
From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 10:26:16 0800 Archived: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:35:59 0500 Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math  Part 2 >From: Tim Printy <TPrinty.nul >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:08:29 EST >Fwd Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 21:47:28 0500 >Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math  Part 2  Printy >>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak.nul> >>To: <ufoupdates.nul> >>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:16:08 0800 >>Subject: Re: MOGUL Mangled Math  Part 2 >>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. You were doing more than that. Like a good little propagandist, you were trying to mush everything together to confuse the issues. One issue is Moore's clearly mangled math. His false rise/fall rates are just one glaring example, as pointed out by Brad Sparks. I mentioned others, actually far more serious, involving his mathematically bogus calculation of his entire table. He needed a false calculation to get his little lost Mogul up to the Foster Ranch. Improbable, internally contradictory assumptions alone didn't do it for him. And apparently that still wasn't enough, hence his "finetuning" of the already bogus trajectory by using bogus rise/fall values in disagreement with his own table. Now here's how Printy tried to confuse everything. Instead of dealing with the _undeniable fact_ that Moore's actually used rise/fall values disagree substantially with his own table  yet a further indication of fraud on his part  Printy tried to take the discussion off another tangent, namely that Sparks and I are getting various different trajectories, never explaining that we are talking about different mathematical errors and different assumptions being used by Moore. In other words, Printy was again trying to shift the focus onto us instead of Moore. If we disagree or if we are wrong in any way, then this somehow exonerates Moore. This is false logic. Even if either of us was grossly wrong in how we did our own calculations, this does not somehow validate what Moore did or invalidate our criticisms of his methodology. Moore's math "mistakes" are still going to be there for anybody else to see, such as his false rise/fall rates or improper calculation of his own table. >>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 5252.1K 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 5053 ft/min. It seemed like a >conservative way of plotting the ascent rates. You just don't get it, do you? Nobody gave you permission to change Moore's table to suit your own tastes. The whole point of the recalculation exercise was to see what would happen if you used Moore's actual rise/fall values, not ones that you thought made more sense. As is, by pushing back the rise rates by one notch, you threw out the first value in the table instead of using it. That's one mistake. This then causes you a serious problem down the line. Because you have thrown out a value and pushed everything back, you now have the problem at the peak where the balloons are still rising, but your flawed "pushback" calculation has Moore's rise rate swinging negative. It is impossible for the balloon to continue to rise with a negative rise rate. If you knew how to read a table properly, this alone should have clued you in that your pushback method was dead wrong. But as I have seen repeatedly with your work, you never let simple logic and facts get in your way. Rather than realizing that you were doing something wrong and starting over, you compounded your mistakes. You couldn't have a negative rise rate  but no problem! Insert a new positive rise rate in its place. In other words, change Moore's table yet again. >2. Moore's values of ascent clearly show he intended the rates >of rise to be applied this way. Since when is mindreading a proper way to interpret a table? The _fact_ that your method caused the rise rate to swing negative before the balloons had finished rising would tell anybody _competent_ in math that this method was wrong. No mind reading is necessary here if one knows how to read a table properly. >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. Again nobody gave you permission to change the table to suit your own tastes. Moore used 100 ft/min for his first rise rate. You're stuck with it buddy boy! It doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense to you. That is the value you use in running the calculation. Instead you don't like it, so you throw it out. >>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. It's not even the major point even if you didn't change this value. You still improperly altered the table and ran the calculation wrong. You threw out the first value and then inserted another one further down the line to avoid the disaster of balloons rising with a negative rise rate. >>Now remember, this is my bestguess 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. Right, you improperly inserted your own value into the table and changed the table. You were forced to do this because your own method created a mathematical paradox of a rising balloon but with a negative rise rate. Instead of paying attention to this obvious red flag that something was badly wrong, you ignored it and changed the table instead. To paraphrase somebody who emailed me about Printy's mathematical prowess, somebody who is competent in math can still