Acceptable margins in birth time errors!

[Cosmiccradle]

I don't think that there's an astologer who wouldn't agree that the birth time is on top of the list of most important things. However as astrologers we also know that we rarely recieve times that are correct. Even birth certificates can be wrong, as hospital certificates.

Some might take the time to use corrective techniques, to see if the correct birth time can be found. But in many cases some type of support is needed from the person to give dates and situations. And if we do not have this, it becomes a guessing game.

I think that most times are earlier then noted. It goes to reason that if everyone is preoccupied with the well being of the mother and child little attention is given to the clock, unless you have someone there, special just to watch the clock, but I think that situation is a rarity.

Do you accept the time given? Do you correct and if so, what is the technique? And most important what do you feel is a realistic margin for human error when it comes to corrected birth times? Is it ethical to accept corrected times and is this not just a situation that is as questionable as the given birth time?

[eternalautumn]

Well, my birth time is noted on my birth certificate as 10:12, so I'm reasonably sure that it is correct. This gives my Ascendant at 11 degrees, so even if it was off by a few minutes, my Ascendant wouldn't change sign, which is the most important thing in my opinion. But, for births given at the hour and the half-hour, I would definitely seek to correct them, as it's just too easy. It's much more likely that they were born a few minutes before or after, so in those situations I would look to rectify. But either way, if the rising degree wasn't the first or last five degrees of a sign, I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it, as not much changes in those few minutes anyway, at least not in a major way. I am not a professional though, so I wonder if prefect accuracy is something strived for by those with a clientele...

Also, I'm not sure how "ethical" it is to use rectified times, because usually astrology is not that precise, therefore it's kind of a stretch to automatically assume the astrologically corrected birth time is the "real" birth time, but that depends on the level of one's faith in astrology I guess...

[Catatonia]

There are none short of seconds

If the time is incorrect you don't do a reading

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

[Cosmiccradle]

Well, my birth time is noted on my birth certificate as 10:12, so I'm reasonably sure that it is correct. This gives my Ascendant at 11 degrees, so even if it was off by a few minutes, my Ascendant wouldn't change sign, which is the most important thing in my opinion. But, for births given at the hour and the half-hour, I would definitely seek to correct them, as it's just too easy. It's much more likely that they were born a few minutes before or after, so in those situations I would look to rectify. But either way, if the rising degree wasn't the first or last five degrees of a sign, I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it, as not much changes in those few minutes anyway, at least not in a major way. I am not a professional though, so I wonder if prefect accuracy is something strived for by those with a clientele...

But either way, if the rising degree wasn't the first or last five degrees of a sign, I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it, as not much changes in those few minutes anyway, at least not in a major way. I am not a professional though, so I wonder if prefect accuracy is something strived for by those with a clientele.

In this type of situation thought must be given to long and short ascension signs. Even at 27 degrees this could make a big difference, one sign or the other. As for perfect accuracy, that is a must if we use predictive atrology for that person.

[eternalautumn]

In this type of situation thought must be given to long and short ascension signs. Even at 27 degrees this could make a big difference, one sign or the other. As for perfect accuracy, that is a must if we use predictive atrology for that person. That is a good point.

You are right about predictive methods; but, is it right to use rectified times as perfectly accurate and therefore suitable for prediction? In my opinion, no. I would only base predictions on a known recorded birth time, or testimony from someone who was there.

[Arian Maverick]

As someone who recently has had her natal chart rectified, I'd like to share my experience.

My birth certificate records my time of birth as 6:04 AM, a time which yields an early Aries Ascendant (1 Aries 10"). As noted earlier, Aries is a sign of fast ascension in the northern hemisphere in which I was born; therefore, an inaccuracy of only three minutes in my time of birth would result in a late Pisces Ascendant.

I attempted many rectification methods throughout the years, but I could not arrive at an accurate natal chart because I could not overcome the assumption that my recorded time of birth was correct within five--at the most, ten--minutes. Since this time of birth yields angles conjunct the Aries Point, I eagerly awaited Pluto's ingress into Capricorn, certain I would feel the effects of Pluto square my Ascendant and conjunct my Midheaven. I assumed additional responsibilities during this time, which led me to resign as moderator of the forums, but nothing earth-shattering happened. I did not experience an upheaval, as I had several years before.

