UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 8

Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1

From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:55:09 -0800
Archived: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 13:15:15 -0400
Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 


>From: Tim Printy <TPrinty.nul>
>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:03:58 EST
>Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 03:41:34 -0500
>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1 - Printy

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 1
>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:44:38 -0800

<snip>

>>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?

>Same old tired argument. Moore plotted his map the way he
>did. Feel free to ask him some time. I find it interesting that
>you seem to think in 1995, he foresaw this argument that you
>and Sparks were pushing forward.

FACT: Moore in 1995 claimed he was reproducing the Mogul summary
Figure 32 of Flight #5 "without change".

FACT: But Moore removed Roswell base from the Figure 32 plot and
replaced it with Roswell town 6 miles further to the north. Now
it appeared that Flight #5 came no closer than 10 miles to
"Roswell". Why do that?

FACT: Moore completely relocated the crash site position from
Figure 32, which was 16-17 miles east of the base, to a site
about 31 miles east that doesn't correspond with anything in
Mogul records. What possible justification did Moore have for
that?

FACT: Brad Sparks _did_ recently ask Moore through e-mail about
the changes he made in the plot, and Moore came back with the
garbage that Flight #5 passed no closer than 15 to 20 miles from
the base. He further tried to raise a smokescreen that maybe
clouds concealed the balloons from base personnel, when he knew
full well they were still tracking Flight #5 visually through
theodolite over 90 miles away from Alamogordo.

Moore's contemporary "defensiveness" on the issue indicates he
is _still_ very much concerned with how close the balloons
passed to Roswell base and even the possibility that the base
knew full well about the balloon launches over a month before
the so- called Roswell incident.

It is also pretty clear by how strongly Printy still tries to
ridicule this that he too is a bit touchy about the close
proximity of Flight #5 to the base.

All in all, I think there is a very strong circumstantial case
for Moore's 1995 and 1997 plot changes _not_ being accidental or
innocent but very deliberate, all designed to remove the Flight
#5 trajectory as far from the base as he perhaps thought he
could get away with. (It would also go hand in hand with the
shameful way in which deliberately deceived the public in 1997
with his hoaxed Flight #4 trajectory.)

People can go to my website and examine scans of Moore's maps
vs. the original Mogul Figure 32 to see that Brad Sparks and I
aren't making this up

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

Also compare this to my own graphic showing all the various plot
changes and crash sites for Flight #5 on my home page critizing
Moore's hoaxing of the Flight #4 trajectory. Go to the first
addendum titled "More Moore Mischief" to view the graphic and
further discussion of it:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

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.

>Is it an "X" or is it an arrow going towards a line? The
>notation is somewhat confusing isn't it?

Definitely looks like an "X" to me and definitely has "ON
GROUND" written right next do it, doesn't it?

>I would be interested
>in seeing the original and not the photocopy in the RAAF report.

It's not going to change anything. It's still going to say "ON
GROUND" and have an "X" for the crash location. There are no
other notations indicating in any way that the crash location
was really somewhere else off the page, such as "real crash site
** miles further east."

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

>Actually it is.

No it's not. Brad Sparks and I didn't claim we were replotting
Flight #5 "without change" and then make changes like Moore did.
Moore's graphic, among other things, completely misplotted the
Flight #5 crash location and thus altered the end part of the
Flight #5 trajectory.

Whether Moore misplotted the crash site as 31 miles east of
Roswell or 32 or 34 miles doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
He misplotted it, period. It doesn't remotely correspond with a
single thing in Mogul records, not the original Figure 32
graphic or Crary's diary

>You and Sparks direct your anger at Moore's
>errors and then say it is ok for you to make obviously bogus
>mistakes.

And my "bogus mistakes" were what exactly? I haven't seen you
refuting any one of my arguments that Moore falsified his Flight
#4 trajectory. The math is hopelessly "botched" and Moore
contradicted his own stated assumptions in setting up the math.

Your big "triumph" is figuring out how Moore ran his
"calculation."  I couldn't completely figure it out. I could see
that Moore was getting 2 + 2 = 3 and figured out how he might
have gotten 2 + 2 = 3.1. You figured out how he got 2 + 2 = 3.
Whoopie do!

