Interesting, but I have a source that disagrees. The Wiki answer is flip and assumes since Indiana formally adopted DST in 2006 that it was not in place anywhere in the state prior to that. Small towns sometimes refused to use daylight time and this isn't recorded everywhere. Gary is not a small rural town. It is a suburb of Chicago, IL.

The American Atlas
US Latitudes and Longitudes
Time Changes and Time Zones
ACS Publications 1978

As Tham notes, Gary is listed as being in Lake County.

They list Gary as using daylight time back as far as 1947. They used Central War Time going back to WWI. They stayed on standard time from 1919 until they switched to War Time in 1942. On April 25 1955 they switched to Eastern Standard Time (+ 5 hrs), and apparently switched to CST in September of 1955. From then on they alternated between CST and CDT. But getting to the crux of the matter according to this reference, Gary was on CDT on August 29 1958.

However, there is this caveat placed on an early, unnumbered page:

Indiana This state has a very complex time zone picture, and not all of the zone shifts are completely known. In particular the time zone changes,for smaller towns are not always complete. In such instances, it is advisable to also consider the observance for nearby larger towns. ...

This is a reference to the fact that Indiana has two time zones within its borders. Some of those differences are within commuting distance of Chicago which is always on central time. The bulk of the state is on Eastern Time. I've worked with people who lived in Indiana in one time zone and commuted to Chicago which is in another. Gary, however, is next to Chicago and in the central time zone, and is a good sized city.

Given the reluctance of some rural areas to adopt daylight time (It wasn't "God's time."), it is probably these small towns that the ACS Atlas would get wrong, but I doubt they got it wrong about a town the size of Gary, Indiana.

The CS Atlas takes the law and newspaper stories from the areas in question as it sources. The Wiki answer cited only the 2006 law.

Still for fun I ran the 11:53 PM time as standard instead of daylight time. It put 1 Cancer on the ASC with its ruler the Moon in Pisces in the 10th. Honors coming to the native according to Morin. This also makes the greater benefic the ruler of the MC by domicile and the ASC by exaltation. Interesting, but hardly conclusive.

Tom

Further to previous, I am slowly, slowly coming around to the 10 Gem Asc.. Clearly MJ's agility smacks of Mercurial speed and agility, and the build does seem to ring true of Gemini Asc.

However, I would ask those who may be interested to look at the 10 Gem chart in the Koch system..giving the Jupiter and Neptune in the 5th and the Moon in the 10th, which rings true. Uranus and Venus straddle the IC, giving MJ's home its unusual, yet Venusian feel (in Leo). Obviously there is much more that could be said about the chart, but I would only be repeating what has gone before...

However, a few things to throw into the pot, which I do not believe have been raised before.

Namely, consider New Moon at 1.30 Cancer on 22nd June, 3 days before MJ's untimely death. This New Moon opposed transiting Pluto, at 2 Cap. Interesting (for those who look at Converse charts) that his Converse EP by Solar Arc was 1.31 Aries...(By the way, his EP conjuncts a rising Mars natally which suggests the surgery to his face)
Therefore the New Moon focused by squaring his EP and Mars (with 1 minute of orb) with transiting Pluto opposing to crank up the intensity.. I will leave you to look up COSI.

Consider too, then the Lunar Eclipse which was as clear as day would coincide with his funeral. Obviously quindecile the New Moon, bringing the separation/obsession theme familiar with the aspect.At 15.24 Cap squares his Solar Arc Mercury at 15 Libra, which whether you see it as the chart ruler or not, is the dispositor of his Sun, which is self-explanatory. Back to the converse charts again... consider the Naibod converse which puts his Mars/Sat mp at 15.32 Cap... again look at the COSI, painfully obvious.

