Preface

The aim of this short volume is to illustrate to my colleagues the technical and non technical reasons that have led me to declare that rules #1 and #2 of my 34 rules included in Transits and Solar Returns (whose second English edition is forthcoming) are the only astrological statements that have been accepted by Official Science in the whole history of human thought.

However, colleagues and fellow astrologers have not greeted this important goal in the history of Astrology with much enthusiasm. On the contrary, it has even been opposed by some of them, simply out of envy. On the other hand scientifists, namely those who use Science in an fundamentalist way, have predictably ignored this event.

Hence, with no celebration but no false modesty either, to those who are familiar with Statistics I wish to illustrate the path that has led me to this important goal.

I wish to emphasize once again that I consider Astrology an art rather than a science or, at any rate, a Human Science epistemologically closest to disciplines such as Sociology, Literary Criticism, Philosophy, Psychology, and so on.

In this light, allow me a piece of criticism – a complaint, almost – to a “technological astrology” that is quite marketable these days.

Although I have extensive research working with Statistics applied to Astrology, I mainly consider myself an astrologer focusing on Man, in the broadest meaning of the word.

On Monday 16 November 1992 a new catechism was on sale in France, a handbook for the good Christian in the years 2000.

The article “Horoscopes”, published that same day in important European and International newspapers read: “All forms of divination, such as the evocation of the spirits of the dead, invocations to Satan and other demons are to be rejected. Horoscopes, astrology, palmistry and the recourse to clairvoyants reveal the will to dominate time, history and men and, at the same time, they disclose the wish to ingratiate hidden powers.”

Hence horoscopes, astrology, palmistry, clairvoyance… the thing I dislike in this sentence is definitely the commas. Since I have been studying Astrology methodically and rationally for almost fifty years, in full independence from any form of superstition or spirit possession, I cannot but dislike those commas. As I write, I haven’t had the chance to read the text directly, so I cannot say whether the coupling of such different worlds through the use of commas has been intended in the original text and then faithfully reported, or whether it is just an editorial simplification made by journalists. However, it has little relevance for my purpose here.

In fact, this coupling is so deep-rooted that it is almost automatic in the so-called “official culture.” The result is always the same, whether it comes from a “know it all” from any corner of the world or a John Smith interviewed on CNN or, a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: the commas are always there to divide different expressions of the same thing: rubbish. Mind you, whenever I stand up against such forms of hurried judgement, I do not do so in order to say that Astrology is a serious matter while palmistry and other mantic practices are not. I do that simply because I believe that if we wish to discuss Astrology, we must do it discussing Astrology exclusively. But is there such a thing as “Astrology-exclusively?”

And, above all, what is Astrology today? Well, I think that this might be the appropriate starting point of this discussion. First of all, it is necessary for astrologers to decide what astrology is, so that they can discuss it elsewhere, among other scholars. This is a very hard task, and there are very few people who are able to find their way in the current maze of very different practices that many still stubbornly use capitalizing on a name that does not belong to them. For this reason I think it is very appropriate to remember the commitment of semiologists and philosophers who have proved they are able to elaborate a rationally correct and methodologically valid discussion on this matter.

How can we enrich such knowledge so as to decide what Astrology is and whether it needs to be revised?

If Astrology encompasses horoscopy or the solitary raving that the position of over four hundred asteroids in our solar system must be included in the reading of a Natal Chart, then we should firmly reject this kind of Astrology, and try to revise it under a different name. However, I personally believe, together with friends and colleagues, that it is the “heretics” that should change name: definitely not us who, with the necessary distinctions imposed on us by history, research and experience, keep on drawing inspiration from the Art of Urania (another name for Astrology), which has nourished many very noble figures in human history.

This is why I think the path set by the Italian colleagues Antonino Anzaldi and Francesco Maggiore is quite right. In many publications, they have attempted a “refounding” of Astrology that departs from its history: whether their conclusions are true or false, their path is a right one. However, this is not enough. In fact I am convinced that History is the main road that will lead us to discover our true roots.

Moreover, I am similarly convinced that the remote past by itself is not sufficient, and that it should go along with modern history or, better, very recent history: the last fifty years of Western Astrology.

