PROBABILITY CACULATIONS FOR CLEMENTINE TYCHO PHOTOGRAPH LUA1817e.

In the summer of 1996, researcher Richard Hoagland went public with data that suggested that the Apollo program had been manipulated with regard to launch windows and landing sites, dates and times. His evidence showed that the Apollo 11 mission had landed at Tranquility Base just as Sirius, a major astronomical component of Egyptian religion, was nearing 19.5 degrees above the horizon, and that 33 minutes later, as Armstrong and Aldrin conducted an admitted "religious ceremony", Sirius was at precisely 19.5 degrees. At the same moment at the future Apollo 12 landing site, the constellation Orion (another highly significant celestial player in Egyptian religion) was precisely bisected at the horizon. Hoagland asserted that this "Tetrahedral/Orion/Apollo/Egypt" connection was beyond the realm of coincidence, and later provided evidence that virtually all NASA manned and unmanned missions had been conducted around this reverence for Egyptian religious icons and tetrahedral ("Hyperdimensional") physics. This even included the famous "Face on Mars" photos, which showed Leo (the "Sphinx") and Orion ("Osiris") at 19.5 degrees above Cydonia when frame 35a72 was taken. (A brief overview of Hoagland's contentions is HERE).

Hoagland asked Marvin Czarnik, a former mission planner for NASA who had developed the original rendezvous and docking procedures for the Gemini program and had worked on all the later major manned space programs, to review his findings and develop a model for explaining the probabilities. Czarnik, who had independently confirmed Hoagland's previous Lunar findings vis-a-vis the "Tower", "Shard" and "Castle", was unable to provide a satisfactory model. He agreed, based on his experience of over 30 years, that the missions would have to have been planned specifically around these celestial alignments, but was not satisfied with his own quantitative evaluations.

The purpose of this article is to lay out a quantitative and replicable model for determining the probabilities. Rather than repeat the data being developed by Hoagland, I chose to investigate the alignments for a data point uncovered by this investigation, the Clementine Tycho photograph LUA1817e.040. I have since applied Red Shift 2 to the problem, and the results were promising. I have found significant alignments at Tycho, Tranquility Base, the Apollo 12 landing site in Oceanus Procellarum, Giza, Phoenix, Cydonia and the Mars Pathfinder landing site. These alignments are not random, and are accurate to within a 1 degree margin of error for latitude, and a 1 hour margin of error for time. They are entirely consistent with the Orion/Sirius/Moon and Leo/Cydonia/Pathfinder model demonstrated by Hoagland.

What follows is a step by step procedure for a simplified model to determine the probabilities for just one of these alignments, that of Orion at 19.5 degrees above Tycho when LUA1817e.040 was taken by the Clementine probe. The formula used was to multiply the number of hours in a day (24) by the number of days in the year 1994 (365) by the number of constellations listed in the Red Shift 2 astronomical program (72) by the number of degrees of latitude (360) and to divide this by the number of times that Orion (specifically the star Belatrix) passes through 19.5 degrees of latitude in the year 1994 (27). The result of this calculation was a probability of 8,409,600 to 1 against this alignment being coincidental.

I will show that this simplified model yields appropriate results, that the criteria used are not random or subjective, that the excluded variables are a comprehensive listing, and that their exclusion resulted in a solution most likely to be regarded as favoring the coincidental odds.

The first step is to determine the criteria for inclusion. In our example, I have chosen the Clementine Tycho photograph LUA1817e.040. I have chosen it as the test subject because it has a number of anomalous objects of great interest to this investigation, and because the data returned from Clementine allows for the timing of the exposure to be determined to within 1 second of Universal time. Besides the anomalous geologic contents of the image, it was also taken at very low altitude, yet another reason to consider it may have been the subject of pre-planning on the part of mission planners. It also remains one of the most highly processed and widely distributed images of the Clementine mission. It has been subjected to an unusual number imaging processes, revealing a wide variety of results and several anomalies (such as the enigmatic crater floor "cracks") besides the ones listed on this site.

