Astro Sleuthing Contests Feedback

This feedback was received from readers of Astro Sleuthing Contests, by T. Patrick Davis.

Click here to see the answer to the contest.

i think these contests are a great way of determining the true serious astrology practitioners really devoted to this profession. unfortunately i didn't submit my entry cause i was too late and i didn't have access to the magazine. i agree that astrologers should be open to new ideas and should not be stubborn. as this will only add to the progress of this field. please inform me about the upcoming contests as i am eager to test my methods. thank you.

padmanabh
mailto:silvous_18pk@rediffmail.com
7July2001

mailto:sandstone8@yahoo.com
29Dec2000

Dear Mark McDonough,

Just a thought, although as a new subscriber to the databank I'm not sure how often you post these 'tests' ... speaking for myself, it came at a particularly hectic time of year, and I was intrigued by sitting down and participating but just couldn't get past the other 2,459,672 things on my "To Do" list.

I do however, think the precept is well taken and look forward to another round of testing. I remember taking a class with Lois Rodden where she in essence did this kind of thing by giving us charts with no names and asking us to analyze who the famous people connected with the charts were. The class 'got' Madonna and 'got' Hugh Heffner. The painful fact was that we didn't spot Jeffrey Dahmer and in the end, that's an important commentary on the research, refining of methods and teaching still necessary in astrology.

I'm also very much in favor of certification, which is a background conversation here, but what the hey, I'll throw it in.

I do think your point that people might have taken this as a validation or negation of their skills a valid one: people are loath to appear 'wrong' and the problem with the internet is that it's hard to know who is passing around bad stuff about you. Perhaps a chat room forum could be set up for discussions of these types or even classes on this type of delineation?

Frankly I didn't even have time to check out the contest closely enough to know how to set a like 'test' up, however if the material remains on the site through January I will try and get there (although I'm moving in January... hmmm.)

But in any case, thank you for your commentary and thoughts and I wish you and yours safe and happy holidays.

Best,
Boots Hart
27Dec2000

I thank you once again for all the work in the astro sleuth contest, and hope that it can continue in some manner. I participated in this, but may have missed reading the project properly, as I mailed in my answer to the address as listed, and I suppose I requested my name not be published. I see though that I "guessed" right!! 

At any rate, I would like to help you out in any preparation to setting up another one of these projects, if I can be of any assistance,

sincerely
James
27Dec2000

Ms. Davis:

I repeat my recommendation that you continue with this study; but, please consider making at least a couple basic changes in the approach of your astro-sleuthing contest!

As I said elsewhere, I believed a couple changes in your approach to these "contests" would help immensely to generate additional quality responses from your readers. First: I recommended that you immediately stop apologizing for the fact that this site's exercise in comparing astrology techniques, sounds like a "contest". Also, forget your assertion that the fact some of us see this as a "Contest" in the negative sense of the word, explains your meager response rate from interested but still-silent astrologers.

Your introduction to this exercise hastens to reassure us that this is NOT a "contest", in the usual sense of the word -- and I must agree.

But, my agreement is not for the reasons which you give. I beleive you are trying to get us to teach something to ourselves, using this "contest" as the tool to accomplish that.

You've stated that you desire is for some form of uniformity amongst professional astrologers, that it is essential to future credibility of professional astrology, either by the general public and other professionals, as well.

Pretty much all professional astrologers agree with that concept, in principle. But, I do not agree with your chosen method of making your point.

I suspect that you are using this "contest" as a means to provide you with a pulpit from which to drive home your idea that far too many so-called "professional" astrologers employ various and sundry techniques without ever seriously and objectively determining their real value.

You need to re-emphasize your expressed desire to encourage astrologers to learn how to best execute most any preferred technique, rather than even appear to be testing the astrologers who prefer to use them!!!

To this end, I believe that this "contest" is in fact, a poorly executed, probably sincere Socratic ruse -- by which you have hopes of educating professional astrological community of the need to build an awareness of their own pitiful need for establishing a consensus amongst themselves, a consensus that defines proper astrological techniques.

I agree with your goal -- but not your methods.

Second, I believe that if your real goal is aimed at enhancing professional standards then you should make a point of publishing every valid, working technique, as well as any others not found to be so useful.

Therefore, after you have revealed the correct chart answer, you should avidly invite follow-up input from all your readers, proposing a discussion upon how any of the submitted techniques might have been fine-tuned and made to be more precise and effective.

You should make a point of publishing everything and encouraging discussion upon ALL submitted responses -- Especially the wrong ones!

Some techniques are flawed in theory, while others are simply good techniques which are too poorly executed. So, this effort can especially helpful for novice and professional astrologers alike. Especially those who may not realize that they may presently be using a particular technique that is suspiciously similar to some of the ones that did not yield good results, in this instance!!

To do this, I believe you should encourage multiple and creative solutions -- Both the right ones, AND wrong ones! Do not even hint that some solutions should somehow be discouraged while others must be emphasized. Rather encourage discussion as to why some techniques succeed while others do not.

Many techniques are inadequate merely for reasons of technical application, and not because their basic theory is inherently flawed.

For many years, up until the 1950's, medical techniques could not demonstrate that cigarettes caused Cancer, etc. As a result many doctors felt justified in openly discouraged a reliance upon vitamins for good health maintenance, as dangerous and unwise -- even branding their frequent use as quackery -- while magazine ads showed flaunted endorsements from medical doctors stating that cigarettes would the digestion after a heavy meal!

Try to find that kind of endorsement today! The culture changed, as the technical expertise changed. The techniques changed the medical profession's culture, not the other way around. If you want to see change in culture of professional astrologers, then you will need to do it from the ground up, by encouraging the expose' of original techniques, not this sort of Socratic examination, that amounts to something less that a public flogging.

