dr h

thanks for your reply.. i was out all day yesterday..

i think what motivates me to continue the discussion - and i appreciate your involvement in continuing the discussion - is this distinction between the idea of astrology being 'scientific' verses it being a form of divination... i really have no problem with all aspects of astrology when they are put into the proper context in this regard.. but when someone wants to take astrological ideas shrouded in mystery and apply them and refer to them as scientific is where it breaks down for me.. what is scientific about the terms/bounds?? although you've explained some of the logic, it would probably apply to the other chaldean and ptolemiac terms/bounds as well.. there are 3 different sets of them to choose from ( egyptian, chaldean and ptolemaic) .. i think astrologers are not above herd instinct either and will follow others without much question, but i suppose that is another topic for another thread..

on the topic of the terms, although they originate during the time of the use of the sidereal zodiac, they have not been transferred accordingly.. at least with the zodiacs, there is a distinction between the signs of the zodiac in usage with the approx 22 degree difference being acknowledged.. with the terms, this is not the case... my concern is not over which zodiac is being used, and as you say - use what you want - but clearly if the terms are static regardless of the zodiac option - then the use of them will be very dependent on which zodiac one does use..

what does this have to do with anything?? it goes back to the idea of what is ''scientific'' verses what is divination... that's all... for one to argue they have the one true chart for the usa and to argue this on the basis of science doesn't work for me..

as for the timing aspect of primary directions verses the timing aspect of the distributors - that is another issue which i tried to articulate earlier... to use them as some sort of exact timing device is not how i understand them.. frankly, aside from the real hit and miss nature of primary directions, which might be compounded by the number of options that go along with the use of them - i just don't see them as any more then a rough guideline for the possibility of some possible outcome to come out of them.. they appear to rely heavily on other astrological predictive tools - transits, solar returns and etc, and can't be used in any stand alone manner, and especially not as some specific accurate timing device... falling back on the idea that they could operate thru the distributors - back to the term rulers - fine, but again, there is nothing scientific about any of that, although i can appreciate it as a form of divination.. at that point, your comment "Use what you like." or "you are welcome to use what you like." makes much more sense...

for anyone interested, this is a good overview on the use of the terms...
https://altairastrology.wordpress.com/2 ... or-bounds/

from the article "as the altair astrology guide notes, egyptian bounds assign 7°–12° aries to venus yet ptolemaic bounds has Venus 9°-14° aries (and so on through me, ma and sa). and - "I am not about to recommend one or the other leaving it to your judgement, dear reader. Both camps will tell you that their system works."

Your perspective, Dr. H., raises interesting points about the validity of national horoscopes and predictive techniques, but I must challenge several of your assertions in some detail, especially your defense of using derivative national horoscopes such as your Regulus chart despite acknowledging the Sibly chart’s lack of historical foundation. I challenge the coherence of that position and also examine the methodological implications for mundane astrology when using charts without verified inception moments.

RegulusAstrology wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 11:27 pmWe have several points of agreement. First the Sibly horoscope’s construction is based on faulty logic and does not correspond with any known documented event for the purported horoscope time. Another point of agreement is on the irrelevance of purely symbolic horoscopes for the USA.

While I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge the flaws in the Sibly horoscope and to reject purely symbolic charts, the implications of that admission deserve more scrutiny. You write, “the Sibly horoscope’s construction is based on faulty logic and does not correspond with any known documented event,” and then go on to agree that “purely symbolic horoscopes” are irrelevant. But that acknowledgement, if taken seriously, invalidates not only the Sibly chart itself but also any derivative chart based on it, including your Regulus USA chart, which is timed just 68 minutes later than Sibly’s 5:10 PM.

You are effectively attempting to hold two incompatible positions: that symbolic horoscopes should be avoided, yet that a speculative chart with no verifiable time can nonetheless be tested and validated. Either astrology relies on precise temporal anchoring, or it does not. Once we open the door to working with unverifiable charts “because they work,” all charts become equally valid—regardless of origin—and astrology loses its claim to grounded method.

If the chart is not based on a verifiable event—no eyewitness, no primary documentation, no official timestamp—then it is symbolic by default. It may serve as a compelling interpretive narrative or a lens for symbolic inquiry, but it cannot claim methodological legitimacy as a national horoscope. One cannot meaningfully reject symbolic horoscopes while simultaneously justifying the use of a chart that is not tied to a documented, historically plausible moment. That’s a contradiction.