The problem is, debunker boy, 2 + 2 = 4. Moore did the
calculation WRONG. It's _provable_ mathematically. You
apparently either don't have the brains to see that or the
integrity to admit it. Again, here are the basic mathematical
arguments that remain unrefuted (because they are irrefutable):

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

The fact that I couldn't completely figure out how Moore did his
math WRONG in your delusionary world somehow becomes a "bogus
mistake" on my part and somehow makes Moore right. This is logic
turned upside down, right out of Alice in Wonderland. Right is
Wrong and Wrong becomes Right.

>You also proudly point out mistakes that you feel are
>in my arguments/calculations but then it is OK for Sparks to
>make obviously wrong and misleading measurements. Sounds
>hypocritical to me.

What a bunch of sanctimonious piffle. Neither Sparks or I
altered a graphic or promoted a hoax like Moore did and then
tried to sell it to the public using the reputation of the
Smithsonian Press. Whatever truly minor mistakes Sparks or I
might make along the way in pointing this out do not excuse or
change the irrefutable guilt of Moore.

>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".

>Actually, I plotted the point based on the values Moore had
>listed in his table.

Thanks for the clarification. However, this just happened to
move Moore's crash site closer to those oil wells that you want
people to fixate on, than had you used Moore's graphic crash
site, right? Instead of 1.5 - 2 miles away (graphic crash site),
now you have the crash site slightly closer than a mile (table
crash site).

This also points out that Moore actually has two different
_false_ landing sites for Flight #5, one in his table and one is
his graphic, just one more indication of how "sloppy" Moore is.

>>I also stated the locations were "approximate".

Printy is right here -- he did. However, of the two Moore
landing sites, he deliberately chose the one that he thought
best advanced his argument, and never mentioned the other one
further from the oil wells.

>Examining the values for flight #6's landing site
>and RAAF in the NYU plots, it seems that the data team started
>their flights at the center of Alamagordo AFB. However, Moore
>seems to have used the actual launch point of the north hanger.
>This explains why Roswell is about a mile to the west in his
>graphic and many of the other landmarks are off if one uses the
>center of the base.

And off we go with more Printy spin about Moore's altered Flight
#5 graphic. Notice closely in the following discussion how
Printy talks out of both sides of his mouth on this subject.
Here we have him trying to justify why Moore moves the location
of Roswell town west from where it was marked on the actual
Mogul plots. (This is in addition to Moore removing the original
Roswell base from the Flight #5 graphic and substituting the
town of Roswell in its place 6 miles further to the north and 6
miles more removed from the close approach of #5 south of the
base.)

Printy, doing a little mind-reading, claims Moore used a
different location at the base for the launch site, apparently
closer to "Roswell". Therefore, he moves "Roswell" (i.e., the
town), slightly closer to the launch location. This is supposed
to explain the mislocated "Roswell" slightly west of where the
Mogul draftsmen plotted it on their maps.

OK, but even if we grant Printy this, isn't the _logical_ thing
to assume that Moore would "correct" everything on the map in
the same way, i.e. move _everything_ on the map slightly closer
by the _exact same amount in the exact same direction_? That
would include the crash site as well, right?

Wrong! You and I are thinking _logically_ here. Obviously you
just don't understand PrintyThink.

>Moore, apparently unaware of this difference
>accurately transcribed the path from figure 32 onto his map. As
>a result, the plotted position on his map is now further from
>Roswell than it should be. It measures about 30.5 miles but it
>really was about 29.5 miles.

Ha, ha, ha! What a riot! Moore, supposedly aware that the
original graphic with its landmarks is plotted "improperly",
moves these a mile or two or so west. But somehow he is
"unaware" of this for the crash site and fails to make the same
"correction."

Even if you buy this line of baloney, if you are again
_logical_, this would mean the "unaware" Moore would leave the
crash site at the exact same "wrong" place on the map, right? In
other words, Moore moves "Roswell" a mile or two west, thus
increasing the distance from Roswell to the "crash site" by one
or two miles.

