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: Tim Printy <TPrinty.nul>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:08:29 EST
Archived: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:12:54 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2


>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 -0800
>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2

<snip>

>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.

Brad made the statement that these errors pushed the
flight 50 miles to the northeast. I was questioning
how he arrived at this value.

>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 used this method based on several reasons:

1. Moore stated that once the balloons hit the tropopause at
52,000 feet, they lost there rate of rise. If one started with
the 100 ft/min rate of rise, the rate of rise at 52-52.1K would
be 350 ft/min, followed by a still rapid 70 ft/min at 52.1-
53.7K. This is unlikely based on looking at flight #5's
performance where the rates were 50-53 ft/min. It seemed like a
conservative way of plotting the ascent rates.

2. Moore's values of ascent clearly show he intended the rates
of rise to be applied this way.

3. I was not aware of any balloon flights that had a 100ft/min
rise rate for the first 2.8 minutes. It did not conform to known
performance of the flight records.

>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.)

The spreadsheet I used has 21 ft/sec so there must be an error
somewhere.

>Now remember, this is my best-guess reconstruction of the
>"Printy way." God only knows what the man really did!

You are correct that I maintained the 15ft/min value for the one
step. I made a transposition error on the next step in my spread
sheet resulting in the difference between the two values on
descent.

>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?

I used the original timeline since it was what Moore assumed to
be the duration of the flight. This is something you contest in
your webpage as being too long. Now you seem to want the flight
to last another 85 minutes?

>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.

It is not significant because the flight's direction/speed is not
affected. Keeping with Moore's assumed duration of flight,
there is no change in direction/speed for this increased time
in the stratosphere. This is what I meant by being "not
significant".

>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.

If I had made the flight longer you surely would have protested
that the flight was unrealistically long. Obviously, I could not
get it right either way.

>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.

You missed the point. I was wondering from the "mathematically
challenged" point of view, how Sparks reached his value. Based
on what you have written, it seems one of you also has problems
with their math.

>(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.)

Of course I would point this out. The whole point of my argument
was not if Moore's model was correct but that the errors noted
did not seem to have a great effect on the times involved and
that Sparks proclamation that it made the flight move 50 miles
further was incorrect.

>The _real_ issue is what _Moore_ did.
>Moore's Flight #4 model trajectory is hopelessly broken. It's a
>complete and utter fraud.

Not exactly. I have stated before, and will state again, that
Moore's flight path in his book was not necessarily THE flight
path that flight number 4 took. You have created many models and
variations on this theme and seemed to have created a
"footprint" to demonstrate that Moore was correct in that the
winds would take the flight in the direction of Foster Ranch.
Any number of variables can shift the location of the landing
site in this "footprint". You even showed one method of the
flight to get to the Foster ranch. There are other variables
that could push it there as well. If you look at what I have
written, I have never stated that your analysis of Moore's math
was wrong. I have never stated Moore's model was accurate. I
have only argued that your interpretation of the meaning of
these errors was wrong.


>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 stated that he could easily refute this suggestion and
then compounded one error to make four. This was not correct.

>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.

Exactly what map alterations are "indisputable"?

His trajectory for flight #5 is accurately represented on the
maps with the exception of the endpoint, which is in dispute.
As I have shown, Sparks attempts to make it look like Moore
was moving the path farther away on each successive
publication is false.

If you are talking about the location of the RAAF not being in
his maps, I can hardly say this was an "alteration". You might
call it an omission but, then again, anything to prop up the
RAAF must have known theory is fair game.

The location of Roswell in his maps can be explained when one
examines the locations of all the landmarks and the locations of
landmarks/fixed points shown in the charts for flights 5 and 6.
 It seems that the NYU used the center of Alamogordo AFB, while
Moore used the launch point from the north end of the field. I
notice you chose to use the position of Roswell and RAAF that
was furthest from Alamogorodo. Why didn't you choose to use the
values for RAAF listed on fig. 32? Since there is a significant
difference, did you try and explore the possibility of which was
correct? I don't think so based on what I measured.


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