If we agree that astrology requires a meaningful, timed inception moment—something classical and medieval astrologers insisted upon, for example in the election of campaigns, the laying of city cornerstones, royal marriages, military expeditions, peace treaties, and even the commencement of significant building projects—then we must also agree that the Sibly chart lacks the necessary foundational stability for serious mundane astrology. These events were chosen or recorded with attention to astrological timing because they marked definitive beginnings. To dismiss symbolic charts in principle while continuing to use the Sibly chart—or any of its close derivatives, which are based on a fictional and unverified time—is not just inconsistent, it undermines the methodological integrity of the astrological tradition itself.

For readers that may not be up on the history of our discussion, the United States’ founding is a drawn-out process with multiple key dates: the vote for independence (July 2), the approval of the Declaration’s text (July 4), its first public reading (July 8th), and the formal signing by most delegates (August 2). The time given in the Sibly chart—5:10 PM on July 4—has no documentary foundation in Congressional records or eyewitness testimony and contradicts what little is known: that the Declaration was approved sometime in the early afternoon, likely between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM.

“I have said before that with millions of historical events it is possible to justify any proposed USA horoscope currently circulating in the astrological community.”

This is an honest admission of a widespread methodological problem. But it inadvertently undermines the very premise it’s meant to defend. If, as you state, millions of events allow for justifying any horoscope, then astrology becomes vulnerable to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy—drawing the bullseye around the arrow after it’s been shot. Predictive success, when achieved through selective interpretation, becomes meaningless as a measure of validity. This strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument against speculative or symbolic charts like Sibly’s.

“If a horoscope can make successful out-of-sample predictions in a manner which meets Karl Popper’s falsification theory, then it may be considered a workable horoscope in lieu of any documented evidence of a birth time.”

While this sounds methodologically promising, it misrepresents both Popper’s theory and the nature of astrological prediction. Popperian falsifiability demands that a hypothesis be framed in such a way that it can be decisively proven false. But most national-level astrological predictions—particularly those linked to speculative charts—fail to meet that standard. Language like “turmoil,” “renewal,” or “crisis” is interpretively elastic and often applied retroactively, thereby rendering falsification impossible.

Your effort in the U.S. solar return paper to anchor a few predictions to specific dates is commendable and this applies to the next point about 'risky' predictions. However, when working with a chart that falls outside any historically plausible window of time—even if rectified—the underlying hypothesis (“this chart describes this nation”) remains on shaky ground. Any apparent success is more likely to be anecdotal, coincidental, or the result of flexible interpretation rather than methodological soundness. Evaluating your individual predictions and the substance of your paper is a worthwhile discussion for another time; at present, the core concern is the methodology itself. Insofar as the predictions, as you wrote at the conclusion of your paper, “Now let’s see how it pans out.”

Moreover, astrology assumes a causal or analogical link between planetary positions and an entity’s inception. If the time is unverifiable or constructed from myth, then there is no concrete subject to test. A chart created without a documented time cannot claim to represent the nation itself. Using such a chart—regardless of occasional predictive hits—places astrology on the level of literary symbolism or psychological archetype, not temporal causality. With enough interpretive flexibility, any chart can be made to appear predictive in hindsight. That does not validate the chart; it simply reveals the elasticity of the interpretive method.

“These predictions must be risky to make, e.g., they must have high informational content beyond a vague ‘bad time’ or ‘good year’ for the country.”

I fully agree that astrological predictions should be specific and testable. Generally speaking in astrology, many so-called predictions amount to little more than assertive generalities: “The president will face challenges next year,” or “Expect major technological breakthroughs in biotech next summer.” These sound precise but are broad enough to apply to a wide range of outcomes. Your call for a higher standard is spot on.

“Also, disinterested parties should be able to judge whether the prediction was correct without any astrological knowledge.”

This assumes a level of agreement about world or even national events that often doesn’t exist. What one observer calls a “crisis,” another might see as necessary reform. Without clear, shared metrics for measuring predictive success, this standard becomes subjective and potentially circular. Political and interpretive bias from media further complicates the judgment of outcome accuracy. A good topic for a separate discussion.