This should have provided a clue that my recorded time of birth was incorrect--or, more importantly, that this time of birth did not yield a natal chart which corresponded to life events. I have learned that there is a difference between an accurate time of birth and an accurate natal chart; one does not necessarily yield the other. This statement appears to defy logic. An astrologer may require a complete paradigm shift to accept it, or he may be unable to do so. I'd like to direct readers to Kannon's post in the thread Entrance of the Soul seen Astrologically (http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=203625#post203625). Here's an excerpt:

The Soul is to be understood differently from Spirit. Soul is an individuation of Spirit, but "spirit" also refers to the very life force itself that every Soul has as its own. So when a Soul incarnates, it extends its life force (etheric silver/blue cord) to the human body to begin the process of living as a human. This moment is THE birth moment and happens most often (up to 4 hours or more) before physical birth, but can happen shortly thereafter. Cayce called this "spiritual birth" (I personally don't like the term, but it appears necessary to understand the overall process). The moment when the full embodiment happens is termed "soul birth" and generally happens after spiritual birth.

This understanding requires one to discard the "first breath" theory, which, I believe, the time of birth on a certificate records.

My rectified natal chart is set for 5:29:30 AM, which is more than thirty minutes before my recorded time of birth. Some members may object this, but I am a pragmatist; I'll use whatever works. What use is a natal chart that does not describe an individual accurately, which cannot be used to make inferences of the future? I still believe my physical body was born at or around 6:04 AM, but for whatever reason, I do not resonate with the natal chart this time yields. I'd prefer to adjust the chart than attempt to "fit" it.

This is my truth. As always, "take what fits and ditch the rest." :whistling:

Arian Maverick

[Cosmiccradle]

As someone who recently has had her natal chart rectified, I'd like to share my experience.

My birth certificate records my time of birth as 6:04 AM, a time which yields an early Aries Ascendant (1 Aries 10"). As noted earlier, Aries is a sign of fast ascension in the northern hemisphere in which I was born; therefore, an inaccuracy of only three minutes in my time of birth would result in a late Pisces Ascendant.

I attempted many rectification methods throughout the years, but I could not arrive at an accurate natal chart because I could not overcome the assumption that my recorded time of birth was correct within five--at the most, ten--minutes. Since this time of birth yields angles conjunct the Aries Point, I eagerly awaited Pluto's ingress into Capricorn, certain I would feel the effects of Pluto square my Ascendant and conjunct my Midheaven. I assumed additional responsibilities during this time, which led me to resign as moderator of the forums, but nothing earth-shattering happened. I did not experience an upheaval, as I had several years before.

This should have provided a clue that my recorded time of birth was incorrect--or, more importantly, that this time of birth did not yield a natal chart which corresponded to life events. I have learned that there is a difference between an accurate time of birth and an accurate natal chart; one does not necessarily yield the other. This statement appears to defy logic. An astrologer may require a complete paradigm shift to accept it, or he may be unable to do so. I'd like to direct readers to Kannon's post in the thread Entrance of the Soul seen Astrologically (http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=203625#post203625). Here's an excerpt:



This understanding requires one to discard the "first breath" theory, which, I believe, the time of birth on a certificate records.

My rectified natal chart is set for 5:29:30 AM, which is more than thirty minutes before my recorded time of birth. Some members may object this, but I am a pragmatist; I'll use whatever works. What use is a natal chart that does not describe an individual accurately, which cannot be used to make inferences of the future? I still believe my physical body was born at or around 6:04 AM, but for whatever reason, I do not resonate with the natal chart this time yields. I'd prefer to adjust the chart than attempt to "fit" it.

This is my truth. As always, "take what fits and ditch the rest." :whistling:

Arian Maverick
But you're agrueing moment of birth as compared to birth time. The moment of birth can not be timed if we are refering to quickening, entrance of the soul, touching the earth it's anyones call. The only common denominator all astrologers do have that is the birthtime, coupled to the first breath. Whether this is correct I also question, but if we are stuck as a majority with the birth time, then what and how do we approach incorrect birth times to if you wish make the best of it.

In closing you do not state what method you used to come to the rectified bith time of 5:29:30, the statement "take what fits and ditch the rest." By saying this I could pretty much choose my favourite sign and make it my ascendant. [deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

[Arian Maverick]

In closing you do not state what method you used to come to the rectified bith time of 5:29:30,

I was not aware you wished to discuss this method on this thread.

"take what fits and ditch the rest."By saying this I could pretty much choose my favourite sign and make it my ascendant.

It's a throwback to a time when the energies of the forums were much different than they are today. I did not originate this saying. I included it as a reminder that I do not speak absolute truth, that each member must use discernment to discover which rectification method works best for him or her.

Say what you will. I am content that I have shared my perspective; I have nothing more to add.

Arian Maverick

[deleted quote of attacking comment - Moderator]

[Cosmiccradle]

Is there something in the subject matter that brings out the worst or is it just me?

[Modcleopatra]

It seems to me that Arian Maverick and Cosmiccradle are speaking about two very different components when it comes to ascertaining what "moment" one is a totally incarnated soul.

