I have just posted my reading of the USA 2025 solar return. It shows how I incorporate higher level time lords into the analysis. The below link refers to my Substack post which includes a downloadable pdf. no subscription required for the report.

https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/usa ... h-birthday

of the multitude of usa charts to choose from, which one are you leaning on?? thanks..

are there any specific predictions that you are also providing?? i'd be curious to see how they pan out if so..

do you engage in conversation at skyscript, or just hope to use skyscript to redirect people to another site ( your site)??

Hi James

If you search this forum "Regulus USA National Horoscope" you will find about a dozen mentions of my own rectified version of the July 4 1776 horoscope. The book was published in 2009 and that notice appears in the forum. It has an Ascendant of 26SA54'40".

My Substack includes a record of a few predictions I have made and includes a prediction I made several years ago concerning the upcoming January 31, 2026 Ascendant Distributor changeover from Mars/Virgo to Saturn/Virgo. If you want to learn more about my work, I recommend buying both of my books and reading all the free articles my Substack lists under the heading 'Regulus USA National Horoscope."

These days I dont interact much on Skyscript because of a lack of time. I do plan on following up a year from now on how the timing of the return's predictions turned out.

Thanks again for your interest,

i mostly think of this forum as a means to share astrological ideas with others interested in this sort of thing.... but i could see how some folks might treat it like a sales platform to promote whatever it is they have to sell..

i am fascinated by the level of confidence required to single out a version of the usa national chart thru 'rectification' to rule out all the other usa national charts that are being used by other astrologers... that is either a high degree of self confidence or hubris at work..

i am curious about any predictions you're making, so if you do come back in 2026 to report on it, i look forward to the post... thanks!

Hi James,

I have stated that with millions of events it is possible to justify virtually any horoscope for the USA. Therefore the ability to make correct out-of-sample predictions is the method I advocate to settle the debate between USA horoscopes. In addition to the this year's solar return for which I attached the link above, I have written three papers on prediction. They are all free and can be read on my site without registering for the Substack. The three papers total well over 100 pages and I estimate reading and study time to be 4 to 4.5 hours for the collection. The material is too lengthy to paste in a Skyscript forum post which is why I supply links so that Skyscript forum readers have access.

The three free posted articles are

2015-06-11 Debut Predictions for the Regulus USA National Horoscope https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/deb ... he-regulus

2021-06-11 Six Years Later: Evaluating the 2015 Regulus Forecast https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/six ... g-the-2015

2023-09-17 Towards Falsification of Mundane Astrology with Bound Sign Subdivisions https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/tow ... of-mundane

Best wishes in your studies.

Thanks for the notice here H, which is very appropriate and good to have. Many of us are familiar with the massive amount of deep research you have put into your rectifications of this chart - and the books you have written detailing your methods and justifications for that, so it is good to have the 'heads up' when you have new content to share. The new format of your blog is great, BTW, and there's loads of good content to be commended there.

Thanks for your kind comments Deb. Nearly all the content is free, but some things like biographical chronologies and videos are behind a paywall. As most of my content is written, not video, I decided to go the Substack route instead of the Patreon route. Will see how it goes.

dear dr. h

thanks for the links where i can read up on your work and get a better understanding... i followed them and downloaded 2 of your pdfs shared in the substack posts... i haven't got to the 3rd and bottom link in your post from sunday 805pm yet, but i have some thoughts on everything i've read so far.

for me the idea of a distinction between divination and a more scientific approach is important to appreciate when engaging with astrology.. i believe you mentioned the importance of a more scientific approach to help give astrology the recognition you feel it deserves in the world today.. i can appreciate that and of course this is my take on what you've said in these pdf papers, which might be somewhat subjective and not exactly what you said..

it seems to me you are doing a few things here which i'd like your feedback on.. with regard to the importance of using the egyptian terms, to define the 'distributors' of the primary directions, it seems to me there is nothing scientific about the use of the egyptian terms/bounds... in fact, they are cloaked in the mysteries of the past and while there may be some relevance to them, what i note is that astrologers using tropical or sidereal zodiac ( martin gansten in his book annual predictive techniques) can't both be right on the use of them... until this hurdle is overcome on the topic of the zodiacs - and i don't know that it will - the use of these terms seems to throw up more confusion then anything else.. while i haven't read your book, i have read martins and i can see how this topic seems central to the way that the interpretation and relevance of the primary directions function... but, unless one wants to fall back on an acknowledgement of the centrality of divination for the purpose of any conclusions off the use of these terms, i think the use of them is fraught with obstacles and very far removed from being ''scientific''...

the 2nd thing i'd like to point out is this idea of using primary directions as some type of definitive timing tool down to the day runs counter to my limited understanding of their usage historically.. in fact, i note martin gansten in his book on primary directions discusses this very topic in a footnote on page 80 of his book 'primary directions, astrology's old master technique'... the footnote is in relation to what mr gansten says on page 75/76 of his book and quoting jb morin in regards this as well..

i'm sorry mr. h, but i think you're skating on really thin ice and i don't share your optimism on the definitive version of this specific national chart for the usa.. at the same time i appreciate all the work and devotion you've given towards this.. you're to be commended for that!!

on a related note, there have been some interesting exchanges involving anthony louis on his website in regards the use of primary directions that some might like to check out.. i only say this to reinforce my own interest in the topic and my own inclination to offer a level of scrutiny that seems to be absent in the astrological community with regard the use of these various ''traditional'' techniques... thanks...