“If you are a stickler that documented historical evidence in support of the exact time of a horoscope is required, then we will agree to disagree.”

But this isn’t about being a stickler; it’s about adhering to astrology’s foundational principle—that the planetary positions at a specific, real moment describe the qualities of that moment and what it gives rise to. This requirement is not optional or personal; it’s what distinguishes astrology from mythic storytelling. If we abandon the necessity of time, then we’re no longer doing astrology—we’re engaging in symbolic narrative projection with planetary metaphors.

In classical astrology, techniques such as eclipses, ingresses, and Great Conjunctions were used in tandem with precisely timed foundation charts—whether for cities, kings, or military campaigns—not as substitutes. No astrologer worth their salt would knowingly ignore a historically documented chart in favor of one constructed from rumor or literary imagination. To dismiss national horoscopes as “20th-century inventions” ignores the medieval and Renaissance practice of casting event-based foundation charts, such as those for the founding of Baghdad or Cairo. There is also timed battle and siege charts to consider. Why go to the trouble of choosing a date if any chart would do?

To reject the necessity of documented historical evidence is to erode the foundations of mundane astrology. The Mesopotamian astrologer-priests spent centuries recording the observable correlation between planetary configurations, omens and historical events. They did not begin with speculative horoscopes; they began with data. They tracked eclipses, planetary configurations, and weather phenomena and correlated them with wars, famines, epidemics, and regime changes. It was only after generations of such empirical work that interpretive patterns were established and then it was still ongoing. Their astrology was rooted in historical memory. That’s the legacy mundane astrology inherits. To ignore that in favor of speculative constructions is to betray its methodological ancestry.

Charts based on times outside the bounds of historical plausibility—like the Sibly chart and its close variants—are therefore inherently speculative. They encourage retroactive validation rather than prospective prediction. The proliferation of U.S. charts—Sagittarius Rising, Gemini Rising, and so on—illustrates the danger of privileging interpretive coherence over historical integrity. Without an anchor in time, astrology devolves into interpretive mythmaking with ephemerides.

True synthesis demands that each element—transits, PDs, solar returns etc.—be anchored in documented reality as much as possible before they can be integrated. Without that firm ground, astrology risks sliding from disciplined inquiry into unfalsifiable storytelling.

Thank you for engaging in this thoughtful exchange.

James,

On the scientific nature of the bounds, or lack thereof. Here is an issue I cannot help you with. Does the lack of a theoretical basis for their construction render them unscientific? This either means that their construction was divinatory in nature or that their theoretical basis has yet to be uncovered. Either way you stay on shaky ground with the bounds. Or can the bounds be tested in a scientific manner using both in-sample methods of delineation and out-of-sample methods of prediction to confirm which is the correct set, or perhaps conclude that the bounds are unworkable? This latter has been my approach.

For the Regulus USA National Horoscope, see Appendix D Tests of Egyptian versus Ptolemaic Bounds of my book America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope. In the current out-of-sample testing period, the current Ascendant Distributor based on Egyptian bounds is Mars/Virgo for my proposed rectification and will change to Saturn/Virgo on 31-Jan-2025. For Ptolemaic bounds, the current Ascendant Distributor is also Mars/Virgo but will not change to Saturn/Virgo. Ptolemaic bounds assign the bound of Saturn/Virgo before the bound of Mars/Virgo so in that model the Saturn/Virgo distribution has already passed.

For an in-sample example of how Abu Mashar's System of Distributors and Partners works in a natal setting, please see my example for Theodore Roosevelt in the 4th edition of A Rectification Manual, Chapter 10 Directions, pp. 163-176. My proposed rectification is 30 minutes prior to the ADB time.

I will also mention that financial astrologers have had successful results for the Egyptian bounds when applied to stock price movements and to a lesser extent commodity and fixed income markets. One example is @MarsilioMusing who posts on X. Over the years he has documented turns in major stock averages by planets (including the Moon using intraday data) based on planets changing bound positions in addition to aspects and other planetary configurations.

Finally, if you haven't read Deborah Houlding's research on the Ptolemaic bounds, be sure you do since they are on your mind right now.

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/pdf/Houldin ... _terms.pdf

On the timing aspect of primary directions versus the timing aspect of the distributors. I can't say anthing more here than what I have written in both of my books.

