UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 6

Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800
Archived: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:26:51 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Rudiak


>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch.nul
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 22:39:33 -500
>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Hutchinson

>>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)

Because of the length, I'm breaking my response to Printy into
two parts. This first part deals with Printy trying to defend
Charles Moore's alterations to the original Mogul Flight #5 map.

The second part deals with Printy trying to defend more of
Moore's flawed mathematics, as pointed out originally by Brad
Sparks. It's a real hoot people, since it reveals just how
incompetent Printy himself is in his mathematics. He also
perpetrates his own little hoax in a desperate attempt to
salvage what little is left of Moore's model.

>IT'S ALL ABOUT MAPS
>>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".

Big deal! The point is the original ground trajectory plot
showed only Roswell base on the ground trajectory plot and
Flight 5 passing about 4 miles south of the base.

It passed very close to the base. That's the point!

What changes did Moore make on his redrawn map of Flight #5
which he claimed "was taken without change" from the 1948 plot?

1. FACT: He removed Roswell base from the plot and replaced it
with Roswell town 6 miles to the north. Now it appeared that
Flight 5 came no closer than 10 miles to "Roswell".

2. FACT: In an e-mail debate between Sparks and Moore mediated
by Karl Pflock, Moore compounded this by claiming that Flight 5
came no closer than 15 - 20 miles of the base.

3. FACT: The original Flight 5 trajectory plot placed the crash
site about 16-17 miles east of the base. Albert Crary's diary
ambiguously placed it 25 miles east of "Roswell". But Moore
placed it about 31 miles east on his plot.

See my detailed discussion of this, including the a scan of the original Figure 32 of Flight 5, and then Moore's alterations of the plot at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

Instead of dealing head-on with these points, Printy below will try to take this whole discussion off on numerous tangents, nitpicking over completely unimportant details.
>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?

Look at who's being "purposely disengenuous" here! That's the
whole point that Brad has been making all along. Moore changed
"Roswells" on us despite saying the map was reproduced "without
change."

What we have here is a typical Printy diversion. The one who
should be making a "clarification" here is Printy (or Moore).
Why did Moore swap "Roswells" on us, replacing the base on the
original plot with the town? Could it be so that it wasn't as
obvious just how close Flight 5 actually passed to the base?

>Instead he gives
>us the rather deceptive impression that the balloon passed 4
>miles south of town.

More lying by Printy. The very point Sparks (and I) have been
making is that the balloons passed 4 miles south of the _base_,
not the town, and Moore's change to the original plot obfuscated
this.

>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.

Let's get back to the REAL point. Moore removed Roswell base
from the original plot, replaced it with Roswell town, giving
the false impression that the balloons passed 10 miles south of
Roswell base instead of the 4 miles on the original plot.

Why did Moore remove Roswell base from the plot?

>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

Why did Moore remove Roswell base from the plot, which showed
Flight 4 passing within about 4 miles. Why is Printy dodging
this point?

Answer: He's setting up one of his usual straw man diversions
from the _real_ point.

>>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.

Who cares? That's not the _real_ issue.

>>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.

Who cares? Again this isn't the point. [And incidentally, Moore
WAS one of the principle authors of the report from which the
plot was taken: ("Prepared by Charles B. Moore, James R. Smith,
and Seymour Goldstein")]

>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.

Completely false! It doesn't show it "running off the map". The
indicated crash site went outside the boundaries of the printed
circular polar graph lines, but there is NO indication
whatsoever that it was actually off the page, as Printy is
claiming. Again, refer to the original scan:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

If the person who plotted this trajectory map had wanted to
indicate some off-page crash site, he could very easily have
made a small notation to that effect, such as "actual crash site
8 miles further east." Or he could have attached an extension to
the page with some tape.

Instead, all that is noted here is an "X" marks-the-spot crash
site and the words "ON GROUND". Again, look at the original
plot. Printy is flagrantly lying here.

