C2.0 Third Quantative Analysis Attempt

      The third quantative analysis attempt involves assigning a set of weights to the six major aspects and assigning a set of weights to various orbs in an attempt to produce a feature by which geocentric planetary configurations of the 60 Item Perdurabo/TAARP Data Base can easily and correctly be assigned to the proper class of High PHENOMENON, Medium PHENOMENON, and Low PHENOMENON.

      Table C-1, which is identical to Table B-1 in Appendix B, presents an example of the total set of planetary pair aspects and orbs for one geocentric planetary configuration. It corresponds to one of the Medium PHENOMENON data items. Note that there is no data for Pluto (), that for each column the aspects are listed from top to bottom in order of increasing orb, and that horizontal bars are drawn to distinguish orbs of 10° and less from those of more than 10°. Also note that the aspect given for any planet pair is that aspect for which the orb is smallest. So, for example, the first row of the column indicates that :2°. This means that for the six major aspects of , , , , and :

1. The angular distance between the Sun () and Saturn () is 2° smaller or larger than the 30° of a semi-sextile () aspect.
2. For any of the six major aspects other than , the difference between the angular distance and the aspect angle is greater than 2°.
3. Of the six major aspects, the angular distance between and most closely approximates a semi-sextile aspect.

      For each column, the planets are listed in increasing order of orb. So for the Sun () column, the order is , , , , , , , indicating that , have the smallest orb and , have the largest orb.

      The weight scheme presented here actually utilizes two different methods of weighting as presented in Table C-2 and Table C-3. For Method I, the total weight of any planet pair combination is the product of the aspect weight and the orb weight. For example, since :2°, the total weight for , is 2 (the aspect weight) x 7 (the orb weight for orbs of 2° to 4°) = 14.

      For Method II, the total weight is just the value in the appropriate row/column element of Table C-3. So for :2°, the total , weight is 8.

      The cumulative weight of a planet for a given weight method is just the sum of each of its planet pair total weights for that method. Table C-4 presents the two sets of total weights and the two cumulative weights for Methods I and II for the aspect/orb situation given in Table C-1.

      It is important to note that the weights in Tables C-2 and C-3 were produced "off the top of TAARP's head", and are definitely more in accord with Perdurabo's work than Nelson's. Nelson would probably have much more steeply rolled off the orb weight for orbs greater than a few degrees. Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 present the cumulative weights for Method I and Method II, respectively, for the aspect/orb data in Table C-1. Note that the abscissa of figures C-1 and C-2 is divided into evenly spaced intervals with the beginning of the first interval corresponding to the planet with the smallest cumulative weight and the beginning of each subsequent interval corresponding to the planet with the next highest cumulative weight. Therefore, the curves are always monatonically increasing. The ordinate represents the cumulative weight itself. Note that the sequence of planets from left to right does not have to be the same for the two different weight methods for a given geocentric planetary configuration. More importantly, note that for a given weight method, the sequence of planets from left to right is rarely if ever the same for any two items in the 60-Item Perdurabo/TAARP Data Base. This is of course due to the fact that:

1. Each item represents the level of manifestation of the PHENOMENON at a specific point on the surface of the earth, at a specific date and at a specific time of day. Thus for each item a very specific geocentric planetary configuration manifests.
2. The totality of the 60 items corresponds to a wide region of the surface of the earth and a period of time of many years.
3. Pursuant to a) and b) there is great variability in the 60 geocentric planetary configurations for the 60 items.

      For each of the 15 High PHENOMENON geocentric planetary configurations, a curve corresponding to the one in Figure C-1 was constructed. From this set of curves, a mean curve was constructed. Figure C-3 (H) presents the means and standard deviations of the Method I cumulative weights for the 15 geocentric planetary configurations for which the PHENOMENON was High. The mean values are printed in the figure. The standard deviations are indicated by brackets. The abscissa and the ordinate in Figure C-3 (H) are the same as they are for Figures C-1 and C-2. The means and standard deviations in Figure C-3 (H) correspond to cumulative weight categories. For example, the number 311 in Figure C-3 (H) is the mean value of the cumulative weights of the 15 planets (one planet from each geocentric planetary configuration) which had the highest cumulative weight for each of the 15 geocentric planetary configurations, irrespective of which planet in each of the 15 individual cumulative weight curves had the highest cumulative weight.

      Figure C-4 (M) is similar to Figure C-3 (H) and corresponds to the 18 Medium PHENOMENON geocentric planetary configurations. Figure C-5 (L) corresponds to the 27 Low PHENOMENON geocentric planetary configurations. Figures C-6 through C-8 are similar to Figures C-3 through C-5 and correspond to Weight Method II.

      For Weight Method I, the interesting thing about Figures C-3 (H), C-4 (M), and C-5 (L) is that for the five highest cumulative weight positions, the curve of Figure C-3 (H) is higher than the curve of Figure C-4 (M), and the curve of Figure C-4 (M) is higher than the curve of Figure C-5 (L). This indicates a correlation between the level of the PHENOMENON and cumulative aspect weight. The same trend can be observed for Weight Method II. This pattern can be clearly seen in Figures C-9 and C-10. Figure C-9 presents mean and median data for Weight Method I. Figure C-10 presents mean and median data for Weight Method II.