So if we are dealing with the "crash site " on the original
Figure 32 Mogul graphic about 16 miles east of the base, it's
distance would increase to 17-18 miles. If we were dealing with
the ambiguous "25 miles east of Roswell" from the Crary diary,
the distance from "Roswell" would increase to 26 - 27 miles."

But Moore plots the crash site about 31 miles east of Roswell!!
Or in other words, the supposedly "unaware" Moore doesn't just
passively leave the crash site at the same place on the map. He
_actively_ moves it in the _opposite_ direction from the so-
called "correction" to the Roswell position and by a _different
amount_.

He moves "Roswell" 1 or 2 miles west, but he moves the crash
site 4 or 5 miles east, relative to the Crary position, or about
13-14 miles east relative to the original Flight #5 graphic
crash site. Again refer to my web links above to see this for
yourself.

Printy is either too dumb to realize his argument makes no
sense, or is just trying to slip this by everybody. He uses the
exact same boneheaded, self-contradictory argument on his
Website.

>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.

>Actually I do state the oil well is there. I think you need to
>get your eyes checked because I stated in the line directly
>below the map:

>"Interestingly, the location shown on figure 32 does seem to be
>near another oil well making one question both Crary's and
>Moore's locations."

Indeed he does say this on his revised "Rudiak" web page. My
apologies. See:

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

In my defense, about the time when Printy originally threw up
his "Rudiak" page defending Moore and attacking me, I was
forwarded a Printy e-mail on Sept. 24, 2002. In this e-mail, he
called attention only to his 2 oil wells shown on a Terraserver
topo map near Moore's falsified #5 crash site.  He made no
mention of any other oil wells in the area, even though the oil
well very near the 16-mile site would have made shambles of his
argument. (It was also only a click away on the Terraserver
website. All he had to do to see it was go west one click
towards Roswell.)

Instead he advanced the straw man argument that the Crary 25-
mile site had no oil wells near it, whereas he found 2 oil wells
near Moore's 31-mile crash site. (Note: But no mention of him
looking for oil wells near the 16-mile site.) This somehow
justified Moore placing the site there at 31 miles, even though
it had _zero_ basis from either the Crary diary or the original
Figure 32 Flight #5 plot. (Also, I might note, Moore himself
never makes this argument, always talking about the Crary 25-
mile site, even though he plots it as 31 miles.)

Possibly Printy simply overlooked the closer-in oil site only
about a mile west of the 16 mile crash site. He now notes it on
his revised Web page and includes a nice topo graphic with all
three crash sites marked on it. In a rare moment of clarity,
even he acknowledges that this oil well gives him pause and
might very well make one question both the Crary and Moore
locations. Even he realizes that there is now a well that
conforms exactly with Moore's story of the chase plane buzzing
an oil rig crew near the originally plotted crash site. (It also
conforms well with Moore's original memory of where they went --
 see below.)

But that would mean admitting that Moore's plotted location was
obviously wrong, even deliberately falsified. Instead of
following this to its logical conclusion (Moore wrong/hoaxer),
Printy goes back into spin mode. Immediately after his quote
above:


   "However, recall what Moore stated about the NYU plot and how
the balloon altitude plots could not match the horizontal plot.
If figure 32 were accurate, the balloons would only have drifted
about 24 miles in 84 minutes. This means that the winds would
only have been blowing at 17 mph in contrast with wind speeds on
the ascent that were 30-50 mph. As Moore pointed out, this was
unlikely. We also have the fact that Moore was at the recovery
location meaning that he could substantiate the location."


So, in other words, Printy chooses to simply ignore the actual
data (Figure 32 crash site location near oil well on topo map),
instead falling back on his typical "appeal to authority"
argument. Moore was there, we weren't.

But what did Moore originally have to see about this? In his
1994 Air Force interview (before he began playing games with the
graphic in 1995), p. 34, he said the following:

   "On one of the early flights we went out east of Roswell, and
I remember _beyond the Bottomless Lakes_, going out in oil well
country, picking up one of our flights that had come down."