RegulusAstrology wrote: Sat Jul 05, 2025 11:43 am I have just posted my reading of the USA 2025 solar return. It shows how I incorporate higher level time lords into the analysis. The below link refers to my Substack post which includes a downloadable pdf. no subscription required for the report.
https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/usa ... h-birthday

In your paper, under Methodology: Which USA Horoscope? on page 6, I find significant issues with your methodological approach. The central problem with using the Sibly chart—or any derivative chart set for the same general time frame—is that it rests on a demonstrably unfounded historical basis. The Sibly chart is not merely flawed in its details; it is fundamentally compromised at its origin. Cast retroactively in London by Ebenezer Sibly, and first published in Sibly's work, "A Complete Illustration of the Astrological and Occult Sciences" (1796) the chart includes multiple mathematical errors, including incorrect planetary positions and a miscalculated Ascendant. More critically, the timing it purports to represent—5:10 PM on July 4th—lacks any documentary support. Congressional records only state that the Declaration was adopted “in the afternoon,” and historical evidence overwhelmingly confirms that most delegates signed the document weeks later, on August 2nd. Thus, employing the Sibly chart as a foundation for solar return analysis is not simply an interpretive choice—it is an endorsement of a historical fiction.

To argue that the delineations of solar returns based on Sibly vs. Regulus charts could be judged by a group of astrologers or even the public through some kind of comparative vote only compounds the problem. This is not a popularity contest. Astrology, to retain any semblance of methodological integrity, must begin with data that is at least plausible within the context of known historical events. The suggestion of validating horoscopes by polling interpretations—while rhetorically clever—is epistemologically unsound. It bypasses the foundational requirement that a chart correspond to a real, verifiable moment in time. Without that, any accuracy it appears to yield is retrofitted and anecdotal.

The Regulus USA chart, while perhaps more technically refined, ultimately inherits the same foundational issues as the Sibly chart. It is based on the same unverified and historically unsupported assumptions about the time and nature of the United States' founding moment. As such, it cannot claim a more plausible historical basis; it merely retools a speculative chart without resolving its core problems. Until the Sibly chart—or any derivative thereof—can be substantiated with credible evidence of time, place, and intent, it remains a symbolic construct rather than a legitimate national horoscope. Such charts should not be mistaken for historically grounded astrological foundations.

For the sidereal vs tropical debate I suggest understanding the physiognomy research by Dr.H - 432 examples

https://www.regulus-astrology.com/p/ris ... l-evidence

Once the model is understood, one can apply it to different birth charts and I think this can prove the validity of tropical zodiac

I posted in this forum examples of Aries physiognomy
https://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11632

James

(1) Regarding the Egyptian terms or bounds, there is only one component which is consistent with other astrological models: the sum of an individual’s bounds across all 12 zodiac signs sums to the planet’s major years. To date, there has been no solution to the exact order and number of degrees assigned to each bound for all 12 zodiac signs. So either we can ignore it on the basis that we don’t understand the rationale for the model, or we can test it and use it if the technique shows promise. I fall in the latter category. You are correct to point out the bounds were created using the sideral zodiac, but so where the 12 zodiac signs. You are really asking a question on the validity of the tropical vs sidereal zodiac. I don’t have the answer to that one. Use what you like.

(2) Regarding primary directions. On whether they predict an individual event by the date, or open up a planetary period where the planet’s power is accentuated as a time lord. The Distributor part of Abu Mashar’s System of Distributors and Partners falls in the latter category. The time period does however have a start and end date. It is possible to find events which occur on or near Distributor changeover dates which can help confirm when the Distribution starts. In the second linked paper, I gave several examples of the demise of the craft beer market as the Jupiter/Virgo distribution ended. My book America is Born includes several dozen examples like this, some exact date, some near dates that I considered when making the rectification. Gansten is an excellent scholar and teacher. His work falls more into the planetary period category as you reference. My work allows for exact dates matches. I routinely find enough of them in my rectification work to make single date matches an effective tool in my rectification toolkit. Gansten and I have reached different conclusions. As I said above, you are welcome to use what you like.

AJ

We 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. 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. Where we may differ is this: 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. 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. Also, disinterested parties should be able to judge whether the prediction was correct without any astrological knowledge. 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. There are plenty of traditional mundane techniques which do not rely on national horoscopes, which after all are a 20th century invention not used by traditional astrologers. They include Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, eclipses, ingresses, comets, and the like. I use all of them (except ingresses) and get better results when I use both traditional mundane techniques and a modern national horoscope. I just want to be sure you are aware of my assumptions, whether or not you agree with my approach. Thanks for your thoughtful response.