There are many techniques that work, just like there are many drugs that fight disease. There is no ONE technique that obviates the rest. But, multiple approaches used in tandem may yield even more encouraging results! Therefore, encourage original and fresh approaches. I fear the word "contest" suggests a correct way and a wrong way is being determined here, and that is not conducive to free discussion, leading to fresh insight for all.

Also, in the 1950's, the term "health-nut" was intended as an insult, not a compliment? Remember that also in the 1950's, the American Medical Association which certified new doctors, while discouraging any serious reliance upon vitamins and health foods, emphasizing instead that statistics repeatedly showed that only early diagnosis and radical surgery was the scientifically proven method for dealing with all forms of Cancer. On this point the medical community was nearly in complete agreement!

But others, who chose to emphasize that the best technique might not have been found yet, set out to discover it thru experimentation, and free-exchange of less-than-successful techniques. This was a far cry from insisting that any technique that does not work every time should be set aside in favor of radical surgery. Recommending certain diets and specific vitamins was considered professional fraud.

The solution for astrology is not to find a consensus in methodology, any more than the solution to Cancer is a uniform recommendation for major surgery. Times have changed! Because the techniques had changed. The techniques changed the medical community's culture.

Vitamins cannot cure Cancer any more than transits can cure cancer. But, a judicious application of both vitamins and a knowledge of the patients transits CAN help.

Third -- and lastly -- and this is VERY important. Always disclose ALL the ancillary events in the lives of the individuals under consideration, not just the few major events you focus upon in the background on your questions. In your explanations of the answers to the contest, you referred to information and details you did not provide in the contest description of the situation.

Go ahead and give us these other details: like the individual's need to travel in order to get to the testing center, the physical exhaustion reported by the individual afterwards, the move to a new home, the very important coincidental remarriage of her father, soon afterwards, et.

ALL these factors must be accounted for in the actual chart, so their disclosure beforehand could be used to verify the precise sequence of events, and their timings as they are indicated to occur in the chart.

Instead, you withheld both the final solution, and key incidental facts related to the circumstances of the individual in question. Even though you relied upon some of these withheld pieces of information to confirm your OWN findings. You found it instructive, and so would we. But, you did what you did not allow us to do! -- Verify the possible methods and result by cross-checking other co-incidental factors in the individual's chart, using information you did not disclose.

This is like claiming you are teaching us how to play poker, but asking us to play with real money (our self-esteem). The rules are simple: We can't see each other's cards; but, you know the what the next several draw cards are going to be. You really only prove that others are blind to information that only you are privy to. This teaches people how to lose at poker, not improve their game. It definitely discourages even the most enthusiastic student.

Withholding confirmatory information and then failing to discuss the WRONG solutions as well as the RIGHT ones, is just like an math instructor who doesn't provide the final solutions to a math quiz, until everyone has committed themselves to one solution or another. Then, giving the correct answer, fails to invite discussion on the reasonings behind the solutions that failed!

Often this sort of discussion shows inspiration at work, and demonstrates that any solution is open for discussion. The other professions do this and I know there are other sites attempting to provoke this same sort of professional dialogue.

Believe me, a multiple choice test that does not spend as much time on the wrong answers and it does explaining the right ones is, worse than useless and is a poor teaching technique indeed. That sort of teaching attitude is closed, and does not easily encourage uninhibited, free-flowing, stimulating two-way discussions.

Even bad techniques are usually supported by at least some sound reasonings. Airing them as "honorable mentions" or "original" alone, can spawn additional insights in our community at large.

But, not discussing the wrong answers, instead does just the opposite: it discourages original inspirational thinking. It stifles intelligent, and admittedly sometimes risky mental speculations.

But, explaining why an answer is wrong, gives another opportunity to teach the interested, without discouraging their efforts. It always helps the quiet students, and often provokes mutually-stimulating dialog amongst sincerely interested professionals.

If you really WANT to provoke more discussion and involvement, then NOW! while all the answers are clearly revealed on your most recent quizzes -- publish all the submissions, and then encourage discussion in support of any of the approaches employed. Both the correct efforts, and the methods which drew the wrong conclusions. Often these need to be rewarded for being original in their thinking. other techniques may only have needed to be tweaked in order to turn a failed approach into a winner!!

In short invite as many people as you can get to suggest ADDITIONAL ways to skin that cat!

Then publish every responses, inviting comments by anyone on anything. You WILL see a veritable smorgasbord of ideas: an intellectual buffet feast for hungry eyes.

I repeat: Your present effort is STILL TOO MUCH LIKE A TEST! This should NOT even be a contest!! Right now we are asked to compete to see who can figure out what YOU already know! This is simply wrong-headed!!

Your effort should be billed as an opportunity to see how many techniques were able to demonstrate the efficacy of various techniques, using the charts only as a case in point, for demonstration!!

Give the answer in the beginning. The contest is to see who can provide an original technique that could have predicted the event already past. This way I can add your pet technique to mine, this will provide both of us, and the readers with something closer to the truth.

No matter how you dress it up, this "contest" smacks more of an examination, rather than a clarion call for professional astrologers to perform honest reality checks upon their own and each others' preferred methods!!

Bravo to your idea!

What is needed now, however, is for you to demonstrate larger willingness to publish share all cognitive input from any astrological professionals willing to listen and learn from sincere colleagues.

Meet THAT standard, and you WILL soon get the very sort intellectual exchange you may have been hoping for.

Professionals publish and share their techniques and results all the time. Everyone benefits greatly from that sort of exchange. You obviously have the enthusiastic attention of some of us! I encourage any effort you make to revisit your methods.

Steve Zephyr
mailto:stevezephyr@yahoo.com
26Dec2000

P.S. I would very much appreciate any response this time. This is my second email to you on this subject. I am sincerely and honestly intrigued by your efforts.

