Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

There is an obscure Nebraska law that says a non-relative can obtain a birth certificate if it can be proven that the person in question has been dead fifty years. In April I sent a copy of Donald Bradley’s memorial page from the findagrave website to Nebraska Vital Records to prove that the astrologer died of cancer fifty years ago. Nebraska Vital Records responded quickly. According to his birth certificate, Bradley was not born at 2:04 a.m. or 2:40 a.m. He wasn’t even born in Bruning. His birth certificate asserts that Donald Albert Bradley, the son of Donald Deforest Bradley, an auto mechanic and Marie Kahm, was born May 16, 1925 in Geneva, Nebraska at 1 P.M. CST. I have posted a copy of Bradley’s birth certificate on his findagrave memorial page under “photos.” The BC is photo number 8. The other photos are those of Donald Bradley (very good photos by the way). You can see them and the birth certificate at

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/487 ... rt-bradley

Well, isn't that a kick in the pants?! Wow!

Gary, thanks much for digging out this important record. It raises LOADS of questions. It's timely and resourceful.

Three things ae of note on this record, to my eye:

1. Geneva and Bruning are only a 15 minute drive from each other. Their coordinates are similar (Bruning 40N20 97W34, Geneva 40N32 97W36). Bruning today has 0.28 square miles and 281 people (325 in 1920). Geneva is a whopping big 2.04 square miles and about 2,100 people (1,768 in 1920). - My first impression from this was that Geneva had a hospital and Bruning probably was too small, so they lived in Bruning and rode to Geneva for the birth; however, both parents are listed as living in Geneva, or at least at an address served by the Geneva post office. (Perhaps the moved to Bruning later. As best I know, he grew up in Bruning).

All this boils down to: Geneva surely is the correct birth town (under all of these theories). Longitude is 0°02' from that of Bruning.


2. Dr. Bixby, when completing this form, originally wrote "May 15," then crossed it out and wrote the correct "May 16." No big deal (we've all made that kind of mistake) and by no means does this compromise the birth certificate. It did cause me, though, to look at when the paperwork was filed. It was five days later, on May 21. However, the doctor may well have completed it earlier (the birth was on a Saturday, the paperwork was filed the following Thursday): This may be merely bureaucratic delays. (The handwriting of the filing person's signature seems to be the same sort of pen - maybe the same pen - but different handwriting.) I can't tell when the paperwork was completed, or whether the filing signature is local or once it was delivered to nearby Lincoln (more likely), but I give it the benefit of the doubt for authenticity.


3. Having what by all appearances is a responsibly completed official birth record in the handwriting of the doctor who was present, there is the bizarre fact that this clearly says the baby was born at "! PM." We do know that in the 1940s, Donald thought he was born at 2:40 AM: He gave this time to his closest working associate, Gary Duncan, and used it as the basis of the basis of the dramatic sample charts in Chapter 6 of Solar and Lunar Returns. I think there is no doubt he sincerely believed 2:40 AM was his correct birth time (and, after he died, his employer and then-closest associate, Joanne Clancy, published this as 2:04 AM). Bradley, one of the most data-conscious and conscientious astrologers of his century, had reason to believe he was born at 2:40 AM and never changed his mind (much) in his whole life - even though a birth certificate was available? (From practices of the time, the family likely had a copy of the BC.)


As one of my favorite lines from The King & I goes: "Eeez... a puzzlement."


Being an astrologer, I naturally want to look at this 1:00 PM chart astrologically and see if it conforms to known events in his life.

Meanwhile: Gary, thank you again. This is a big deal.

I'm not going to rely on subjective interpretations of the natal to distinguish the two charts: One can be easily fooled by this. Just to make some observations, though: The 1 PM time makes Venus clearly the strongest planet, 2° from MC (but he was a Taurus anyway, so there would be clear, obvious Venus). The 2:40 AM chart is overwhelmingly Uranian (but he had an Aquarius Moon either way: not the same, but not enough to pretend I can tell the difference decisively). What I most miss in the 1 PM chart and have always considered a fundamental feature of his chart, is the tight Mercury-Mars mundane square, something that seems absolutely necessary to describe him and his history: At 1 PM he has a 4.5° Mercury-Mars sextile background contrasted with a precisely angular Venus.

