Centuries ago, businessmen and merchants, not just people asking personal questions, consulted Astrologers to find out when "propitious" times to begin an enterprise were. Sailing under a "lucky star" was a boon for a sea voyage, as opposed to sailing under "unlucky" stars. While some still consult Astrologers in order to determine good times to start businesses, voyages or endeavors, the practice is not as widespread as it once was hundreds of years ago. Certainly, very few people think of Astrology as a science, even if it is accurate. Many think of it as a kind of pseudo-religion, or a semi-random process based on psychic ability, such as Tarot reading. Astrology does and can overlap the realm of the spiritual, because it is based on the premise that what is happening in our solar system and universe also ties in directly with us as individuals. This inextricable bond between the larger, unimaginably huge universe and us as human beings is akin to the bond we feel with the Creator of this universe. This is something the ancients understood and immortalized in monument after monument. Many of stone structures of millennia past are built as observatories. Many Egyptian religions centered around stars and planets. This has been true for other ancient societies as well. Fig. 1, below, depicts one such famous, ancient observatory: Stonehenge.

Fig. 1: Stonehenge, in England, was built as an Astronomical observatory 2000 – 3000 years ago.

But, Astrology itself is not a religion. It is simply a set of rules that one must follow to determine physical outcomes based on the position of the stars and planets relative to Earth. The premise of whether or not the set of rules that make up an Astrological system have real relevance to humans and events on Earth is testable, and will continue to be tested by myself and other scientists who are interested in this phenomenon. Astrology has the potential of being a science because it is so highly structured and results are governed by strict rules. While it is true that delineation of character traits is often qualitative and subjective and therefore hard to test, Astrology that applies to prediction of specific mundane events such as the probability of airplane crashes or the success or failure of NASA missions, can be quantified and is indeed very structured. This kind of Astrological prediction lends itself quite nicely to studies such as this.

Astrology of the past was a practical thing, not only limited to personality descriptions (which it also does quite well when applied properly). Astrology was used and trusted for such matters as when to take a journey, when to marry, when to start a business, and so on. If it was so relied on and used back then, why did people trust it so much? Though people who lived hundreds of years ago are often depicted as ignorant or the superstitious because they lacked the knowledge of today, it is also true that they were capable of being just as intelligent and perceptive as we are today, even if they were less informed than we. Military geniuses such as Napoleon, physics genius Isaac Newton, Pythagoras of ancient Greece, and many others, prove that the past was peopled with the brilliant as well as the superstitious. Be that as it may, was it truly just "lack of knowledge" that caused people to seek out Astrologers for advice, or was there something to it?

Astrology lost credence in the scientific world over time because currently, mainstream science has no explanation for why Astrology might work. As a person familiar with physics theories and concepts because of my degree in Electrical Engineering and experience with scientific research, I can say that I can see nothing in current physics theory that can explain or justify Astrology. The theory of gravitation doesn’t account for it, nor even electromagnetics, my own special area of study. Though it’s possible that the existence of other dimensions might explain Astrology’s accuracy, modern mainstream scientists have no explanation for why it might work. For example, though Jupiter is so large that it has several moons, and hundreds of Earths could fit inside it, it is so far away that it has little or no gravitational effect on planet Earth (see Fig. 2, Jupiter). Yet, the positions of Jupiter in Earth’s sky have a great bearing on Astrological judgments, i.e. whether to judge a planetary configuration as "good" or "bad." Stars that make up constellation also play a role in prediction, and are millions of times farther away than Jupiter.

However, not too long ago, science used to believe many things weren’t possible that we take for granted today, such as instantaneous long-distance communication, computers, and spaceships. Part of the "fun" of science is going where no one has gone before, and seeing what else might be possible beyond the bounds of what we currently accept as "truth." As a research and development engineer, I learned to look at what the data said, not what my preferred belief system was. At Boeing Aerospace, I consistently had to abandon pet theories about which antenna design was best, for the one that would work. The only way to establish that was to perform experiments and see which design really did work and which didn’t. That’s exactly the approach taken in this study.