I don't see a reason for there to be any issue here, two people looking at what can happen with birth times, and how hard it can be to ascertain a just what time someone is totally incarnated.

It's sort of like the argument with abortion. Is someone a soulfilled living being from the moment they are concieved despite still needing "life-support" from the mother? How hard it would be to measure that! (Mine would have been on Halloween... don't ask...) I can't say what's right in this instance, but I can share my thoughts.

An astrologer once told me a story about the ascendant, and I've added my own understanding. It is not the moment you are born but the moment you look up the heavens and wail to the stars from which you just came from (babies, most, are born crying). You receive your soul and purpose from the stars, but you lose the universal connection once you become a separate physical being and in doing this you look up the heavens in despair as you gain physical being but disconnection. Chiron tells you how acutely you will feel this disconnection from the universal. Your rising sign tells you what you get to "keep," the stuff that comes automatically and natural to you.

Anyway, that said, there is probably some acceptable margin in birth times. I think Arian Maverick however has worked very long and very had to figure out her own rising sign so it's not the issue of margins for her, but a larger concept of accuracy. I don't think Cosmiccradle is trying to say that that is an issue. Arian received her reading from member Kannon, who offers his services for chart retification.

As for the answers to your questions questions, Cosmiccradle:


Do you accept the time given?

For myself, yes. Maybe a few minutes too early, if anything. As for ascendants for others, I try not to nit-pick. As Arian said: "take what fits and ditch the rest." Devil is in the details and its best and well, most ethical (your very valid concern) approach to working with people's charts and dealing with issues of accuracy (either in the back of one's mind or in the forefront) to let them dictate based on details and information they give you.

Do you correct and if so, what is the technique?

I can't correct very well, not really tried, I would imagine solar arcs are the best technique.

And most important what do you feel is a realistic margin for human error when it comes to corrected birth times?

A realistic margin? It depends on too much really, both for the margin, and the reality that may have to be considered. First I'd want to ask why is there a margin and what were the circumstances present that should make me more lenient. As for charts in general, I usually assume its within five minutes of the right time.

Is it ethical to accept corrected times and is this not just a situation that is as questionable as the given birth time?

Ethical for who to accept? The Native or the astrologer reading the corrected chart from potentially another source? Again, the devil is in the details on this one. Take what works with the person and go from there. Astrologers can't be perfect... unfortunately. I suppose it is a carefully practiced art, afterall. Not to be taken too seriously but to also take very seriously! A double-bind.

Hope this helps!

Teddi

[Cosmiccradle]

It seems to me that Arian Maverick and Cosmiccradle are speaking about two very different components when it comes to ascertaining what "moment" one is a totally incarnated soul.

I don't see a reason for there to be any issue here, two people looking at what can happen with birth times, and how hard it can be to ascertain a just what time someone is totally incarnated.

It's sort of like the argument with abortion. Is someone a soulfilled living being from the moment they are concieved despite still needing "life-support" from the mother? How hard it would be to measure that! (Mine would have been on Halloween... don't ask...) I can't say what's right in this instance, but I can share my thoughts.

An astrologer once told me a story about the ascendant, and I've added my own understanding. It is not the moment you are born but the moment you look up the heavens and wail to the stars from which you just came from (babies, most, are born crying). You receive your soul and purpose from the stars, but you lose the universal connection once you become a separate physical being and in doing this you look up the heavens in despair as you gain physical being but disconnection. Chiron tells you how acutely you will feel this disconnection from the universal. Your rising sign tells you what you get to "keep," the stuff that comes automatically and natural to you.

Anyway, that said, there is probably some acceptable margin in birth times. I think Arian Maverick however has worked very long and very had to figure out her own rising sign so it's not the issue of margins for her, but a larger concept of accuracy. I don't think Cosmiccradle is trying to say that that is an issue. Arian received her reading from member Kannon, who offers his services for chart retification.

As for the answers to your questions questions, Cosmiccradle:


Do you accept the time given?

For myself, yes. Maybe a few minutes too early, if anything. As for ascendants for others, I try not to nit-pick. As Arian said: "take what fits and ditch the rest." Devil is in the details and its best and well, most ethical (your very valid concern) approach to working with people's charts and dealing with issues of accuracy (either in the back of one's mind or in the forefront) to let them dictate based on details and information they give you.

Do you correct and if so, what is the technique?

I can't correct very well, not really tried, I would imagine solar arcs are the best technique.

And most important what do you feel is a realistic margin for human error when it comes to corrected birth times?

A realistic margin? It depends on too much really, both for the margin, and the reality that may have to be considered. First I'd want to ask why is there a margin and what were the circumstances present that should make me more lenient. As for charts in general, I usually assume its within five minutes of the right time.

Is it ethical to accept corrected times and is this not just a situation that is as questionable as the given birth time?