I could give more impressions of this sort, but they are always on thin ice. Before moving on to something more mathematically distinguishing, I want to point out something with which Sidereal astrologers may have to wrestle a bit: It was always clear to those who knew him that whenever Bradley wrote of Uranus (which he did more than any other planet), he was always writing, in part, about himself. If one assumes (as I do) that he sincerely thought he was born with Uranus rising, then, at some point - if we end up concluding the 1 PM time is correct - we have to reassess what he wrote about Uranus. The best way, of course, is to found our opinions on our own present-day observations (and, ultimately, I don't think we'll conclude anything very different); nonetheless, in understanding the history of our literature, this will be something we should look at. (If astrology were an academic science today, somebody could surely get a masters thesis out of the topic LOL.)

Relocations for the various places he lived - birthplace, Long Beach, New York City, Tucson - are inconclusive. For example, in NY where he was able to do the mind-blowing weather research under academic sponsorship, he had either Mercury or Uranus angular. Either fits.

The most significant event that was studied previously was probably his death, which occurred April 25, 1974, 12:35 PM, in Tucson, AZ.

For the 2:40 AM birth, the charts always seemed quite fitting. There were progressions that would be about the same for any birth time, transits converging on his 16° Aquarius Moon seeming to confer the general birth time, and return charts that showed the encroachment of the disease, pain, and then the blessing of release at the end.

That's the story we've had from the charts as we've known them. What do the charts show for a 1 PM birth time?


Transits to the 1 PM natal don't say much but may establish a foothold. Instead of the 16° Aquarius Moon, we have a 13°37' Leo Ascendant that almost had the transiting Neptune square partile (major Neptune transits for a year or more consistent with late stage and its treatment) and Jupiter a couple of degrees past Descendant (not fitting, since it marked the recent past as a much more benign time; this wasn't the case). - No transits to the Tucson local angles or to his Moon to help us out.

Secondary progressions bring nothing to help the question. There is, of course, the partile Sun-Pluto conjunction (which will be there for any birth time). Progressed Moon does nothing (oh, there is a 30' trine to Neptune, not a strong aspect but I should mention it as maybe relevant).

With solar arc directions we are (to distinguish the time) mostly interesting in directly to or by Moon or angles. There are none. (There are solar arcs that were in play for any birth time, such as directed/progressed Sun conjunct natal Pluto, and directed Mars just having recently left conjunction with natal Neptune - describing the two prior years of disease and treatment). SNQ angles bring nothing exactly to angles, but a couple of vague-but-acceptable things nearby in case 1:00 PM were correct but not very exact.

For the 1 PM birth time, his Sidereal Solar Return from nearly a year earlier was very active but primarily very positive with a 0°06' Sun-Moon opposition with a degree of the horizon and transiting Venus 22' from square MC. (There is more, but these are the highlights.) While the SSR may be too broad a chart, it nonetheless shows the prior year as being predominantly vitality, clarity, feeling in the driver's seat of his own car, and pleasure. I won't press this one much (one could find arguments for some of this), it does not seem to me to describe his prior year. His SQ Moon would have reached about 11° Scorpio, conjoining SSR Neptune, the most accurate aspect in the entire series.

His final Sidereal Lunar Return, based on the 1 PM birth time, resembles the SLR for 2:40 AM (but with more relaxed angularities). Both show peace at the end, this one by natal Venus 1° from MC and transiting Jupiter 5.5° from Descendant (among lesser, wider things). The only close foreground aspects were the triple intersection of Venus-Jupiter-Neptune.

Overall, these charts don't give us anything new to work with. If we ignore the SSR (which might be for too broad a period, and overall argues against this 1 PM time), there is nothing grossly better or grossly worse for this time.

For other events to check, we have the four he presented Solar and Lunar Returns, which I reconstructed here:
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6654

I have no doubt - none at all - that he sincerely believed, when he wrote this book, that he was born at 2:04 AM. He could, of course, have been wrong. The purpose of this post is to take those four events (we know the SLRs under which they occurred) to see if the SLRs for a 1 PM birth show anything fitting.

Event 1
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6654#p48922
Occurred under the November 2, 1938 SLR in his Nebraska home. I'll use Bruning (thinking he waw living there by then), but we are only a couple of minutes off for Geneva.

For first sexual experience, the chart is pretty boring, it's one strong feature being transiting Saturn on Descendant partile square natal Pluto. This is strongly inconsistent with how he enthusiastically described the event.