>It is important to note is that there is no longitude and
>latitude given for this location, as was the case on flight #6.

It is important to note, since Printy doesn't, that it was
common _not_ to note the latitude and longitude of the crash
site, as was the case with Flights #7, #8, and #11. In other
words, having the latitude/longitude marked at the crash site
was the exception, not the rule. (Again check the above link,
which also has a scan of Flight #11 lacking any mention of
longitude and latitude for the crash site. The same is true for
the trajectory plots of Flights #7 & #8.)

>Flight #6, and #7, have a bulls eye for the location of their
>landing sites.

Gee, why doesn't Printy mention that #7 DOESN'T have the
latitude and longitude marked despite having that "bulls-eye"?
This is just Printy again diverting from the main issues by
discussing irrelevancies.

>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.

This is another of Printy's strawman arguments. The "bullseye"
has nothing to do with it. Printy's bullshit has everything to
do with it. They also had precise ground tracks and precise
crash sites for #8 and #11 also, and yet no "bullseye". For #5
the draftsman used an "X". For #8, the draftsman used an "*".
For #11, no symbol was used. So what?

>>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

Again so what? That's not the point. The original plot placed it
16-17 miles east of the base. Crary's diary said 25 miles east
of "Roswell" (ambiguous as to what "Roswell" meant).

But Moore places it about 31 miles east of "Roswell." Moore's
plot doesn't agree with anything in the original records (or
even his own recent e-mail claim of position), despite his
statement that his redrawn plot of #5 "was taken without change"
from the 1948 plot?

When you completely alter the final crash site, you have altered
the trajectory. The ultimate crash site IS an integral part of
the trajectory, and Moore altered it.

Now that's the REAL point!
>>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.

Again, notice how Printy never addresses the REAL issues, but
always tries to take things off on irrelevant tangents.

Nitpicking over whether Brad Sparks got the misplot mileage
exact isn't important. The _real_ point is that Moore seriously
misplotted the position.

>I tried to figure several ways Sparks could measure 34 miles but
>just couldn't. Why would Sparks make such an incredible error?

Who cares? The _real_ issue is that Moore obviously altered the
graphic.

>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.

Based on Printy's obvious dodging of the REAL issues, it is hard to take his 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."

So why does Moore plot it about 31 miles east of Roswell, by
Printy's own measurements? If he were plotting the Crary crash
site, shouldn't it be 25 miles east of Roswell?

That's the REAL issue!

>Therefore this statement agrees with the journal.

But the _real_ issue is that the PLOT doesn't agree with the
journal. Crary's diary says 25 miles. Moore's revised Mogul
summary in his book (Table 1, p. 79) again says "25 miles east
of Roswell." Moore changes this in his recent e-mail to 26
miles. And after all this, he plots the crash site as 31 miles
east.

With Moore fuzzy math, 25 changes into 31. Believe it or not,
Printy has a highly strained "explanation" for this as well.  If
you go to Printy's Web site at

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/rudiak.html

where he devotes most of his space to haranguing me and to
irrelevant, straw man arguments/smoke blowing (just like here),
Printy tries to spin Moore's little "misplot." Here's how he
does it.

You see, it turns out Crary got it wrong too! Yessirree, people.
Not only was the original Mogul trajectory plot wrong, so was
Crary's diary. Moore said the Flight #5 crashed near an oil
derrick, because the chase plane had to "buzz" the drilling crew
who were going after the balloon on the ground.

Then Printy finds two present-day oil wells about 29 miles east
of Roswell, or about 2 miles from where Moore misplotted Flight
#5's crash site.

Printy conveniently provides a topo with the three crash sites
marked on it. Scroll down Printy's present "Rudiak" web page to
near the bottom. There's the 16/17 mile site, the Crary 25 mile
site, and the 31 mile site Moore actually used. (Incidentally,
Printy actually places Moore's crash site about 0.5-1.0 too
close to these wells, Printy apparently having caught a little
more "Mooreitis".)