Finally, and most clear of all (to me anyway) is the death of an icon coinciding with the forthcoming Solar Eclipse at 29.27 Cancer.. (Diana, Pope Jean Paul 11, Mother Theresa etc) Note the Solar Arc Asc.. 29.54 Cancer, which speaks for itself. Note too, it trines Jackson's Part of Fortune at 29 Scorpio.. suggesting a fillip to his bankrupt accounts... which judging by current charts will do his bank balance no harm at all)

The Full Moon at 13.43 Aquarius on August 6th, will conjunct his MC and I suspect throw some light on the causes of his death, and whilst Jupiter, Chiron and Neptune are wide of it, for those who tolerate whole signs, will undoubtedly shine on the drug factor... and probably one or two other things we know nothing about.

OK... I know not everyone looks at these methods, but I actually find in predictive work it is the only way. One simplistic route is never enough (for me anyway) so whilst the jury is still out on the time of MJ's birth, these are just a few things to throw into the mix!!

What I will put forward is that most of us could actually make many rising sign fit if we so chose. Certain signs can probably be ruled out because of his appearance, but there are several I could see "fitting". However, it is the maths which makes it fit for me, whether I like that he is Gemini rising, or as I preferred Libra rising with Neptune in the first.

Finally, Deb, I note that you mentioned that having both luminaries below the horizon would not suggest fame per se.. I have a chart here of Elvis, where both are below (8/1/35 04.35 Tupelo Miss)... is this an exception?

Cheers!!

Hi Pat

Good question. Maybe his chart needs rectifying?
(kidding)

Nothing is a reliable rule in itself of course, but having no luminary above the horizon is an argument against fame. However, it can be countered by other things such as luminaries on angles or in trine to the ascendant. Maybe it?s more complicated anyway when you get a celebrity who craves for seclusion?

I think that's a valid point, Deb. MJ was apparently intensely shy in 'real life', but watching his performances you would never, ever guess this about him. He was a powerhouse on stage. How do we reconcile these two properties?

Perhaps a part of it is that he was shoved into the spotlight at a very young age by his overambitious father (who is still distastefully touting his own business interests while standing over the corpse of his son); so his drive to perform seems very much predicated on a desire to please; his identity being found only whilst 'on stage' at the expense of his private needs.

Having both Lights under the horizon would seem more indicative of someone who was forced to be on stage, rather than one whose main ambition in life was to be famous of their own volition. His talent is undeniable, and was spotted early. But his father by all accounts used to hit all the children with a belt whilst they rehearsed, if they made a mistake. MJ never really had a choice about fame; it was thrust upon him.

GH

Good point Gunhilde...very interesting in the nature versus nurture debate... ie where and what would MJ have achieved without his father's belt??

Patricia C Byron wrote:
Finally, Deb, I note that you mentioned that having both luminaries below the horizon would not suggest fame per se..

Just yesterday I was reading in Italian newspapers comments about G8 just ended.

It seems to understand that Barack Obama was the Sun - they used exactly this word- who obscured all the other members, even George Clooney

And Obama has both lights below the horizon, Sun is just set, and the Moon with her doriphory of Venus and Mercury (and Sun too)

If he decides to move in Europe, I guess he has (more than) some consensus here

Margherita

Hello everyone,

Just a quick note on this 19h33 chart. Talking with a jyotish practioner yesterday who doubted this chart, I realized that the Moon was right on the Ascendant, "in mundo" (358?55 in Placidean Domitude). Now I am wondering if Ullal "rectified" it to fit his views of Jackson (which would make sens, knowing the Moon is taken as Ascendant in jyotish for further studies, in every "question")... For instance, his Neverland Mansion would make sens with a Lord of 5th house in the 4th, doesn't it?...

The 10 am, CST birthtime places 5 planets in the 10th house,
which accounts for his worldwide prominence.

Venus in the 10th house, popular singing talent, escalated
to worldwide fame and honor by the Sun's placement here.


" ..... favorable position for a speaking or singing voice that
can gain public attention. "

http://www.astrology-numerology.com/inh ... html#Tenth


" Few with this elevated Sun remain obscure. "

http://www.astrology-numerology.com/inh ... html#Tenth


8th house in Taurus. Venus in Leo, ruler of the heart, 10th house.
Transiting Moon in exact conjunction with Venus at 2.26 pm, 25th June,
opposing Chiron in 4th house, end of life.