Getting back to why Astrology has been viewed negatively, the individual rules used in predictive Astrology are not enough to determine the outcome of events. Scientists who were first evaluating the validity of Astrology a few hundred years ago would have had to spend years learning Astrology well enough to properly test it. Even if they had been willing to spend years at it and learn all the rules, they also would have needed practice in figuring out whether one planetary configuration spells disaster or if other, more positive factors outweigh the "bad" factors. Then, these scientists would have run into the problem of "bias." Because evaluation of planetary configurations is such a complex process, these evaluations always been done by humans using human judgments and opinions. Human beings tend to have their preferences for certain outcomes or go by their own opinions about the importance of one configuration over another. Even the most experienced Astrologer does this. Though accuracy of prediction may benefit from taking all the factors into account, it also suffers from human error at times; and because of the complexity involved in deciding whether "good" factors outweigh "bad," it is very hard to quantify enough to test accurately.

With the advent of the computer, it has been possible to teach the computer a few simplified diagnostic rules with which to evaluate planetary configurations, and thus truly quantify the accuracy rate of an Astrological system. A computer has no bias and can only evaluate data that is put into it, according to the rules it is given. This gives the scientist or Astrologer a chance to truly evaluate the efficacy and accuracy of specific rules. However, it does even more than that: it can show just how accurate Astrological judgment could be, if it is done without bias. Figure 3, below, illustrates this concept visually.

Because of this consistency in computer judgments of rules, it is also possible to determine if we have "repeatability" -- the foundation of true science. If you perform an experiment, and the results are repeated over the course of many experiments, then you have the beginnings of proof that a theory is correct. In this case, the theory is, "outcomes of voyages (through outer space, or long distances via airplanes, etc.) are connected with the stars’ and planets’ positions at the start of the voyage."

Here at Jasmine Tewa Business Trust, we are dedicated teaching the computer the various rules of Astrology, so that those rules CAN be tested and the accuracy rate of Astrology can actually be measured; and, in some cases, improved upon. I, Mary Weaver, a research engineer and computer specialist of 20 years, have written software that can and does use Astrological rules to evaluate the outcome of events. For a first project to test the software, I chose "predicting NASA mission outcomes." The reason for this was my interest in the space program. I have a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, experience in Research and Development for Boeing Aerospace Company, and 20 years of experience in computer analysis. I have studied Vedic Astrology for several years and Astrology in general for 12 years.

THE THEORY

One doesn't launch a boat in hurricane weather, or plan a picnic in a blizzard. Those two events need good or at least decent weather to be successful. The theory behind this study is analogous to that situation. It states that there exist blocks of time wherein it is "unlucky" to start an endeavor, or launch a business, spacecraft or boat trip, or almost anything that has a beginning and an ending. Just because we cannot "see" the bad weather, or explain its existence, doesn't mean it does not exist.

In this case, the theory is: the timing of an individual enterprise, journey, etc., does seem to have a bearing on the outcome of that journey or endeavor; and further, that this outcome can be described accurately with Astrology prior to setting out on the journey or endeavor.

If this theory is correct, then blocks of time on various days (sometimes perhaps on the same day) are "bad" for starting endeavors or journeys, and others are "good." The characteristics (good or bad) of these blocks of time are determined from following Astrological rules for that moment of time. This is analogous to dividing the day up into "good" and "bad" blocks of time, or "lucky" and "unlucky." This means that, during a 24-hour period, there could exists "good" and "bad" times to start a project. Figure 5, below, illustrates this concept of "good" and "bad" time.

In the figure above, between 4 and 6 o’clock and 9 and 11 o’clock, it’s considered a "bad time" to start something. This example is only used to illustrate the concept of classifying blocks of time, and is not true all the time. In fact, every day is different because planets change constellations or their positions relative to the Earth, every day. Therefore these "good" and "bad" times vary from day to day.

As stated earlier, these "good" and "bad" blocks of time are determined to be good and bad via Astrological rules. Which Astrological rules are used?