Then, according to Printy, since there were no oil wells 25
miles east of Roswell near the Crary site, Moore was justified
in putting the crash site where he did.

Now, mind you, Moore never says that's what he's doing. This is
nothing but Printy trying to save Moore's ass by inventing a
justification for Moore's obviously misplotted location. Moore,
in fact, in recent e-mail was still claiming 26 miles east of
the base, not 31 miles.

What Printy _doesn't_ point out to you is that there was yet
another oil well much closer in to Roswell, and very near the
16-17 mile crash site marked on the original graphic. Look real,
real closely a mile west of where Printy has the 16-17 mile site
and you will see the words "Ranch" and "Oil". This particular
oil well was about 15.5 miles east of the base. (On the same
topo, Printy has the crash site about 16.5 miles east of the
base center, which agrees with my measurement from the original
Mogul trajectory plot.)

>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.

All the topo maps show are dirt roads all over the place. How
does Printy determine that "the most likely route" was 25-26
miles east of Roswell? Printy just picks "25-26" miles out of
thin air in a further effort to confuse the issue. Obviously
what he is really doing here is spinning the 25/26-mile
Crary/Moore crash-site figure to where the _turn-off_ to the
crash site was, not where the actual crash site was.

But Crary/Moore aren't talking about a turnoff point. The crash
site itself was in some way 25 miles east of "Roswell." Yet
Moore plots it as 31 miles east. How does that work?

Perhaps what Crary's ambiguous "25 mile" figure really reflected
was the actual total driving distance from Roswell to the crash
site, rather than the air miles east of the base to the 16/17
mile crash site. That would be a very simple way to reconcile
the conflicting crash site figures from Crary's diary and the
original Mogul plot.

Look at Printy's topo and you'll see it would have been about a
16 mile ride out Highway 380 to dirt roads directly north of the
16/17 mile site, then about another 9 miles of driving off the
main highway on these dirt roads. Total is about 25 miles.

That's very straightforward and makes a lot more sense than
Printy's spinning of a crash site distance into an imaginary
turnoff point to the crash site.

Another point is that the 15-mile oil well (the one Printy won't
mention) is actually closer to main roads than Printy's oil
wells. Look at the topo and you'll notice that northwest of the
16/17-mile crash site is "Bottomless Lakes State Park" with a
marked gravel road to it coming off Highway 380 east out of
Roswell town. This road to the park existed in 1947 as well and
would have gotten a recovery crew to within 5 or 6 miles of the
17-mile site There are no comparable developed roads near
Printy's strawman oil derricks now or in 1947.

>>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?

Moore, e-mail, July 22, 2002, to Karl Pflock, forwarded to Brad
Sparks, who forwarded it to me: "As far as to whether any one at
Roswell Army Air Field noted NYU Flight #5 as it passed to the
east about 15 or 20 miles south of the airfield at a height of
about 9 miles on June 5, I have no information."

Here Moore has moved the closest approach of #5 to "15 to 20
miles south of the airfield" instead of the 4 miles south of the
base as actually shown on the original Mogul trajectory plot.
Moore seems very intent on concealing just how close #5 actually
came to the base. Moore's statement, in fact, is nothing more
than a flagrant lie.

He then tries to minimize the actual angular extent of the balloons:

  "As far as to whether any one at Roswell Army Air Field noted
NYU Flight #5 as it passed to the east about 15 or 20 miles
south of the airfield at a height of about 9 miles on June 5, I
have no information.  (At a slant range of about 20 miles, the
flight train would have subtended an angle of about 0.3 degrees
at an elevation angle of about 24 degrees.)"