Event 2
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6654#p48923
Defrauded by a quack doctor who convinced him he had a "social disease" and bilked him for a lot of money before the family doctor learned the truth and gave him appropriate treatment for a minor fungus.

This SLR is better than the last. Transiting Mars and Moon are both within a degree of angles, in close mundane square, with a foreground Mars-Neptune square (aspecting his Moon). They aren't in the houses that impressed him when writing the book (but we've come to distrust such things): The chart itself describes the event, both the initial fungal infection and being duped. - OTOH the Demi-SLR under which the fraud was discovered and he got proper treatment does not fit as well, its main feature being natal Mars and transiting Venus and Neptune in aspects more suggestive of continuing to be duped.

Event 3
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6654#p48924
Being back-stabbed by a coworkers, losing his job at which he was excelling, and then finding another before the month was out. In reconstructing this event, there was some ambiguity about where in Southern California it occurred. I'll use Long Beach to check it now.

The chart isn't that different from the published one for a 2:04 AM birth. Uranus is closely rising instead of closely setting, though now it no longer squares natal Moon. Its main aspect is a 0°02' mundane square to natal Neptune on IC. This could fit or not - the source of betrayal seems turned around but the placements aren't grossly wrong. Especially with some ambiguity about location, I'll at least keep this one in the running.

Event 4
https://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=6654#p48925
A month of ecstasy as he met, fell in love with, and married his "ideal girl" with a "first electric meeting" and "blissful happiness."

Transiting Sun is 1° off MC and natal Saturn is 0°01' off Descendant - Sun square his Saturn mundanely and square natal Mercury ecliptically.

This isn't appropriate at all! Even though there is a 2° Moon-Venus conjunction, it's in the immediate background, as weak as it can be. This is totally different from the splendid, connecting, electrical and ecstatically blissful SLR for the 2:04 AM time that he published (which, of course, he published because it was such a fitting chart: While questioning the birth time we can't count on his published examples looking good, but we can certainly consider that the SLR for the 1 PM time is so atrociously wrong.)


Conclusion: I'm not impressed with these charts as a set. The last one, in particular, is so wrong. While there may be a documentary basis for the 1 PM time, there is certainly not an astrological basis for it.

Jim, was his family religious? It could be that his birth details were recorded in the family bible, I’ve seen many of those!

I don't know. I suspect they were at least somewhat so. They were in tiny-town Midwest in the 1920s. Bradley frequently displayed what I interpreted to be a deep cosmos-centered spirituality that felt like "conventional religion filtered through a lot of Uranus."

In any case, I don't have access to the family Bible or direct access to what would now be the grandchildren of his siblings.

Gary Noel wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:18 am There is an obscure Nebraska law that says a non-relative can obtain a birth certificate if it can be proven that the person in question has been dead fifty years. In April I sent a copy of Donald Bradley’s memorial page from the findagrave website to Nebraska Vital Records to prove that the astrologer died of cancer fifty years ago. Nebraska Vital Records responded quickly. According to his birth certificate, Bradley was not born at 2:04 a.m. or 2:40 a.m. He wasn’t even born in Bruning. His birth certificate asserts that Donald Albert Bradley, the son of Donald Deforest Bradley, an auto mechanic and Marie Kahm, was born May 16, 1925 in Geneva, Nebraska at 1 P.M. CST. I have posted a copy of Bradley’s birth certificate on his findagrave memorial page under “photos.” The BC is photo number 8. The other photos are those of Donald Bradley (very good photos by the way). You can see them and the birth certificate at

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/487 ... rt-bradley

You seriously posted that to his families page?
Do you know how hurtful that that is?
This seems spiteful.

I see you never shared your birthdata.
I cant believe a word or picture you say until you do.
I will send for my own copy,.and until I see it, I don't believe it.

Veronica wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 2:51 pm You seriously posted that to his families page?
Do you know how hurtful that that is?
This seems spiteful.

Veronica, I don't see how posting his birth certificate on his family's memorial page is any of these things. (He didn't post the language you quoted. He posted the birth certificate.) I think this is a rather beautiful thing.

I don't believe this is a family-only web site. (I could be wrong about that.) It seems to have been created as an enduring online tribute. (It is currently being sponsored by Maxine Cheri Clark Harris, who is a family member: His sister's married name was Harris.)

