dawn of astrology goes back to Sumer, not horoscopic astrology, and there is some debate as to whether horary was practiced by Hellenistic astrologers.
From your post #6:
I could excerpt more of your comparable posts indicating that you denied the existence of rectification without a birth time estimate, but the main thing is that you accept its existence now.

If you are talking about what I wrote, let me simply explain:

The 2nd post and all those other are about the definition of the word rectification, which means to "adjust" the ascendant, not finding. If you don't have an Ascendant to begin, then by definition you are not "adjusting" the ascendant, you are simply searching for it.

:joyful:

Regarding getting a blind chart, I stand that a method by itself is imposible (it isn't accurate) given that it isn't reliable. That doesn't imply you can "shoot in the dark" and get it, which is the process that seems to be promoted.

Given that a chart based on personality and events without a start point is based on assumption, you can always come to 3 or 4 different charts with different ascendants, so the accuracy of the method is unreliable. Thus, in my opinion, its not a proper or functional method, its just an educated guess.

If something is not accurate and not reliable, it essentially doesn't work.

Generous of you. The problem, however, is that the best you can say about any rectification is that one cannot say with certainty or "proof" whether it is correct or not, because even if we have an official birth record, it could be wrong. Let's put the "burden of proof" on you, and ask you to demonstrate with hard evidence, that 24-hour rectification is worthless. This wouldn't be on the basis of your logic, but on the basis of facts.

Maybe the best we can do, as per Bernadette Brady's technical article linked above, is to find a chart that is radical.

Dirius, Bob and I have linked or shown you many specific examples of rectification methods. What parts of these sources didn't you read? I am not going to type out the code of someone else's software program, cite verbatim a 300-page book, or duplicate an extensive thread from Astrodienst. Are you able to follow Bob's posts? But I draw my own conclusions from your (a) refusal to read or acknowledge sources with extensive information on methodology, followed by (b) your assertion that such sources somehow don't exist.

Steven Forrest and Chris Brennan certainly described their methods in sufficient detail for anyone to follow them.

Your strategy of drawing assumptions out of thin air about professional astrologers is equally unsubstantiated. I asked if you had ever attempted rectification, even with a birth time estimate. Silence. I asked if you have any idea of how time- and energy-consuming rectification is? Silence. So you try your hand at a few rectifications yourself, Dirius, then let's talk.

I'm not drawing assumptions out of thin air, but rather basing myself on the validity of those comments. As I stated, an author's comments are just opinions. I know how time consuming can rectification be, but its just as much time consuming as any other astrological interpretation, thus not an excuse.

You've given these authors opinion, but still no method. Their website offers a few "tips" for any type of rectification, nothing more. If the authors don't really validate their statements, we can only take them as simple opinions. :lol:

I could try hand at a few rectifications if you want, but what would be the point of doing a normal rectification with a time of birth? -

JUPITERASC · Sep 17, 2015

[deleted attacking comments by request - Moderator]

Rectification technique developed by another astrologer who has conducted 40 years of research
may be of interest

i.e.

QUOTE

'...physical appearance can vary drastically from one decanate to the next reliance on the birth time alone for chart accuracy is simply not possible...I use True Solar Arc Directions for rectification which gives me the correct degree and minute of the ascendant, after using a rectification graph…This results in a birth time accurate to the nearest second of time. Directions date physical events…95% of charts calculated based of client's given birth time were in fact rounded off to the nearest half hour. Armed with this knowledge, I was able to MAKE sense of a tangled situation...' RON BIPPUS

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE INDICATORS http://reocities.com/athens/delphi/1601/physical.html

[edited quote over 100 words against Forum rules - Moderator]

waybread · Sep 17, 2015

Dirius, I have a lot of patience, but it isn't limitless.

Since your definition of rectification is a moving target, there's no point in discussing a definition at Time A, because by Time B, C, or D, you've changed your definition to claim you meant something else all along, like "blind" rectification being practiced since the dawn of astrology.

You either don't read the evidence contrary to your views, or if you do, you put a spin on it that is simply unsubstantiated by the articles/books/posts themselves and is merely your conjecture presented as fact.

I know that you don't rectify charts or haven't rectified many because if you did, you wouldn't say that it takes about as much time as horoscope-reading, or ask about software that you hadn't heard of. You would have given us some examples of your work using a near-birth time, as you argue that rectification is possible with a good birth time or estimate.

You have been presented with several rectification methods, most immediately by unique_astrology; yet you decline to acknowledge them. Why don't you follow his work step-by-step, and then critique his method-- if you have the background to do so? I know why you don't, but it would be instructive for you to say it.

You made up your mind about rectification long before you chimed in here, and no amount of evidence is going to change it. Under the circumstances, I suggest you simply take the last word, as that is clearly what you want here.

