Hi pdw,

Thank you, I feel flattered by your description.

From the beginning, the idea has always been to see what is really True and what is merely

*believed* to be true. There have been many key figures that have tried to separate the astrological wheat from the chaff. I find them inspirational, because it is like the (astrological) slate is wiped clean, and then it is at least attempted to only add back the elements that prove themselves

**reliable**, after copious, exacting, mathematical research. All the philosophizing in the world, won't bring us one centimeter closer, without the math and extremely detailed testing. Guaranteed. That's how it got /$%&§)'d up in the first place, too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

So far, many (moving) systems have proven themselves extremely reliable... (and virtually all of them in both

direct and converse)

Transits...

Progressions (Prog MC Method is SA in

*Right Ascension*, not Long)...

Topocentric Primary Directions...

Sidereal Solar/Lunar/Solar to Moon/Lunar to Sun Returns...

Age Harmonics...

There are more (Solar/Lunar Arcs, for instance), and much testing still, but

*if the birthtime is right*, these give reliable info. [Note that for the Topocentric Primary Directions and Age Harmonics, that a very precise birthtime is needed. Having (merely) the correct minute, isn't nearly accurate enough. (though that "weakness" is exactly their strength in helping rectify, especially the Primary Directions)]

If we don't somehow send ourselves back to the relative stone-age, I think it (astrology) will keep advancing, as long as new things are critically looked at, and mathematical/statistical standards are kept. Already, in the last century

*or so*, we have had a fundamental correction in the way primary directions should be calculated, the one true House system has been derived empirically, and due to computer efficiency, we can analyze

*many, many* more charts than were ever possible before. Without computers and great software, looking at just the transits, progressions, primaries, and their converses, plus age harmonics; would have taken a whole evening to generate and look at.

One thing I have noticed, and I have to thank Isaac for this, is that

*when a chart ***is** correctly rectified, there is just a lot more to see that is dramatic when looking at all of these auxiliary charts. Additionally, the deep research into Topocentric cusps/powerpoints has shown them to also be reliable aspectually, extremely often. (both in general and in cyclical charts)

I find it all fascinating...and it is wonderful in a way, that there is always more to analyze. We have a strong base, but there's room for more, as long as we remain discriminating in the details.