The title is a reference to the 1970s TV show Happy Days, which is about a bunch of American teenagers, the coolest of whom is The Fonz. In one episode the Fonz has been so obviously mistaken that he has to admit it, but being so cool it takes him a number of attempts to get it out of his mouth.
Anyway, in my blog of a week ago I claimed, using astrology, that the North Korean bomb wasn't the real thing. And it looks like I was wr..wr..wr..wrong!
Now this is going to sound like self-defence, and that's because it is self-defence, but in my original posting I claimed that the N Korean Bomb was for real, and then an hour later I changed my mind - or rather, I allowed myself to be persuaded by someone else's intuition that the bomb was fake, along with an exhortation to examine Neptune more closely.
So, because the chart ruler, Jupiter, was Square to Neptune, I decided it was fake. I then got feedback from a blog reader, using their greater knowledge of horary astrology in support of this conclusion.
I should have just stuck to the simpler astrology I started with, because that is how I personally get my best results as an astrologer. What I had claimed was that as the chart for the explosion, and the chart for the moment I asked the question about the bomb, both had ASC/DESC axis within range of the nuclear axis (8-10 Gemini-Sag), and that one of the charts also had Pluto within range of the ASC, all this together added up to a nuclear bomb. Simple astrology, and in this case it provided the correct answer. The more complicated, but 'correct' approach gave the wrong answer.
The thing is that as soon as astrology starts veering off too far into what I see as technical abstractions such as midpoints, rulerships, harmonics etc, I stop believing it. When I do a reading for someone, it usually takes about 1 and 1/2 hours, and in that space I've got time to do the Sun, Moon and Angles, how the other planets fit in with them, the major transits in their past, present and near future, and that's about it. In real astrology, where you're giving someone a take on themselves, there's little time for the abstract technicalities - such as midpoints -that don't actually correspond to any bodies in the sky. Nor do progressions correspond to anything that you can point to, and I don't generally find them that much use either. It's hard enough for the client to keep a relationship to the chart without dragging in abstract technicalities. I'm not denying that these things work - they do - but what is most likely to work, what is most likely to say something that is real about a person or an event, is what is staring at you out of the chart. Like the charts for the N Korean Bomb and my question about it both having ASC/DESC within range of the nuclear axis. So the bomb was for real, stupid! Whatever aspects the ruler is making with other planets, and whatever the Moon's last aspect to them might have been.
I have to admit that others' better knowledge of astrology sometimes sends a tremor of self-doubt through me (but not for long!), particularly as I've never formally studied the subject, and doubt I ever shall. But I have often seen myself getting better results just by sticking to the basics.