Dirius · Sep 18, 2015

Not all waybread, my mind isn't made up as you may think, but rather still hoping to see a glimpse of valid evidence to support the rectification method with proof of its reliability. :biggrin:

To me the proof of concept requires a standard of accuracy provided by the astrological methods. I suppose I held astrology in high regard, and expect techniques to provide verifiable results for people. But this is my personal opinion on how astrology should be treated, something that can be tested. I do not deny the existence of a method that could possibily have mix results of certain succes percentege, but I do question the reliability of such methods. Most of the evidence and concepts presented are methods with unreliable results, or the comments of authors that do not provide a valid method, but rather a simple opinion.

The most important thing to me is results. When I question another astrologer is because of the results a method can achieve, which is a fairly valid topic of discussion for a forum about astrological technique. I don't demean them based on expertise or nationality (like it was done to me on this thread).

I know that you don't rectify charts or haven't rectified many because if you did, you wouldn't say that it takes about as much time as horoscope-reading, or ask about software that you hadn't heard of.

If this is what you wish to believe waybread, you are free to do so. I do rectify charts. I didn't offer to do one, because normal rectification wasn't the point of the thread.

Please stop doing this. Getting personal doesn't help the argument of the thread.

Arena · Sep 18, 2015

Can we put up a challenge of rectification of a person I know that is not a famous person? I will not reveal the hours in question until after the challenge. It will not be as time consuming as 24 hours rectification, it is a question of about 2 hours interval. I do believe I have already come to a good conclusion, I have been trying to do that myself, and your methods and trials might actually help me a lot. But I understand if you do not want to.

I know that hospital records and mother's memory do not match. I would be curious to see what time you guys would rectify this person's chart to.

I can put the data into Caprising's thread about rectification if you are up for this one.

Oddity · Sep 18, 2015

Whether rectification working from a memory of the approximate time might work was never the argument.

The argument was whether rectification of the chart of an unknown person with no known birth time is possible, especially when you're working from only one life event.

Then it got changed to whether 24-hour rectification is accurate.

I don't think rectifying your friend's chart within a couple of hours would help much, unless you need a refresher on the process. There's a thread somewhere in here that goes through a lot of the processes, btw, but I'm not sure where it is.

Dirius · Sep 18, 2015

Arena said:
Can we put up a challenge of rectification of a person I know that is not a famous person? I will not reveal the hours in question until after the challenge. It will not be as time consuming as 24 hours rectification, it is a question of about 2 hours interval. I do believe I have already come to a good conclusion, I have been trying to do that myself, and your methods and trials might actually help me a lot. But I understand if you do not want to.

I know that hospital records and mother's memory do not match. I would be curious to see what time you guys would rectify this person's chart to.

I can put the data into Caprising's thread about rectification if you are up for this one.

But that situation would imply a time frame to start with. Not exactly the objective of the thread-

Obviously its a fun, but as I say, not the point.

Dirius · Sep 18, 2015

Oddity said:
The argument was whether rectification of the chart of an unknown person with no known birth time is possible, especially when you're working from only one life event.

Then it got changed to whether 24-hour rectification is accurate.

Exactly the point. The origin of the discussion was a birth chart that had the day of birth as the only indicator.

Didn't even have many events to begin with.

JUPITERASC · Sep 18, 2015

Oddity said:
Whether rectification working from a memory of the approximate time might work was never the argument.

The argument was whether rectification of the chart of an unknown person with no known birth time is possible,

especially when you're working from only one life event.

Then it got changed to whether 24-hour rectification is accurate.

I don't think rectifying your friend's chart within a couple of hours would help much,
unless you need a refresher on the process.

There's a thread somewhere in here
that goes through a lot of the processes, btw,

but I'm not sure where it is.

Oddity perhaps the thread you refer to is "Rectification Tips
- Verifying Ascendant/Descendant/MC/IC angles" http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51626
thread commenced 26 June 2012 :smile:

waybread said:
To answer your question, Bob, JA and Dirius do not have experience in chart rectification.

That baseless remark
is refuted by the thread I just referenced above

Interestingly, on that thread the most recent commentary reads as follows:

jg1982 said:
Thanks for that,
I am not sure how accurate it would be in my case.
I was born at 8 months..
it makes me doubt the results...

JUPITERASC said:

study the complete detailed instructions
on precisely how to calculate
the pre-natal Epoch Rectification Method
FOR FREE at http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/pamen034.htm
in particular read the entire article
especially the variables

Click to expand...

on 26 June 2015 ~ precisely three years to the exact date of commencement of the thread
jg1982 commented as follows

jg1982 said:
Jupiter,

I actually found an old thread in which we had this conversation

I actually made the calculation and it was indeed accurate.

The formula is sound.

However, the calculation leans towards the 9:14 am birth time,
while a rising sign study of physical appearance leans towards 8:50 am birth time.

Still working on this...

What is chart rectification?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member