make mistakes. But they are smart enough to know they have made a mistake when they run into an obvious snag in the calculations. But the problem with Tim Printy is that he ignores the red flags. He knows enough to run a calculation but not enough to know when he is wrong. A little math in Printy's hands is a dangerous thing. Printy is also arrogant and clueless about his own shortcomings. This mathchallenged debunker then hurls abuse at the likes of Brad Sparks and myself based on his own lack of understanding. It's not that we are above criticism in our own math. But what Printy loves to do is drag the debate offtopic onto inconsequential mathematical minutia that has nothing to do with the key issues under discussion. Thus, e.g., he'll try to make an issue of whether Brad Sparks accurately measured exactly how much Charles Moore misplotted his Flight 5 crash site, instead of the fact that Moore clearly misplotted it. But what really galls us about Printy is that he usually doesn't even know what he is talking about. E.g., instead of having the mathematical smarts to realize the Charles Moore's calculation of a Flight #4 trajectory is mathematically wrong in numerous ways, he attacks me personally on his web page. Supposedly it is me who is in error because I couldn't figure out exactly how Moore did his calculation. It never dawns on him that maybe the _real_ problem is that Moore's calculation is wrong. Above I mentioned how Printy ignores red flags that somebody mathematically competent would not ignore. Another good example of this was when Printy finally figured out how Moore did his table calculation. Even Printy noticed that the "Moore way" resulted in the turn altitudes going badly out of synch with one another on ascent and descent. But he just dismissed this from his little debunker mind with the comment that he was sure Moore had a "good reason" for doing this. >I made a transposition error on the next step in my spread >sheet resulting in the difference between the two values on >descent. An error like this in setting up a spreadsheet is easy to make and doesn't bother me. What _does_ bother me is how Printy obviously changed calculation methods in midstream. (It resembles how Moore keeps changing his assumptions in midstream as well). Printy pushed everything back on the ascent phase to suit his own tastes of what the "right" values should have been, then had to stick in an extra value to avoid disaster, which now meant no more pushback for the rest of the table. Now he is carrying the rise rates forward instead of backward through the rest of the calculation. It's too bad he didn't do this from the beginning, because this was the _right_ way to do the calculation given the way Moore set his table up. It would have completely avoided throwing out the first rise rate and later having to stuff another value into the table to avoid mathematical paradox. In other words, if you do the calculation _right_, you don't have to improperly change the table like Printy did. >>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? Not only is Printy a bit "challenged" in his math. He can't even rationalize very well. The whole point of doing a recalculation of Moore's time line using his actual table rise rates was to see what effects this had on his model. The fact that Printy's calculation produced a timeline extended by 85 minutes should have been yet another red flag of something seriously wrong. In this case, it should have indicated to him that maybe his own calculation was off, or if it was correct, that Moore's model was fatally broken in yet another way. Printy knew that neither he nor Moore could produce a conceivable rationale for extending Flight #4's time aloft yet another 85 minutes. Moore had already made it far and away the longest of all the early Mogul neoprene weather balloon flights by over 2 hours. And to do this he had to flipflop on his 1995 position of a postdawn launch (around 5:15 a.m.). Instead in 1997 in his book, he claimed the same weather data and notations in Albert Crary's diary supported a 3 a.m. launch. Nothing had changed except Moore's need to extend Flight #4's time aloft by over 2 hours. The reason Moore needed to do this is because of the more detailed Orogrande wind data he obtained in the interim had the winds blowing more strongly and taking the balloons much further away from his desired landmarks and crash site than his assumed winds in his 1995 model. (To see these changes between his 1995 and 1997 model, see:) http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html Another problem Printy confronted with his extra 85 minutes was the serious effect it had on Moore's Flight #4 trajectory. When I ran the simulation the "Printy way" with the extended flight time, the balloons crash 19 miles west of Moore's desired crash site at the Foster Ranch. But Printy, as usual, has trouble following things to their logical conclusion. 