UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 3

Re: MOGUL Mangled Math

From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch.nul>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
Archived: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:33:21 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math

>From: Brad Sparks <removedbyrequest>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:36:27 EDT
>Subject: MOGUL Mangled Math

(Tim asked me to forward this to the List- BH)


>Closest Approach to Roswell: Moore's 1948 map shows
>the balloon passed 4 miles south of Roswell.

Is Brad being purposely disingenuous here? The map Sparks is
referring to was _not_ made by Prof Moore, but created in 1948
by the NYU Research Group and appeared in the Air Force book
"The Roswell Report". Brad knows that on this map, "Roswell"
refers to the Roswell Army Air Force Base (RAAFB), and not the
town of Roswell. Why doesn't he clarify this? Instead he gives
us the rather deceptive impression that the balloon passed 4
miles south of town. On the NYU map, the actual distance from
the _town_ of Roswell was about 10 miles, since the base was
roughly 6 miles south of town. As for other values Sparks gives,
I used photoshop and the best ruler I could find to try and
determine the exact distances.

>Moore's 1995 map shows the balloon passed 10 miles
>south of Roswell.

Photoshop = 10.6 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 10.4 miles to town of Roswell

>Moore's 1997 map shows the balloon passed 11 miles
>south of Roswell.

Photoshop = 10.2 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 10.3 miles to town of Roswell

I am not sure how Sparks made the distance INCREASE, when the
distance appears to have DECREASED slightly and agrees with the
1948 values of Roswell town's actual location. Perhaps he can
enlighten everyone with his measurements/calculations, and why
he resorted to misleading everyone about the designation in the
1948 figure.

>Moore's 1948 map shows the impact point 17 miles
>east of Roswell.

Again, this is the NYU map, created by the NYU group from the
data obtained at the time, and not Moore's personal plot. In the
NYU graph published in "The Roswell Report", the impact point is
not plotted, but is denoted by a dotted line running off the
map. It is important to note is that there is no longitude and
latitude given for this location, as was the case on flight #6.
Flight #6, and #7, have a bulls eye for the location of their
landing sites.  In contrast, flight #5 has some odd designator
that seems to be an arrow pointing towards a small line (or
maybe an odd shaped "X"). If they knew the exact location, I am
sure they would have created a plot similar to those in flights
#6 and #7. Based on this information, the value in the plot
appears to be an estimate at best.

>Moore's 1995 map shows the impact point 30 miles
>east of Roswell.

Photoshop = 31.4 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 31.3 miles to town of Roswell

>Moore's 1997 map shows the impact point 34 miles
>east of Roswell.

Photoshop = 30.7 miles to town of Roswell
Ruler     = 30.8 miles to town of Roswell

I tried to figure several ways Sparks could measure 34 miles but
just couldn't. Why would Sparks make such an incredible error?
Maybe he can answer that one. Most important to note is the
distance again decreased (although by a distance that seems to
be within the range of error on the size pictures that are being
used). Based on this information, I have a hard time taking
Sparks comments and accusations seriously.

>Moore in 2002 now claims the impact point was 26
>miles east of Roswell. (Moore email to Pflock, June
>20, 2002.)

It might help to know in which context this was made. Albert
Crary, who was the Project Manager for the NYU flights in June
1947 noted in his journal for June 5, 1947 "- recovered
equipment some 25 mi east of Roswell." Therefore this statement
agrees with the journal. However, I am also aware that they had
to detour off the main road to get to the site. Topographic maps
show that the most likely route for this exit is about 25-26
miles east of Roswell.

>Moore of course has a reason to want to make it seem
>that the Flight 5 balloon pass much farther away
>from Roswell base than it actually did.

"Of course"? Can Sparks or Rudiak produce one quote or
indication that the proximity of Flight #5 to Roswell or RAAFB
was of concern to Moore? Can Sparks or Rudiak produce ONE report
anecdotal (made before 1994), or otherwise, that states base
personnel had seen this balloon flight? No they can't. Yet, they
want all to believe that everyone on base could easily see
flight #5 as it drifted past; even though it was extremely high
in the air (about 4-5 miles or greater making the straight line
distance 5-6 miles) and very small (the balloons were only about
15 feet across at maximum size)! Since they refuse to admit that
it was likely that nobody noticed the flight, they resort to
this map altering theory to help bolster their case.


>I'll just say that if they are corrected the balloon >lands
almost 50 miles too far to the NE of the >Foster Ranch debris

(As a word of explanation here, Brad was referring to a table
created by Prof. Moore to demonstrate a possible flight path for
NYU Flight #4. This table, and the plot he created from it, was
published in his co-authored book "UFO Crash at Roswell" (Saler,
Ziegler, Moore: 1997 Smithsonian Institution Press), and used
surviving wind data charts from a nearby weather station
(Oregrande, NM) and national weather maps for June 4, 5,6 1947.)