Ethical for who to accept? The Native or the astrologer reading the corrected chart from potentially another source? Again, the devil is in the details on this one. Take what works with the person and go from there. Astrologers can't be perfect... unfortunately. I suppose it is a carefully practiced art, afterall. Not to be taken too seriously but to also take very seriously! A double-bind.

Hope this helps!

Teddi

In my opinion it is the "if it fits" that is one of my greatest battles in astrology. Most of our foundation is based on exactness.

A hypothetical situation, in the if it fits astrology...a client comes to us asking if we will do his chart. He says that according to his family he was born somewhere between 13:00 and 13:15. But he is not sure. The margin being reasonable because we have a sign of slow ascension is taken as the correct time. A chart is erected, interpreted, balanced and typed out. The client is given his chart and our work. He is amazed at how well it fits his life and how he views himself. He is greatful. A year later he comes with a birth certificate found in an old box after his mother had passed stating he was born at 15:30. Where is astrology then? We have been led astray, to use a time that more or less fits, but we have nothing to back it up with. An exact science should be treated as such in all undertakings and subject matter concerning our profession. We can not wander from the path because it fits. If we do that to often, how do we remain believable? Astrology means the world to me, but it has yet to find itself in a position that it proves itself with hard facts and statistics.

This hypothetical situation may also be applied to corrected times, and margins in birth times, I think your statement 5 minutes either way is acceptable. I think correction should also stay in the realm of reasonable doubt.

Blindly accepted times, grossly corrected times, or made to fit times lead us down a road where our proffesion becomes questionable and in my opinion unproffesional. We do our own proffesion harm. We should only work, with tangible times, and within reason. If the time is right it should prove us correct. 50 years ago an error of 15 minutes was reasonable, now a error of 5 should be taken.

More later.

[Arian Maverick]

Blindly accepted times, grossly corrected times, or made to fit times lead us down a road where our proffesion becomes questionable and in my opinion unproffesional. We should only work, with tangible times, and within reason. If the time is right it should prove us correct. 50 years ago an error of 15 minutes was reasonable, now a error of 5 should be taken.

I suspect we are more in agreement more either of us previously believed.

My rectified time of birth was calculated using the dates of specific events; in many cases, I endeavored to locate records of the exact time a ceremony or other event began. How, then, is the result a "blindly accepted time?"

I suppose the true issue here is what is an acceptable margin? I believe it's more than five minutes--perhaps up to twenty minutes, if there was an emergency upon the birth of the child

Arian Maverick

[Modcleopatra]

He says that according to his family he was born somewhere between 13:00 and 13:15. But he is not sure. The margin being reasonable because we have a sign of slow ascension is taken as the correct time. A chart is erected, interpreted, balanced and typed out. The client is given his chart and our work. He is amazed at how well it fits his life and how he views himself. He is greatful. A year later he comes with a birth certificate found in an old box after his mother had passed stating he was born at 15:30. Where is astrology then? We have been led astray, to use a time that more or less fits, but we have nothing to back it up with. An exact science should be treated as such in all undertakings and subject matter concerning our profession. We can not wander from the path because it fits. If we do that to often, how do we remain believable? Astrology means the world to me, but it has yet to find itself in a position that it proves itself with hard facts and statistics.

Blindly accepted times, grossly corrected times, or made to fit times lead us down a road where our proffesion becomes questionable and in my opinion unproffesional. We do our own proffesion harm. We should only work, with tangible times, and within reason. If the time is right it should prove us correct. 50 years ago an error of 15 minutes was reasonable, now a error of 5 should be taken.




Ah you have revealed the rather tender innards of this craft. It all seems correct, and yet we can't explain why through statistics or means of measuring. One thing that sounds correct can be swiftly thrown aside when the "real facts" are provided, such as the correct birth time after a surprisingly accurate reading was given based on the wrong time.

A few things I'd like to point out- your hypothetical client was grateful. What matters more, exactness or happiness?

On the other hand, why should happiness be had on false grounds? Well, to that I'd say, again, happiness is simply what it is, not verifiable, but felt. One cannot verify happiness, so we have to go further to explore this issue with accurateness and facts, since I think you are also concerned with ethics.

I suppose I would say to this client, if I had given them the false reading, and then had to recant what I had said based on newly discovered facts:

"There is a reason you chose to come to astrology, here and now, and this wrong information resonated with you. You seek knowledge, self-understanding, awareness and were totally open and receptive. This is a universal experience, and maybe being that open created a situation in which anyone with any information, well-intentioned of course, could help you. Maybe you needed to "walk in the shoes of another" to find who you really were."

I'd of course, be biting my lip while I said that! Ah me...