Those not familiar with Astrology might think, "Astrology is Astrology – what’s the difference?" Actually, there are many systems of Astrology. One could spend a lifetime researching just one of these disciplines, because of the number of rules involved and the amount of knowledge it takes to make correct interpretations.

Not all Astrological systems are the same. The Astrology that is practiced widely in America, Canada, Europe and Australia today uses completely different rules and even zodiac positions, than do other, older systems of Astrology. For the purposes of this analysis, the ancient, established system of Vedic Astrology whose origins stem from ancient India, was used. This Indian Astrological tradition has a millennia long, unbroken line to the past. According to Cyril Fagan, Egyptologist and astrological researcher, the astrology of ancient Egypt and that of India spring from the same roots. Egyptian civilization is among the oldest known. The Egyptian pyramids, huge monuments that still defy experts as to how they were constructed, have shafts that are precisely oriented toward specific stars. It is known that Egyptian religious texts depict the positions of planets and in some cases are even drawn up as horoscopes. Not surprisingly, Chaldean texts abound in astrological references.

Why choose an Astrological system with a long, established tradition? Because of the findings of Cyril Fagan, and my study of stone structures which were aligned to specific positions of real stars in the sky, I prefer using a zodiac that is based on the real, true positions of the constellations (Astrology that most people are familiar with in America, Europe and Australia uses the "tropical" zodiac, where the constellation of Aries is really Pisces due to the precession of the Earth). This does not mean I am against the current Western astrological practice, which also comes up with good results; I simply prefer the Vedic system because of its historical and archaeological basis. I also believe through my own experience with astrological techniques, that the longer an Astrological tradition has had to gain experience and draw up consistent and workable rules, the better chance it has of being right. That’s because the more I’ve worked with the techniques, the more accurate I have become; experience is the best teacher when it comes to prediction.

BLOCKS OF "GOOD" AND "BAD" TIME

In order to determine how likely it is that this computer program will diagnose NASA missions as failures, it’s a good idea to see how often the computer classifies "any" block of time as "good" or "bad." Thus, totally arbitrary and random times and dates between 1950 and 2000 were generated. Then, the positions of the stars and planets were examined over Cape Canaveral on all these random times and dates. The computer was then required to evaluated each of these "bogus" or "practice" times as good or bad, as if these bogus times were actual NASA mission launch times.

First, it’s necessary to define "good" and "bad" in terms of NASA missions. Generally for NASA missions, "good" means a successful mission, and "bad" means failure. Failure of a mission can be due to 1) spacecraft blowing up, 2) spacecraft developing problems that interfere with achieving mission objectives and/or threaten the lives of astronauts, if there are any aboard.

Therefore, for the purposes of this study, "Success" and "Failure" shall be defined as follows:

1. SUCCESS: achievement of all mission objectives. If there are spacecraft problems, they are manageable and the mission objectives are still achieved.
2. FAILURE: no mission objectives are achieved (or the primary mission objective is not achieved), and severe problems exist with spacecraft which cause its destruction or prevent attainment of mission objectives.

RESULTS OF THE RANDOM "DATE AND TIME" STUDY

It was found that out of 2000 random dates and times throughout the last five decades (during which the NASA launches of interest took place), there occurred 711 bad times for launching, according to the computer’s analysis of planetary configurations during those random dates and times. Translated into percentages, it means that according to the computer’s assessment of the Vedic Astrological rules which were programmed into it, 36% of the time it's unlucky to launch a spacecraft or mission, or start a trip, which seemed very unlikely.

I knew it couldn’t be true that 36 out of 100 NASA missions would be failures. One possible reason for this large percentage could be due to the simplicity of the rules taught to the computer. Because of the complexity involved in rendering astrological judgments, I only programmed in many of the more clear-cut and simple rules and diagnostic procedures, not every rule or every situation. Also, the following analogy could hold true in this case. When one goes out to buy groceries in winter and has to travel slick or dangerous roads (or navigate severe traffic jams), it doesn’t always mean one won’t get to the store or will get in an accident; only that accidents are more likely under those conditions. Setting out on a trip in "bad weather" is only an inconvenience most of the time, not a life (or automobile) threatening endeavor; but it can make traveling much more dangerous.