Like most professionals, I too have some personally interesting charts and techniques to offer, esp. regarding the locating of missing individuals. Everyone has a special interest. We all have much to share. Thanks again!

Steve,

I love your ideas about looking deeper into techniques that didn't work. I still believe that it is important for intellectual honesty (and more fun) to not know the answer ahead of time.

I also agree that more details would be nice, but we run into another intellectual honesty problem. If the bio is written by an astrologer it might get skewed towards details that happen to fit standard interpretations of charts (i.e. lots of planets in the ninth house and we say the person likes to travel). We might also leave out details that were not in line with standard astrological interpretations (i.e. their are lots of planets in the 7th and we fail to mention that the person was a hermit). Then we only end up confirming our prejudices. Properly speaking the bio should not be written by someone who has seen the chart.

Perhaps I am just too strict a researcher. Perhaps just having someone lead a discussion even if the bio was written by an astrologer would help us hone in on techniques that work better than others. I would still insist on a phase where the answers were not known. If someone is too ego involved in being wrong they certainly can submit their answers anonymously in phase one.

What do you think?

Mark McDonough
mailto:Mark@AstroDatabank.com
27Dec2000

You know, I thought this was archival. If I had realized that this was a current item, I might have given it a shot. It would be nice if we all tried again - if you haven't run out of patience, that is. I find examples like this and the ISAR Astrology Contest questions very intriguing.

Sorry I missed it.

Barbara Blackie
mailto:bblackie@there.net
26Dec2000

I didn't know there was an astro-sleuthing contest on this site. Anyhow, I think I participated in this particular contest many years ago when it was published in an astro magazine. So I may have known the answer. Having a contest on this site now and then is a good idea, but the link should be featured on the first page.

Terese Hamilton
mailto:eastwest@snowcrest.net
26Dec2000

• Girl one: Born 18 September 1953 at 9:49 am CST in Kansas City, Kansas (39N07, 94W37:30). Data from birth certificate.
• Girl two: Born 16 September 1954 at 9:50 am CST in Kansas City, Kansas (39N07, 94W37:30). Data from birth certificate.
• Girl three: Born 26 October 1955 at 7:56 am CST in Kansas City, Missouri (39N06, 94W34:42). Data from birth certificate.

(General accuracy of all data was confirmed by the mothers.) 

Event: One of the young ladies, represented by the data above, graduated with high honors as a Doctor of Medicine on the afternoon of 11 May 1991 in the Midwest. At a special dinner the night before, she was singled out and praised for her achievements. Before beginning private practice, she must fulfill a two-year residency, but there is a salary. Her residency work began within a couple of months of graduation.>>>

My response: Looking at the Tropical non-precessed Solar Return (SR) charts for the birth place for 11 May 1991: Girl Two is the only member of the trio in which a Solar Return angle falls on a natal angle. Specifically, Girl Two’s natal Midheaven (career & recognition) falls on her Solar Return Ascendant. Angular conjunctions between the SR chart and the natal chart always signify highly significant and memorable years in a person’s life, so I would pick Girl Two as having the most significant year regarding career, honors, and achievement.

Anthony Louis
mailto:tonylouis@aol.com
25Dec2000

As one of only two people to "guess" correctly, I have a few comments (at the risk of acting like a bit of an ass).

First, to Ken Leong, who also picked the correct person, I used a rectification hypothesis of 9:46:42, based on a placidus mundo reflection of venus/saturn around the rising point. A theory of someone else's I've been working with for the past couple of years posits that birth is important enough an event to require an exact mundo aspect to the rising point of an outer planet, or a mundo reflection around 1/7 or 4/12 involving one. This may help better read the divisional chart Ken mentioned. It was the only candidate time close to the given time that satisfied those criteria.

My second comment has to do with the justification provided by the author of the study, which I thought was quite a stretch for several reasons.

First, since the justification was provided after the fact of knowing the event, we all know that we can find astrological reasoning to support what we've seen. The other direction, as posed by the "challenge" is more difficult, and I'm not sure that the "deductive reasoning" given would have allowed the selection. But perhaps I'm wrong, and it was applied before knowing the answer?

Secondly, much of the reasoning presented was in terms of the natal chart alone. This leads me to believe that the answer was known before providing it. This is not to say that the dynamic indications should not be taken in the context of the natal, as that's where the potential for activation lies, but it's really the dynamic indications (in the context of the natal) that should show the event.

Third, my opinion is that the progressed angles as normally done are bogus. This was an invention of Alan Leo that attempted to approximate primary directions by applying an arbitrary yearly increment (Naibod) to the RAMC. I believe this technique missed the point of secondaries, which is a mapping of time-to-time, better represented by the quotidian. As I mentioned in my quickie rationale, the quotidian put mars and jupiter exactly on the 1/7 axis the in the day or two around the graduation, with Jupiter on 1. Of course, the primary direction of sun to 10 was the teller.

Third, resorting to helio natal positions to tell the story seems to be digging pretty deeply into the bag. For event timing, one shouldn't have to reach so far to natal potentials.

Finally, as a comment to Mark's regarding the assessment of technique, I believe the real problem with a lot of astrological techniques is that we lack rationale for them. In other words, reliable theory. It's very easy to get an inspiration and pull something new out of the hat. But it's more difficult to see the structure of our astrological language that underlies technique, and which provides the principles for sound technique. I believe such structure and principles exist, and need to be tested and refined in the light of empirical "tests" like the one that appears here. But I find after 30 years of astrology that I distrust an awful lot of what goes down as technique and innovation because it lacks foundation.

So let's keep doing things like this experiment, but lets start differentiating speculation from well-founded astrological theory, and start working on the latter. It's of a lot more value than "it works for me".