Separately you might be interested in Ben Dykes Workshop on Distributions through the Bounds. If budget is an issue, his workshop is cheaper than both of my books.

https://bendykes.com/product/workshop-d ... he-bounds/

Good luck.

AJ,

A few points.

On my characterization of national horoscopes as “20th-century inventions.” Yes I am aware of the elected chart for Baghdad and other similar horoscopes erected by traditional astrologers. My statement echoed my teacher Robert Zoller who emphasized traditional mundane techniques without the use of national horoscopes. He repeatedly emphasized this point, citing Charles Carter’s 1951 book An Introduction to Political Astrology which included national horoscopes, as an example of a modern mundane technique he wished to avoid. While I did not speak with Zoller directly on the Baghdad elected horoscope, my sense was he considered that election for Baghdad in the context of a city, not a nation.

On my internal inconsistency for rejecting purely symbolic national horoscopes without any known documentation but proceeding with constructing a Sibly variant. Here is how I slice the argument: I agree that any in-sample rectification of a national horoscope unsupported by written documentation as to its origin is purely symbolic and does not advance the practice of mundane astrology. However, if a symbolic horoscope can make out-of-sample predictions based on verifiable metrics and be judged by disinterested parties, then it does advance the practice of mundane astrology.

On the need for specific and testable astrological predictions based on shared metrics for predictive success. We are in complete agreement here. Please review the links to the three papers in a prior post on this thread regarding my 2015 prediction for the peak in the craft beer bubble within the USA. The metric I proposed was the number of breweries as defined by the Craft Brewers Association. I predicted the number would decline in absolute terms when the Jupiter/Virgo Distribution ended. I also predicted a peak consumption date of 15-Jul-2016 based on Jupiter in Virgo in its own bound bonified by Mercury/Leo. So what happened? The growth rate of the number of craft breweries slowed but the absolute numbers rose. Other metrics not identified when making my 2015 prediction did show absolute declines including the price of hops, corporate activity based on the number of craft beer mergers & acquisitions, and media coverage tracked by Googletrends. As to the predicted peak consumption of craft beer on 15-Jul-2016, five days later on 20-Jul-2016 the US Justice Department approved the largest beer industry merger in history between AB InBev and SABMiller, a record maintained to this day. While both companies are foreign-owned, each company owned a major US subsidiary – Anheuser-Busch in the case of AB InBev and Miller Brewing in the case of SABMiller. This is what required US Justice Department approval and ties the merger to the USA in a mundane context. The third paper I wrote in the series discusses the difficulty in choosing shared metrics when predictions are made. In this particular instance, the Craft Brewers Association also changed the definition of the craft brewer category during the forecast period. But I gave it my best shot. We also have to step away from overly obsessing on metrics which can divert the attention from the larger issue: the usefulness of these types of predictions for the public. At the time I made the 2015 prediction the craft beer fad would soon end, the craft beer industry was roaring. Knowledge that the boom would soon end was useful for craft brewers, many of whom are small businesses. Specifically: 2015 was not the time to expand, but the time to sell and look for investments in other industries. It is widely acknowledged by the Craft Brewers Association that the craft beer industry suffered a huge shakeout in the years following 2017.

On the requirement that documented historical evidence exists to support a rectification, whether mundane or natal. This is a new argument for this thread, better discussed in a different thread, but I will introduce it here. My observations made during the rectification process make a connection between the quality of Mercury in the horoscope and the quality of recorded birth time information. Mercury retrograde, combust, or maltreated by Mars often yields horoscope data which is either missing, unknown, or highly disputed. Some day I will compare my rectified birth times to ADB times using this criteria to put some numbers on it. In any case, for any 4-Jul-1776 horoscope, Mercury is afflicted. I detail those afflictions in the Preface to America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope. I think Mercury’s affliction is the root cause of why there remains so much debate over the validity of a 4-Jul-1776 horoscope. That includes the debate we are having here in the Skyscript forum. To square the circle on this point, judging a mundane horoscope with an afflicted Mercury can prove problematic if not impossible. It may be the reason why no documented historical evidence exists in the first place. But this doesn’t necessarily mean than nothing happened, only that we don’t have a record of it.

As an aside, two of my rectifications for American Presidents with significant differences between reported and rectified birth times are Warren Harding and Joe Biden. Both horoscopes feature Scorpio stellia which include Mercury and Mars. Mercury is either combust or under the sunbeams in both horoscopes. Mars maltreats Mercury by position and rulership.

