I totally agree - Sag rising. There has to be a correlation between angles in this chart and the solstice...there is with everyone else who died in the past ten days.

It has become apparent that the recent contributor 'Lisa' is another incarnation of 'Trevor' who started the thread.

It seems only fair to warn contributors that strange motives may lie behind some of the posts which argue for more than one chart, and then forward challenges to prove or disprove one chart over another.

Kyle:

With the above comments in mind, please moderate the content and tone of your posts in future, because I?m no longer able to give people the benefit of the doubt in this thread.

I challenged some astrologers here with the question of whether or not they thought it was a valid chart. No one responded.

No you didn?t. I have read carefully through all of your posts this morning, and there is only one little comment that comes remotely close to this theme, which is this:

I feel like i remember seeing the 19.33 chart some years back. Have any of the western astrologers here tried that time? It's a strong chart. (an albeit obvious chart)

It's a barely noticeable remark, easily lost in the midst of your other comments.

Here are some of the incongruous comments in your posts:

the Vedic chart really supports the 11:53 birthtime, however, the 12:45 is a much stronger natal chart

I'll stand by the 23:53 chart as long as I do astrology. It SPEAKS to me.

I'll put myself in the Chakrapani camp. It is the most congruent chart in my opinion. 19.33. I challenged some astrologers here with the question of whether or not they thought it was a valid chart. No one responded.

My challenge to this forum is to 'DISPROVE' the 19.33 chart...

Your opinion is so emphatic, and yet so easily shifted.

I have previously posted several moderator?s comments asking posters to concentrate on putting forward their own views, and to stop issuing challenges in this sensitive and controversial thread. If future posts ignore that request, I can only commit to removing them without further explanation.

Deb

The tone of my posts became completely inappropriate. I hadn't realized that my enthusiasm for the 'process' of astrological discernment was becoming a bit heavy-handed. In the end, I really don't care what time Michael Jackson was born. My interest is in learning something from the discourse on the astrological symbols of a life.

I chimed in on the problem of the 23:?? charts because I thought I could help use what I saw to support the case against the 12:45 chart. I was never trying to present the 'Kyle' rectification chart. Of the ones presented, the 23:43 made more sense than the 12:45, which was, as it appeared, thoroughly vetted. I also liked, ultimately of the group, the 23:14 chart that Jiger posted. Understand that the techniques I use, as long as the ASC house doesn't change, vary little in the short time put forth by all the 23:?? proponents. I don't think it was necessarily wavering, just maybe a little 'cheerleading'. All the criteria in technique on this forum for or against a chart is fascinating to me: like a 'friend of a friend'.

Then it occurred to me that the only time I've seen to reputedly be given by MJ to an astrologer, Chakrapani Ullal, was not talked about or even verified or dismissed. I wondered about that. This is where the process of astrology fascinates me. Deb, you're absolutely right. I didn't 'challenge' people here to validate the 19:33 chart, I just wanted to know if anyone had checked it out and, in what way, it worked or didn't work. Through that dialogue I had hoped to possibly learn something in my particular understanding of astrology that would help me in the future; perhaps a new technique or a way to refute a technique. Alas, my language was wrong. I apologize for that.

Thanks for understanding Kyle. I also accept now, after private correspondence from the originator of the thread, that this thread has been blighted more by an unfortunate circumstances of events, rather than anyone having an intention to cause problems. I think we can all accept the probability of that, given the way it became a flaming thread a few weeks ago and had only just settled down when Michael Jackson died so suddenly.

I don't want to stop to the discussion because it is only natural that astrologers want to talk about this chart whilst the news is still so heavily focussed on MJ.

Best regards
Deb

After much scrutinizing I came to the conclusion that the birth time given by the Vedic astrologer Chakrapani Ullal is the true one. Refined rectification is 7.32.19 CDT Asc 9Pis49'.
No one thought about Pisces rising, but I think this fit him very much. Neptune, Jupiter (the rulers) and NN in 8th house- he caused himself death by taking too much drugs.
Moon rising- his autobiography called Moonwalk
In my post from 11 June I made an analysis with PSSR system and came to the correct conclusion that his birth time is after 18.30 but I failed to pinpoint the correct time although my program Polaris, in searching from 19.00 to 24.00 do shows 19.32.19 as 3rd ranking and 23.29.12 as 5th ranking, but I "refused" to check Pisces rising.
Conclusion: rectifying chart without any birth time is still very difficult.