Ed Falis
mailto:efalis@mediaone.net
24Dec2000

Her sun is in Scorpio which is well noted for affinity for medicine while her Moon in Pisces in the 4th house along with the Part of Fortune points to her compassionate nature and her parental support. This last is strongly manifest financially because of Pisces' Moon’s affinity for the rich, elegant life of privileges. The Part of Fortune is simply a "bit of goose" indicating great financial support from the parents. Financially the North Node in the 2nd house also increases financial acuity. Lastly we note the 9th and 10th houses. The former beholds Uranus (as in all 3 charts) indicating much creativity and original thought in regards topics of higher learning and philosophy. The latter combination of Pluto and Jupiter in 10th house Leo indicates one who is expansive, judgmental, adamant, proud and obsessed with their status in life. In short this strong 10th house would server a doctor of medicine well when treating patients who were less than cooperative – a must for any prospective medico.

Now the bad news. There is a lot in this chart that frankly worries me about any potential doctor of medicine. The lack of earth planets means this woman sees herself as possessed of a special "angel" who will allow her to transcend the bounds of mortal constraints. In short her lack of earth means she will feel confident to tread where wise men fear to go. Her Mars in Detrimental Libra conjunct Mercury indicates one who will definitely jump to conclusions and do things her own way. While this is not inconsistent with medical SOP, it is worrisome. Then there is my personal experience with 12th house Suns. These people are hard-working, sympathetic and gentle but not much when it comes to leading the parade and commanding obedient respect from the masses. Finally the Saturn conjunct Venus shows, among other physical things, a person who is insecure and has had to shoulder too many responsibilities in her life.

So with all these faults as described in my second paragraph why do I pick girl number 3? Simple: you gave the clues about her family support and the combination of lights in Scorpio and Pisces are primary indicators of interest in medicine.

My own preference for MD would have been chart number 1 except that you threw in that business about extreme family financial support. If that family support were not so emphasized in your comments. girl number 1 would win hands down despite the cliché medical indicators of girl number 3 (Sun/Moon, Scorpio/Pisces). A t-square with Uranus opposite the Moon (brilliant mind) squaring a 12th house Saturn seems perfect. A very dynamic woman capable of much strength of character and able to bend the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (Saturn transits) into beneficial learning experiences. Also I’m much more inclined to view a Mars in Virgo as a potential surgeon. While this girl does have the Part of Fortune in the 4th house, just like Girl number 3, this Arabic part only indicates family support, not financial largesse as your clues defined.

Girl number 2 with her Capricorn Mars, Taurus Moon and Virgo Sun is just too, too earthy, too greedy, utilitarian, laid back and self-centered. She has only one fire planet and this is a poor indicator of initiative. Her Saturn conjunct Venus widely opposite 7th house Moon is just too much emotional baggage to be a good doctor. She’d be in therapy more than in the operating room. Of course these things alone do not preclude a medical doctorate. God knows quite well that there are plenty of doctors with neuroses. But there is also no indication of the family financial largesse. Quite the opposite in fact. Mars in Capricorn gives girl 2 a head for practicality and a positive outlet for aggressions and competitive urges. However, being in the 2nd house this planet also indicates one who is no stranger to financial hardships and the need to fight for every dollar earned. Such things may indeed lurk in a doctor’s past but not if daddy is the money tree you indicate.

So there your are. I imagine you can stomp on my reasoning and point out the error of my ways. This I am not looking forward to. However, I am not ashamed to voice my opinions. Hopefully you will be kind. I regret that there was such emphasis placed upon the new MD’s family financial support. Because of this clue I had to choose girl 3 over girl 1 though don't look for me in the former's waiting room any day soon!

Best wishes and thanks for a very interesting and "tough" contest. These three women had a whole lot in common and it was a real task winnowing the pertinent facts down to individual distinctions.

Edwin L. Schoen
mailto:elschoen@dpliv.com
24Dec2000

Thank you for offering this exercise. I hope we will have the opportunity to try the other 5 or 6 puzzles as well.

I use Vedic Astrology, Lahiri Ayanamsh, Vimshottari Dasha based on 365.25 days per year, geocentric Moon position (not corrected for parallax). My accuracy (or lack of it) in prediction does not necessarily reflect on the principles I use but rather on my skill in applying the principles. For example, recently in email conversations with people who have had courses identical to mine, we found that we were split 50-50 on whether Bush or Gore would win the election, mirroring the voting public. Although we were all using the same principles, we seemed to be equally divided as to the conclusions those principles would give in a specific situation.

The exercise was more difficult than my first impression of it. I excluded Girl One because I could not convince myself that RaCh (Rahu-Moon) dasha would bring such a positive upsurge in honors. RaCh usually turns out rough, particularly emotionally, due to the inimical natures of Rahu and Moon. True, Moon is the 10th Lord of honor and Rahu can denote transformation, but both Rahu and Moon are in Saturn’s sign (Capricorn), which I found it hard to believe would give honors at a young age of life. The other two girls have Venus Lord of the 1st (self) and the 8th (research) with Saturn Lord of the 5th (higher education), which I found more convincing for success in education at a young age.

Deciding between Girls Two and Three was harder. Both show a period of hard work and being in seclusion a lot of the time prior to the day of recognition, RaSa (Rahu-Saturn) for Two and SaBu (Saturn-Mercury) for Three. In the end, I chose Girl Two for the following reasons: 1. She seems to have a stronger will power than Three (Mars and Rahu in the 3rd, Jupiter Lord of 3rd exalted in the 10th). 2. Read from the Moon chart, she has a stronger propensity for deep research than Three. (Mars Lord of 1st (self) and 8th (research) in the 9th (good fortune) aspecting his dispositor exalted Jupiter. 3. I felt prospects for honors for Two are slightly better: exalted Jupiter in 10th (honor), Moon Lord of 10th in 7th aspected by Venus Lord of 1st (self) and Saturn yogakarak Lord of 4th (confidence) and 5th (success) versus Moon Lord of 10th in 5th aspected by Jupiter, but this Jupiter is also Lord of 6th (obstacles) and has a debilitated dispositor.