The second criteria is the celestial object to be tracked. The Red Shift 2 program lists 88 major constellations and many more stars. Using a star would make the model almost unmanageably complex, and would not necessarily yield a more accurate result. A constellation is a much better choice to use for a probability model. In this case, Orion is ideally suited because of it's connections to the religions of ancient Egypt and it's demonstrable connections to the Apollo program. It has also been identified (Hoagland) as being intricately linked to the planning and execution of Apollo landings and other major mission events such as deorbit burns and even launches. Leo was considered and rejected, because although it has significance in the Egypt/NASA/alignment model put forth by Hoagland, it has been seen to be primarily associated with the Cydonia region of Mars rather than the Moon. Sirius is also a candidate, but was rejected for reasons of simplicity. It shall be added as we move to a more complex model.

The third criteria is to determine the latitude which will be identified as significant for the purposes of tracking. The choice here is 19.5 degrees. 19.5 is not only the "tetrahedral" latitude noted by Hoagland in the Cydonia ruins, but also is connected to Apollo through the Apollo 11 landing site. 33 minutes after landing, astronauts Aldrin and Armstrong held a "communion" ceremony when Sirius (another Egyptian religious icon) was at 19.5 degrees above the horizon and Orion was on the horizon at the future Apollo 12 landing site. Both Orion and 19.5 degrees appear later on other missions as well, so their selection as criteria is not random. 19.5 degrees is also the altitude of Orion and Leo over the Cydonia region when Viking orbiter photo 35a72 (the "Face" picture) was taken. 33 degrees was considered and rejected. Although it is considered significant both in the ancient traditions of Egypt and the modern rituals of Freemasonry (which Hoagland has also demonstrated is connected in a very significant way to this model), it has not yet been identified as a player in the model. The meridian was also considered, but it is seen on only a few occasions in the data supplied by Hoagland, and is not as prominent as 19.5 degrees. The horizon, (0 degrees) was also rejected for reasons comparable to those stated above.

The next criteria in this simplified model is to determine which portion of Orion shall be considered to be "at 19.5 degrees" over Tycho. In this case, I have selected the star Belatrix because it is the star closest to 19.5 positive latitude (actually 20.3, within a 1 degree margin of error) when frame LUA1817e.040 was taken. One degree shall be the margin of error for latitude measurements over Tycho.

Another factor here is timing. The Clementine mission lasted only about 71 days, during which Orion passed through 19.5 degrees on only 5 occasions. While taking such a short term snapshot of star movements and alignments might be considered more accurate than a longer term tracking, I felt it unfairly biased the results to the improbable. Further, the terrestrial year has been used since ancient times to track the procession of the stars, and the results are not significantly effected. For the purposes of this comparison, we shall use an entire calendar year of 1994 as the time frame to be examined.

The number of constellations visible above Tycho must also be considered. Of the 88 constellations listed in Red Shift 2, 16 were not visible above Tycho at 19.5 degrees at any time during the year. Therefore the sum of 88-16, or 72 , shall be our constellation multiplier.

Finally, the latitude and longitude listed for Tycho in the Red Shift 2 program is 43 degrees 24 minutes S by 11 degrees 06 minutes W. The Tycho anomalies are actually farther North, near the rim, so a latitude of 42 degrees 24 minutes is much closer and shall be used to determine the proper viewing position. When "Tycho" is later referred to as a location this corrected latitude is assumed.

To put this another way: "What are the chances that a probe could be sent to the Moon in a given year and take a picture of some really anomalous stuff on the floor of the crater Tycho at the exact moment that Orion, symbol of the Apollo program, would be at 19.5 degrees above this really anomalous stuff?"

OR - 24 hours x 365 days x 72 constellations x 360 degrees of arc divided by the 27 occasions that Orion passed through 19.5 degrees over Tycho in the year 1994.

In this section will consider first the deductive (or coincidence favoring) variables that were rejected for the simplified model and then multiplicative (or design favoring) variables. Each of these will be considered in an alternate and more complex model later in this paper.

The first deductive variable to be excluded is timing to the minute. The Clementine data determines the exact second of data acquisition in universal time. Because of the procession of the constellations, timing to to the minute would require an "astronomical" amount of multiplication and division to arrive at a satisfactory result. Timing to the hour is much better suited to a simplified model. I have looked at Red Shift 2 with regard to the 27 passings of Orion through the 19.5 positive latitude in 1994, and have found Orion is in a one degree margin of error window for between 4 and 6 hours on the 13 dates that I considered. I am satisfied that 6 hours is a maximum window for this margin of error calculation.

In other words, a maximum subtraction of 162 hours (24 hours x 365 days - 6 hours x 27 occasions in calendar year 1994) for margin of error window could occur.