Gary Noel has been around for years. He is a known researcher who has his own "collectors' page" on Astro.com. I believe he was done a service to astrology in digging out this record. As you know, I am skeptical of the 1 PM time. Nonetheless, researchers who dig out authentic birth records are important to astrology. I believe Gary has done a great service to Sidereal astrology even if (as I suspect but don't know) the doctor wrote the wrong time on the document.

That "May 15" error on the birth certificate went uncorrected at least long enough to make it into the newspaper. A colleague found this in the Nebraska Signal (the Geneva newspaper) for May 28, 1925, a week after the birth record was filed with the state:
https://fillmorecountyne.advantage-pres ... 4&cid=2690

In the firth column near the top:

BORN. BRADLEY - To Mr. and Mrs. Donald D. Bradley of Geneva, Friday, May 15, 1925, a son.

The 15th (wrong day) was indeed a Friday. The rest of the basic information is correct. We know from the birth record itself that the day was originally written as the 15th and then, at some point, corrected (was that perhaps by pencil? certainly a different writing instrument than the rest) to say 16th. The newspaper account likely came from the filing of the birth record.

By the time he registered for the draft in California, Bradley said he was born on the 16th. His official registration card lists Donald Albert Bradley of 345 Chestnut Avenue, Long Beach, California, 18 years of age, from Geneva, Nebraska born May 16, 1925. (It seems the same building stands: It looks like a vintage apartment building from that time.) He was then employed at Western Pipe & Steel Corporation in San Pedro. His mother was named as "person who will always know your address" and lived at 1904 Bermuda in Long Beach, maybe a mile away I would guess (i.e., he was living independently at the time he registered for the draft, on May 17, 1943. The apartment buildings standing at that address today look much newer.

PS - The third example chart in Chapter 6 of Solar and Lunar Returns was for July 9, 1944. This may have been the job from which he was fired, in which case he was living in Long Beach and working in San Pedro nearby.

Why didn’t Donald Bradley have his certified birth certificate in his own possession? Any serious astrologer, and there were none more serious than Donald Bradley, starts by looking at their own certified birth certificate, if possible. This is somewhat confusing?

SteveS wrote: Mon May 06, 2024 6:01 am Why didn’t Donald Bradley have his certified birth certificate in his own possession? Any serious astrologer, and there were none more serious than Donald Bradley, starts by looking at their own certified birth certificate, if possible. This is somewhat confusing?

I don't know.

Maybe he did know... which raises many other questions.

Or maybe the family had the birth certificate and his mother said, "Hmmm, you know, that's not right. You were born at two-something." The family Bible may have recorded it differently.

I dunno.

Jim, I can only assume Donald Bradley knew his certified birth certificate was a gross error.

SteveS wrote: Mon May 06, 2024 6:48 am Jim, I can only assume Donald Bradley knew his certified birth certificate was a gross error.

That seems the most likely to me, too (though we don't know it's true).

One other possibility - just brainstorming - is that in his strong, formative relationship with Llewellyn George, LG ("Papa") had some method of rectification like the prenatal epoch that forced a wildly different birthtime. But that doesn't make sense because (1) that wasn't the way LG worked, (2) Bradley would have surely come to his senses later in life anyway, and (3) Gary Duncan believed in 1975 that time he'd been given over a quarter century earlier was an authentic birth time.

One consequence of spending a weekend with this new information is that at least we can update the birth location to Geneva (a couple of minutes of longitude different) and it caused me to ask whether there was any point before the end of his life that Bradley was using 2:04 instead of 2:40. There was: My at least 1963 he was using "flip the numbers around" from 40 to 04 time. That raises further questions like, oh, way would he do that? I doubt it was just rectification. I find it more likely his mother (who lived about a mile away in Long Beach) one day said, "I never said, forty, I said four." - Or some such thing.

He wasn't using the 2:04 chart as early as 1956. I know this because, in the June, 1956 issue of American Astrology, he wrote about his September 1954 SLR and, for Long Beach, it's a perfect match for the SLR based on a 2:40 AM birth. So, sometime between 1956 and the start of 1963 he started using 2:04 instead of 2:40.

I don't like to reject any birth certificate (and in this case it's not me rejecting it to much as confirming that Bradley did). In this case, the birth certificate time (that he never used his entire lfe) doesn't fit the astrological conditions.

I hear you Jim and agree.