Conclusion: rectifying chart without any birth time is still very difficult.

Wise words

I find it difficult to relate to the idea of Michael having both the ascendant and Moon in Pisces because I can't see the relationship between the chart and his identifiable physique. Gemini rising threw an emphasis upon Mercury, which (even in Leo) makes the body taller, thinner, and more lithe in movement. It also made his Sun in Virgo angular. Both of these planets are strong anyway because of the MR between them, but with no association with the ascendant, they don't find immediate expression.

Instead you would have the ascendant and Moon in a Jupiter ruled sign, and Jupiter itself in a Venus-ruled sign. You would expect such an appearance to be full faced, large in body, rounded, and fleshy.

This would also place both luminaries under the horizon, which is traditionally an argument against fame and public attention.

Moon rising- his autobiography called Moonwalk

I don't see that as significant or objective. We could just as easily say that in the Gemini rising chart, the Moon rules the 3rd house. I do think he has a strong Moon, which shows to some extent in his appearance, but I wouldn't put quite so much emphasis upon it. In the Gemini rising chart the Moon in Pisces is elevated, but the closest planet to an angle is Mercury - if I had to pick one planet to act as a signature for Michael Jackson, I would choose Mercury over the Moon.

Regards
Deb

Isaac wrote:

No one thought about Pisces rising, but I think this fit him very much.

I did! I just didn't tell anyone. A few days ago I was glancing through this thread and the thought entered my mind 'But he has Pisces rising', as if it should be obvious. Since it was merely a flash idea with no rectification behind it (or much interest on my part) I dropped the matter.


Why Pisces? Deb wrote:

I find it difficult to relate to the idea of Michael having both the ascendant and Moon in Pisces because I can't see the relationship between the chart and his identifiable physique.

I've come to think that the ASC is more the personal 'style', the intelligence behind and directing the physique, something that other people often sense more than consciously see in the chart native. It can also describe a certain 'aura' that surrounds a person. This is exactly why Pisces struck me as the most likely choice. The physique seems to be more strongly described by the ASC ruler, in this case Jupiter in Libra. The body type signified by Jupiter is described by Lilly as ?an upright, straight and tall Stature?. Lilly describes the Libra physique as ? ... a well framed body, straight, tall and more subtle or slender than gross?. With the rising sign signifying more the personal style and the animation of the body, Pisces with it's (modern?) association with dance makes for a pretty darn awesome Moonwalk that even a non-fan can appreciate. A Piscean looseness and and release of the body.

Pisces can leave a person scratching his head with 'What is it?' or 'What is that person all about?' Pisces is vague and hard to define, making for more of an essence than an object. Add a 1st house Pisces Moon and you've got some real ghostliness. Look at a later picture of MJ. He was hard to classify, don't you think? Specifically, he made himself hard to classify and place. I found him extremely hard to look at after what he had done to himself, after the look he created for himself. With the Moon-Saturn square ? well, to me he looked like death. It's easy to imagine him wearing a black hooded robe and pointing a bony finger at you when the appropriate time comes. ASC ruler Jupiter in the 8th makes for a real disconnect with the ASC; things don't quite come together ? for us in viewing him, and (probably?) for him viewing himself. And with the first house Pisces Moon the people respond, irrationally and in a manner to make for a lot of head-scratching. His death was large enough to slow down the Internet. Now there's a mass response. The Moon rules the 5th house so there we have strange hard-to-pinpoint activity regarding children. Children had to enter the life somehow through the involvement of the fertile signs of Cancer and Pisces. The Moon square the elevated Saturn looks to have brought some problems and notoriety concerning them.


Tom wrote:

Without going into painful detail, I just heard Michael Jackson described as a "square peg in search a round hole."

