I got bumped over here from unique_astrology's thread "What Pluto Giveth Pluto Taketh Away."
I'd like to clarify some things about rectification practice, since I do this as the largest share of my astrology practice.
Rectification covers every attempt to correct a radix Asc considered inaccurate, or to clarify one that is believed close to accurate, or to further specify a correct Asc using a given time range.
While I have enthusiasm and determination to serve my clients best I can, there is a certain real dread of the 24-hour rectification that many of us can have. So the way we work around that is to get the client to get as much done on their end as possible to get statements from relatives who were witnesses or who could anchor a time of day in a 'string of events fashion' ... "I know I had already eaten lunch...", etc.
It is best to have some notion of the general time of day to work with. But that does not mean a skilled, observant, patient rectifier cannot arrive at a correct chart with no time-related anchors at all. The best chances of success with this come when the rectifier knows the person and is well familiar with them. It is far less likely when dealing with public figures -- but it can be done IF all relevant information is taken into account, such as the person's physical features, demeanor/manner on record in film, etc.
Just because a person gives a "time of birth" does not mean the matter is settled. Let's look at what "time of birth" means in reality. It is a piece of datum on a state issued or medical certificate, and is the
least important datum to the recorders of that document. It is the only datum that has no relevance whatsoever to the person's legal status, Social Security processing, etc. There is no common motivation whatsoever for making certain that this datum is always recorded, and recorded accurately.
I have clients who possess their official state issued birth documents that contain a time, but which disagrees with what numerous relatives say who witnessed the birth. Sometimes the difference is in
hours. This is an example that tests an astrologer's confidence in their astrological literacy and fluency. Do you simply take the supposed fact recorded on the document, pretending it is impossible for government bureaucrats or medical workers to make a mistake? Or do you believe the people who were there and can actually set a time range?
Sometimes there is no help at all for time info. This is when we go
purely astrological. This is an even greater test of the astrologer's astrological literacy and fluency of both planets and signs.
Astrological fluency means working knowledge of the full sky. One cannot achieve complete fluency unless working with declinations and including them in rectification efforts. Small errors and large ones are most commonly from using only flat wheel longitude astrology and failing to consider the declinations. Yet there is a learning curve for including declinations in such complex work that many are loathe to undertake.
That is my first reference point: the movement of the sky in real 3D terms; not traditional methodologies or rules; not more modern methods that have been published by popular astrologers. So I just don't participate in debate along the lines of 'modern vs traditional' rectification approaches, because it is irrelevant to me.
I don't know what unique_astrology considers in arriving at a 'speculative' chart, as with Fogle. He seems to enjoy the more technical parts and I'd like to see him explain more fully his approach regarding what points him to a particular Asc sign/degree. (I'm thinking in tropical zodiac terms here).
You need more than mere life events to do 24-hour rectifications, or any rectification for that matter. I always need life events, but those alone amount to almost nothing without a well-focused, solid picture of the person as a human being. There can be clues in what a person says they've been going through, and members of this forum can see where I have speculated in such a manner here. But that does not amount to a final rectification in any way.
One of the main reasons that some astrologers have given up rectification
is it can be grueling, and incredibly time consuming. Most astrologers who make their living doing astrology do not like to do it, and never develop the fluency needed to consistently perform rectification work accurately or speed up the process. Often they will use gimmicks, angles, or tricks to adjust the chart or point to an Asc based on a time range given to them, or purposely exclude certain factors in the attempt to narrow the information stream they want to consider. That is not the best approach. The best approach is to increase brain power and organization methodologies.
I use all planets in longitude and declination to find the correct Asc. I use the word "correct" here with the understanding that this term is ordinarily used for matters of 'fact' not subtle, subjective spheres of circumstantial evidence as happens in astrology. And I have fixed standards for determining the validity of a chart rectification:
https://kannonmcafee.wordpress.com/chart-validation-standards/
All this can be learned by being patient, very determined, aware you will make mistakes and that those are your greatest learning opportunities to increase your skill; by using reference materials like The Rulership Book (Rex Bills), and by understanding how to sift out what in any chart situation is superfluous information. This is a skill that requires both logic and intuition to be active and in balance.
As to the example of Mars and red hair more recently in this thread, I have a reaheaded client for whom I did a rectification in 2000 based on time info she had then, which was around 10 AM or so (from father years previous). It led me to Libra rising with Mars conjunct Asc. At that time I did not know how to properly integrate declinations in my efforts.
About a year later she came back to me with a time from her uncle of around 1 PM, which pointed to mid-Scorpio/Neptune for the Asc. I still did not know what to do with that information, to test it properly, because I had seen events and progressed aspect/transit confirmation of the mid-Libra Asc conjuct Mars. So I negated that info, choosing to believe her father over her uncle, and choosing to take the chart as confirmed enough.
A consult with this client last year allowed me to put my improved rectification skills to work which included declinations. In testing the mid-Libra/Mars chart, it failed immediately. (This is where the validation standards come into play). I then had to advance the chart time-wise to an early Scorpio Asc (contra-parallel Sun in early Virgo), which not only proved to have very tight connection to specific points in her loved one's charts, but was qualified according to my
Chart Validation Standards.
That obviously removed Mars from the area of her Asc, putting it in the 12th house. But what remained was the
Moon Parallel Mars aspect that had been there all along in declination. Moon/Mars can be as much suspected in red hair and ruddy/freckled skin as Mars/Asc/ Such aspects can dominate in one's personality in ways that can obscure, even overshadow the Asc sign, especially when only longitude information is otherwise considered (showing up as assertiveness, quickness to anger, red/ruddy hair/complexion).
So I am affirming the redhead/ruddy connection to Mars (without stating it as absolute), while also further making my point that the declinations must be considered.