To bolster his claim, Sparks lists some 19 calculation errors in
altitude, and produced yet another new landing site- one of the
many that Sparks/Rudiak have come up with over the course of
this latest barrage. However, he does not show how he reached
the value of 50 miles (Rudiak originally stated this error was
17 miles in his plot). Using Moore's assumed values of ascent
and descent listed in the table, I recomputed the times to reach
these levels.  A brief synopsis is below:

Moore's Table Recomputed

Time to 53,700 ft  125.5 min      126.5 min
Time to 58,000 ft  317.3 min      289   min
Time to 60,750 ft  396   min      472.4 min
Time to ground    466.2  min      551.1 min

The only major error is the time it takes to reach the peak
altitude after 58,000 feet. The extra 84.9 minutes seems large
but its effect is not significant if one sticks to the original
time line. This is because the wind speeds and directions are
essentially the same at these altitudes. Assuming the original
timeline (where the descent begins at 396 minutes), the peak
altitude reached is around 59,500 feet (vs. 60,750) before the
descent begins.

Other than this large increase in time in the stratosphere, most
of Moore's errors listed during ascent and descent effectively
cancel out. The descent time has increased by about 8 minutes
but this can not explain the additional 33 miles Sparks claims.
Perhaps Sparks can explain how he computed his 33-mile increase?
Were there "behind the scenes" manipulations of the data? I
could be wrong but based on what I calculated and considering
the problems Sparks had with measuring distances on a map, I
question this value without any supporting information.


Brad notes an error in an earlier statement I had


(Excerpts from the Glossery: "u= eastward-directed component of
the wind at the indicated level; "v"= northward-directed
component of the wind at the indicated level; "HDO" Horizontal
Distance Out from the launch site in the North Area of the
Alamogordo Army Air Field)

>Tim Printy's desperate suggestion that Moore goofed
>and used the 9 mph wind velocity from the prior row
>instead of 12 mph on the same row is easily refuted
>by looking at Moore's north and east, or "u" and
>"v," velocity vector components which are 9.9 mph
>and 6.7 mph, the first of which is already obviously
>larger than the 9 mph value, and they agree with the
>236 degree and direction, not the 9 mph wind's 197
>degree direction. Vector combination of the "u" and
>"v" values using the simple Pythagorean theorem
>yields 12.0 mph exactly as it should, not the 9 mph

Sparks, after "easily refuting" my suggestion with the
Pythagorean theorem and the listed wind speed vectors, now notes
the HDO, X and Y distances (errors 20-22) don't match these same
vectors! If these vectors are not matching the distances
computed, how can they "easily refute" my suggestion? This is
strange logic indeed.

My error was stating the 197-degree value was used. Looking back
on my spreadsheet, I see that I actually used the 236-degree
value with the 9-mph wind speed to get Moore's values of HDO, X,
and Y. Sparks refers to the explanation as "desperate". I am not
sure how he figures this was the case since I was only trying to
show them how Moore arrived at his plot. Contrast this to Sparks
obvious mistakes with measuring distances on maps and Rudiak's
(and apparently Sparks) ludicrous, and easily refuted, "secret
shift of five data points" theory to explain Moore's plot. One
wonders which persons are truly "desperate"?

Since Sparks still can't seem to figure this all out, I will go
the extra step for him to show how Moore made his mistake on the
first line. If one uses the 9mph with the 236 degree bearing we
get the following distances in HDO, X and Y:

0.42 HDO
0.235 X
0.348 Y

Compare these to Moore's values

0.4 HDO
0.2 X
0.3 Y

The 0.4 mile HDO fits with the 9mph value (2.7min*9mi/hr
*1hr/60min = 0.42 miles). The ratio of X and Y agree with a 236-
degree bearing. So it was Moore's error in using the 9-mph vice
12-mph wind speed that is in play here and not a multitude of
errors as suggested by Sparks. I can only assume that Sparks was
more interested in "padding" his list than trying to determine
the root cause of the values in question.

Sparks compounds his ignorance by creating Error 23. If one adds
the 0.348 value to the 0.32 value of Y for the next step (if you
use the original values and not the rounded one used by Sparks,
this computes to 0.34 miles), we get 0.668, which rounds to 0.7
miles (thus giving the 0.4-mile difference).


Sparks and Rudiak can criticize the methodology Moore used to
compute his flight path and his mathematical errors. However, I
should point out that neither Sparks, Rudiak nor myself are
trained Atmospheric Physicists, and a critique of Moore's
assumptions and his computations might best be left to one so
trained. Never-the-less, the efforts Rudiak/Sparks have taken to
suggest that Moore has purposefully altered data and maps just
don't wash when closely examined.

Their efforts appear "desperate" and hypocritical. Examine
Sparks's obvious errors in measuring the distances on the 1997
map and then presenting them as facts. Were these errors done
purposefully or simply because Sparks just couldn't use a
measuring instrument correctly? Then examine their "desperate"
efforts to jury-rig Moore's data and concoct their "secret
shift" of 5 data points.

You be the judge.

Tim Printy

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com