Sounds like Pisces. The last sign of the zodiac feels the urge to move on to something ? but what?


This all has no event analysis behind it on my part. It's strictly an argument for Pisces rising. It seems to describe him and his style well. Besides, I just felt like saying something.

Some thoughts on the Moon in the first House symbolism...

(I have a different first ruler for the sidereal chart, Saturn, which supports all of the 'change' criteria I need)

Didn't MJ look like 'ALL' of us, i mean, society in general throughout his career? He was black, then he was white; he was at times masculine, and also very feminine. As in, he adopted the 'reflection' of the 'public'? He did have a very full Moon, and it seemed he 'dissolved' any semblance of his birth heredity.

Also, in my opinion, 'Man in the Mirror' was perhaps his finest music moment. Maybe even his last great moment across the world's stage. A stage he created, as the most famous person in the world...

"...if you want to make the WORLD a better place, take a LOOK in the MIRROR and make a CHANGE..."

Pisces is so phlegmatic that a terribly thin man like Jackson, just doesn't seem to fit.

A short stature, ill composed, not very decent, a good large face, palish complexion, the body fleshy, or swelling, not very straight, but incurvating somewhat with the head - CA p 99

That would, of course, be modified by Jupiter in Libra, and any planets aspecting the ASC, but it could be squared by Saturn or opposed by the Sun in Virgo, neither of which would work in my opinion. Appearance isn't everything, though.

I think I like Gemini simply because of the exceptional dexterity he possessed.

The square peg searching for a round hole could be Pisces, but that isn't the only sign it could be. Frankly given the right circumstances it could be any sign. Now this may be a stretch, but bear with me. If Gemini rises are there any planets in Mercury signs that will work with Mercury? Only the Sun and he's in mutual reception with Mercury. Jackson loves himself. That's OK, but what else is there to work with? Regardless of birth time, his is not a strong chart by essential dignity. In fact only Jupiter and the Sun have any dignity and that's by face! What is there to work with? We're stuck with Lord ASC (assuming Gemini rising) and the Sun both below the horizon at the bottom of the chart.

Jackson didn't fit it and maybe given the bizarre persona he developed, he may not have known how. Putting aside the pedophilia charges, he liked to sleep in the same bed with little boys. That's odd. I've read where the motivation for people to desire children in that way or worse is the inability to form adult relationships. He called his ranch Neverland after the Peter Pan story - the boy who never grew up. His marriages didn't last and I'm sure that close male friends are difficult to spot given a celebrity is always gong to attract hangers on.

My guess is this is or was one unhappy man, flitting from one screwball attempt to fit in to another. I don't pretend to know if the unhappiness is innate, the result of his childhood, or the result of his fame. It just existed. RIP

Come to think of it, I guess I realize now how much I walk away from describing a person physically with the natal chart. The astrological factors are of limited value and help without the racial and family factors, but it's all a big vague 'blend' when you try to throw them all together. The personal style of expression and the presentation of self that the person seems destined, perhaps driven, to create for himself or herself ? now that seems easier to find. We can find descriptions of that which is animating the body, the type of energy, the innate urges of expression and movement. But I suppose plain old physical description does then become possible to some extent: that energy and those urges of expression will mold and shape the physical body over a lifetime in addition to providing the more obvious elements of a personal style. So I probably shouldn't run away from describing folks physically. It might even be friendlier and more respectful than trying to pry into their minds. I have trouble seeing it as nearly as much fun, though.

Pisces is so phlegmatic that a terribly thin man like Jackson, just doesn't seem to fit.

But an elevated angular Saturn square a Moon-ASC conjunction in Pisces might dry things out quite a bit, especially if we use a time a little later than Isaac suggested, say 7:45pm. That makes the Moon, the light of sect, angular and conjunct the ASC, with both square an elevated 10th house Saturn.

How might the separating Moon-Sun opposition factor in if the Moon is indeed a first house Moon, and is therefore descriptive of the him physically? The Moon is now waning, separating from the Sun and next applying square Saturn. Would that have a thinning and drying effect?

But I really don't know. Pisces just feels the best to me.