I could not confirm birth times precisely enough to rely on divisional charts. Two’s time is less than a minute after a change in her Dashamsh, divisional chart for professional success, and Three’s time is barely more than a minute after a change in her Navamsh, the most important divisional chart. But I did feel that both possible Navamsh charts for Three are not so supportive for a big success in career in Saturn-Mercury.

Ken Leong
mailto:kenleong@juno.com
24Dec2000

In reading your study's introduction, I came to suspect that your entire study is actually now defunct – with no clear prospects for ever restarting it again. Yet, since I believe you might have initially stirred more interest than the final numbers of participants might otherwise suggest, I feel you just might be interested in an unsolicited suggestion for possibly taking an alternative approach, should you ever decide to try your study again.

Your stated goal of increasing acceptance of astrological insights by the lay community is shared by most serious professionals in this craft. Although your tone is subtly presumptuous, your efforts are actually laudable, and supported in spirit by most in the astrological community. While you implied that detected inconsistencies by stubborn astrologers was hurting astrology as a profession, you apparently were quicker overlook of your own inconsistencies regarding your own methods in carrying out this study.

In your introduction, you stated that you perceived a need for an established consensus amongst "professional" astrologers, be found and maintained, implying strongly that a lack of such consistency in methods, works against astrology's long term acceptance in the larger society in which we live.

If it is true that you sincerely want astrologers to reach some basic consensus as to their variously proclaimed methodologies, then perhaps you should have invited astrologers themselves to build such a consensus – perhaps by challenging them to come up with additional reliable methods, rather than fewer. If your intention was to reduce method down to its bare essentials, through intelligent consideration of what makes a valid method, your "contest" format did not do this! If anything, it apparently had a stifling effect upon open any honest consideration of alternative methods, because each participant was tested upon whether there method was accurate, instead of whether their method was reasonable.

You should never even pretended that you were conducting a contest of methodologies. No matter how harmless you tried to make such an evaluation sound. A test will always still be a test – especially if its end result is intended to make very clear just who can get the mystery answer right, and who can not.

Surely you could see that despite your stated intentions to the contrary, the lone effect of setting you up to be a examiner of questionable methodologies, did not provide your nor anyone else a vehicle for building anything like a consensus.

Rather than any sort of an elimination process, under the guise of a "contest", what was actually needed was a mutually respectful, open and free sharing of multiple and various astrological methodologies. The only challenge was that these had to be demonstrated using the already-reveal facts surrounding each of the three charts in question. That way, everyone would already know the answer, while the challenge was to provide a method that should have been able to predict it.

What you did was definitely something quite different, and far more threatening, as your diminishing participation numbers clearly demonstrated.

Ostensibly, your "sleuthing contest" posited a single event had occurred to one of three birth charts, while inviting astrologers to explain which of three possible birth charts best fit the already past event, which presumably occurred in only one of the three charts.

You openly encouraged supplementary explanations regarding the various methods and reasonings used; but, in the end, the method was judged thumbs up or thumbs down, depending entirely upon whether the select chart was the right one or not.

Furthermore, although you encouraged participants to try again, you candidly noted that unless your respondents were correct the very first try, for some unknown reason, your contestants usually failed to even try to participate ever again – and the drop-off rate was alarmingly high.

*******************************************************************************

Your informative introduction further revealed that study demonstrated that when an astrologer's method was shown to be wrong, based solely upon its results, that, even when confronted with the simple inaccuracy in their results – that remarkably supposedly professional astrologers stubbornly clung to failed methods, blindly refusing to adopt other methods that showed far more promise.

I should hope that I am not the first to tell you how very plain it is, that your study was not at all what you claimed it to be: demonstration of a need to build consensus in the professional astrological community.

If it was not apparent at first, then very soon after it became very clear that your real intention was to show, that in fact, it is likely the fault of present-day so-called professional astrologers, that at the end of the 20th Century, astrology as a science, remains effectively stuck in the Dark Ages – so far as social and professional acceptance by the intelligent standards of society at large.

What is sadder still, is that your conclusions are likely correct. But, you never needed professional or semi-professional astrologers to prove that to you. What you apparently needed was evidence that astrologers were willing to change, and as a result professional astrology could not change either. But, rather than merely restate the problem, using the actions of your participants, I feel you missed a fine opportunity to contribute to such real solution.

The solution was simply this: Have the participating astrologers build the very consensus you seek. Make that the challenge in your contest.

*****************************************************************************

The other particulars in your description of your fatally flawed study also revealed that in the course of conducting this "contest" or "study," you apparently overlooked or failed to make effective use of – or more likely largely failed to appropriately appreciate – the single greatest resource which any interested astrological respondent can make readily available to you: A trusting willingness to share their personal techniques and experiences.

Although apparently no one doubted your own ability to conduct this sort of credible examination of professional-level astrological methods, the greatest single drawback in the method you employed was your apparent inability – or unwillingness – to invite these responding astrologers to share as many reasonable explanations of how it might be possible to arrive at the correct conclusions, drawing a variety methods. In fact, far from being any threat to astrological professionalism, encouraging professional astrologers to deliberately come up with as many methods for arriving at the very same previously known predictions was biggest loss of your study. Coming up with the answer wasn't the hard part – you already had that. The challenge was coming up with original methods of getting the right answer. That was the part your missed out on. And yet there would have been the eventual basis for your consensus.