The key here would be Moore mentioning them going "beyond
Bottomless Lakes" into oil country. Go look at Printy's nice
topo map again and you'll see that Bottomless Lakes State Park
is about 10/11 miles east of Roswell base. There is an actual
developed road off the main highway that goes there both now and
in 1947, and the 16/17-mile crash-site with oil well nearby lies
about 5-6 miles southeast of this. (Contrast this with the
Moore/Printy site being another 15 miles or so further east of
this.)

All the pieces of evidence for the actual Flight #5 crash site
being the 16-mile site fit together nicely here There's the
hard-data original Mogul plot showing the 16/17 mile crash site,
a developed road out there to Bottomless Lakes that would have
gotten them close (Moore said they were directed out to the
crash site by radio from the chase plane), and even a nearby oil
well that conforms with Moore's original account of them buzzing
off an oil crew.

Even Crary's seemingly incongruous "25 miles east of Roswell"
would work if Crary was referring to driving miles from Roswell
instead of actual air distance from the base. The 16/17 mile
site would be about 16 driving miles east of Roswell out the
main highway and then another 8/9 driving miles south of the
main highway.

The other argument about the winds being too strong earlier
during ascent for the crash site to be as close as the Mogul
graphic indicated after the balloon made its descent makes
superficial sense, but is hardly the point. The actual data from
the original Flight #5 graphic indicates that the winds _did_
die down considerably near Roswell. Even Moore's bogus 31-mile
site would require the winds to be blowing less strongly during
descent.

(For the math wonks, Flight #5's rise time to stratospheric turn
was 135 minutes or 2.25 hours during which time it traversed
about 98 miles. Avg. speed was 43.5 mph. Descent time from
stratospheric turn was 96 minutes or 1.6 hours. Descent distance
to the 16/17 mile site about 27 miles or average speed about 17
mph. Descent distance to Moore's 31-mile site about 40 miles, or
average air speed of about 25 mph. The closer site requires the
winds to drop off by about 60% during descent compared to
ascent, whereas Moore's site still requires about a 40% dropoff.

I likewise pointed out on my Web site that a similar thing
happened to Flight #11 the following month (see the 4th addendum
to my Flight 4 page, about the reliability of predicting
trajectories from wind data:)

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

In this case, as the balloons approached Roswell, starting about
3-1/2 hours into flight and about the same time of day as when
Flight #5 started to descend, average air speed similarly
dropped by about 40%.)

But as is often the case with Moore and Printy, if the data is
inconvenient they simply ignore it. If Moore had chosen to place
the crash site 25 miles east of the base at the ambiguous Crary
25-mile site, I would have only minimal quarrel with him on this
point, since one could legitimately argue either way. But Moore
invents an entirely new crash site 31 miles away completely out
of thin air. There is no justification for it, and the only
seeming rationale, along with his other graphic alterations,
seems to be to distance Flight #5 as much as possible from
Roswell base.

>>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.

>Was it in their airspace? Four miles is a long way.

Not to a military base as security conscious as Roswell, the one
and only atomic bomber base in the world at the time. Four miles
is nothing all for a spy with a telephoto lens.

If nothing else, an unidentified plane and large unknown object
only 4 miles away constitute potential flight hazards to planes
approaching or leaving Roswell. 4 miles is only 1 minute of
typical flight time for a B-29. Flight control would very
definitely want to know what the hell was going on. They would
have no problem at all seeing both the B-17 chase plane and
balloon at that distance, and even further.

A point that Printy probably is not aware of is even Charles
Moore recently acknowledging that the B-17 chase plane probably
would have been in communication with the control tower at
Roswell. Again, this is from the e-mail I received July 22,
2002:


"The B-17 was not unidentified; it operated under a flight
plan out of Alamogordo Army Air Field and undoubtedly was in
communication with the control tower at Roswell."