In my opinion, the scholar of any discipline who wishes to approach our own discipline lacks first of all a critical tool like a history book that can trace and account for the very recent developments of Astrology.

On the contrary, I believe we are living a moment of complete paranoia in regards to an irreversible deviation from its roots that has involved Astrology. I am referring here to its wicked use by its enemies and, in particular, to its constant denigration and detriment even by those who practice it. Moreover, it is evident that it is not just the laughable and, after all, harmless Sun Sign horoscope that pollutes Astrology. Other issues are far more detrimental like, for instance, the possibility for the astrologer to include in a Natal Chart over 400 asteroids as well as anything else that is and is not in the sky above us.

The astrologer who joins the competition to get ahead of his colleagues will be able to say to them: “If you keep on placing dozens of planets that haven’t been discovered yet in the Natal Chart, I can do more. I will prepare the Natal Charts including over 450 asteroids.”

The history of Astrology, of Mythology, of symbolism, of Analytical Psychology (the Psychology of Carl Gustav Jung) and the history of the entire culture of ancient civilizations are seldom taken into consideration. Astrologers in fact compete to fill in every square millimetre of a Natal Chart with the most diverse and heterogeneous “points” belonging to all sorts of astrological thought (or so to say). This results in a mixture of esoterism and Astrology of conjectures, an awkward mass of elements that might as well include the colour of the limo parked at the corner of the building in the place and at the time of the birth in question.

In conclusion, I will go back to the issue that I consider crucial for the aim of this short preface: the need to study the history of Astrology accurately – but not just the history of its origins.

I think it would be extremely important to study the historical research of a serious and conscientious scholar who would illustrate, clearly and with precision, the last fifty years in the history of Western Astrology. I believe this is absolutely necessary because anyone who is not a professional astrologer and would like to know more about this topic cannot rely, for the time being, on the right tools to do so. He might as well go to a bookshop and ask for a basic book on Astrology, only to find out that it rejects Astrology from its beginnings in its entirety, and that it cannot be considered an introductory volume on the topic at all.

A Modern History of Astrology should trace the history of Astrology in the last years, in Europe as well as in the United States, providing a complete and truthful framework of the various “mutations” that have occurred recently, and attempting a recapitulation of the research in our field. Only if we start from this premise can we avoid an army of siderealists or neo- and pseudo-cosmobiologists progressively invading the field, misappropriating a name that has a largely very respectable history.

Ciro Discepolo

Napoli, 2 May 2013

 

The only two astrological laws validatedby Official Science

You can read the following in the first Italian edition of Transits and Solar Returns: Transiti e Rivoluzioni Solari, Armenia editore, Biblioteca di Astrologia, Milan, 1997, 512 pages, on page 9 and 10:

Rule #1: The twenty days preceding and the twenty days following one’s birthday are very important, both in negative and in positive terms. Very often the most relevant events of the year occur in these days.

Rule # 2: The day of birth is a very special day in which extraordinary events can take place. Giacomo Casanova, who carefully wrote down all the significant events in his life, in his memoir claims that for seven times his birthday coincided with extraordinary events that had completely changed his life, for good or ill; events like his flight from prison (the Venetian was hosted by a good numbers of European jails) or his becoming a millionaire (several times he became one, and several times he became penniless). I ignore the reason for this: I cannot say why the birthday is so important and, even if I have got some ideas about it, I will refrain from writing them down since I am not sure about them. Despite this, although I am not able to provide a theoretical explanation for this fact, I will limit myself to stating that it works. From now on, try and listen to the news very carefully, paying attention to this detail; or read the newspapers keeping this in mind. You will see the recurring caption about the Russian Mafioso arrested in his luxury hotel room on his birthday, about Giovanni Falcone’s killer being arrested on his victim’s birthday, or about the football player who scores the match goal on his birthday, and so on. We could make note of thousands of such examples.

In my opinion, these first two rules are some of the most innovative aspects of my school of Astrology. Anyone can take the chance to test them thousands of times. They work without a shadow of doubt.

These very same rules, without any difference, can be read in the second Italian edition of Transits and Solar Returns: Transiti e Rivoluzioni Solari, Armenia editore, Biblioteca di Astrologia, Milano, 2004, 580 pages, on page 9 and 10.