To astrologers, there is a high value placed upon any forum or venue where credible professionals are able (and willing!!) to explain just how it was that they were able to reach correct predictions, especially using a variety of creative methods. It was not a threat to your need for consensus to seek multiple methods. Eventually you would only get rehashings of what had already been proposed. With the contest to see who can come up with original methods of arriving at a correct prediction, the repetitive results would have made another beginning for building consensus in methods. If it was your intention to build a consensus, then you missed out on this not challenging your audience to be entirely original.

Think about it.

Elsewhere in the Lois Rodden AstroDatabank site, astrologers are invited to comment upon specifically chosen celebrity charts. They are invited to share their personal insights, techniques and math, with the other interested readers. The challenge is to say something original. Astrologers love to do that! That sort of free-thinking style actually encourages the very sort of consensus you claimed you were looking for. Because that sort of collaboration is open, and non-judgmental. It invites new ideas and agreement, and it encourages an interest in developing original methods (if they can be found) that can reasonably reach the very same conclusions, from entirely different methods. That doesn't divide, but rather builds consensus, by forcing us all to look at our own methods and trying to see what is really essential to it, what would be entirely new and what would merely a restating of something already suggested. there's the contest! To be original!

No lame contrived test!! Just a free, open, mutually-respectful challenge to see how many different methods astrologers, working with the very same charts could reasonably come up with and coherently make a case for.

That inspires mutual inspiration, clever associations, and a realization that my pet method, may look like something different, but is probably just like something else long repudiated as being "close but no cigar"! That's a game.

Instead you handed out grades! And then you actually wondered why fewer and fewer wanted to try your "test" again?.

Don't you see? It wasn't your questions that they found threatening, it was what you did once you got their answers, that turned them off!!

Einstein spent most of his life, starting as a teenager trying to learn enough to be able to articulate and then prove some of his most basic theories. He owned them, long before he could even explain them, or demonstrate them. Many astrologers can empathize with his frustrations.

*************************************************************************************

I also think you failed to see the reason why it is that many astrologers stubbornly stick with certain pet methods, and refuse to abandon them – even when these methods are proven occasionally to be "less than perfect". The answer is really quite simple: Because at some point in their own experience, while working with some specific cases, that particular method seemed to work.

It is simply nothing more sinister nor counter-professional, than that.

If you read the other astrology dialogue sites, or even read the celebrities post at AstroDatabank, surely you'd agree that an open discussion of astrological techniques, is much intellectually engaging, to be preferred, and is more likely to build understanding , than any sort of thinly-veiled critique of astrologer professionalism masquerading as a harmless "sleuthing contest".

Only when well-informed astrological professionals share their personal experiences and techniques in an open and non-judgmental forum, will every one of the participants get more out of the entire exercise, than a simple pass/ fail grade from you, for doing well on an internet astrology contest!!

Think of it. If 10 astrologers can read a single chart, knowing all the details of the event in question, before hand – no test involved!! – but the only challenge was for them to see how many different methods they could come up with ... Why, then you'd have a contest. Each of them would be asked to explain which details they found in their charts, that led them to predict the likelihood of some events already past in the individual's life. You would be encouraging professional astrologers to do something that professional astrologers rarely admit to doing – but always do benefit from !. They would be considering was to fine tune, or even improve their own favorite methods of doing astrology. At the very worst, these astrologers would soon be considering methods of cross-checking their own methods' effectiveness with the results shown by the methods of others.

That's when there would be the beginnings of a consensus.

By actually encouraging any astrologer to come up with multiple methods to demonstrate the likely predictability one already past event, you are in effect inviting astrologers to become aware of alternate methods for coming to the same predictive conclusions.

Professional astrologers tend to be quick to at least note shortcuts and methods which will aid them in their own professional effectiveness. Even if they can not always integrate the foreign methods used by others, at the very least, most astrologers would enjoy an open forum where there is a chance that they could be exposed to multiple techniques leading to the same conclusions. If nothing else, other methods, can be used to cross-check an astrologer's own favorite methods and results.

It has been my own experience, that by keeping myself open to the effectiveness of some other astrologer's approach, and perhaps finding ways to include their techniques into my own preferred methods, I have always increased my overall effectiveness for my client. I feel more than sufficiently armed with multiple alternative methods, methods which enable me to trust my predictions regarding the future of my clients, with far greater confidence.

There too is an emerging consensus!

In fact, I wondered if your attempt to ostensibly establish some sort of a "consensus" within the professional astrological community, so far as to its own methods were concerned, wasn't itself inherently antithetical to the very sort of rogue independent intellectualism, which inspires many a professional astrologers on their path to discover astrology for themselves, in the first place. If they had been guided by consensus, they never would have given a disreputable and comical notion such a star-based approach to human psychology a second thought.

It is my belief that to seek a consensus within the astrological community, betrays and undermines the very sort of freewheeling spirit of being able to view the world with non-rational eyes. This manner of viewing reality is most decidedly a gift, and is too often the hallmark of someone who even remotely considers astrology as either a hobby or a profession, to be a coincidence.

I think that fact alone, is the simplest explanation as to why you had such a high turn-over rate amongst your astrological respondents. By the very act of your grading their responses, you had a chilling effect upon the very resource you should have in fact, been warmly encouraging within your respondents.

If you ever begin this "study" again, your very first ground rule should be: "There are no wrong methods. In fact, multiple methods are strongly encouraged."

Every astrologer falls in love with the idea of astrology, long before they really know how to do astrology.

In fact, our methods are often little more than inexplicable steps, like a mystical ritual, which we trust will give consistently continue to give us the very thing we love most about astrology: That we can sit down with a client and arm them with hope, perhaps even limit the grasp of a vague fear, or two. And we do this by pretending that we fully understand the existence and the meaning in the apparent cycles in the affairs of human life on this planet.

Surely, we don't need a consensus in astrological methodologies to do that.

