Free Astrolabe Chart

[PeacockFairy]

http://alabe.com/freechart/

I know the free (summarised) version of what I got were fairly accurate.

How do the astrology buffs on the forum feel about the Astrolabe charts?

[Nykti]

I'm okay with it. The stats are pretty much always the same, its the interpretations they give that are different. Its why I recommend when people use online sources for astrology and for tarot to use different sources.

I did however find when I got my natal chart done, I learned a lot about myself and like Renee mentioned in the other forum, a lot of "how the hell did you know that?" type responses.

[Trickster]

I think that was the first time a reading attempted to suggest I was vain, superficial and desperate to be popular and accepted (bwahahahaha!!!!) but other than that it was the same crap I see everywhere that's not only not accurate, its opposite. Even in the places where the info given directly contradicted itself.

Most places try to tell me I'm more conservative (no), slow witted (no), routine oriented (no), materialistic caring overly much about money (no), sensual and attracted to beauty (even leaving room for the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'm attracted to the bizarre), slow to anger (slow to completely and utterly explode in a fit of violent uncontrollable rage perhaps, but I can get quite angry quite quickly long before that happens), on and on.

Yeah, some things were accurate enough, but in a list that long it would be odd if it didn't hit the mark at least once or twice. Its not enough for me to take any real notice of it.

Oh well. I would suppose this stuff can't be accurate for everyone all the time. Perhaps I'm just an exception to the rule (again)?

[Pain And Light]

Yeah, Gavin's is largely...off. To say the least.

Mine is, like Nykti's, pretty much the same as every chart I've seen for me, and pretty much the same interpretation. Most details are at least reasonably accurate for me, and the ones that aren't...well, I guess something like a single Saturn in Virgo could be easily overshadowed by like, almost everything else in Sagittarius...?

[Ursus]

Mine was half "more or less right" and half "dead wrong."

[Khryseis_Astra]

I don't really put too much stock in computer-generated reports. As I said in the other thread, the computer can't do the interpretive work needed to put all the puzzle pieces together. But it's still better than just going off your Sun sign.

For drawing charts, I prefer astro.com's free chart section, which can be found here:
http://www.astro.com/cgi/genchart.cgi?& ... 1031039803

You may have to create an account to access, but it's free. (You can get a paid account too with more extras, but it's not required.) I like it because it allows me to customize and offers a wide variety of chart options; it's the closest you can get to the professional (expensive!) software for free. Most free chart services use the Placidus house system, and I prefer Whole Sign/Porphyry myself. (Some house systems can go funky depending on latitudes/longitudes, etc.)

[Anteros]

I am an official astrologer... 2.5 years of expirience. So anyone with some life issue, post a message to me, I'll be glad to help you.

[Aias]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ ... -sign.html

Thanks to precession of the equinoxes, instead of a Cancer/Gemini borderline, I am now a borderline or cusp Taurus/Gemini. 600 BCE to the present does effect a few changes.

Edit: the following post by Khryseis_Astra changes much that I thought about how astrologers go about their art. Thanks.

[Khryseis_Astra]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

Thanks to precession of the equinoxes, instead of a Cancer/Gemini borderline, I am now a borderline or cusp Taurus/Gemini. 600 BCE to the present does effect a few changes.

Actually that's a bone of contention...

Scientists love to trot this out as one of the many reasons astrology is BS. What they don't bother to research is that most (practically all, but I hate to generalize since someone will find the exception) astrologers aren't using the actual constellations at all, and haven't been for centuries.

The constellations are not the same thing as the zoidia, or zodiac signs. Constellations are the pretty pictures in the sky you can find by playing connect the dots with the stars; they're uneven in length, they overlap and they are only the inspiration for the zoidia. The zoidia are 12 *chosen*, equal length areas of space on the ecliptic. Thus Ophichus for example, is *not* a zodiac sign, never was, and is only used today by astrologers not understanding the reasoning behind their art and trying to look "more legit" to the scientists.

To make the waters even muddier, there are two zodiacs in use: the tropical and the sidereal. The tropical system begins the 1st degree of the zodiac (which is 00 Aries) with the moment of the Spring Equinox, so the system is tied to the seasons. With a name like "sidereal," you might think that the sidereal zodiac is using the constellations rather than the zoidia. Not so. They're using the constellations (actually just Aries) only as the starting point for their zodiac. So for them 00 Aries comes about 20-some degrees earlier than it does for everyone else, but they are still using the 12 chosen, equal-length segments of space that the rest of us use, only slicing it up slightly differently.

There are also astrologers that follow the apparent movement (from our perspective here on Earth) of "fixed stars," but that is another subject entirely. It does, however, bring up a key phrase for understanding what astrology actually is: from our perspective here on Earth. Most astrologers know full well that the Sun is the center of the solar system, planets don't move backwards, etc., contrary to the belief of most scientists. But from our perspective here on Earth, that's the way it appears, and that appearance has symbolism.

[Alexandra]

For drawing charts, I prefer astro.com's free chart section, which can be found here:
http://www.astro.com/cgi/genchart.cgi?& ... 1031039803

Me too.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

NO WAY I would be what that site says I am.