They can also be read in the first French edition of Traité Complet D’Interprétation Des Transits Et Des Révolutions Solaires En Astrologie, Éditions Traditionnelles, Paris, 2001, 502 pages, on pages 13 and 14.

These very same rules can also be read in:

• The first Spanish edition of the book published by Ricerca ’90 in the USA;
• The first German edition of the book published by Ricerca ’90 in the USA;
• The second French Edition of the book published by Ricerca ’90 in the USA;

 

– Revisione dell’Astrologia [Revision of Astrology], Armenia editore, Milan 2012

–The Great Treatise of Astrology, over 1200 large format pages, USA, 2013

-And in many other books.

Other possible versions of these rules are to be considered apocryphal and/or the products of mere fancy.

The explanations of these two rules in particular have been very numerous and, since my bibliography is objectively “immense,” it would be impossible for me to list them all. However, you will find many explanations here:

-In many of my articles in the journal Ricerca ’90;

-In specific chapters of my over 70 books that, in the many editions are published in at least 8 languages, and in over 100 Kindle editions;

-In dozens of my blog posts;

-In my contributions to seminars and conferences, held in universities in Italy and abroad;

 

-In over 1000 Astrology lessons on YouTube.

I will briefly summarize the content of my work in theabove-mentioned publications.

In my Transits and Solar Returns I have listed thirty rules that, in my opinion, can be a good starting point to understand the events occurring every year.

I have immediately and duly pointed out that it is a starting point, and certainly not the Holy Bible.

However, the due modesty that compelled my clarification might have been interpreted with excessive flexibility by those who believed that it could have been possible to change the aforementioned rules without too much effort.

For example, I have written that, in my experience, the twenty days preceding and the twenty days following the birthday are extraordinarily important, and the most important events in one’s life are clustered around them. Well, I can assure you that I have not picked up the number “twenty” from the lottery; this figure is the result of deep research in the field.

However, I happen to have witnessed some conversations as well as messages on mailing lists, in which people claim something like: “I have noticed that sometimes events take place even thirty days before or after the birthday” or “I have noticed that they also happen forty days before and after” and “But I can prove that, in some cases, they even take place 45 days before and after the Solar Return.”

Then, in some cases, by show of hands, it is decreed that the new rule reads: 45 days before and after the birthday.

Please, let me playfully call these people to order. Statistical research is not conducted this way.

In order to clarify my point of view, I will refer to the chart below, which is the chart elaborated by André Barbault for his wonderful research on the condition of orphanhood.

Look at the chart carefully. It refers to the distribution of the presence of Saturn in the Houses in the 264 Natal Charts of the orphans investigated by the great French Master.

As you can see, he found a very high concentration in the Fourth and in the Tenth Houses. However, we can find some “little dot” in the Eighth, Sixth, Fifth Houses as well.

So, what could have been inferred by such a circumstance? Is orphanhood a specific element of the I, 2^nd, 3^rd, IV , 5^th, 6^th, VII, 8^th , 9^th, X, 11^th and 12^th Houses? (in Classical Astrology we use Roman numbers the cardinal Houses while we use Arab numbers the other Houses) Going back to our initial example, don’t you think I had found that some important events occur one month, two months, or n months before or after a birthday?

If I have stated that, according to my experience, we should consider the twenty days preceding and following a birthday, it is because I have noted a massive presence of important events in such days without, however, excluding the fact that some “little dot” could be found slightly before or after this span of time.

Otherwise, we would generalize and act like those institutions of weather forecast that send out hundreds of warnings to local authorities on the eve of every single rainy day: many warnings, no warning at all.

Likewise, many days, no days at all. For this reason I would like to restate that everyone is free to change the thirty rules, but at least they should do so after having studied and analysed thousands and thousands of cases for decades.¹

This notion can also be explained by examining two other kinds of charts; one is the chart called “square wave” signal in electronics, while the other is called “Gaussian bell”, a function that is much used in the distribution of a variable in statistical terms. Let’s take a look at them.

As you can see, this is a chart with Cartesian axes.

The variable Time is represented on the x-axis, while the y-axis represents the variable we wish to analyse. In this case we can imagine an electric voltage of, say, 2.3 volts that is repeated every millionth of a second.