Therefore, the approach taken in this study will be one that primarily looks for a correspondence between bad times and actual failed NASA missions, allowing for the fact that not every predicted "bad" mission will turn out that way.

THE NASA STUDY

A total of 96 NASA missions to the Moon, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter and beyond, were examined in detail. To find out if the missions were successes or failures according to the previously defined criteria, the National Space Science Data Center was consulted and mission descriptions were evaluated. Evaluations of the mission’s success or failure were straightforward. For example, blowing up on the launch pad is a definite and total failure. Other straightforward failures include a spacecraft losing touch with NASA due to antenna malfunction, such that the spacecraft was lost and couldn’t transmit the data it came there to collect (which constitutes failure to attain mission objectives). In the case of the Gemini missions for example, severe spacecraft problems that jeopardized the lives of the Astronauts and prevented accomplishing the docking maneuvers (which were the main mission objectives), were considered failures. The same applies to Apollo 13. Due to severe problems on the Apollo 13 mission, the astronauts were barely pulled through alive, and NASA did not accomplish the primary objective of their mission (manned landing on the Moon). Thus, Apollo 13 is classed as a failure.

As mentioned above, prior to running the computer analysis, the missions were analyzed with these success and failure criteria in mind. Again, the criteria are: that the achievement of primary mission objectives would be considered a success; while spacecraft destruction or severe problems with the craft that prevent reaching mission objectives, is a "failure." Out of the 96 missions studied, 24 were deemed failures according to the above criteria.

These are the results:

Out of a total of 96, the computer predicted that 26 NASA missions would fail, and 60 would be a success. Unlike the "random" data, this translates as a 27 percent failure rate, not 36 percent. This difference is reasonable (though on the unlikely side) and could be due to the "deviation from the norm" that occurs frequently in statistics data (a certain amount of deviation from random values is to be expected).

The computer prediction of 26 isn’t far off of the real life number of NASA mission failures, which was 24. It isn’t enough to closely predict the correct number of failures or successes, of course. What’s necessary is for the computer predictions to match the actual realities; i.e., to match up with the "real life" occurrences. In order to assess the importance of matching missions with their appropriate fates, the following example will be used, of matching colored cards.

Suppose a deck of 20 cards, deck #1, has 7 red cards and 13 blue cards. This means that 35% of the cards would be red and 65% of them blue, almost exactly the proportion of bad or unlucky times to "good" times in this computer study. And, suppose further one has another identical set of red and blue cards, deck #2, identical in the proportion and number of which were red and blue.

Refer to Figure 7, below. If deck #1 is shuffled and laid out on a table, and deck #2 is also shuffled and laid down next to it, what are the chances of the cards being arrayed exactly the same? The chances are minute, as the below illustration demonstrates. The odds are millions to one against exact correspondence, and even just the cards in positions 1 through 10 corresponding to one another exactly is completely unlikely. (One or two red cards can and do often correspond, because that is common enough not to be unlikely.)

Fig. 7: Layouts of two identical card decks, shuffled and compared to each other afterwards. 

Note how the red cards in the two decks of cards don’t match up very often, and how the patterns of red and blue are so different in both decks. If we assume that the red cards above correspond to "failed missions", then the above picture illustrates the likelihood of matching computer predicted "failures" with actual, "real life" failures. In this random scenario, there’s little correspondence between the red cards in the two layouts, except between one or two cards that happened to fall in the same positions. This is very typical of random occurrences. So, even if the computer predicts close to the right number of missions going "awry", the real trick will be in matching the successes with successes, and failures with failures, consistently.

ACCURACY RATE FOR NASA MISSION PREDICTION

If Astrology is truly random, and if following its rules doesn't produce a correspondence between NASA's predetermined pattern and the computer-predicted "ill-omened" times for launches, then there IS no relationship between the positions of stars over Cape Canaveral during a launch, and the success or failure of a mission thereafter. However, as you will see, there is just such a correspondence.

The table below documents actual NASA mission outcomes vs. computer generated predictions based on Vedic Astrology.