Because of other projects, I have to take a break from posting on the Skyscript forum, but will monitor responses. In early January I do plan on recapitulating predictions for the upcoming Ascendant Distributor changeover from Mars/Virgo to Saturn/Virgo on 31-Jan-2026. If anybody wants to comment on metrics I have proposed for testing USA Mundane activity for the duration of the Saturn/Virgo Distribution from 31-Jan-2026 to 2-Aug-2028 please post them on this thread. I will have a look.

Thanks!

thanks dr h.. i have said my bit and will leave it at that... i will take a look at debs 44 page pdf and see if i can gleam something of relevance.. thanks for that..

RegulusAstrology wrote: Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:53 pm On my characterization of national horoscopes as “20th-century inventions.” Yes I am aware of the elected chart for Baghdad and other similar horoscopes erected by traditional astrologers. My statement echoed my teacher Robert Zoller who emphasized traditional mundane techniques without the use of national horoscopes. He repeatedly emphasized this point, citing Charles Carter’s 1951 book An Introduction to Political Astrology which included national horoscopes, as an example of a modern mundane technique he wished to avoid. While I did not speak with Zoller directly on the Baghdad elected horoscope, my sense was he considered that election for Baghdad in the context of a city, not a nation.

Dr. H, with respect, your appeal to Robert Zoller does not change the historical record. Foundation charts for political entities long predate the 20th century; medieval and Renaissance astrologers routinely cast horoscopes for realms at moments such as coronations, declarations of war, and treaty signings—events as “national” in scope as any modern "national" chart. These figures governed the destinies of peoples, laws, and borders. In an age of city-states and kingdoms, a coronation for England or France was functionally the inception of a regime or nation. While Zoller may have preferred techniques like eclipse paths or Great Conjunctions, the distinction between “cities” and “nations” is historically anachronistic—pre-modern polities were often both at once.

An aside: It’s been some time since I last read Charles Carter’s An Introduction to Political Astrology (1951), but as I recall, the book is a modern synthesis—not a point of origin. Carter wasn’t inventing national horoscopes; he was cataloguing centuries of mundane practice and emphasized that all horoscopes are inceptional—they mark beginnings, whether of lives, seasons, ideas, or institutions. Astrologers have long cast charts for formalized acts: the laying of a cornerstone, the signing of a treaty, the start of a campaign. From that standpoint, national horoscopes aren’t 20th-century inventions but extensions of a continuous tradition rooted in astrology’s core premise: that the timing of beginnings holds meaning.

On my internal inconsistency for rejecting purely symbolic national horoscopes without any known documentation but proceeding with constructing a Sibly variant. Here is how I slice the argument: I agree that any in-sample rectification of a national horoscope unsupported by written documentation as to its origin is purely symbolic and does not advance the practice of mundane astrology. However, if a symbolic horoscope can make out-of-sample predictions based on verifiable metrics and be judged by disinterested parties, then it does advance the practice of mundane astrology.

Dr. H, as previously pointed out, this argument still remains internally contradictory and methodologically unsound. You concede that a “symbolic” horoscope—one with no documentary foundation—is of limited value, yet you then propose to redeem it by testing its predictions. But without a verifiable inception moment, any chart can be shoe‑horned to produce post‑hoc “out‑of‑sample” hits, so prediction success tells us nothing about the chart’s genuine validity.

In your previous reply, you invoked Popperian testing, which presupposes a clearly defined hypothesis anchored to a specific, verifiable event. But if the natal—or foundation—time is speculative, then the hypothesis ("if a symbolic horoscope can make out-of-sample predictions based on verifiable metrics and be judged by disinterested parties, then it does advance the practice of mundane astrology.") lacks a concrete referent. Sorry to be repetitious but in practice, the so-called “advancement” you propose ends up replicating astrology’s Texas sharpshooter problem: drawing the target around the hits after the fact. I maintain that genuine methodological progress in mundane astrology begins with charts grounded in documented, historically plausible moments. Only then can out-of-sample testing offer meaningful insight rather than anecdotal confirmation.