For those who are completely unfamiliar with electronics, this means that it produces a “wave train” in which, every millionth of a second, there is a signal (a potential difference) of 2.3 volts lasting T/2 (half of T.) This is followed, again in fractions of millionths of a second, by a potential difference of 0 (zero) volts and of -2.3 volts and so on.

If we wish to further simplify it, we can say that we have an almost perfect binary system that could be compared to the light of a car’s front indicator: it turns on for a short period of time, then it turns off again for the same period of time and it turns on and off in a sequence that can be defined as binary. Let’s now see the Gaussian bell:

 

Let’s apply this function to my rule concerning the twenty

days before and after the birthday.

What have I noticed in my 43 years of studies on over one hundred thousand consultations? I have noticed that the birthday is an extraordinarily important day, a sort of magnet attracting the most important days in a year: a new job, the loss of a job, a new love, an engagement, a wedding.

The birth of a child or of a grandchild, a separation, a lottery win, one’s own death or the death of a beloved; being diagnosed with an illness, scoring a goal in an important match, being elected in Parliament or being arrested, meeting the person who will change one’s life, getting one’s book published, receiving the news of being awarded a prize, having a violent argument with someone, being the victim of theft, losing money or some documents, receiving a very important letter, and so on.

We could go on with a thousand other examples. Many events occurring on one’s birthday or in the twenty days before or after are in fact not even known by the subject, but they are only known by their beloved.

Using this rule, as well as the others listed in the two volumes of my The Great Treatise of Astrology (over 1200 big format pages USA 2013), you can make very reliable predictions. In a book of mine I have told a story that happened to me. Many real estate agents thought I was mad when, some years ago, I put a small property of mine on sale; they said it would take at least three years to sell it.

Moreover, they said I would get just the half of the amount I was asking for and that, above all, I had to renovate the property completely in order to sell it.

I simply replied: “I don’t think so. I think I will sell it within two months at most, at full price. I will sell it almost certainly between July 17 (my birthday) and August 10 (the birthday of my brother Bruno, with whom I shared an interest in the sale of the property).”

On July 17, while I was in Petropavlovsk, Siberia, Russia, for my birthday, someone asked my brother for an appointment, and for several days he forgot to inform me about this.

During their conversation, this person told my brother that the sale could not be conducted since he had pre-emptive rights only on the purchase of the terrace of the house. As soon as I got back from the far Siberian East, I was informed about the matter.

I studied all the charts and, in particular, all the Aimed Lunar Returns of my relatives; I studied the AstralDetector curve, the transits, the already mentioned rules about the timing of events, and I further investigated the rules #1 and #2 of my 34 rules. I then confirmed my prediction when the event seemed impossible and, with the help of some legal experts, I turned that drawback into an advantage for me.

I sold the property on August 4 at the selling price I had set. I could cite dozens of similar events that happened on my birthday or straddling my birthday. In some cases, I learned about something important that had happened on my birthday even five years after the actual anniversary of my birth!

As we move further away from the birthday, the number of events concerning the first of my 34 rules decreases. However, it is not a vertical drop as in the square wave signal, but it is rather a function following the so-called “Gaussian bell”:

All the days around the day of birth have a great intensity and anyone can verify this, except for those who oppose our school. Yet, we do not wish to proselytize, since our family gets bigger and bigger everyday and we do not care about our adversaries’ ignorant and poisonous criticism.

So, looking at the graph above, we can say that to the left of –X and to the right of X, our variable is not significant.

In all the twenty days before and after the birthday and in the curved zone (on the right and on the left) indicated by the caption “Standard Deviation”, our variable decreases to the point of touching the critical point 20 days before and 20 days after the birthday; however, this happens following a curvilinear and not a vertical trend, as is the case of “square wave” phenomena.

Therefore – for the distracted – does this mean that we do not get married, do not buy a new car, do not fall in love nor find a new job in the other days of the year?

Not at all: the negative and positive events of our life arrange themselves during the entire year but – and this is rule #1 – the greatest concentration of them will take place starting from the twenty days before to the twenty days after the anniversary of our birth.

To conclude the first part of this essay, I will stateagain that:

-I have used the inductive method in order to verify this;

-My sample was made of over a hundred thousand consultations made over many decades of study.