Repeat, in _reality_, the balloons passed only 4 miles south of
the base. The altitude, according to the original Mogul
time/altitude and ground-trajectory plots, was more likely 6-7
miles, not 9 miles, and the slant distance more like 7-8 miles,
not Moore's 20. A 600+ foot length balloon at that distance
would have subtended an angle of about 0.8 - 0.9 degrees, about
3 times greater than what Moore has.  (As a way of comparison
the angular extent of the sun or moon is about 0.5 degrees).

Moore goes on to claim that maybe clouds concealed the balloons
from the men at Roswell, another indication that he is very
concerned about even the possibility that maybe Roswell base
knew about the balloons:

  "I do not remember what clouds developed on that day but it is
likely that there were some cumuli so that the balloon train was
not necessarily  conspicuous as seen from Roswell. In any event,
we had no reports of the train being seen by anyone at Roswell."

However, if you go to the Mogul summary tables, it indicates
that Flight #5 was tracked for "90%" of its flight by theodolite
from Alamogordo. That means they tracked it visually clear to
Roswell, a distance of over 90 miles through haze, "clouds", and
intervening mountain ranges. So why would Moore think than
Roswell base's view would be obscured by "clouds" from only a
few miles away?

>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.

This is another "who cares?" diversion.  The _real_ issue here
is Moore and how he has been caught time and time again playing
games with the numbers. His clear-cut alterations of the
original Flight #5 graphic are just one example.

>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)

So why did Moore in a recent e-mail grossly exaggerate the
distance to 20 mile? Please explain to us, oh great Moore
defender, how Moore came up with yet another one of his highly
bogus numbers.

>and very small (the balloons were only about
>15 feet across at maximum size)!

Gee, about the width of a commercial jet cabin. And the balloon
trains length was in the neighborhood of 600 feet, 4 times that
of a 737 jet plane. One can _easily_ see a 737 flying overhead
at an altitude of 7 miles. But Printy says you couldn't see one
of these Moguls at the same distance, no siree!

Furthermore, according to the brilliant Printy on his Web site,
Roswell base would have no one observing the skies. Yes, no one.
Everybody at the base was staring at their feet. There were no
control tower operators, no plane spotters, no weather
observers, no flight crews, etc. Somehow nobody was watching and
nobody was capable of seeing the balloon train.

Moore lied about the distance of the balloons from the base and
ignored the fact that they were visible from Alamogordo while
claiming clouds may have obscured the view from Roswell base.
This is on top of how he altered the graphic showing just how
close the balloons came to the base, and further altered the
position of the crash site to push the distance nearly twice as
far away as the actually graphic showed it.

And Printy tries to claim there is no evidence that Moore is
concerned about this.

Printy is also obviously concerned about this, judging by how
hard he tries to ridicule the notion. Note how Printy tries to
pretend the balloons couldn't be seen from the base, trying to
minimize the FACT that they would have been very visible. They
were also being chased by a B-17. That means there would also
have been an unidentified plane in Roswell base airspace. But
according to Printy, everybody at Roswell base was taking a
siesta and totally unconcerned about such matters.

Ironically, one of Moore's own claims is that Mogul people
couldn't get on the base because of the extremely tight
security:

Moore AF interview, 1994 (p. 37): "...We went over and tried to
get into the weather station at Roswell and because of the
atomic bomb security of the 509th, as I remember, we couldn't
even get on the base..."

But in Printy FantasyLand, the same concern for security
apparently didn't extend to their airspace. Nobody was watching
and nobody cared if a strange balloon and an unidentified plane
came within a few miles of the base.

>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.

It's no "theory." It's a simple _fact_. Moore _indisputably_
altered the map, and all these alterations serve to distance the
Flight #5 trajectory from Roswell base. Again people can refer
to scans of the original flight plot vs. how Moore graphed it.
See:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html

People, be sure to read Part 2 of this fascinating debate with
the renowned Moore defender Tim Printy. It's a laugh a minute as
Printy fumbles badly with the math and engages in some more big-
time lying in his hapless attempt to defend Moore.


David Rudiak


[ 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