Hi Lisa

Deb,

I'm getting the impression if he was born at 5.22am you would continue to call yourself an astrologer.

Ha - And I was trying to help your cause out in the first place - and then you went and dropped me in it !

Now that I've seen the chart and read what I've written, I've remembered why I like the Gemini rising chart. So I'm not unbiased anymore.
I haven't seen the chart that you prefer, so I'm not sure whether I could knit something out of that, or not. But I have seen some celebrity charts, and I haven't been able to relate to them at all, so I've been dubious about the data and I've deliberately avoided using them because of that. What can I say? Whenever I have used a chart, I have 'believed in it. But no doubt there have been times when my judgement on a celebrity chart was better than the data

Deb wrote:

. . . but since my own view is that astrology works through an instrument (the astrologer), I worry more about keeping the instrument polished, tuned and harmonious, and then a little bum note now and then gets lost in the overall melody.

At last this thread has produced something interesting and useful ? and really, really smart.

Kirk wrote:Deb wrote:

. . . but since my own view is that astrology works through an instrument (the astrologer), I worry more about keeping the instrument polished, tuned and harmonious, and then a little bum note now and then gets lost in the overall melody.

At last this thread has produced something interesting and useful ? and really, really smart.

At last something useful to argue about

With regards to horary as divination, I'm inclined to believe you, almost going to the point of regarding it as a univariate process dependent on the astrologer alone. Seen too many variant ways of getting the right answer to comfortably subscribe it to dumb luck.

Natal astrology, however, is in my opinion a much different beast, though it must always help to be a diviner.

"Anyone have any traditional ideas on how to resolve this challenge?"

I am alone on this but I believe he was born around 2:46pm to 3:13 pm in Gary Indiana.

Putting his saturn in a cusp between the 12th and 1st houses. His taurus mars in the fifth. His jupiter in the 10th. His water moon in the 3rd house. Sag rising.

GR wrote:At last something useful to argue about
With regards to horary as divination, I'm inclined to believe you, almost going to the point of regarding it as a univariate process dependent on the astrologer alone...

Natal astrology, however, is in my opinion a much different beast,

Hi Gabe

I consider astrology to be an expression of cosmic intelligence, therefore in my view there is nothing inconsequential, random, or purely subjective about any of it ? this applies as much to horary as it does to natal and the other branches.

It goes without saying that good data is crucial, but my point is that better data doesn?t always equal better analysis. The astrologer is important, and most experienced astrologers have learnt to recognise valid themes that resonate across the chart, including the aspectual connections that are not so dependent on fine-timing. Or we see the theme brought to prominence when a variety of predictive techniques come together, and then we can zoom into narrow time frames using techniques such as transits and lunations. Angles and houses are always important, but having seen many astrologers make good judgements using a variety of house systems and definitions of what constitutes ?angularity?, I do believe it is sometimes possible to make a good judgement, even if the data is in dispute.

Lisa wrote:good thing we aren't discussing what's called 'objective reality' in 2009.

Hi Lisa
Bear in mind that anyone who has made a comment with regard to how a chart does or should describe Michael Jackson, is making a judgement within the context of what is known (or believed to be known) about him. We are all of us wrapping charts around our own subjective opinions, so there is no way to obtain pure ?objective reality? in this particular discussion. But that shouldn't stop us trying. (Somewhere between the clearly objective and the clearly subjective is the interesting place where astrology thrives )

Deb

To find the correct birth time is a really hard work. I study this theme (subject) since my first beginning in astrology. My resume is: when you know that the correct birth time is just around one hour +/-, so you can use primary directions or Sekund?rdirektionen (this is a kind of progression, using also the MC in the same distance to the sun in Rectacension as it was by bithtime)
If you you know only the Date sure but not the time, so I know only one maximal two systems which are working! First the correction with the system of Witte. Also called Uranian Astrology, but I think the the Uranian (with this I mean the "english" way, in opposite to the original german tradition) don?t know really the System. The other System is that from Alexander Marr, which is also Isaac Starkman using. Why they are working? Both use fix formula for every kind of event. So no one can say, by example, here is Sun Significator for this and there it is Venus. Is is always the same for the same event. With this only you can get exact times for exact events. In the using of Witte-system there was a Viennese Astrologer in the fifties, who could find out the right birth time of a person only by knowing the Date, and the time and date of the (some time only one) event(s). The trick is to find out the exact place of the moon, because the moon is always involved in every event. I know and I can use this technic. You have to do a lot of calculating, but you get the right time, without any interpreting from all kinds of AS and so on. This system works with three Horoscopes a the same time and the same formula. Radix (Natal) Progressed and Transit!
The System of Marr is similarly. It use always the same kinds of Aspects in different kinds of Horoskops, as progression, primarydirection, and other kinds of Horoskops. The different to Witte is, you get a lot of possibilities, but you can find out, in this results, the right time by good practice in astrology and knowledge. Normally it should be in the first ten possibilities! Mostly it is one of the first four results!