85 minutes spelled big trouble to himself and Moore's model. So he went into his usual spin mode. Instead of coming out and saying that it was indeed a very significant problem, he instead called it "not signficant." Then he just ignored the extra time, saying he was going back to Moore's original timeline. Finally, to go back to Moore's original timeline, he had to change Moore's table yet again by aborting the full ascent. None of this, of course, bothers Printy in the least. >>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". Again Printy trying to spin himself out of a corner. There are 2 big problems with those extra 85 minutes. First the balloons are up far too long even by Moore flipflop logic. And second, the balloons miss by a wide margin. Both are highly "significant" by any definition. But Printy doesn't want you to think about this. Instead he comes up with an "explanation" for his "not significant" remark that makes no sense and has nothing to do with the problems produced by the extra 85 minutes. >>But Printy doesn't tell you any of this. Printy is a true >>student of the Charles Moore school of secret, backstage >>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. Printy could have gotten it "right" by sticking to the truth instead of trying to spin an undesirable result. If Printy had been honest about this, he should have noted that his extra calculated 85 minutes did indeed produce serious problems for Moore's theory. The flight was now way too long and the balloons missed by a big margin. Instead he lied and claimed the extra time was "not significant" in how it affected Moore's model. Remember earlier how he changed Moore's table when he ran his revised time calculation because he didn't like the listed rise rate values? Well he's back changing things he doesn't like again. He didn't like the outcome of his own calculation, so he just ignored it. He went back to Moore's original timeline, threw out the extra time (just like he threw out the "undesirable" initial rise rate) and again claimed that nothing of significance has changed when he recalculated Moore's model. >>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. I don't know exactly what Brad Sparks did. I get a different result, but again this not the _real_ point. Whether Brad Sparks or myself miscalculated a trajectory has nothing to do with whether or not our criticisms of Moore's assumptions, data, and methodology are valid or not. Again Printy is trying to make the issue us instead of Moore. If Moore is right and we are wrong, then Printy should be pointing out in _specific_ fashion _exactly_ where our criticisms our wrong. For example: MOORE'S FAULTY RISE RATES: 1. Brad Sparks pointed out that Moore used many rise rates that disagreed with Moore's own table. True or False? 2. These different rise rates have significant effects on Moore's model. True or false? MISCALCULATION OF FLIGHT 4 TRAJECTORY: I pointed out that Moore's methodology in running his own table was mathematically flawed. Moore pushed back all his wind velocities in order to get his balloon "exactly" to the ranch. In doing so he did the following, that completely invalidates his "technique": 1. Destroyed the symmetry built into his table between the velocity values on rise vs. those on fall. True or false? 2. Destroyed the correspondence in turn altitudes on rise and fall. True or false? 3. Destroyed the exact correspondence in turn altitudes between Flights #4 & #5. True or false? 4. Calculated average velocity values in his Flight #5, Table 2, in which he calculates averages between _successive_ data points. When he spliced some of this data into his Flight #4 table for higher altitude winds, he used the data in the _reverse_ direction from the way he originally calculated it, which is mathematically invalid. True or false? 5. His above reverse use of his own average wind direction values cut the Flight #4 ascent time by 30 minutes and forced an early turn. True or false? MOORE'S MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS: Moore stated he was assuming Flight #4 was similarly configured and performed as well or better than the successful Flight #5. Yet when the numbers in his table are examined he really did the following: ASCENT: 1. Moore removed the "kink" in the ascent trajectory so evident in Flight #5. The "kink" was the point at 35,000 feet where extra lifter balloons were cut off by a special device, drastically slowing the ascent of the Flight #5 balloons and thus greatly extending the ascent time to the stratosphere of the balloons. Instead, Moore has his Flight #4 never showing lifter balloon cutoff, thus never slowing its ascent and consequently reaching the stratosphere much earlier than the real #5. True or false? 2. The removal of the lifter balloon cutoff contradicted his stated assumption that #4 was similarly configured and worked as well or better than #5, i.e. had properly functioning altitude control equipment. True or false? 3. By removing lifter balloon cutoff, Moore greatly foreshortened traversal time through the upper troposphere where the winds were strongest, and thus greatly foreshortened his ascent ground trajectory. True or false? 4. By greatly foreshortening the rise trajectory and forcing an early turn, Moore forced his balloon to pass close to his critical landmarks of Arabela and Capitan Peak. Yet Moore claimed that the winds were "exactly right" to take them there. True or false? DESCENT: 1. Moore's own redrawing of Flight #5 (his Figure 1 in his 1997 book) shows two other "kinks" on the descent trajectory where other altitude control equipment caused ballast dumps, again drastically slowing descent. Moore removes these kinks and ballast dumps from his Flight #4, and instead has the balloons speeding up their fall. True or false? (To see Moore's Figure 1, showing the kinks on rise and fall for Flight #5, see:) http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight5_Fig1_Moore.html 2. The removal of the automatic ballast dumps contradicted his stated assumption that #4 was similarly configured and worked as well or better than #5, i.e. had properly functioning altitude control equipment. True or false? 