On the need for specific and testable astrological predictions based on shared metrics for predictive success. We are in complete agreement here. Please review the links to the three papers in a prior post on this thread regarding my 2015 prediction for the peak in the craft beer bubble within the USA. The metric I proposed was the number of breweries as defined by the Craft Brewers Association. I predicted the number would decline in absolute terms when the Jupiter/Virgo Distribution ended. I also predicted a peak consumption date of 15-Jul-2016 based on Jupiter in Virgo in its own bound bonified by Mercury/Leo. So what happened? The growth rate of the number of craft breweries slowed but the absolute numbers rose. Other metrics not identified when making my 2015 prediction did show absolute declines including the price of hops, corporate activity based on the number of craft beer mergers & acquisitions, and media coverage tracked by Googletrends. As to the predicted peak consumption of craft beer on 15-Jul-2016, five days later on 20-Jul-2016 the US Justice Department approved the largest beer industry merger in history between AB InBev and SABMiller, a record maintained to this day. While both companies are foreign-owned, each company owned a major US subsidiary – Anheuser-Busch in the case of AB InBev and Miller Brewing in the case of SABMiller. This is what required US Justice Department approval and ties the merger to the USA in a mundane context. The third paper I wrote in the series discusses the difficulty in choosing shared metrics when predictions are made. In this particular instance, the Craft Brewers Association also changed the definition of the craft brewer category during the forecast period. But I gave it my best shot. We also have to step away from overly obsessing on metrics which can divert the attention from the larger issue: the usefulness of these types of predictions for the public. At the time I made the 2015 prediction the craft beer fad would soon end, the craft beer industry was roaring. Knowledge that the boom would soon end was useful for craft brewers, many of whom are small businesses. Specifically: 2015 was not the time to expand, but the time to sell and look for investments in other industries. It is widely acknowledged by the Craft Brewers Association that the craft beer industry suffered a huge shakeout in the years following 2017.

If time permits in the near future, I’d like to take a closer look at one of your papers in detail. As you know, engaging thoroughly with a piece that complex requires more than a quick read—it takes careful, point-by-point analysis. If I’m able to do that, I’ll be sure to post my thoughts here on Skyscript.

Let’s take a moment to examine the prediction you referenced above, keeping the Popperian principle in mind since it requires clear, predefined, and falsifiable criteria—not post hoc reinterpretation. While it’s commendable that you attempted to anchor your 2015 forecast to a concrete metric—the number of craft breweries as defined by the Brewers Association—the outcome did not meet the stated benchmark. The prediction was explicit: the absolute number of breweries would decline when the Jupiter-in-Virgo Distribution ended. That did not occur. In fact, the number of breweries continued to increase annually for several years beyond the forecast window. This represents a clear failure on the primary metric identified to evaluate the prediction’s success.

You do acknowledge this to your credit, but then you pivot to secondary indicators such as hops prices, mergers & acquisitions, and Google Trends interest—none of which were named in the original forecast. These may offer interesting context in hindsight, but invoking unstated metrics after the fact amounts to retroactive justification. If the test of success shifts only after a core prediction fails, then the claim of falsifiability is compromised.

As for the AB InBev–SABMiller merger, it was indeed a major event in the beer industry, but the connection to U.S. craft beer consumption is tenuous. The merger involved two foreign-owned conglomerates, and although both had U.S. subsidiaries, their portfolios are not representative of the independent craft beer sector. The Justice Department’s approval five days after the predicted “peak” date is an interesting coincidence, but does not directly validate a consumption-based forecast for craft beer. A merger approval is not a direct measure of beer consumption. Moreover, no consumption data was cited for July 15, 2016, nor does available data support a marked peak on or around that date.

Finally, while it's true the Brewers Association changed its definition of “craft brewer” in 2018, this does not explain the failed prediction from 2015–2017, during which the original definition was still in use. Nor does this change account for the continued rise in the number of breweries during the forecast period.

The broader narrative about an eventual shakeout in the industry after 2017 is generally accurate, but this long-term trend cannot retroactively validate a specific failed forecast. To argue otherwise is to blur the line between genuine predictive accuracy and narrative license.

In short, while the intention to use measurable outcomes is laudable, the execution in this case does not meet the threshold of testable, falsifiable prediction. A forecast that misses its primary metric and then shifts to alternative indicators after the fact does not advance the methodological rigor of mundane astrology—it undermines it.