That is why so many of your astrologers flatly refused to give up the very methods they had learned and depend upon – even though you could claim to show them examples of when and where these methods proved less than accurate.

In many ways, we astrologers are like any addict to gambling who claims to have a working "system-method" for beating the odds while gambling! Every system-method gambler, who patiently is working the gaming tables in Las Vegas will tell you the same thing, and even explain why they stay with it, even when the payoff isn't there:

Because, every system (whether astrology or gambling) works at least some of the time! To try and convince devotees otherwise is to flatly ignore all their past successes.

*****************************************************************

But, like I said at the beginning, I truly do hope that you begin do your study again, some day.

Only this time, I hope you will encourage multiple methods, original solutions, and independently-reasoned explanations. No tests! No hidden answers. Give all the answers up front and plainly state you encourage multiple solutions.

Invite as many astrologers as you can reach to offer their own original explanations as to how and why the specific already-known events, came about, when they did, and how they could have been predicted. Accept and publish every original method offered.

Trust me, I already know what will happen: It will sound like first day on the Astrological Tower of Babel !!

You will get explanations relying upon lunation cycles, details of transiting mid-points in aspects to natals, degree-per-year age-arcs – but only in the sidereal zodiac, and even ancient Jewish Kabalistic Astrology based upon the native's maternal grandmother's driver's license number! Everyone will want to chime in. Make sure the charts are simple, and events sought after were meaningful and factual.

Play the roll of merely being a clearing house, stay neutral. Your job is to continue to encourage original explanations and as many as can be found. Place a time limit upon responses so there is time for follow-up postings and inquiries.

The real benefits to be had from this method may not be immediately evident. will be the avid interest of astrologers who were initially too timid to immediately share their pet ideas. What will happen will be sincere astrologers asking intelligent method questions of each other, hopeful to at least to be aware of the existence of other methods. Your job will be to keep the discussion ball rolling, by encouraging originality, and by keeping up a steady flow of new and interesting – provocative !! – charts.

The ones with their own established methods will quickly see that some other methods are easier to follow, maybe easier to reproduce, and perhaps more consistent, that the results of their own methods alone. Here is where the magic happens. In short, you will encourage astrologers themselves to build consensus!

Trust me! This will work, and if you want, you can take notes on which methods get named, and consistently laid out in a cognitive and well-reasoned manner. Perhaps, then maybe you will have gained something else you wanted, too?

Astrologers delight in this.

Believe me, if my pet astrological predictive method could have detected that Princess Diana would have three children, and someone else's pet astrological predictive method could demonstrate that she was to have all boys – I would want that person to explain their technique to me, and vice versa!!

This sort of stimulated open forum gives astrologers, very simple accessible opportunities to demonstrate their oftentimes overly cumbersome pet methods: First they will have to make it clear to themselves, and then to the satisfaction of others.

If instead you still insist that astrologers limit themselves to some consensus-method of making predictions, what you will end up with will be an consensus-derived astrological method that would only strongly suggest – to a high degree of probability – that Princess Diana would one day have children.

Beyond that, you could never have a reliable consensus!

Steve Zephyr
mailto:stevezephyr@yahoo.com
20Dec2000

Dear Steve,

I am sorry to report that T. Pat left the field of astrology research about ten years ago and she is not on-line. She was a pioneer in heliocentric research. She became very frustrated that astrologers refused to look into the power of helio. She, even more than me, would be in alignment with you about that importance of looking into new methods. I will do my best to answer your letter.

I honor your impassioned plea for a non-intimidating forum for astrologers to exchange original ideas on astrology methods. I also agree that a contest format does not provide this forum. I believe the newsmaker of the week provides the forum you are asking for. We ask three questions seeking astrological correspondences for known biographical information. No one is ever embarrassed. If favorite methods don’t work, we don’t hear about it.

As you say, “Every method works some of the time.” We get very attached to methods that have brilliant results in particular cases. However, I agree with T. Pat Davis, the author of the Astro Sleuthing contest, that it is important for our profession to be able to separate the techniques that work 80% of the time from those that work 30% of the time. Let us even grant that the 30% method is stunning when it works, yet we still want (and need) to know that it works only 30% of the time.

The only way we can ever get this knowledge is to put our methods to the test when the answer is unknown. If the methods fail it is not the astrologer who fails, but the technique. I am disappointed that people are withholding answers, or their reasoning, depending on whether they get the right answer. They are even doing this when they have the opportunity to submit their answers anonymously.

You make another interesting point that astrologers would not be attracted to the field if they were interested in consensus reality. They love to be original. I acknowledge this and make a plea for a balance between originality and dependability in our techniques. Personally I believe that astrology is overrun with original ideas. Computers have made it easier and easier to try different houses, asteroids, ayanamshas, midpoints, harmonics, progression systems ... the list goes on. I believe it is time we took a breather from new techniques and put some effort into sorting out which of these techniques work better than others.

An Astro Sleuthing contest may not be the most efficient way to put our methods (not the astrologers) to the test, but is very much in the right direction. I prefer statistical methods, but these are too cold for most astrologers. This case study method allows astrologers to use the full chart and all their methods to deduce the answers. It very much replicates the astrologer at work. I believe that putting our methods to the test is key in getting the respect that we all want for our profession.

Mark McDonough
mailto:Mark@AstroDatabank.com
24Dec2000

Anon.
17Dec2000

I believe that Girl # 3 is the MD. She has the strongest midpoints, especially the Aries Point to include Jupiter/Hades and MC/Hades. Natal Mutual reception between Pluto and Sun. Also tr Pluto early in the first house.

Darleen
mailto:dyuna@gte.net
17Dec2000

Girl one: Born 18 September 1953 at 9:49 am CST in Kansas City, Kansas (39N07, 94W37:30). Data from birth certificate.

