UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 9

Re: MOGUL Mangled Math - Part 2

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

One issue is Moore's clearly mangled math. His false rise/fall
rates are just one glaring example, as pointed out by Brad

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 "fine-tuning"
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 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.

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

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 "push-back" 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 push-back 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 mind-reading 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

>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

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 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

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

To paraphrase somebody who e-mailed 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

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 math-challenged 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 off-topic 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

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 push-back 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 flip-flop on his 1995
position of a post-dawn 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:)


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

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 flip-flop 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, 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.

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 time-line,
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:


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?


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 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


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?


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:)


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

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, self-contradiction, 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

>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 post-dawn (instead of his flip-flop 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 math-challenged, 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:


"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 [30-40 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 four-of-a-kind
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

Yeah right!  And pigs can fly.

>There are other variables
>that could push it there as well.

Yeah, such as wishful thinking and additional spin-doctoring.

>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 ever-disingenuous Tim Printy.

Actually what is happening here is that Printy is beginning to
back-pedal. 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

Printy, in addition to be severely challenged in math and
reading comprehension, is also severely challenged in the
integrity department.

>>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.

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

>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

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

2. He shifted the crash site from 16-17 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 e-mail last summer,
Moore flat-out lied about the proximity of Flight #5 to the
base, claiming it came no closer than 15-20 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

To view Moore's changes, go to:


>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

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