The next excluded variable is the degrees of arc that Orion actually passed as it proceeded above the crater Tycho in 1994. Orion passed between 65 degrees of positive arc and 30 degrees of negative arc from the perspective of the crater floor. This would have reduced the degrees of arc multiple from 360 to 95 in the multiplicative (design) section of the equation. However, the coincidence model decrees that any constellation, not just Orion specifically, could have appeared in the proper place and time. As a result, restricting the degrees of arc is an unfair bias toward the the coincidental, so this deduction is rejected for the simplified model.

The first design favoring variable to be excluded is the star Sirius. Sirius also appears at 19.5 degrees above Tycho at the time that LUA1817e.040 was taken. This occurs on 13 of the 27 occasions that Orion passes through 19.5 degrees in 1994. However, adding this variable increases the odds dramatically, to some 17 million to 1. In the interest of simplification, Sirius will be excluded.

Next, we will consider alignments at other locations. In each case, the location has been selected with regard to it's significance in the ongoing extraterrestrial artifact investigation conducted by Richard Hoagland. The Apollo landing sites are all candidates, as are the Mars Pathfinder landing sites and Cydonia on Mars. On Earth, Giza, Egypt and Phoenix, Arizona are the principal sites. All these sites will be excluded from the simplified model, but included in the later complex model.

The Apollo landing sites selected are Apollo 11 in the Sea of Tranquility and Apollo 12 in Oceanus Procellarum. While it is reasonable to assume that if the design model is correct, all the Apollo landing sites would be set up in an "alignment grid" of some sort, only Apollo's 11 and 12 have been shown (Hoagland) to be consistently involved. Hoagland, in fact has referred to the first 2 manned landing sites as "temples" in this design model. This implies that later sites had a descending degree of significance symbolically to the "designers". Indeed, while all of the later Apollo sites did have significant alignments, I will only include the first 2 in the more complex model to avoid biasing the results to the design side of the argument.

As for Mars, the Cydonia region has always been significant in the ongoing investigation, so its inclusion is assumed. The recent Mars Pathfinder landing site, with it's "tetrahedral" (19.5) and "Masonic" (33.1) latitude and longitude has now included itself by virtue of the possibility of artificial structures having been discovered there. Since Cydonia has been identified with Giza, Egypt, not only by mathematical connections but by it's enigmatic land forms (pyramids and a "Sphinx-like" face), I would expect the design model to produce a significant result. It has been shown (Hoagland) that both Leo and Orion were in alignment when Viking frame 35a72 was taken over Cydonia. Since Leo is more closely affiliated with the Sphinx and the Face, I would consider Leo to be much more important in assessing alignments over Cydonia.

Pathfinder is new to the design model but it seems to fit in many ways. Besides its interesting location and "geology", it has confounded the design model by displaying a different "sky" than other missions. Where I believe Hoagland erred in his prediction that the probe would not land was in his expectation that the pattern would remain static. The placement of Earth on the horizon was the major astronomical alignment at the landing site. As has been shown, the horizon is one of the repetitive placements in the design model. The Earth itself is new, but it is not unreasonable to expect a "new" factor at a "new" location. Earth is also intimately involved in the design model, since it obviously is where the Pyramids, Sphinx, and man himself resides.

On the Earth, I have selected Giza, Egypt and Phoenix Arizona as significant sites to check for alignments. The Giza plateau, home to the great Pyramids and Sphinx, is indelibly linked to the entire mystery proposed by Hoagland. From the placement of the Pyramids to reflect Orion's belt (Hancock) to the Sphinx's alignment with Leo some 12,500 years ago (Bauval and Hancock) it is filled with the symbology seen in the Apollo landing site sky's. No test of the design model should exclude a look at the stars above Giza during a major space program event.

Phoenix is a recent addition, selected because of it's significant location (33.3 degrees latitude, which it shares, roughly, with Giza) and the fact that it was surveyed and founded by Masons. It was also involved with the July 20th 1997 major alignments during which NASA "lost contact" with Mars Pathfinder.

Adding these sites to the design side of the equation would significantly bias it if alignments were found. However, not finding any significant alignments would not subtract from this side of the equation since we are dealing primarily with Tycho as a location. For this reason these other sites are considered only in the more complex model.

