Bagpuss, the birth data you gave above generated profile #4.

For #2, I made a minor adjustment to your data (date/time of birth became 10/10/1972 at 12 noon)

#1 is an old profile from my file (I chose the male closest to your age).

And #3 is a hypothetical person born Jan 1 1960 at 12 noon in Los Angeles California.


*egads*   


how morbidly disillusioning


;-)

But then again, I felt the same way you describe about the first natal chart I had drawn up. I'd used the "around 8am" birthtime given by my mother -- just as you gave the "around 9 am" time above. Some parts fit almost like a glove, others seemed to be describing someone else entirely. But a few years later I found my exact birthtime, and that 35 minute difference generated quite a different chart - one that did seem to be describing me reasonably well, most of the time.

And the 8 years elapsed between the two charts seemed to make a difference too. Certain descriptions I'd felt strongly were nothing like me back then made a lot more sense in hindsight. Of course! People change over the years, express different parts of their nature at different times in their lives; a natal chart, being a 'snapshot' of the heavens at the (hopefully exact) moment of birth, does not.