From: Robert Gates <RGates8254@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:18:41 EDT
Fwd Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 06:43:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Math vs. Moore - Gates


 >From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Subject: Math vs. Moore [was: Rudiak vs. Moore]
 >Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 01:52:31 -0700

 >>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming5@houston.rr.com
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 19:51:21 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Rudiak vs. Moore - Fleming

 >>>From: Bruce Hutchinson <bhutch@grassyhill.com
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 19:12:58 -500
 >>>Subject: Rudiak vs. Moore

<snip>

 >Moore built his table for Flight #4 out of two sets of basic
 >wind data. One was the winds determined from an Orogrande
 >weather station 32 miles south of Alamogordo. However, this only
 >went to 46,000 feet. So Moore spliced in wind data from Flight
 >#5 the next day in the upper atmosphere between 46,000 and
 >60,000 feet. I have no major problem with that. You go with what
 >you got.

If I make an observation here. Apparently Bruce and Printy don't
seem to mind the fact that Moore spliced data from two flights
to come up with his conclusion, wrong as it is. That being the
case, is it acceptable for a pro-UFO person to mix and match
data (even if its only 24 hours old) and advance a pro-UFO
theory?

Obviously if this was a pro-UFO case the skeptibunkers would be
all over this blathering about how untrustworthy data is when
you mix and match, they would then be advancing the notion that
we could only trust the data that happened the same day;
naturally, if any data even hinted at being analyized wrongly,
as Moore did, they would be all over the inconsistency claiming
it negates the case, blah, blah, blah.

Can't you just hear it all???

Cheers,

Robert