A researcher on this site has unearthed other historic documents contributing to our knowledge of Donald Bradley's biography (or, sometimes, reaffirming what we already knew). Here are some census records plus a copy of his Russian mother's naturalization application.

https://ibb.co/CP3DwJm
https://ibb.co/mTKKXdF
https://ibb.co/pbtSzBL

Some things shown:

April 1940: Nebraska, DAB and a sister living with their mother.

1950: Living in Long Beach, occupation writer, independent (i.e., his own "head of household" matching the previously found separate addresses for him and his mother in Long Beach).

On the third document, his mother under a new name (remarried to Miles Emory Pauly 8/5/42 in Lincoln, NE) was living in Long Beach applying for naturalization, 46 years old, born July 21, 1905 in Balzar, Russia (short: 5'2"). Her husband, Miles Emory Pauly, was born 4/13/1896 in Waterville, KS. Birthdays confirmed besides DAB's (again specifying he was born in Geneva) are his sister, Bonnie (married as Harris), born 4/11/23 in Geneva, NE (living in LA), and another son, Alfred, born 11/16/267 in Geneva (living in Washington, DC). We learn that his mother emigrated from Balzar Russia to Quebec and then lawfully entered the U.S. at Port Huron, MI (on 7/28/13). - I can't find the date this form was completed or submitted.

Random observations as I see them:

• Balzar, Russia seems not to exist, but there is a colony named Balzer near Saratov (thus about three hours east of Greenwich on LMT).
• Marie Kahm Bradley (later Pauly), Donald's mother, was thus a Cancer with an Aquarius Moon like his if born in the morning or a Pisces Moon if born in the afternoon. We surely can presume the Aquarius Moon and thus an AM birth. Moon probably squared Pluto: Her path as an emigrant is not hard to trace even with an untimed chart. - PS Garth Allen had written that his mother was a Cancer when he wrote one of his long articles about Cancer.
• Interchanges between their charts: Her Sun squared his Mercury (she likely fed and encouraged his mind). Her Moon was probably rising at his birth, transiting by Uranus (his Uranus). Her Venus moderately squared his Moon. There were conflicts, though, with his Mars a few degrees from her Saturn (but this wasn't close). Unless they were so close they had their own private language, she likely never really understood him or what he was diving into with her Mercury closely conjunct his Neptune. Both her Saturn and Jupiter aspected his Venus (about the same orb).
• She remarried August 5, 1942, in Lincoln, NE. Transiting Mars opposite her Saturn is a strange, disturbing aspect. That year was likely a gigantic life-switch for her: d Pluto exactly conjoined her Sun, d Neptune began to cross her Mars. She had a progressed Sun-Mars square. The remarriage seems not to have been a high impact event for 16-year-old Donald - at least, no solar arcs - though his progressed Moon was slipping through some rough months. There is the complex parent-issue transit of Saturn square his Moon as it happened.
• His step-father, Emory Pauly, was a double Aries (another sign Garth Allen wrote about more than others), nine years older than Marie. His Mars conjoined her Saturn exactly (meaning Mars-Mars-Saturn on the wedding day), and also squared her Jupiter. Against that severity, his Jupiter conjoined her Sun - I know nothing of the circumstances, when the parents separated, what Marie's life was like at this juncture as a Russian immigrant with three children, though these aspects look like marrying for economic advantage while accepting some unwanted, undesirable conditions. (Remember: I don't know those things to be true, so don't include them in any biography you might write about him ) Also, his Sturn conjoined her Mars (two directions). - The Venus aspects are of interest.
• Pauly, for the wedding date 8/5/42, had no directions or progressions worth mentioning without a birth time. The only transit we can see is Mars opposite his Mars.
• His big sister Bonnie was a Pisces-Aquarius. (Quite the Aquarius Moon family!) Her family created the memorial page, and her children and grandchildren seen quite devoted to him or his memory. She seems playful and upbeat with her Venus-Uranus conjunction trine Jupiter, etc. Also, I'd imagine that a Pisces-Aquarius sister would have been a positive influence on DAB as his unusual interests developed. Her Moon (for any birth time) was near Marie's Saturn, though, so we would expect distance. They had other positive aspects, though, such s Bonnie's Jupiter on Marie's Mars (but Neptune to Mars is closer). (And who knows that Bonnie's Pluto conjunct Marie's Neptune 15' meant: Donald may not have been the weirdest one in the family <g>.) I suspect Don and his sister were close, with her Venus conjunct her Moon and their Mercuries conjoined in early Aries.