UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 7

Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
Archived: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:33:14 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2


PART 2:

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

Remaining true to the thread title, Printy below mercilously
mangles Mogul math beyond all recognition.

>IS IT _real_LY FIFTY MILES?

>>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 field.
>(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.

Printy trying to set up another diversionary straw man. The
_real_ point is Moore made numerous, unexplained math
"mistakes." Remove the math mistakes, and Moore's own model
predicts a sizable miss. Put in reasonable assumptions instead
of the ones Moore incorporates into his model, and you get a
very big miss.

As to the multiple crash sites, that's because there is no "one"
crash site that can be deduced from a model like Moore's. The
trajectory and crash site one gets depends entirely on the
assumptions that go into the model, hence multiple crash sites.
It's very simple really, but apparently not to Printy.

I modeled different trajectories showing the effects on
trajectory of different assumptions, including modeling the
flights based on proper use of math and the assumptions that
actually adhered to Moore's stated assumptions, while he quietly
and secretly used others.

>However, he does not show how he reached
>the value of 50 miles (Rudiak originally stated this error was
>17 miles in his plot).

What Brad Sparks pointed out has nothing to do with what I was
saying. Brad was pointing out that Moore's table for Flight #4
showed rise and fall rates that differed substantially from
about half the ones he _really_ used. This is absolutely
_indisputable_. It's more of Moore's fuzzy math and typical of
how Moore claims to be doing one thing, but does something else
entirely.

I on the other hand was pointing how that the method Moore used
to calculate a trajectory from his own table was totally wrong
and in violation of his own table. I detailed this on Updates
last month:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m09-008.shtml

Printy can't refute a word of this. (In fact, he makes exactly
the same sort of math error below.) All Printy can do is try to
create as many diversions and straw men as he can.

Notice also how Printy tries to _again_ duck the key point
raised by Sparks, namely that Moore's math is incredibly
horrible! Fully half of Moore's 40 rise rates are off by 5% or
more from the ones he claims he is using in his table. A quarter
are off by 40% or more! (If you want to be _real_ picky about it
and give Moore no margin for error, 39 out of 40 of his used
numbers are wrong!) But Printy goes into Moore damage-control
mode once more, and tries to minimize this, resorting to his own
mangled math to do it.

>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

There is only one _right_ way to do these calculations. The
calculations are also simple and straightforward: find the
difference in altitude between two _successive_ data points and
divide by Moore's given rise rate to get the elapsed time
between points. Then add this on to the previous time of flight
to get the new time. When you do that, you get the following
corrected times of flight for the altitudes Printy lists above:

           Moore's table  Correct way  "Printy way"
Time to 53,700 ft   125.5 min    112.2     126.5
Time to 58,000 ft   317.3 min    231.8     289
Time to 60,750 ft     396 min    363.9     472.4
Time to ground      466.2 min    444.2     555.1

Naturally Printy totally screwed it up. Just like Moore
improperly pushed all his velocity data back one data point, it
appears Printy decided to push back the rise rate data instead
of carrying it forward from one point to the next, which is the
way the table definitely shows the calculation should be done
(see below). That is seemingly how he gets his first two
"corrected" times.

I can only guess as to how he gets his last two "corrected"
numbers, which are out there in never-never land. I can get
close to his numbers if I alter the rise rates somewhat in the
middle, which Printy has to do with his screwed-up methodology
to get his peak altitude "corrected" time value.

The reason is if you calculate backwards, as Printy seems to
have done to get his first two "recomputed" times, the rise rate
swings negative _before_ the balloons reach their peak altitude.
The balloons are still rising when the rise rate says they
should be falling.

So Printy stuck in some new positive rise rates up there around
the 58,000 foot level until he got to peak altitude. Then he
switched back to Moore's data set, only this time he seems to be
calculating correctly by carrying the calculation forward from
one point to the next. Unfortunately, by the time he gets around
to calculating correctly, the "corrected" times are horribly out
of whack

If you are confused, it is only understandable. Welcome to the
wonderful whacky world of Moore/Printy mangled math.