Why pursue exactness when what we seek is understanding and clarity? That requires embracing the whole picture. I like to think we exchange with the stars what happens here on Earth with the energies they put out- a mirroring while also a compromise. In that case, anything can happen. The stars compel, they don't impel. Sometimes the compelling feels a bit compulsive but the stars aren't making us do anything.

I mean, yes, issues of ethics and practicality, as well as the substance of this science, are to be considered, as we all seek to have this thing *work* but why should this be a craft that has to prove itself?

Hard facts and statistics are one, very limiting, though very secure way, of explaining the world. Now as for security, I like to recall what user Vinyasa said to me in the "retreating" thread:



Mod, it is not 'just you', you are no weirdo whatsoever :): everyone wants to feel 'some security in there too' as part of the equation. What I have discovered however is that, we can always strive for it, but we can never bind it down: security is elusive and fugitive (because illusionary?) and makes part of the other equation, 'never take something or someone for granted'.


Hmm... so what do you think Cosmiccradle?

Also, Olivia, I'm sorry... I just like my colors! No light blue for you... ;)

Teddi

[Amy Vir Sn Ari Mn Pis Ris]

Well my birth certificate lists 7:45 pm but I do wonder when the times are not something like 7:48 or 7:52 as opposed to 7:45 where you suspect somebody of rounding off the time.

[diana795]

my Sun is listed at 0 degrees latitude, 12th to 1st house, 12 already has Saturn with 3 squares. what to do oh, what if the nurse registered me after? it was 75, who would have been that precise?

[dr. farr]

I have never found the indications derived from a legitimate (reasonably accurate) birth time not to make sense vis-a-vis the over-all context of the natal chart. However, exactly how well those delineations actually match the events of the life, is sometimes another issue-but I don't think this is due to the birth time being off by a few minutes, but rather by other factors such as the projected influences into the nativity of the pre-natal epoch (which is very hard for us to determine, to say the least), and/or the swara affinity or tattvic-tide affinity of the moment of the first breath vis-a-vis influencing which of the natal astrological influences "take" (in the person's sidereal field) and which do not "take", and other such natal factors, which I have come to believe are much more significant than the exact-minute correctness of the given birth time.

[Cosmiccradle]

I suspect we are more in agreement more either of us previously believed.

My rectified time of birth was calculated using the dates of specific events; in many cases, I endeavored to locate records of the exact time a ceremony or other event began. How, then, is the result a "blindly accepted time?"

I suppose the true issue here is what is an acceptable margin? I believe it's more than five minutes--perhaps up to twenty minutes, if there was an emergency upon the birth of the child

Arian Maverick
Then I hope that you will agree with me that the method used is also party to the margin. If I use 4 minute to the year, the margin will remain small, if I use transits the margin will be large. The used time scale also creates the margin of error.

[Cosmiccradle]

Ah you have revealed the rather tender innards of this craft. It all seems correct, and yet we can't explain why through statistics or means of measuring. One thing that sounds correct can be swiftly thrown aside when the "real facts" are provided, such as the correct birth time after a surprisingly accurate reading was given based on the wrong time.

A few things I'd like to point out- your hypothetical client was grateful. What matters more, exactness or happiness?

On the other hand, why should happiness be had on false grounds? Well, to that I'd say, again, happiness is simply what it is, not verifiable, but felt. One cannot verify happiness, so we have to go further to explore this issue with accurateness and facts, since I think you are also concerned with ethics.

I suppose I would say to this client, if I had given them the false reading, and then had to recant what I had said based on newly discovered facts:

"There is a reason you chose to come to astrology, here and now, and this wrong information resonated with you. You seek knowledge, self-understanding, awareness and were totally open and receptive. This is a universal experience, and maybe being that open created a situation in which anyone with any information, well-intentioned of course, could help you. Maybe you needed to "walk in the shoes of another" to find who you really were."

I'd of course, be biting my lip while I said that! Ah me...

Why pursue exactness when what we seek is understanding and clarity? That requires embracing the whole picture. I like to think we exchange with the stars what happens here on Earth with the energies they put out- a mirroring while also a compromise. In that case, anything can happen. The stars compel, they don't impel. Sometimes the compelling feels a bit compulsive but the stars aren't making us do anything.

I mean, yes, issues of ethics and practicality, as well as the substance of this science, are to be considered, as we all seek to have this thing *work* but why should this be a craft that has to prove itself?

Hard facts and statistics are one, very limiting, though very secure way, of explaining the world. Now as for security, I like to recall what user Vinyasa said to me in the "retreating" thread:




Hmm... so what do you think Cosmiccradle?

Also, Olivia, I'm sorry... I just like my colors! No light blue for you... ;)

Teddi
Agreed security is superficial.

[dhundhun]

Clinical birth time and Astrological birth time are not same.