All the data for this report was collected from the astronomical program Red Shift 2 by Maris Multimedia. This program is based on the DE 102 program developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

The first step is to determine whether an alignment occurs over the Tycho site when LUA18017e.040 was taken by Clementine's UV-VIS camera at 435.1 kilometers altitude. An examination of the image (below) shows that both Orion (with its "shield" star Bellatrix) and Sirius were above the horizon at 19.5 degrees when the image was taken. Bellatrix was actually at 20.3 degrees, within the 1 degree margin of error. This confirms the first observation which becomes the basis for all the analysis to follow.

The first portion of the equation multiplies the number of hours in a day by the number days in the year 1994.

Next we must consider that Orion was in a 1 degree margin of error window during the 27 occurrences at 19.5 degrees above the horizon. This window lasted between 4 and 6 hours depending on the occurrence. We will "round up" a best case scenario for the coincidental model, and assume 6 hours per occurrence. Note that the same six hour window must apply around the 2/28/94 date that the image was taken.

By subtracting these 156 hours from the total hours, we arrive at a satisfactory and coincidence biased sum.

For reference purposes, I have included the table below listing all 27 Orion "pass-throughs" of 19.5 degrees over Tycho for the year 1994. (See Table 1.)

Listed in the table below are the 27 occurrences when Orion was over Tycho at 19.5 degrees. An "R" next to the time denotes that Orion was rising, a "D" that it was descending.

We will now add in the number of constellations visible above the horizon at Tycho during the year 1994. The number according to Red Shift 2 is 72.

Hours x Days - Margin of error hours = 8,598 hours x 72 Constellations = 619,056

In order to complete the simplified equation, we must now multiply this number by the 360 degrees of arc.

We will now divide by the 27 occasions that Orion passed the 19.5 degree latitude over Tycho.

24 x 365 = 8760 - 162 = 8,598 x 72 = 619,056 x 360 = 222,860,160 / 27 = 8,254,080

The answer to our question "What are the chances that a probe could be sent to the Moon in a given year and take a picture of some really anomalous stuff on the floor of the crater Tycho at the exact moment that Orion, symbol of the Apollo program, would be at 19.5 degrees above this really anomalous stuff?"

It could be argued that the above model is too simplistic to achieve an accurate result, or that the excluded variables would have produced a more coincidental result. As I will show, this is not the case.

Let us consider just the time variable, by only looking at the 71 day mapping phase of Clementine over Tycho, rather than the full calendar year 1994.

This changes the Margin of error window variable to 26 hours during the 5 Orion "pass throughs" of 19.5 degrees during these 71 days.

24 x 71 = 1,704 - 26 = 1,678 x 72 Constellations = 120,816 x 360 degrees of arc = 43,493,760 / 5 = 8,698,752

In other words, this version actually increases the odds from 8,254,080 to 8,698,752.

By taking the full calendar year along with just the degrees of arc that Orion actually traveled, we find a result more generous to the coincidental model but still with somewhat long odds.

24 x 365 = 8760 - 162 = 8,598 x 72 = 619,056 x 95 degrees of arc = 58,810,320 / 27 = 2,178,160

So, even in the these highly biased results, the odds are still better than 2 million to one.

Since it is drastically unbalanced to include only the variables that favor the coincidence model, we must now consider the excluded "design" variables.

Since both Orion and Sirius appear at 19.5 degrees above the horizon when LUA1817e.040 was taken, I can significantly prejudice the results by narrowing the sky search to just these occurrences in 1994. There were 13 such events out of the 27 over Tycho that year. If we consider the "best case coincidence" equation and reduce the divisor to 13 ...

So the odds increase to 4.5 million to one. If we add Sirius to the simplified equation ...

None of these options even considers the alignments at the other 6 locations. If we assume a best case coincidence model for each of the other locations yields similar results to the Tycho location, the equation would still multiply enormously ...

As you can see, the addition of even one of the other alignment sites increase the odds "astronomically". The numbers - even in this "worse case design" scenario, quickly assume incalculable levels. It can be argued that not all of the other locations would have better than 2 million to one odds, but this is by no means a safe assumption. A "final" version of this paper will include just such odds calculated for the other sites.

Our results have shown that the simplified model is a sound means for arriving at a balanced probability model for the Tycho celestial alignments. Further, I have demonstrated that it is extremely unlikely that these alignments are random. When similar and contextual alignments at other locations are considered, the possibility that they are coincidental becomes microscopic. From the data acquired with this model I can reasonably conclude;