Astrology; truth or fiction?

The majority of astrologists believe a person's personality can be linked to astronomical events at their time of birth. They also use astronomical data to make predictions about the future by means of horoscopes.
We are all familiar with horoscopes finding them in many papaers and magazines; most of us will look for our 'sign' out of idle curiosity, possibly impressed that the popular characteristics assigned to a particular star sign is often correct. For example I am a 'Pisces' and do identify myself with the typical trait of being a dreamer. Other traits are:  Compassionate,  Adaptable,  Accepting,  Devoted,  Imaginative or possibly,  with a less positive point of view:  Oversensitive,  Indecisive,  Self-pitying,  Lazy,  Escapist.

Scientists today consider astrology to be a pseudoscience with claims unproven yet over many millenia and in many differing cultures  these beliefs have persisted. How is it possible that all people born in a specific time frame bear the same characteristics? I may have the answer.
Readers of this blog and my book ( see;  here  ) will know that I suggest that whilst an embryo grows a brain it uploads data from both its parent's DNA using the 'unreal' dimension of time. This contains information, besides that concerning a child's ability to survive and grow into adulthood,  other data containing a record of all  antecedents. In fact, I also believe that although traits such as eye and hair colour may be assumed from near relatives, the character of a person may come from either parent from many generations ago. I have previously imagined that the process was at random but what if nature only chooses the character of an ancestor born at the same time in the lunar calender, say. This alone would produce the trend we observe, but rather than the date of birth being the important factor, I might suggest that it is the day of conception that is the most relevant, possibly ironing out some of the inconsistencies we doubtless observe.
A problem with this scenario is that posed by non identical twins with different characters. I have suggested that their characters may have come from different ancestors but surely according to the idea above both these antecedents would be born under the same star sign. Of course, it is possible to have the same star sign but appear different according to whether the traits are 'positive' or 'negative' as can be seen in the Piscean list above.

According to this hypothesis it is possible for the time of birth (or better conception) to influence a person's character as observed astrologically over the history of mankind and perhaps science should stop being so blinkered in its approach to what it refers to as the 'pseudosciences'. Sometimes the empirical approach is not always right because often it is what you don't see in experiments that are just as important as what you do.