Before concluding this introduction to our topic, let’s see how my colleagues acted or have acted in the history of Astrology.

Some pillars of the History of Astrology, like my great Master André Barbault (see for instance his study on orphanhood), Henri J. Gouchon, Reinhold Ebertin, Charles Carter, Stephen Arroyo and many others have acted exactly the same.

Have they been elected senators? No, they haven’t. Have they received honorary degrees? Not even that.

So what? So, they have had two kinds of consequences connected to their lifelong work and research:

• The thankfulness of thousands of disciples who have ideally located them in the Pantheon of Urania for centuries to come.
• The furious hostility of third-rate astrologers who wish to destroy their discoveries, but who are condemned forever to utter nothingness. (We are obviously taking for granted that the same behaviour is shared by the so-called scientifists, who even deny the existence of love because it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory).

 

Let us now demonstrate why rules #1 and #2 are the only astrological rules validated by Official Science in the whole History of Humanity.

Some fundamental premises on Statistics

Let’s define Statistics as:

“The practice or science of collecting and analysing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a

representative sample.”

From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2009.

I will now try to illustrate its meaning more clearly. I hope those who are expert in Statistics will forgive me for using very simple language in order to explain it to those who are not familiar with it.

With the goodwill of those who teach it at university, we can say that Statistics is mainly based on a “bet” or, to use a technical expression, on the mathematical test of a working hypothesis.

For example, let’s imagine that a person thinks that if he sneezes thirteen times in a row, at the thirteenth sneeze a big rat comes out of the sewers.

Then this person submits his hypothesis to experts in the fields who, rather than kicking him immediately, patiently listen to him and let him make some tests.

Once the complete groundlessness of his hypothesis has been ascertained, the experts suggest that he tends to his garden and forgets statistics.

Now let’s imagine that another person submits to some experts in statistics the following rule he has observed: every morning the sun rises.

In this case, as well, however patient they can be, the researchers will kick him and send him away.

Let’s now take a more complex and serious example. Let’s imagine that a doctor belonging to a humanitarian association (like, say, “Médecins sans frontièrs”) is working on a precise spot in Liberia, on the coastal zone of Central Africa.

This doctor has noticed that in the past few decades the percentage of diseases related to mercury poisoning has caused a higher mortality in the population living in the area since their diet almost exclusively relies on the poisoned fish

caught by the natives.

This is the working hypothesis.

The doctor submits this case to experts in statistics who could inform him – after long and complex tests – that he is right, and that he has discovered a law validated by Official Science.

Let us focus on this last point.

The doctor could have had two different numerical results: a very big one (one, for example, stating that the mortality percentage in the area is four times higher that the world average figures), or a slight one attesting a 5% variance from the world average percentage, but in both cases the statistical significance is very strong.

We have now come to a new double notion that is unfamiliar to amateur statisticians.

Let’s go back to my rule #1 and, leaving aside for a moment its many expressions, let’s focus on the cases of death on one’s birthday. No weddings? No. No engagements? No. No break ups? No. No car crashes? No. No new jobs? No.

We only wish to analyse the deaths on one’s birthday.

Let’s imagine that someone “discovers” that people always die on their birthday. Very well.

In this case we are dealing with an event that displays a very high intensity of repeatability and with as much high statistical significance.

The question then becomes more complex. We thus individuate two important variables from a statistical point of view:

–The intensity of repeatability of an event

–Significance

Have you all followed me so far? Yes, I know: not all of you, but let’s move forward.

Now let’s imagine that some researchers have demonstrated that people die with the same “intensity of repeatability” (please forgive the simplified language) in any day of the year, so that on the birthday people die as often as on any other day of the year.

However, we can also foresee a third way. Some researchers note that on the birthday, and on the days around it, people die more frequently than on the average. More frequently than on the average.

Is this slight “intensity of repeatability” nonsense or an unknown law that has just been discovered? This is an unknown law that has just been discovered. And who says that?

The value of Z says it, which is the index of statistical significance: hence, not a subjective feeling, but the result of exact statistical laws.

Can we thus claim that there are laws in nature that, although they do not have a very high repeatability, are nonetheless significant from a statistical perspective? Exactly!