[Cosmiccradle]

I have never found the indications derived from a legitimate (reasonably accurate) birth time not to make sense vis-a-vis the over-all context of the natal chart. However, exactly how well those delineations actually match the events of the life, is sometimes another issue-but I don't think this is due to the birth time being off by a few minutes, but rather by other factors such as the projected influences into the nativity of the pre-natal epoch (which is very hard for us to determine, to say the least), and/or the swara affinity or tattvic-tide affinity of the moment of the first breath vis-a-vis influencing which of the natal astrological influences "take" (in the person's sidereal field) and which do not "take", and other such natal factors, which I have come to believe are much more significant than the exact-minute correctness of the given birth time.
dr. farr I'm having some trouble following ehat you're saying, could you rephrase it in short.

[Cosmiccradle]

Clinical birth time and Astrological birth time are not same.
I'm not sure where you're going, agreed there is a difference, what do you see as astrological birth time, and how does it fit in with clinical birth times and the margin of error?

[dr. farr]

dr. farr I'm having some trouble following ehat you're saying, could you rephrase it in short.


Yes, basically I believe that we get reliable natal charts even if the birth time is not exact to the minute. And that, when the events of the life do not match the trends indicated in the nativity, that I believe the reason is not due to the birth time not being exact, but rather to pre-natal astrological influences and/or certain birth-event influences modifying the indications shown in the natal chart.

[lillyjgc]

Hi-I'm actually a real stickler for accurate birth time. To me that's the official recorded time the life began on Earth.
If the birth time is out even by a degree, the Sabian symbols will be wrong, midpoints will be wrong, fortuna will be wrong, aspects to house cusps will be wrong.

As events occur *within orb* of exactitudes I'm very wary of rectification. I have seldom known it to prove accurate as it's often based on subjective information. I'm not referring to you Arian Mav, as I know how much time/effort you have put in as an astrologer, so yours may be quite accurate, but most people aren't capable of the degree of objectivity required to accurately rectify.
Let me give an example:
A lady I know has had 2 husbands die on exactly the same date, but 30 years apart.
I don't have an accurate birth time for her but even knowing the exact Time of death for her 2 partners hasn't made it easier to rectify her chart.
I've tried a few methods. I have birthdates for all her children, and grandchildren.
I have a large amount of info about key times in her life.Whenever a major event occurs for her, I hit the rectification books again, but I would not be confident to use a rectified chart for prediction purposes.You could be out by a lot.
The solar arc method doesn't work, or at least it's too general in my opinion.
If the time's not right, or not known, I won't use that chart for synastry or predictions.
Of course hospitals *may* be out by a minute or so, but as far as I am concerned, that's a tiny adjustment that could be made later-even the sabian symbol can shed light here.
(hey mod, no light blue for me either-I couldn't read a word of your post in blue!!)

When time is unknown, a noon chart's probably the best you will get. But it would have limited use really, in my opinion.
Cheers
Lilly

[puca]

This is a big issue for me. I was born prematurely and on the neighbor's couch! No one knows exactly when, there wasn't even a clock (I'm not sure there was electricity . . .)

Beyond your sabian symbols, transits, horary astrology etc, it is a much bigger deal as I was born around 64 North on the 23 of December, at "around noon." Move it 15 minutes back from noon and see what happens . . .

How do you figure on an ascendant when you can choose from five in about an hour?

A friend of mine is training to be a midwife and says that even they don't get the time exact usually and says doctors probably never do. Interesting dilemma for astrology-

--also reminds me, she's a Pisces sun, her ASC by birth time is Virgo, but she has widely spaced eyes, large head and shoulders, likes exciting hairstyles, and tends to sing and dance and act in musicals. . . Leo?

. . . for instance, my birth certificate says I was born at 12:20 in the hospital- but absolutely both of those statements are false . . .

I was born well before 12:20, my mother says it was past noon when the ambulance got there.

the professional astrologer thinks about 11:55, but we didn't do a proper rectification. I don't know much about that to be honest. I plan on learning, but reading these posts it don't seem hopeful . . .

[dr. farr]

Rectification is a difficult art, and I share Olivia's general feelings about this problem.
But one can always use a Solar chart, which can be very effective for delineative purposes: find the position of the Sun for the location at noon for the date of birth; put the Sun as the ascendant, and fill in the chart around the circle from that point.
Note that some astrologers use this approach exclusively, in preference to the ascending degree-based chart. I definitely prefer the "regular" chart (based upon the ascending degree), but I have applied the Solar chart for some delineations with what seemed to be very accurate delineations.

[byjove]

Hmm. Good discussion.

I've 27 degrees Cancer rising. My exact birth time as given by the hospital has long been disputed (only marginally, not an overhaul).