As is indicated at the top of the above table, the column second from the right lists the "human" evaluation of actual mission performance (i.e. success or failure according to criteria mentioned above). The rightmost column represents the computer generated predictions regarding those missions, based on Vedic Astrology rules the computer was taught.

Note in the above table, how closely the "success" and "fail" patterns match. There is little deviation between the two. What is remarkable about this is the success with which the "failure" or "unlucky" times match up with the actual "failures." It is much easier to predict success, because in this case success happens quite often. However, it is much harder to predict failure accurately. Even though the computer mis-classified a couple of successes as failures and vice versa, resulting in several "misses," it got most of the "failed missions" dead on.

Given that four miscalculations occurred out of 96, the accuracy rate is not 100 percent, but rather, 96 percent correct. That is still remarkably high!

The odds against there being this much random correspondence between failed missions and predicted "unlucky" times are millions to 1 (more like trillions, actually) against such accurate prediction. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Vedic Astrology techniques produce accurate results when used in this way, and that the existence of just such a correspondence is no accident.

But such amazing results do need more testing and verification. The results are so amazing that it took even me by surprise, and I’m quite familiar with the "uncanny" accuracy Astrology can have. Because these results are so stunning and incredible, I’d like to present the methodology so that others can replicate these results. There is a catch to this though, because this system and combination of rules produce results so accurate, that it must be protected and studied further, at least for the time being. Read the next section to see how you can help me test these theories.

Because the computer program is proprietary, I cannot post it on the Web for public consumption, nor lend it to anyone. Nor can I teach in this short article, the rudiments of Vedic Astrology. It would take a book and months of study for anyone to truly grasp the techniques and their use. However, I am willing to accept lists of dates, times and places for blind testing. Don’t inform me what are "supposed" to be failures or successes. I’ll run the dates and locations through the computer and send you back the results. If you want me to mail them back to you, enclose $1 for printing costs and include SASE.

AFTER I evaluate the dates and times on your blind data list, I want something in return. AFTER I’ve evaluated your data, I want to know the number of successes and failures I should have come up with, and which dates and times are successes or failures, and as many details as you have about each event. Also, I want to know the source of your data so I can verify its accuracy for myself, and possibly publish it in the future. Good data and feedback will help me determine the accuracy rate and if there are bugs in the program that need fixing. As I said, the computer can only recognize that which it is programmed to. It is certain that there will be some misses and inaccurate evaluations.

I regret that I cannot offer more proof at this time. This is not something one can easily duplicate in a laboratory. The only way it can be done is via computer, running the program I designed. And, I won’t do that unless I can run it live, or until or unless better security measures are in place to protect this invention from theft or misuse.

Why isn't this computer analysis 100 percent correct, instead of 96 percent? Even if we were to assume Vedic Astrology is capable of being 100 percent correct, I did not have a chance to program every single rule of Vedic Astrology into the computer, nor am I likely to. The process of diagnosis of planetary configurations is a complex one. Therefore, there are just some things that the computer will not take into account. Also, there is a lot of unexplored territory left in the field of Astrology. It is reasonable to conclude that more work needs to be done to understand the correspondences of stellar and planetary configurations to physical events.

While Space Shuttle missions were not analyzed in this study (largely due to lack of interest on my part; interplanetary missions seemed much more interesting), I did want to determine if the Space Shuttle Challenger’s horrific flight would show up as a failure using these same rules that applied to NASA interplanetary missions. The computer also correctly classified the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster as a "failure."

Because the techniques applied to NASA worked for the Space Shuttle Challenger mission, it followed that these same techniques might also be applicable to airplane flights. Since airplanes also make a voyage (though not into space), the same rules should apply.

APPLICATION OF THIS SOFTWARE TO AIRLINE DISASTERS

As stated previously, the computer predicts that according to the astrological rules its been taught so far, 36% of the time it’s a bad time to start a flight or journey.

However, NASA’s failure rate is much higher than that of airplane flights; necessarily so because of the myriad of dangers involved and the large distances traversed. While I have not calculated the percentage of airline flights that actually crash and burn out of those that are successful, the percentage is probably under 1% given how many flights leave and arrive every day; and is nothing close to 36%.