First of all, why is there only one correct way to do the
calculation? This is because of the way Moore set up his table.
The rise rates can't swing negative until after the balloons
have stopped rising. Otherwise they can't rise. So let's go to
the area of Moore's table near the peak altitude:

Altitude  Rise rate Moore   Rise rate     Printy
      really uses (fpm)  Moore's table  probably uses
53700      19.4       40         40
54500      38.6       40         27
57000      11.7       27         20
58000      38.5       21         20
60600      20.0       20         15
60700       8.1       15         15
60750     -446.4      -300        -300
57000     -600.0      -400        -400
54000     -476.2      -500        -500

This partial table also gives some idea of just how screwed up
Moore's rise rates are, seemingly using one thing while in
reality he uses something else entirely.

Back to the subject at hand. Notice that Moore's rise rates are
positive and the altitudes increase until the peak altitude of
60,750 feet at which point Moore's table (and also the value he
really used) turns negative. That means if the rise rate is
carried _forward_, the next altitude should be _lower_ because
of the negative rise rate. Lo and behold, the next data point of
57,000 feet is indeed lower, so this is obviously the _correct_
way to read the table.

But the backward "Printy way," the rise rate would swing
negative at the 60,700 foot level, before the balloons reach
peak altitude of 60,750 feet. Any fool can see that the
_correct_ way to do the calculation is to carry forward Moore's
rise rates _forward_ throughout the _entire table_. But
apparently not Printy.

However, even Printy is smart enough to realize he can't reach
peak altitude with a negative rise rate. So he inserts an extra
positive rise rate (15 ft/min) into his table. (Also when I
tried to reproduce his "corrected" times, I found that he also
seemingly altered Moore's rise rate of 21 ft/sec to 20 ft/sec.
Printy is changing Moore's table, but he doesn't tell us that.)

Once Printy reaches peak altitude of 60,750, he returns to
Moore's actual table values and stops pushing them back. But by
then it is way too late.

Now let's look again at the "corrected" times of flight the
"Printy way" vs. the right way, and my attempt to reproduce the
"Printy way" with the above table rise rate values.

         Moore's time  Printy's  My Printy  The correct
                time above calculation  way --calc.
                             forward
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to 53,700 ft  125.5    126.5    126.7     112.2
Time to 58,000 ft  317.3    289      289.3     231.8
Time to 60,750 ft  396      472.4    472.7     363.9
Time to ground     466.2    551.1    552.9     444.2

Now remember, this is my best-guess reconstruction of the
"Printy way." God only knows what the man really did! Like with
Moore's fuzzy math, trying to figure out exactly what was done
leaves one scratching ones head. It is a lot easier to reproduce
correct math instead of incorrect math. It is only painfully
obvious that that something was done terribly _wrong_.

Printy also apparently still can't figure out that Moore also
ran his table wrong by pushing his velocities backwards. It's
almost comical: trying to defend a hoaxer.

>We are clearly
>The only major error is the time it takes to reach the peak
>altitude after 58,000 feet.

Giggle. The _only_ major error?
>The extra 84.9 minutes seems large
>but its effect is not significant if one sticks to the original
>time line.

Notice that Printy is now scrambling to save this big mess.
Printy is also lying big-time here. Printy's extra 84.9 minutes
turns out to be hugely significant.

Now has anybody noticed something else? What happened to the
"corrected" time line? Wasn't the whole point to "correct" the
time line using Moore's actual table rise rates and see what
happened?

So why is Printy now going back to Moore's original time line?
What Printy is trying to CONCEAL here is that his own
"corrected" time line creates a trajectory that misses by a huge
margin. When I run Printy's "corrected" time line complete with
Moore's flawed backwards velocity calculation (that Printy still
claims is correct), you get a trajectory that lands the balloons
almost 20 miles west of the "desired" Moore landing spot on the
Foster Ranch. Can't have that happen, can we?

The big problem is that extra 84.9 minutes, which Printy
disingenuously labels "not significant." A big part of those
extra minutes adds a lot of westward drift mileage to the
trajectory, resulting in the final big miss. By going back to
Moore's original time line, he can lop about 77 of those extra
minutes off of the flight.

But Printy doesn't tell you any of this. Printy is a true
student of the Charles Moore school of secret, back-stage
mathematical manipulation.