Wolfgang

Bear in mind that anyone who has made a comment with regard to how a chart does or should describe Michael Jackson, is making a judgement within the context of what is known (or believed to be known) about him. We are all of us wrapping charts around our own subjective opinions, so there is no way to obtain pure ?objective reality? in this particular discussion. But that shouldn't stop us trying. (Somewhere between the clearly objective and the clearly subjective is the interesting place where astrology thrives

I remind you as to what you said 5yrs ago and you are reminding me of what I said yesterday.

When you look at your own chart or a child, parent, best friend or spouse where is the subjective/objective line being drawn. Philosophers talk about the problem of other minds and how we can't 'know' anything about someone else.

Cosmic Intelligence, this is what Greene goes on about with her Jung and Plato are much of a muchness and you aren't as 'One' here so who's not divining enough of it to satisfy. Is this about how depth psychology is a disguise or a welcome development.

Cosmic Intelligence, this is what Greene goes on about with her Jung and Plato are much of a muchness and you aren't as 'One' here so who's not divining enough of it to satisfy.

Egad! This sentence is a mess!

Kyle wrote:

Curtis, what indicators in the Hindu chart do you use to support the 23.43 time? And how do you get Mars in the first house? I have Mars firmly in Aries in the twelfth.

I just mentioned my criteria in the post, didn't you read it? I am a vedic astrologer using sidereal whole sign houses (as mentioned), that way I get Mars in the first.

Curtis

Kirk wrote:

Cosmic Intelligence, this is what Greene goes on about with her Jung and Plato are much of a muchness and you aren't as 'One' here so who's not divining enough of it to satisfy.

Egad! This sentence is a mess!

By all means re-write it.


I wasn't consciously getting into this by the way:

''the more holy thou art, the more neer to God, the purer judgment thou shall give''.

But if you want to get stuck in Kirk as to what is really going on with the 17 charts that all ''work'' then speculate away.

Hello Wolfgang,

Thank you for those wise words. I agree whole-heartedly with virtually every word you said.

The WAY to rectify is through dynamic systems with tight orbs and unchanging symbolism. (as you also mentioned or alluded to)

The other advantage is that, unlike character analysis (which is PRONE to failure no matter HOW good the astrologer is at it), using the dynamic systems over enough events PROVES the birthtime.

Although these methods are new for MANY, I didn't really expect that they would be seen as so radical. To me, it seems like straight up logic. Find the best system (aspects matching events w/ tight orbs) and then do what astrologers would do, which is look over all available birthtimes for the best fit. Then use OTHER systems to make sure it was correct.

I spent 20 years FINE-TUNING my birthtime until I was happy with it. The final time that I arrived at was 6:16:44. When I used Polaris and almost 20 DATED events from my life, Polaris had no problem finding the birthtime. Checking the events (easily done through the program) made for not too difficult corroboration.

Wolfgang, you already know about Polaris (apparently) but for the others who are reading this... it is HIGHLY recommended.

Peace

James

"I'm in the 11:43 pm camp. This puts the Sun and Pluto in the fourth house (using whole sign sidereal houses) in Leo indicating a strong parental influence (his father Joe Jackson) quite domineering actually. Saturn in Scorpio in the seventh indicating something very deep, intense, and pathological about relationships. Mars in the first with his vigorous performance style, and Moon as the third ruler in the tenth, which is a performer type of configuratoin in Vedic astrology (which is what I do)

There's more of course, but those are the most prominent in my mind at the moment. I wrote an article about his chart about five years ago."...

..."I just mentioned my criteria in the post, didn't you read it? I am a vedic astrologer using sidereal whole sign houses (as mentioned), that way I get Mars in the first."

Curtis



I appreciate your retort, but, sir, I think your chart is wrong. You have not properly footnoted your assertion. Of course I read it. What Ayanamsa do you use? Unless it's some rogue ayanamsa, there is no way you can get 23.43 and a Mars in the first house. Bhava chart or else...no way. If I'm wrong, please show 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.

Chakrapani Ullal is a TITAN in Hindu astrology. Would he do a chart at the wrong birthtime? Or tell a different birthtime? It's been my experience that a lie is a VERY grievous thing to a person from India. How come no-one has commented on the 19.33 chart that was supposedly given directly from MJ to an astrologer?!! There's this 'idea' of "...after 10:30 (p.m.)..." floating around here that was dictated by a 'BAND' member sometime in the eighties...!!! Why not the time Chakrapani gave?

there are charts in the 23.something range that work, to an extent; no question. My challenge to this forum is to 'DISPROVE' the 19.33 chart...

I am not trying to get anyone to prove astrology to me. I just want a 'reverse engineer' on all the "well, this guy was in his band once" set theories here going around. Why doesn't the 19.33 time work?

Any takers?

All i want is 'hard' evidence. Prove what Chakrapani said is wrong. Support your evidence. If you want, you can email me, heartsermusic@gmail.com.

Kyle

p.s. Do let's have a look at the nakshatras for the 19.33 ASC and Moon...