If you wish to better understand how Z can mark the difference between significant and non-significant laws, you can take a look at the table on this page that refers to research of mine on astral heredity:

http://www.cirodiscepolo.it/Osservazioni.Htm

Those of you who have been able to follow me so far can go on reading, if you wish. As for the others, I suggest that they quit.

A few additional premises are needed before we conclude this short essay.

Do you think the enormous and outstanding statistics by Michel and Françoise Gauquelin have been validated by Official Science?

No, they haven’t. Why? Because every time the two French researchers (and not astrologers) submitted their work to the “Palace” (namely, the institutional centres of power) in the academic seats of “official science’, they were told something like: “Very well.

Your research has achieved a significant Z, but in order for you to obtain the “seal” of validation from the academic community, you need to repeat this same research on a different sample.”

Our good and brave researchers did not give up and repeated the whole process all over again.

The new work was then examined thoroughly from the “sheriffs” of the Palace who, again, conceded that the result of the new research was positive but requested another test on a different sample. This game went on for several decades since the deck was stacked.

Paul Couderc, the director of the Astronomic Observatory in Paris who supervised all tests and who had the last say on this research, stated in fact that “If statistics begins to endorse astrology, I will stop believing in statistics.”

This is the reason why, despite the crushing evidence of the Gauquelins’ work, they never obtained validation, and their research was not considered valid from Science.

The same has happened to Didier Castille, who is undoubtedly the greatest living astrology statistician.

No validation from Official Science for him, either.

The same is true for my own research on astral heredity. The confirmation by professors of the University of Napoli “Federico II” of a highly significant double Z in my sample was not enough to validate that research.

In fact, well aware of what had happened to the Gauquelins, I repeated this statistical research a number of times with the good Luigi Miele, but I have never submitted the whole work to any Palace since I already knew the answer they would give me: “You can repeat you research a thousand times, but we will always tell you to repeat it one more time.”

And yet, another astrological statement – a double statement – has been validated by official science: it is precisely rules #1 and  #2 of my famous 34 rules. Let’s see how this could happen.

In 2012, while I was in Switzerland, in Ticino, I read the news on the front pages (mind you: front pages, not internal pages) of international newspapers: a team of Swiss researchers from the University of Zurich had demonstrated their own working hypothesis after years of study.

They had replicated their research many times on millions of people and obtained its publication in a prestigious international scientific journal that thus validated the research with the seal of official science.

Their hypothesis was that:

we die more frequently on our birthday – or in the days around it – than on any other day of the year.

You can download here for 30$ the PDF of the entire study by professors Vladeta Ajdacic-Gross, PhD, Daniel Knöpfli BSc, Karin Landolt MSc, Michal Gostynski MDa, Stefan T. Engelter MDd, Philippe A. Lyrer MDd, Felix

Gutzwiller MD, DrPH, and Wulf Rössler MD, MSc: http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/ PIIS104727971200110X

Does this mean that we all die on our birthday? Not at all!

We die on our birthday with a slightly higher percentage than the average percentage.

This is demonstrated by a strong statistical significance that implies that this value is a law and cannot rely on chance. In short, the Swiss researchers cannot be wrong.

“Their” law, studied and repeated for a number of years, has confirmed statistical significance and is thus a scientifically tested law. Period.

Now the thing is that I had written and published this law long before these researchers even started to think about such a thing.

What did I do then? Did I reclaim my birthright from them? Of course I didn’t. I know very well that if I said to these gentlemen: “Your law was discovered by an astrologer many years before you did”, they would have stepped off and said they were wrong just to contradict an astrologer.

However, my rules are very clear and they, without even knowing that, have been working for me and have offered me this gift.

What have these gentlemen stated?

“That we die more frequently on our birthday and on the days immediately around it, than in any other day of the year.”

We must not forget that the birthday can take place up to one or two days before or after the day of birth. This is a fundamental point.

Now, what do my rules #1 and #2 state about mortality (and many more things)?

We die more frequently on the day of our birthday, and on the 20 days before and after, than on any other day of the year.

If we consider the span of time between two days before and two days after the birthday, are we in the 20 days preceding and following it? Yes!

YES!

YES!

YES!

Hence, my two rules have been validated by official science. The rest is just chatter by people who in their life will not even be able to demonstrate that water is liquid.