Because Printy doesn't want you to know this, he starts
confabulating and hopes he can sneak this by you. Hence
statements that there are no "major errors" and the "effect
isn't signficant" (but with the subtle caveat, only if you go
back to Moore's 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.

Notice how Printy is changing Moore's table in a desperate
attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

What we really have here is a tacit admission by Printy that
Moore's math is hopelessly broken. But Printy doesn't have the
integrity to state this. Instead he is still playing apologist
for Moore and trying to save Moore's ass with his own little
hoaxed "corrected" time trajectory.

>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.

Again, who the hell cares? The _real_ point is that Moore's math
is completely screwed up and his "calculated" trajectory
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch crash site a very bad joke. To the
list of hopelessly screwed up math we can also add the work of
Tim Printy.

Not that it really matters anymore, but what _really_ happens to
the trajectory when one uses Moore's printed rise rates rather
than the ones he really used and calculate the whole thing
_correctly_ instead of the "Printy way"?

If you do the corrected time calculation together with incorrect
Moore math of running all the velocities backwards (which Printy
still adheres to), the balloons end up about 5 miles south of
where Moore places them. If you use proper math techniques
throughout, the balloons end up about 10 miles east.

(Printy will no doubt try to make an issue that my results don't
agree with Brad Sparks. But this is another "who cares?"
diversion. The _real_ issue is that Moore's math and model are
horrifically in error.)

So what the hell was Moore doing when he said he was using one
set of rise rates but in reality using another? I'm still not
sure, but my best-guess was that he was secretly "fine-tuning"
his trajectory. When he said he was "calculating" a trajectory
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch he meant "exactly", even if that
meant significantly changing half of his rise rates behind
everybody's back.

>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.

Again, who the hell cares? Maybe Printy should try staying on
point for a change. The _real_ issue is what _Moore_ did.
Moore's Flight #4 model trajectory is hopelessly broken. It's a
complete and utter fraud.

>WHEN ONE ERROR BECOMES FOUR:
>Brad notes an error in an earlier statement I had
>made:

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

>(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
>>figure.

>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.

What is Printy jabbering about here? Let's look at the beginning
of Moore's table:

                      Distances (miles)
Time Altitude   Wind    Wind speed   Moore   Printy
        speed direc. East North   x  y    x  y
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 0.0  4069    9  197   2.6  8.6  0.0 0.0  0.0 0.0
 2.8  4921   12  236   9.9  6.7  0.3 0.2  0.46 0.31
 5.5  6562   15  242  13.2  7.0  0.9 0.6  1.06 0.63
 8.3  8202   23  247  21.2  9.0  1.8 1.0  2.05 1.05
12.4  9843   17  242  15.0  8.0  2.9 1.5  3.07 1.60
17.8 13123   32  219  20.1 24.9  4.8 3.8  4.89 3.83

The math problem here is Moore's strange initial x & y values
that even Printy couldn't reproduce at first. Moore has the
winds blowing strongly north at time 0, but at time 2.8 minutes,
Moore's first x or East value is greater than his y or North
value.

Printy loves to crow how he was able to reproduce Moore's
trajectory, and the way he did it was to push back every single
wind speed and direction to the previous time. Thus the wind at
time 0 was replaced with the winds at time 2.8', the winds at
2.8 ' replaced with the winds at 5.5', etc., clear through to
the end of the table.

Of course this "technique" throws out the first point and causes
several other far more serious mathematical disasters to the
table that Printy completely ignores.

(Again, I detailed these on Updates a month ago, and notice that
Printy has yet to address a single one of them. The problem is
he can't, since the proofs of error are mathematical in nature
and completely irrefutable. See "Math vs. Moore".)

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/oct/m09-008.shtml

All Printy seems to care about is that he reproduced Moore's
trajectory. Never mind that Moore did the math completely
improperly and Printy is merely reproducing bad math. If Moore
said 2 + 2 = 3 and Printy can show how Moore got 2 + 2 = 3, then
pay no attention to the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

Now back to the initial x/y problem. Note that Printy, even
after improperly pushing back all the wind values, still can't
reproduce Moore's values. Now he says he can. What he does is
takes the 9 mph wind speed at time 0 and mixes it with the 236
degree wind direction at time 2.8 minutes.