One sister tells me Leo rising description matches me perfectly. (she's Cancer Sun, Leo Rising).

The other sister tells me definitely Cancer rising.

If I were to count solar arc as reliable (I appreciate criticism on this, if something doesn't work well for some of us, we benefit from knowing) then I would reduce my birth time by about 9 minutes to allow for a change of house at a young age which was a monumental change in family life.

I've resigned to counting my hospital time as 'most' accurate since it's better than my research attempts can be sure of. Though Puca, that's a great point about hospital staff revealing to us about how time of birth works. Another astrologer from my country on here mentioned that our country's birth times are notoriously inaccurate...

I've been waiting for a very significant moment in life to *maybe* help here, and I'm less than a month from it now; moving to another country to study. Fingers crossed it reveals something.

[EhTeam]

It depends on the time.
My husband is born in the morning, around sunrise. I wanted the exact minute, but that isn't currently available. His mom says,

'All I can remember was that it was before 40, but after 30..."


I did the time for 30 minutes after the hour, 35, and 39.
35 and 39 had the exact same planets and the same degrees. The only difference between 30 after, and 35 was 1 degree on the ascendant.

If it threw it off a TON more, I would be conserned, but the 1 degree for his asc doesn't put him into a cusp, or retrograde or any other thing to make a huge impact, IMO!

[dr. farr]

I have come to speculate that the mechanics involved in the whole sign house format, largely compensates for errors in birth time without the necessity for substantial rectification. This might be why whole sign was exclusively used both in the West and India (prior to the 6th century AD), when the only people who knew their birth time with any degree of accuracy were limited to the nobility, the great majority having only a vague idea of their actual birth time.

[puca]

That's nearly exactly what an astrologer I spoke with said about equal house. He prefers it particularly with clients from subarctic regions near the poles, such as Alaska or southern Chile. As I believe I mentioned, Placidus can get awfully interesting at extreme latitudes.

To be fair that person also tends to think the ancient Greeks had a better handle on astrology in a lot of ways than modern people do now.

The problem still remains for those of us born in the very far north or south if we don't know our birth times. Particularly at certain times of year- in that even a quarter of an hour may allow for multiple whole sign shifts in ascendant. I once sat in a room of multiple astrologers and students all making arguments for my ascendant being anywhere from Aquarius to Gemini!

[puca]

I've been thinking though, wouldn't the ascendant of people born at night (assuming someone present could identify constellations) be known sidereally since the dawn of astrology? All they would have to do is look . . .?

[byjove]

I have come to speculate that the mechanics involved in the whole sign house format, largely compensates for errors in birth time without the necessity for substantial rectification. This might be why whole sign was exclusively used both in the West and India (prior to the 6th century AD), when the only people who knew their birth time with any degree of accuracy were limited to the nobility, the great majority having only a vague idea of their actual birth time.

I note that Whole Sign confidently offers that throughout the art, which is refreshing given the doubts and inaccuracies I've encountered...however, good info. on Whole Sign I find difficult to find. There are a few well-practiced hands on different sites and a few old sites with info. but beyond that it looks like I'd have to take a course just to know a few things - and that isn't mainstream.

[Mark]

Warning: I'm about to get unpopular again.

Chart rectification is something that I consider crucial to accurate information. This is not to say that if you don't rectify then you're necessarily wrong. The problem with not rectifying a chart is that the point you're actually trying to measure is the start of the "life clock." What is there to say that this is the same as first breath? This thread was started because someone found that their working chart, the one that describes them (the accurate one), was NOT the same as the first breath chart. As posted long ago, the working chart seems to be about 30 minutes before first breath. Obviously we can't say that first breath is good enough to describe everyone. Many births are close enough, but enough aren't to cause a problem.

The start of the life clock happens within a 4.5 hour window prior to first breath. Actually, first breath gives you the end of the window. As to technique, day-for-a-year progressions with really fine orbs (00* 04') are used to test possible birth times within that window. Collect 3-5 major life events (the more you have, the quicker success will be) from the subject and then test those progressions until you can get them to "line up." You know that you've found the right time when the few things you are using to search line up and suddenly the entirety of the rest of the chart becomes astonishingly detailed and accurate in every way. This is allowed to work by the tiny orb size. Note: Computers are really helpful here.

If you believe astrology is a hard science, then you must expect 100% accuracy when you've gotten all the right information. If you get 90% accuracy, then your assumed birth time is close, but you get no cigar.

P.S. As also posted long ago, different chart considerations have different effective resolutions; i.e. 4 hours birth time difference won't effect longitudinal measurements, big orb (normal) aspects, and other such things. The biggest problem for interpreters is how quickly the houses move, particularly the ascendant! All of the houses, including the ascendant, can be two signs off with a variation of 4 hours. This also means that any lots (parts) that depend on house cusps will be off in a more complex way and any aspects to house cusps will be completely skewed.