But according to Printy, nobody at he base would have the
responsibility of observing the skies -- nobody. Nobody would
know of either the plane or balloon. His inane remark on this
point in his e-mail last month was: "Prior to the UFO wave later
that month, there would not have been a reason [for observers]
(unless of course, they were worried about the Mexican AF
attacking RAAF)."

I should also like to point out that Flight #5 lingered a dozen
miles or closer to the base for approximately 2 hours, between
about 8:15 am and 10:15 am. It would have been a busy time of
day. It wasn't the middle of the night and there was a lot of
time for flight crews, plane spotters, control tower operators,
etc. to have caught sight of it.

My graphic with the Flight #5 trajectory near the base and time
of flights noted on it can be seen at:

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html

See the first addendum: "More Moore Mischief"

>Most people
>on these bases have their jobs to do. Can you specifically
>identify which groups of individuals were assigned to monitor
>the skies that day? Those working doing their daily tasks would
>not be "skylarking" staring up at the sky.

Flight operations including control tower operators, plane
spotters, weather observers, flight crews would all routinely be
observing the sky. The control tower people and plane spotters
and any planes airborne at the time (including the approximately
2 hours when the balloons were within a dozen miles of the base)
would be the most likely ones to spot the balloon and the
unknown circling plane following it.

>>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.

>You are confusing ground security with air security. There is a
>difference you know. How many fighter planes were assigned to
>RAAF for air protection? None as best I can tell. Were there an
>Anti-Aircraft units assigned/deployed? None as best I can tell.
>Was there an assigned observer corps setup on the base? I don't
>know. Do you? It seems that there was little effort for air
>security. Again, show us which groups (not vague references)
>were assigned these tasks.

Planes would be going in and out, flight operations would be
manning the control tower, plane spotters would routinely be
observing the flights and the skies, and so would weather
observers feeding the latest weather information to flight
operations to be relayed to flight crews.

Even Moore has recently acknowledged that the B-17 chase plane
would have been in communication with the control tower at some
time. The control tower would no doubt want to know their
location and would be keeping track of it. Wouldn't want a mid-
air collision, would we, with some plane going in or out of
Roswell base? One of the whole points of having things like a
control tower and plane spotters is to keep planes from flying
into one another.

Of course, in the same direction as the plane, and directly
above it, would be the strange Flight #5, 600+ feet long vs. 75
feet for the B-17. One would think it would be rather hard NOT
to notice. No doubt, the B-17 crew would have to come up with
some sort of story to explain it and their circling flight path,
such as "following a cosmic ray experiment out of Alamogordo" or
something like that.

But the point is, it is _very_ likely that some personnel at
Roswell base would have been aware of the balloon flights in
early June 1947 because of the proximity of Flight #5 and its
chase plane to the base. Why Printy finds this so unlikely or
disturbing I don't know, but apparently he does, and so
apparently does Charles Moore, judging by how desperately he has
been trying to distance Flight #5 from the base.

Now how far up the chain of command this information might go I
can't say. Would the information have been confined to flight
operations, flight crews, etc., or would something have been
reported to higher-ups, such as base commander Blanchard, base
intelligence and security (Marcel, Cavitt), etc.? Routine I
think would call for it being reported, but I can't prove it.

>Can you produce one report stating
>they did see or report the flight.

No I can't. Can you produce far more significant reports that
nobody can find, such as the explanations that must have been
forthcoming from Roswell base for the supposed misidentification
of a balloon and subsequent embarrassing press release? That I
would like to see. How about documentation from Project Mogul
records about how one of their balloons was found by a rancher
and misidentified as a flying saucer, including the actual crash
location? I'd like to see that too. I'd also like to see those
missing base communications that the GAO discovered were
destroyed without authorization.

What I do know is that both you and Moore are obviously very
spooked by the very notion that Roswell base _might_ have known
about the flights a month before the Roswell incident. You
choose to ridicule the whole notion with inane remarks about the
Mexican air force and nobody paying attention to the skies at
Roswell. And Moore deliberately distanced Flight #5 from the
base starting in 1995 by altering the graphic, and is still
doing it the present, lying in recent e-mail about the balloons
coming no closer than 15-20 miles to the base.


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