Isn't it amazing what one can do when you reinvent math the
Moore/Printy way? Just do anything you damn well please and then
proclaim victory.

Again never mind that this is a total crock. All that seems to
count in Printy's little debunker brain is that he has
reproduced what Moore did, not that Moore did it the least bit
correctly.

>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"?

My "shift of five data points" was my attempt to try to
reproduce Moore's obviously incorrect calculation leading to his
completely bogus Flight #4 trajectory. Printy's great "triumph"
was figuring out that Moore shifted all his data points. Printy
apparently doesn't even realize that this is even more damaging
mathematically than just changing 5 points, since it thoroughly
(rather than partly) corrupts the symmetries and correspondences
Moore built into his own table.

But again, never mind. Printy showed how Moore got 2 + 2 = 3,
and in Printy's mind, that's all that counts. He is _still_
either too stupid to realize that this is wrong or too
disingenuous to admit it.

Why won't Printy address the mathematically provable FACT that
Moore's computation using his own table is completely WRONG? The
reason is he can't. Thus he tries to bury us in straw men,
pointless tangents, diversions, rants, and trivia. All this is
very deliberate on his part to try to avoid dealing with the
actual key issues.

>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:

Below is a good example of the trivia Printy wants to bog the
discussion down in. It's just one more example of incredibly bad
Moore math, but doesn't affect the final outcome significantly
enough to even bother with.

>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.

Whoopie-do! Printy figured out how Moore did it _wrong_! Have
you noticed that Printy has been totally unable to show how
Moore did anything right?

>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).
>WHO IS WRONG AND WHO IS RIGHT?

TRANSLATION: Moore did the math wrong, Sparks and I point it
out, but in Printy's twisted logic, figuring out how Moore did
it wrong somehow magically makes it right.

>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.

This is another tacit admission by Printy that Moore's math is
hopelessly wrong. But Printy obviously doesn't have the guts or
integrity to simply come out and admit this. Instead he resorts
to an old debunking standby namely APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, or if
you prefer, "Father Knows Best."

How dare we criticize Moore's methodology and math errors! Why
Moore is a high and mighty ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST (gasp!!), so if
he says 2 + 2 = 3, who are we mere mortals to question it?

Printy Reality Check: One doesn't need to be an ichthyologist
to know when dead fish smell. Moore's math "mistakes" can be
easily figured out by any smart high school student. No PhD's
are required here. There is also clear-cut method in Moore's
madness. These "mistakes" are not random. Just about all of them
seemed designed to advance Moore's Mogul agenda.

All the math "mistakes" and highly questionable assumptions in
Moore's Flight #4 trajectory recreation are done to take #4
"exactly" to the Foster Ranch. As I tried to show on my Web
site, if Moore had actually done the math right and stuck to his
stated assumptions instead of secretly changing his assumptions
in midstream, the balloons would have missed by dozens of miles
(perhaps as much as 70 - 100 miles given his wind data).

And Moore's _indisputable_ map alterations all seem designed to
conceal just how close Flight #5 came to Roswell base the next
day. This also seems designed to bolster Moore's claim that
Roswell base knew nothing about Mogul and thus somehow were
grossly confused when they came across the debris the following
month.

>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.

When closely examined that's exactly what they show. Moore
purposefully altered data and maps. It's frankly irrefutable,
but Printy is using another debunker technique of total DENIAL,
or the BIG LIE technique.

>Their efforts appear "desperate" and hypocritical.

Psychological projection by Printy.

>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

Anybody halfway _competent_ in math can see that what Moore has
done is a complete fraud. Brad Sparks and I are just the
messengers here.

A religious debunking fanatic like Printy may believe he has God
on his side, but Brad Sparks and I have something even better,
namely MATH. Math has provable outcomes and the math tells us
Moore perpetrated a hoax, plain and simple.

I welcome or thorough peer review of Moore's work by _competent_
and _honest_ individuals. I have no doubt as to what the final
judgment will be since the numbers speak for themselves. All of
Tim Printy's desperate spin-doctoring can't save him.

David Rudiak


[ Next 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