3. Moore has Flight #4 falling to the ground much faster than any of the real early neoprene Moguls, Flights #5#7. True or false? 4. The effect of this very fast fall is to drastically foreshorten the descent ground trajectory and prevents serious overshoot of Moore's desired crash site. True or false? Well I could go on like this until the cows come home, but that will do for now. As I pointed out on my Website, if you actually calculate Moore's table _correctly_, you get approximately 17 miles of overshoot to the northeast of Moore's carefully massaged Foster Ranch crash site. And if you hold his feet to the fire regarding his stated assumptions of similar configuration and properly functioning equipment, i.e., rise and fall profiles similar to that of Flight #5, then the miss is more like 70 miles to the northeast. Printy has never dealt with the mathematical objections (he can't), and his attempts on his Website to debunk my criticisms about Moore stating one thing but doing another as they affect the rise and fall are a mix of diversion and straw man argumentation, selfcontradiction, an inability to stay on point, and simply inane logic. Instead I'm accused of character assassination against Moore and other perfidies, such as concealing critical evidence that supposedly exonerates Moore. >>(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. More disingenuousness by Printy. Printy's own calculation has a _big_ effect on the times to the point of causing a big miss and greatly extending the duration of flight, that Printy wouldn't be able to explain away. Of course, Printy did his calculation completely wrong, but that's another issue altogether. He thought he did it right and is outright lying about his numbers not showing a very significant effect. He is also missing the point about Moore's math. Once again, Moore indicates he was doing one thing, but when the numbers were examined he was doing something else entirely. His table shows one set of rise rates, but he used others in their place. This somehow doesn't bother Printy. >>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. Again the clueless or disingenuous Printy misses the point. Moore could only get his Flight #4 to the Foster Ranch by repeated _cheating_, first with his assumptions, then with his math. His whole model is a fraud. What I also stated very clearly on my web site was that the model really demonstrates that any trajectory taking balloons to the Foster Ranch, given Moore's wind, data was highly improbable. I even generated my own trajectory in a much simpler, mathematically correct model. But the problem was I had to greatly rotate the winds to the north and drastically cut the wind speeds. I felt that was also very unlikely to have happened. >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. This is completely false. What I clearly demonstrated through this alternate modeling was the _improbability_ of the balloons getting to the ranch and that far more probable scenarios have the balloons missing by a wide margin off to the northeast. In one model I adhered to the Flight #5 ascent and descent profiles (what Moore implied he was doing but didn't) and the balloons missed by nearly 70 miles to the NE. And in another model I adhered to his 1995 assumption that the balloons were launched postdawn (instead of his flipflop 2 years later to 3 a.m.), and gave them full Flight #5 time profile, which included a greatly foreshortened stratospheric drift period. In that case the balloons miss by over a 100 miles. As I wrote in my summary: "Ironically what Moore has really demonstrated is just how unlikely it would have been for Flight #4 to end up at the Foster Ranch. Moore is working with about a dozen different variables, both stated and unstated, and all of them have to assume Moore's values for his trajectory to work. It would be similar to tossing a dozen coins in the air and expecting them all to come up heads. It's certainly 'possible', but the probability is very low. His 'possible' trajectory is really an "improbable" trajectory, a statistical outlier." >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. In addition to being mathchallenged, Printy is also badly challenged in the reading comprehension department. As I wrote at the very end of my Web page in the 4th addendum: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/flight4_trajectory.html "Because it uses much less probable values for wind direction and speed... this modified... model to the Foster Ranch is at least an order of magnitude less probable than the complex trajectory to the Kellahin site [3040 miles to the NE]. Moore's trajectory, with its many strained assumptions, has a similar lower order of probability. The Foster Ranch crash site still remains a statistical outlier no matter what combination of assumptions are used to get the balloons there. Fewer, less extreme assumptions always take the balloons further to the north and east of the Foster Ranch..." What Printy doesn't get, or chooses to ignore, is that "possible" does not mean the same thing as "probable." It is "possible" Printy might win the lottery tomorrow, but it isn't very probable. He might win a poker hand with four queens, but again it isn't very probable. The winds pushing the balloons to the Foster Ranch has a similar order of probability