So, just because it’s a "bad time" to start an airplane flight, we know from experience and common sense that it does not follow that the flight is "doomed" to fail just because it starts out at this "bad" time.

However, it is useful to understand if there is a correspondence between actual airplane crashes and the computer generated rating of "failure." If true, this would mean that airplane flights that start at these "bad times" would be at higher risk of crashes than those that do not start out at bad times; though it would NOT mean that a particular flight is "doomed."

I was able to verify the takeoff times of 16 airplanes that became involved in disasters, for use in this segment of the analysis, including that of American Airlines 191, shown above.

The time an airplane "takes off" is essential to this system, because that time is deemed the "start" of the airplane’s journey. Evaluating star positions at the beginning of a journey is the means of "foretelling" its outcome in this study. Therefore, in this study it is not the time of the crash, but the time of an airplane’s takeoff that is most important.

If there is only a random correspondence between the 16 crashes and the rules used by the computer to evaluate success and failure, the we’d expect around 6 out of 16 flights (that’s slightly over 36 percent) to be classified by the computer as "failures." (See Fig. 10, below.) While the computer wouldn’t necessary classify them as successes or failures in the exact configuration shown below, the ratio of successes to failures should resemble Figure 10, if there is a random correspondence to times shown. And, though there are deviations in statistical data, it would be extremely unlikely for there to be a deviation beyond getting 10 out of 16 right, for example.

Otherwise, if the computer classifies most of these flights as "failures," then it would seem that the same Astrological rules apply to these 16 airline disasters as to failed NASA missions.

In this case (unlike in the NASA study, above), all of these flights were considered "failures," because they all crashed. The computer classified 14 out of 16 as failures. That means 88% of the 16 flights were classified correctly by the computer. That’s still a very high accuracy rate; and because of this high degree of correspondence, the odds against this being due to random processes are very high (millions to 1)!

The table below documents these results. Note the computer only differs with real life crash results twice (the blue "success" ratings illustrate this).

I would be interested to test more than these 16 air disasters, shown above. If anyone has access to more airplane flight disaster data (which includes takeoff times) from reliable sources, please send it my way. If this system continues to prove viable, it could serve as a "warning" to passengers or others who want to know when flights are at a higher risk of disaster. Research into this is therefore a must, if it could help save lives and help us understand something important about our universe.

Fig. 11: The remains of TWA Flight 800, afloat and afire.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This work is still in its infancy, despite its great results. Much more testing has to be done to further verify how accurate this system of rules is at prediction in other situations and for other NASA launches. However, after extensive testing, if this system ends up classifying as little as 75% of failures correctly on a consistent basis, that could prove useful for many things (not the least of which is, choosing a good time to fly!).

Even when the extent of the accuracy of this system is further proven by more studies, it would be dangerous to rely on it completely. This system will probably not be 100% accurate in our lifetimes, due to the vast, unexplored scientific territory that Astrology currently represents, and the complexity involved in evaluating planetary configurations, assuming that prediction accuracy will remain high for all other situations and tests.

The direction this research is headed is into many other applications of these techniques. Many activities have a beginning and ending; not just airplane flights and NASA missions. Businesses and corporations have start-up or incorporation dates, when the business or corporation can be said to have "begun." While the majority of new businesses and corporations fail (unlike airplane flights, where the majority are successes), it’s possible that their successes can correspond to "success" ratings issued by the computer, more often than "fail" ratings, using the same rules used for determining NASA missions. The principle is the same as with NASA missions. Recall that the working theory behind this study is, the position of stars and planets at the beginning of a venture (journey or business or whatever has a beginning) can predict the outcome of that venture. There are many other applications, which could include: 1) moving to a new residence (i.e. whether it’s easy or problematic), 2) buying a new home, 3) starting a new job, 4) success of an interview, etc., etc.

In order to verify that the software is predicting the outcomes correctly, more research must be done in all these areas. These areas will be explored in future studies, and airplane, space, and transportation disasters will also be studied further.