Let me highlight the most important thing you said on that post:
Can you say for certain that your final rectified chart is correct? No
Let me highlight an important thing that you are missing or simply dislke, Dirius. You have no guarantee that a birth certificate or hospital birth time is correct. Which is why some astrologers (not me) believe that all charts should be rectified, regardless, so that the resulting chart gives the best fit with the native's biography. So, Dirius:
Can you say for certain that any natal chart is correct? No
I understand probabilities waybread, and I understand your point that if the chart seems to match, the odds of that being the time birth are obviously high.
Yet it doesn't mean the chart is the accurate one. Why? Simple, because another "sample" chart can also get the same high succes results.
Here you can go about that the method you described may get you good results. But its not really a certain one.
Dirius, nothing is certain in astrology!!! And for so many reasons. We don't look for certainty in astrology. We look for a chart that is
radical. Then we do the best job of interpretation that we can with it. "Radical" here has nothing to do with far-left politics. In astrology, "radical" simply means a chart that gives good interpretive results. (For an excellent discussion of this principle, read Geoffrey Cornelius,
The Moment of Astrology.)
I have no difficulty in taking your point, except that it is off-base. When you read a horary chart, you don't know for certain that the client gave you the correct time, or that your own timing (if you go by the moment that you grasp the question) is truly accurate for the moment of the question. But you would get a sense before proceeding, of whether or not the chart seemed
radical. Some astrologers do this by checking the ruler of the hour, while others would plunge in, regardless.
What you keep ignoring from my point, is the fact that, along with a very accurate chart, you can also make a different one, that may probably fit all those points too, with a very different setup. Given that there could be a wide arrange of charts that may fit the life on the individual, therefore, identifying the correct one with certain judgement is imposible.
Actually, Dirius, you have presented no evidence to support your position here. Can you supply some examples? (I can, but I'll wait, if the suspense doesn't kill me first.) But let's turn your question on its head.
Suppose 3 astrologers tackle the problem of rectifying the horoscope of Eva Perón, whose true birth time is unknown, and there are some conflicting testimonies. (Are you familiar with the Rodden rating system for birth times, explained at
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Help:RR ? The Astro-DataBank has hundreds of charts, and they're not all rated AA.) Each astrologer gets to work and comes up with a different birth chart. Ideally, the 3 of them then get together and work out their differences, but the "best" chart cannot be based on accuracy, when your sole definition of accuracy is an identical match up with the birth moment (which, mind you, may not even be the time on the birth certificate.) The
radical chart is the one that gives the best results when subsequently checked against further biographical details of Eva Perón's life.
The concept can't be sustained because it still has a high probability of not being the correct one.
Also that implication means leaving aside the other 2 or 3 possible charts that would also describe the native's life very well.
Review the concept of the
radical chart, described above, and explain how you deal with the reality that an official birth record might be wrong: not just by minutes, but by an am/pm mix-up or transcription error.
[/quote]I'm glad your authors thinks he can. Tell me does he offer any sample chart or method for a completly unkown chart? And any given example with a tested chart?
Or is just "his opinion" that it can be done.
[/quote]
Occasionally an accurate birth time does subsequently show up, against which a rectification can be compared. See:
https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/my-very-first-chart-rectification/
Back when I first learned astrology I had no birth record and both my parents were deceased. I struggled mightily with rectification, and actually came within several degrees of my subsequently-discovered birth record time. While my ascendant sign was off (it's late Virgo, vs. my best guess was early Libra,) it wasn't a bad effort for a novice, and most of my planets in houses stayed the same, depending on the house system used.
Well given that the original question in the other topic was directed at unique_astrology and not at you, yet it was you the one defending the method, I suppose that you were either aware of the method, or at least agreeing with it.
Well, suppose again, Dirius. Rather, I've seen a lot of unique_astrology's work, both here and at Astrodienst. He's pretty impressive. What I am sticking up for, in a more general way, is the concept of rectification. And sure, as Chris Brennan (linked above) noted, let's understand that the rectified chart is tentative. It's not cast in bronze. But than neither is a hospital record.
Yet the contradiction on your statement makes me question on how you would agree or state that the method can be done, if it doesn't even have the qualifications you are saying it should have.
Given that the 2 points you are basing your argument are that you would require a large amount of events to time along with good knowledge of the individual, and the chart posted by unique_astrology probably lacks both this points, it doesn't really make much sense.
You are arguing with the wrong person about this, Dirius. I suggest you PM unique_astrology and ask him for a full explanation.
Furthermore, lets be realistic on something: The chart was termed as a "speculative" chart. You are keen on definitions, lets understand that the chart was labeled as just a speculation of what his chart may look like, but not exactly a real one.
Is there an echo in here? And good luck with verifying that "real chart."