I used Hindu astrology to try and figure out this one. The charts analyzed were the Rasi, Dasamsa (tenth divisional) and the Dwadasamsa (twelfth divisional). This person seemed to have the highest likelihood of career success and of getting assistance from her father.

Let me know if my conclusion was correct.

Venkat.
12Dec2000

I would be interested in what happened to #3 in 1992 though :)

Daniel Käsmayr
mailto:kaesmayr@topmail.de
12Dec2000

Chad Henry
mailto:gregcat@msn.com
11Dec2000

Snail mail is not for me, however, I would be interested if Girl #3 became the M.D.? Hygiea conjunct Saturn in the 1st house at 21 Scorpio, sign of the healer and a critical degree. The symbol for the asteroid Hygiea is the Medical symbol. Sun opposition t-Nep Hades (Death) from the 12th to the 6th (Hospitals and Health). Jupiter conjunct Pluto in 10th house for the financial support. MC is the midpoint of Jup/Plu. In this case the Father is the dominant parent.

Frances Lee Rainbolt
mailto:Rachal2337@msn.com
10Dec2000

Girl #3 is the MD. She will also be widowed someday. Girl #1 will develop cancer someday. Girl #2 has musical ability, also artistic talent. Ms Davis apparently has a strong saturn, trying to regulate astrologers. Astrology and astrologers are ruled by uranus and will not be put in a mold. These contests serve no useful purpose. My data: 10/18/33, 8:45 am PST, Lebanon Oregon.

Sam
Samuel E. Gunderson
mailto:stargazer_97435@yahoo.com
10Dec2000

Here is my conclusion and rationale.

I'm "guessing" girl #2 (16 Sep 54).

I started by looking at primary directions

Girl #1 has: directed Sat conj 11, Me conj Pl, Ma opp Mo, Ma sq Sa, and Ur sextile Pl. The saturn/mars combo could be relevant for a surgeon. But overall, I don't see this as a time of "honors" as much as hard work. And Sa conj 11 hardly seems consistent with the event.

Girl #3 has directed Mo conj 3, Su sext Me, Me conj Ve, Ve 135 Earth, Su tr Ur, Ur || Ne, Pl tr Sa, Sun rapt || Pl. With the planets involved, and the 3rd house involvement, this could indicate completion of education. But Girl #2 is even stronger.

Girl #2 has directed Sun conj 10. This alone marks her, as it's angular, and the meaning fits. Mo is applying to conj 6 (~1 yr) which also matches the circumstance of becoming a doctor. Ma is contraparallel Me, Ur 135 Earth, Ne 60 Ve, Pl sq Ne, Ju rapt || Sa. The Ma cp Me seems in line with doctoring, especially surgical. The Ju rapt || Sa indicates a new level of responsibility.

The likelihood of girl 2 is increased when looking at the quotidian progressed chart for the date (in mundo). Ju conj 1 (30') opp Ma conj 7 (36').

Seems like a pretty good fit to me.

I'd like to do astro sleuth! 
Will you be doing it again soon?

liz
mailto:Neptunist@yahoo.com
27Sep2000

Can one see surviving an auto accident in a chart? (In the pre-airbag era the driver was most likely to survive anyway). And what would it mean, luck or bad luck? (not meant cynically).

What do you compare it to? The owners of the other charts, are they worse of? By which standards? After all, the perspective of the client should prevail, not society's standards of success or being well-off.

Contests are fine, but very difficult to adequately design, doing justice to every relevant aspect of a case and what it is compared to.

To give you an idea: In the given example we don't know the reason why one of the fathers gave his daughter everything she needed: was it parental care, was he pushing her, did he project his own ambition on his daughter? How did she view the situation? Did she act fully from her own ambition? That would make quite a difference in assessment.

And with respect to the other two fathers: did they do everything they could or were they being relatively strict with their daughters, and for what reason? And the girls, how did they view their own lives and upbringing. Did they consider themselves successful and/or fulfilled? We are not informed. This leaves us with much guess-work with regard to interpretation. (It makes me also feel like doing a multiple choice exam).

To my opinion, girl #3 is the one.

Sidereally, a stellium in Libra (Neptune/Sun/Venus/Saturn), the rising degree conjunct the elevation of Saturn, Jupiter culminating conjunct Regulus. In the solar return Jupiter is also culminating, conjunct his own elevation.

Girl #2: there is too much Saturn here.

Girl #1: birth horoscope not so promising; may begin a new life from September 18, 1990, new moon, mars rising.

Would you be so kind as to give feedback in due course. Thank you.

Jan Westerveld
mailto:jg.westerveld@hccnet.nl
16Sep2000

lisa
mailto:ishtar@internetegypt.com
8Sep2000

I think the contest is a great idea, being a fire sign of course! But, seriously, it's a good way to "test" one's skills, which is the only way to learn whether one has learned anything or not. I don't know how well I would do here, but after looking at the charts, I'd like to be able to find out. I'm going to submit a contest entry, in a short moment.

Anon.
8Sep2000

pippa ponton
mailto:jandpnaturally@btinternet.com
4Sep2000

Usually, however, these weekly mystery charts are not set up with a closed answer, as in the above study. Usually, chart data is posted with an event date and the question: what happened on that date. I think this is more challenging than the tests here, but obviously each test has its own logic and thereby forces its own logic.

best of luck,

Christopher Kevill
mailto:ckevill@interlog.com
4Sep2000

Toni Allen
mailto:misstallen@netscapeonline.co.uk
31Aug2000

I'm fascinated by this type of contest. I'd love to see more of these, because if a contest showed conclusive results, it would help me to decide which house systems to use, among other things. I'm not a professional astrologer, but I enjoy studying astrology.

Judy
mailto:vegwriter@aol.com
29Aug2000

Back to the Astro Sleuthing Contests study.

8/28/2000: