The methods of authentication listed in codified rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b) are merely illustrations: such enumerated methods are only examples. Any method of authentication that provides sufficient evidence of authenticity is permissible.

United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300, 1314 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed the questioning of the defendant about his previous assault on the decedent because the "[defendant] opened the....If a trial court admits inadmissible evidence but later in the trial recognizes its error, the trial court has the discretion to allow an opponent to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to "cure" or ameliorate the harm done by the opponent's use of inadmissible evidence but the trial can or should allow the admission of curative evidence only if it concludes that the admission of curative evidence will not cause undue prejudice, delay, or confusion and will not do more harm than good to the goal of accurate fact finding.

United States v. Siegal, 536 F.3d 306, pin? (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that "other crime evidence" as part of defendant's 20-year fraud scheme to support her gambling habit was admissible where it established modus operandi and showed defendant's pattern in defrauding her...Other wrongs or crimes that show an unusual pattern of conduct by a person are not barred by the prohibition against the use of character or disposition to show conduct on a particular occasion.

Cf. United States v. Crabbe, 556 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1223 (D. Colo. 2008) ("However, a methodology might have near universal acceptance in a particular discipline, but a court may find that the entire discipline itself (e.g. astrology, dowsing) lacks any reliability.").Astrology is not a valid science and "expert" astrological evidence does not satisfy the admissibility requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules; astrology is "junk science."