Waldemath's Dark Moon Lilith at 15 Leo, the "worst degree"
of the zodiac, conjuncts Venus at 16 Leo and Uranus at 13 Leo.
Uranus in detriment.

Jackson was virtually destined to have a heart attack.

Venus also rules skin conditions.

I was born 4 months before Jackson, with Pluto and Uranus in Leo.
Worse, Pluto at the critical 29 Leo, the "heart attack degree".
Looks like I'll go the same way as Jackson.

I have eczema as well.

I was born 4 months before Jackson, with Pluto and Uranus in Leo.
Worse, Pluto at the critical 29 Leo, the "heart attack degree".
Looks like I'll go the same way as Jackson.

Pluto hit 29 Leo (Rx from 0 Virgo) on April 11, 1958. On May 11th, still at 29 Leo, Pluto went direct. Pluto finally reached 0 Virgo on June 10, 1958. Every human being on earth born from April 11 until June 10 has Pluto at 29 Leo. They all won't die from heart attacks. And if Pluto plays such a role, why didn't we read of massive numbers of people born in 1958 dying of heart attacks? Heart disease is the No. 1 killer in the US, but probably not for people aged 50. I wouldn't worry about it more than usual. Don't ignore your heart either.

Tom

The Moon in Hindu astrology is the most important planet, and since the houses are fixed, you can judge a chart by the house that the Moon is in. Literally, 'Moon Ascendant', Chandra Lagna.

The Moon sets the timing of the dasa system. Also the chart can be judged by the nakshatras, or lunar mansions. This is a division of the chart into 27; the number of days for a complete Moon cycle.

Absolutely Ullal would have judged the horoscope this way. To put the ASC on the Moon and call it a birthtime, I think, would be a bit careless, especially for someone of Chakrapani's stature.

The literal translation of MJ's ASC nakshatra, for the 19.33 chart, 'Shatabishak', is "100 medicines or doctors". (!!!)

(translation taken from Ernst Wilhelm's 'Vault of the Heavens')

I wanted to end that last post fast, I hurt my hand at work today. Typing is getting to me, but, to be fair, I need to provide the other symbolism...

The Moon's nakshatra is Purva Bhadra, which means 'earlier auspicious one'. (perhaps one who is 'fortunate' at a young age?) The nakshatra for the Moon in unchanged for the most prominent birthtimes debated here.

Interestingly, the 11.53 ASC nakshatra is Rohini, which means 'ruddy cow, or red' something to that effect. Well now, that would work with the change in his complexion, wouldn't it?

Generally speaking, I've read more about how the use of the nakshatra system has been either closely guarded or 'lost' to a certain degree over centuries. We know what they mean and 'do', but how to use the system, I haven't come across a definitive answer. Or a satisfactory one, at that. What I find beautiful about them is the symbolism and the 'language'.

'Lunar Mansions' is just gorgeous language.

Tom wrote:
Pluto hit 29 Leo (Rx from 0 Virgo) on April 11, 1958.
On May 11th, still at 29 Leo, Pluto went direct. Pluto finally reached
0 Virgo on June 10, 1958. Every human being on earth born from April
11 until June 10 has Pluto at 29 Leo. They all won't die from heart
attacks. And if Pluto plays such a role, why didn't we read of massive
numbers of people born in 1958 dying of heart attacks? Heart disease
is the No. 1 killer in the US, but probably not for people aged 50.
I wouldn't worry about it more than usual. Don't ignore your heart either.

Tom

Thank you for the assurance, Tom.

I have had a benign heart murmur since my early 20s,
which is likely a mild form of mitral valve prolapse.

Quite a few of my schoolfriends born around my time have
already gone from heart attacks and strokes.

I think Pluto and Uranus in Leo predisposes one not just to
heart conditions, but those of the entire vascular system as well.