[dr. farr]

The above post brings up issues which have been touched upon in the "3 sealings" and "blood line karma" posts I have previously made here on AW, as well as the "swara" (first breath) posts I made as well. Particularly the "swara" posts: in certain approaches to Vedic astrology, the quality of the first breath (ida, pingala or sushumna) determines which of the plethora of astrological influences operative at any given moment of time will "take", and which will not.
I personally follow the "practical astrology" camp, applying most of what I know to the practical field of astro-therapeutics, using astrological information to help in the selection of effective remedies for humans and animals with health problems (my professional field for the past 28 years has been homeopathic medicine) I have never rectified any of the astrological data I have used, and I have obtained good practical results nonetheless (this should not be understood as an argument against rectification!) Perhaps the various methods suggested over the centuries for rectification would have yielded even better results? But in any case, I personally have never felt the need to rectify-Life, and the Cosmos, are "fuzzy" things, they are not precise like the tip of a needle-maybe rectification could make them so, but for me, I just don't feel the need to...

[Mark]

You raise a good point, dr. farr. Some applications in astrology require more precision than others and built-in fuzziness is often enough to compensate. In the case of natal charts, only enough accuracy is required to get the ascendant into the right area of the right sign, which a good astrologer can "eyeball" much of the time. Get close enough and there's practically no difference.

Part of the problem of understanding this issue is the rampant use of congnitive shortcuts. A typical astrologer, persuaded against rectification, can look at an ascendant that is 4 degrees into a sign, then look at the subject and see an abundance of features attributed to the previous sign, and that astrologer, barring some other factor at work, will just assume that the functional chart will have the ascendant in the previous sign. That's a pretty good example of built-in fuzziness that some astrologers forget to talk about in threads like this. Your information can only be assumed precise if that never, ever happens, while the existence of this thread proves that it does.

Differences become more apparent when you want to use the natal chart to derive more information through calculation. When you start crunching numbers, the complexities in your operations will make small errors into big ones. Derived information demands tight accuracy. Reading a natal chart only requires so much. So, it is indeed possible to perform types of astrology without rectification and rarely bump into outright bad information, but only because you make your information fuzzy. Planets in signs and radical aspects between them are relatively uneffected, so you can stick to those without concern. But sadly, if you don't rectify, then say goodbye to house cusp aspects, sabian degrees, and anything else that requires pinpoint accuracy.

[Cosmiccradle]

Warning: I'm about to get unpopular again.

Chart rectification is something that I consider crucial to accurate information. This is not to say that if you don't rectify then you're necessarily wrong. The problem with not rectifying a chart is that the point you're actually trying to measure is the start of the "life clock." What is there to say that this is the same as first breath? This thread was started because someone found that their working chart, the one that describes them (the accurate one), was NOT the same as the first breath chart. As posted long ago, the working chart seems to be about 30 minutes before first breath. Obviously we can't say that first breath is good enough to describe everyone. Many births are close enough, but enough aren't to cause a problem.

The start of the life clock happens within a 4.5 hour window prior to first breath. Actually, first breath gives you the end of the window. As to technique, day-for-a-year progressions with really fine orbs (00* 04') are used to test possible birth times within that window. Collect 3-5 major life events (the more you have, the quicker success will be) from the subject and then test those progressions until you can get them to "line up." You know that you've found the right time when the few things you are using to search line up and suddenly the entirety of the rest of the chart becomes astonishingly detailed and accurate in every way. This is allowed to work by the tiny orb size. Note: Computers are really helpful here.

If you believe astrology is a hard science, then you must expect 100% accuracy when you've gotten all the right information. If you get 90% accuracy, then your assumed birth time is close, but you get no cigar.

P.S. As also posted long ago, different chart considerations have different effective resolutions; i.e. 4 hours birth time difference won't effect longitudinal measurements, big orb (normal) aspects, and other such things. The biggest problem for interpreters is how quickly the houses move, particularly the ascendant! All of the houses, including the ascendant, can be two signs off with a variation of 4 hours. This also means that any lots (parts) that depend on house cusps will be off in a more complex way and any aspects to house cusps will be completely skewed.

Collect 3-5 major life events (the more you have, the quicker success will be) from the subject and then test those progressions until you can get them to "line up." You know that you've found the right time when the few things you are using to search line up and suddenly the entirety of the rest of the chart becomes astonishingly detailed and accurate in every way. This is allowed to work by the tiny orb size. Note: Computers are really helpful here.

"Lining up" as you call it has several drawbacks. I will not repeat here what I've said about it, however if you're interested try this on for size.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24490