of winning a poker hand with fourofakind or a full house. Sure it's "possible", but it doesn't happen very often. Moore's winds are simply blowing too strongly and pushing everything too far eastward. That's why he resorts to all his subterfuges to greatly foreshorten the trajectory and also push his balloons back to the west. What one wants to examine are the _more probable_ trajectories, not the remotely possible ones. In other words, we want trajectories the poker equivalent of winning a hand with a pair instead of a full house. What happens if one doesn't "cook the books" like Moore did and instead plays it straight, using proper math and flight profiles similar to known Mogul flights like Flight #5? If you do that, then you get those big misses I was talking about. But instead of accurately representing what I really wrote, Printy _again_ resorts to spin. According to him, I somehow established a "footprint" showing that the winds were right to take the balloons to the ranch and that Moore was really correct. Yeah right! And pigs can fly. >There are other variables >that could push it there as well. Yeah, such as wishful thinking and additional spindoctoring. >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. More flagrance by the everdisingenuous Tim Printy. Actually what is happening here is that Printy is beginning to backpedal. I think even he knows Moore's model is in shambles and completely indefensible, but doesn't have the guts to come out and admit it. (Has anyone ever seen a debunker criticize another debunker?) So he tries to put as much of a happy face on it as he can. Moore was really basically right, and somehow my work really showed it. He never accused me of character assassination or concealing critical evidence. He never said I did anything wrong. Printy, in addition to be severely challenged in math and reading comprehension, is also severely challenged in the integrity department. >>Whoopiedo! 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. Your point is what exactly? That Moore's clearly erroneous math and numbers somehow become magically right again? >>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"? Printy is still playing games. Back he goes to the Debunker Denial ploy He knows full well what map alterations are indisputable: 1. Flight #5 passed only 4 miles south of Roswell base, which was marked on the original Mogul trajectory graphic along with the trajectory. Thre draftsman, however, identified it only as "Roswell." Moore when he redrew the figure, which he claimed he did "without change", also has "Roswell" on his map. But this isn't the same "Roswell". Instead Moore removed the base and substituted Roswell town in its place 6 miles further to the north. 2. He shifted the crash site from 1617 miles east of the base on the original graphic to 31 miles east of his newly drawn Roswell town. 3. When Sparks confronted Moore on this in email last summer, Moore flatout lied about the proximity of Flight #5 to the base, claiming it came no closer than 1520 miles. This was a good indication that his removal of Roswell base and his moving of the crash site was no accident but very premeditated and designed to push Flight #5 as far away from "Roswell" base as possible. To view Moore's changes, go to: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4and5_changes.html >His trajectory for flight #5 is accurately represented on the >maps with the exception of the endpoint, which is in dispute. Moore's endpoint corresponds to nothing documented in Mogul records. He made it up out of thin air and nearly doubled the distance between the originally marked crash site to the base. His removal of the base from the map was also highly misleading, making it appear that Flight #5 was much more removed from the base than it really was. >As I have shown, Sparks attempts to make it look like Moore >was moving the path farther away on each successive >publication is false. But Moore definitely used two different values for his "unique" crash site, one in his table for Flight 5 and anther in his plot, didn't he? Even Printy admits to that. But even that's not the point. Moore altered the plot, period! Printy is again discussing irrelevancies instead of staying on point. Whether Brad Sparks measured perfectly isn't the issue. Moore's alterations are. >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. Printy seems to believe that word play and propaganda ploys are a substitute for sound argumentation. What is it about the word "alteration" that Printy doesn't understand? >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. This refers to Moore also shifting the location of Roswell town about 1 to 2 miles further west compared to Mogul plots. Even if one accepts Printy's argument that this was just somehow a "correction" to the original plots, _logic_ would tell us that _everything_ plotted on the map should have been "corrected" or moved by the same amount and in the same direction. Instead Moore picked up the crash site and moved it in the _opposite direction_ by a completely different amount. (This is another one of those indisputable items that Printy will no doubt continue to deny is indisputable.) In addition to everything else, Printy also can't think straight. David Rudiak Website: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/
[ Next Message  Previous Message  This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index 
UFO UpDates  Toronto  Operated by Errol BruceKnapp