76 by JoakimS Deb wrote:This time I hope we can get better data than we did for Milliband, whose chart in astro-database is surely wrong, since it adds an hour for daylight saving in December, whereas according to the time and date website, this was ended on 27 October 1968, and was not employed again until 1972. http://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ ... ?year=1969 Sorry to say Deb, but I think you read the data at timeanddate.com wrongly. On 18 Feb 1968 at 02:00 time changed so 1 hour was added (DST start) to GMT and this extra hour then stayed until 31 Oct 1971 at 03:00 when clocks were set back 1 hour to GMT. So astro-database is correct in that case, however the time given may still be wrong but I have not studied red's appearance or seen him in action enough to be absolutely sure he doesn't have Taurus rising. We have to remember that arranged pictures often are "beautified" and they get a make-up before appearing on television. /Joakim Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes a free trip around the sun every year. http://www.astrocalc.com Quote Sat May 09, 2015 1:40 pm
77 by Mark Deb wrote: Not so very long ago, we all had our own reference books to check these sorts of details whilst calculating charts. Now we seem reduced to relying on what websites report. I'd imagine that the Wikipedia report is more reliable here. Even though this particular data question seems settled you raise an important point. Nowadays astrologers rely on software to calculate our charts. We accept things like daylight saving are naturally correct. Still programmers can make the odd mistake too. We should be vigilant on such issues. I had almost largely forgotten about the daylight changes made during this period. But you have reminded me about those extremely dark winter mornings in Scotland as a schoolchild! Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Sat May 09, 2015 3:36 pm
78 by Deb Hi JoakimS - yes I completely accept that point now, which is why I said the Wikipedia report seems correct. I found the TimeandDate site info very confusing, but I am relieved to be reassured that their details are not inaccurate, just badly reported. Quote Sat May 09, 2015 3:40 pm
79 by Mjacob Joakim The question of Ed Miliband and his appearance did come up here around the 9th April on this thread but I appreciate that you would rather decide for yourself Matthew Matthew Goulding Quote Sat May 09, 2015 3:50 pm
80 by Mjacob Fleur wrote: Thanks. I suppose if that T-square of Jupiter opposition Saturn square Neptune's antiscion also had Neptune's antiscion conjunct the Midheaven, you would have had a more effective, powerful and charismatic leader? I confess that I am rusty on outer planets and am not yet confident on antiscions. I am a bit generous in assigning angularity to planets though and that is one reason why I did not question the chart as first offered for we have Mercury in the 10th and Saturn, whilst more than five degrees from the ASC it still looks close enough as does the Moon to the 4th cusp. I do not follow his politics but he is a man who took charge of a major political party and to come second in election is way ahead of 60 million others who just voted. it would not have happened to someone with succedent planets. Saturn may make him look geeky but judge not by the outer raiment or whatever the good book tells us Matthew Matthew Goulding Quote Sun May 10, 2015 2:54 pm
81 by james_m there is nothing charismatic about saturn rising, lol.. i haven't seen milibrand - picture or on tv or any format, that i am aware of - but if saturn is in the vicinity of his ascendant it is very unlikely he has much of any charisma! saturn has more of a dour look to it.. saturn in taurus rising sounds like someone who might look like they have constipation, lol.. surely not charisma, lol.. Quote Sun May 10, 2015 3:51 pm
82 by Mjacob I do not recall using the word charisma. Kindly point to the part of his chart that says that he is not or at least was not the leader of the second largest political party in the UK Thanks And remember Ted Bovis in Hi di hi. The first rule of comedy is that you must have reality Matthew Goulding Quote Sun May 10, 2015 4:00 pm
83 by Mjacob Sorry James but the subject is a sore one in this context. I tried to open a thread on Miliband and his chart and had little response apart from a moderator saying that natal astrology could not be discussed in the traditional forum unless it was in a boring technical manner. Zzzzzxz Matthew Goulding Quote Sun May 10, 2015 6:40 pm
84 by Mjacob In any case the Gemini rising chart was withdrawn because it was wrong so we are stuck with Taurus but the criteria for any kind of public image is a tenth house matter rather than a sign issue I would humbly suggest Matthew Matthew Goulding Quote Sun May 10, 2015 6:52 pm
85 by fleur In Miliband's chart with Taurus rising http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Miliband,_Ed Saturn is in the Gauquelin zone behind the Ascendant, which is supposed to be even stronger for career and worldly manifestation than if it were exactly conjunct the Ascendant. This Saturn is opposition Jupiter and square Neptune's antiscion. Yet it seems Saturn dominates. Quote Sun May 10, 2015 7:05 pm
86 by fleur Mjacob wrote:In any case the Gemini rising chart was withdrawn because it was wrong so we are stuck with Taurus but the criteria for any kind of public image is a tenth house matter rather than a sign issue I would humbly suggest Matthew Wouldn't public image and worldly manifestation be a matter of all the chart angles? (And according to Gauquelin, it is the areas behind the chart angles that are most powerful in this respect). Quote Sun May 10, 2015 7:09 pm
87 by Mjacob Good point Fleur. As you may gather I lean toward the traditional approach but for me I heard about Gauquelin long before I heard about Ptolemy and his five degree rule. The Saturn opposition is a stand out to me rather than Neptune I have to say Matthew Matthew Goulding Quote Sun May 10, 2015 7:12 pm