Moreover, we should consider that the Architect who has created all this, including the aforementioned laws, has not explained to us why he created this project and not a different one.

However, it goes without saying that while we only die once in our lifetime, we can get engaged, get married, divorce, get sick and recover, get a degree or a job, get fired or receive prizes, and so on, hundreds of times.

By simply using reason we can claim that it is much more logical to envision a distribution of an event between the twenty days preceding and following the birthday than, say, thirty engagements in a lifetime.

Again, it is a different case when we come to death, an event occurring only once in a lifetime.

Lastly, for my Readers/Students/Colleagues, and only for them, I will answer another question that seems logical but is not, thus claiming once again that Astrology is mainly Uranian and intelligent – meaning that it grasps links.

Those untrained and unqualified, even in the professional association of wizards and witches, cannot understand these links and will have to train for decades in order to make the right calculations for millions of Natal Charts all over the world. After that, they will be asked to shut up forever.

The question from my readers can be the following: “Why have you referred to the twenty days before and after the birthday if it would have been sufficient to refer to a couple of days before and after?”

The answer is quite easy and you all will understand it: my two rules have been demonstrated on the entire French population not only in regards to the mortality on the birthday, but also on the births of children, engagements or weddings, on the day of graduation or of hiring, and on hundreds other events.

If one day the same Swiss researchers will conduct new research to state how many owners succeed in selling their property in the twenty days preceding or following their birthday, and if they design the research correctly by excluding the period of crisis we are going through, they will find that there is a greater Incidence of real estate sales in the 20 days before and after the sellers’ and the purchasers’ birthdays.

Now let’s get back to the previous point.

On the one hand, Official Science has validated my two rules. On the other, my research has included the research of the Swiss professors as well as those of the good Didier Castille and others that I have listed and will be surely be demonstrated in the future.

When?

My Great Master Barbault tells us when in his latest extraordinary book, Il Valore dell’Astrologia [the importance of Astrology], Edizioni Librarie Federico Capone, Turin, 250 pages, in which he declares he is sure that:

The first evidence of Astrology’s scientific validity will arrive from Birthday Astrology within thirty years!

Note:

1) In Science and Human Sciences, by Marina De Chiara and Ciro Discepolo (edizioni Ricerca ’90, USA 2013), a book published

under the patronage of the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’,

on page 22 I clarify as follows: The inductive method is mainly based on observation: if we observe a person holding a glass in his/her hand and then let it go, even if repeated a thousand times this action will always result in the glass shattered on the floor.

From observation, we can inductively claim that this will happen even on the millionth time. The deductive method is based on reasoning, and is bound to verify a “fact” that may become scientific.

For example, if we see a blossoming tree in the desert, we are bound to suppose that there is a pool of water under the tree.

The great Italian psychiatrist Silvano Arieti, considered one of the world’s foremost authorities on schizophrenia, has illustrated inference in these terms.

If the schizophrenic patient is a young woman called Mary, she will reason as follows: “My name is Mary; The Holy Virgin’s name is Mary; The Holy Virgin is a virgin; I am a virgin; thus, I am the Holy Virgin.” This is an example of inference.

The seventeenth century was an extraordinary moment during which four of the most outstanding astronomers of modern times lived: Tito Brahe, Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton. It was in this century that the notion of Galilean science was outlined.

A crucial essay by the philosopher and science historian Alexander Koyré, “From the world of approximation to the universe of precision,” poses a fundamental question: why did some discoveries that could have been utilized two thousand years ago have to wait until the eighteenth century to be put into practice?

Koyré refers to alchemists who, although they had the technical knowledge to measure the elements of their experiments with great precision, purposefully used approximated expressions such as “a good pinch of salt” or “mild fire” instead of indicating the exact grams of salt or the temperature in degrees. In Koyré’s opinion, they did so because they operated following art and magic, and refused to act “scientifically.”

I, as other accomplished astrologers that have preceded me, use exclusively the inductive method of research in Astrology. Therefore, the creation of the 34 Rules (at the beginning they were 30) has been given birth by the observation of about ten thousand practical cases, over the duration of several decades.

This is not the method of self-styled astrologers who, sorely lacking experience, would like to pontificate on other people’s productive lives of studies.