I saw the first-cited article elsewhere, but didn't think it was interesting enough to merit a discussion.

No competent "caster" since publication of the 1920 USNO Ephemeris would have done a chart for you except by consulting the information in the Ephemeris that gives the concise and accurate locations of all of the astrologically significant bodies at the precise time and place of the person's birth.

The "authority" who wrote the "report" apparently thinks people only consult the calendar, and ignores the much more significant "changes in sign" that result with longitudinal (and to lesser extent latitudinal) differences resulting from differing places of birth.

He essentially says that nobody (except him) has paid any attention to where the atronomical bodies of influence actually are in casting and charting horoscopes, when in fact the competent ones apparently know a lot more about the subject he claims to know than he does, and obviously he knows nothing about their businesses.

Astrologers have known for centuries that when one hurls bullshit it must be aligned and aimed with excruciatingly precise accuracy based on exact knowledge of all the proper and most current elevations and windages.

John