On the requirement that documented historical evidence exists to support a rectification, whether mundane or natal. This is a new argument for this thread, better discussed in a different thread, but I will introduce it here. My observations made during the rectification process make a connection between the quality of Mercury in the horoscope and the quality of recorded birth time information. Mercury retrograde, combust, or maltreated by Mars often yields horoscope data which is either missing, unknown, or highly disputed. Some day I will compare my rectified birth times to ADB times using this criteria to put some numbers on it. In any case, for any 4-Jul-1776 horoscope, Mercury is afflicted. I detail those afflictions in the Preface to America is Born: Introducing the Regulus USA National Horoscope. I think Mercury’s affliction is the root cause of why there remains so much debate over the validity of a 4-Jul-1776 horoscope. That includes the debate we are having here in the Skyscript forum. To square the circle on this point, judging a mundane horoscope with an afflicted Mercury can prove problematic if not impossible. It may be the reason why no documented historical evidence exists in the first place. But this doesn’t necessarily mean than nothing happened, only that we don’t have a record of it.

As an aside, two of my rectifications for American Presidents with significant differences between reported and rectified birth times are Warren Harding and Joe Biden. Both horoscopes feature Scorpio stellia which include Mercury and Mars. Mercury is either combust or under the sunbeams in both horoscopes. Mars maltreats Mercury by position and rulership.

Dr. H, this line of reasoning conflates astrological symbolism with the independent realities of historical documentation. The absence or ambiguity of a birth time in archival records has far more prosaic explanations—lost documents, informal or oral reporting, clerical error, or differing record-keeping standards—than any celestial configuration. To suggest that Mercury’s affliction “causes” missing or disputed data reverses cause and effect: it’s not a retrograde or combust Mercury that erases parish registers or congressional journals, but human fallibility and historical circumstance.

Moreover, if we accept that an afflicted Mercury somehow invalidates the very documentation needed to establish a horoscope, we enter dangerous interpretive territory. This logic becomes circular—“Mercury is combust, so of course the record is missing”—and ultimately unfalsifiable. There are, in fact, numerous horoscopes with retrograde, combust, or otherwise afflicted Mercury that have well-attested times and demonstrably successful predictive histories. The presence of such a Mercury does not inherently negate the possibility of accurate or documented timing, either in natal or mundane charts. If it did, we’d be forced to discard a great many horoscopes that have proven both reliable and verifiable.

Finally, the examples of Warren Harding and Joe Biden don’t bolster the argument; they merely show that rectification techniques can yield multiple plausible birth times even when records exist. Their Mercury‑Mars configurations neither explain missing data nor validate the speculative timing of July 4, 1776. In short, historical documentation stands or falls on archival evidence, not on the debility or vigor of Mercury. Astrology may help us interpret a chart once cast—but it cannot and should not be used to rewrite or erase the material facts of history.

Because of other projects, I have to take a break from posting on the Skyscript forum, but will monitor responses. In early January I do plan on recapitulating predictions for the upcoming Ascendant Distributor changeover from Mars/Virgo to Saturn/Virgo on 31-Jan-2026. If anybody wants to comment on metrics I have proposed for testing USA Mundane activity for the duration of the Saturn/Virgo Distribution from 31-Jan-2026 to 2-Aug-2028 please post them on this thread. I will have a look.

That sounds like a solid plan, Dr H. While you’re gathering your thoughts over the next few months, here are a few candidate metrics I would suggest for tracking U.S. activity during the Saturn‑in‑Virgo period (31 Jan 2026 to 2 Aug 2028). Feel free to pick or adapt any that suit your hypotheses as there are literally dozens for each major category:
Here’s a set of five core metrics that capture economic, political, and social health:
Real GDP Growth Rate (Quarterly)
Unemployment Rate (Monthly U3)
S&P 500 Total Return (12‑Month Rolling)
Presidential Approval Rating (Monthly Average)
Monthly Business Applications (New Employer Applications)

For each metric, it’s best to specify your expected directionality (e.g., “declining unemployment” or “rising regulatory activity”) and a clear threshold for what counts as a “hit.” That way, for the duration of the Saturn/Virgo Distribution from 31-Jan-2026 to 2-Aug-2028 , you’ll have concrete benchmarks to test your predictions against.

Looking forward to seeing how these pan out—and to the conversation that follows when you reconvene in January!