From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:22:33 -0700
Fwd Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:43:18 -0400
Subject: Math vs. Moore & Debunking Hypocrisy 02 - Rudiak


>From: Dave Thomas <nmsrdave@swcp.com>
>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:44:23 -0600
>Fwd Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:17:08 -0400
>Subject: Re: Investigator's Right & Debunking Hypocrisy -

>>[Non-Subscriber Post]

>>From: David Rudiak <DRudiak@earthlink.net
>>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>>Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:19:25 -0700
>>Subject: Investigator's Right & Debunking Hypocrisy

Part II

Dave Thomas continues with his "mindnumbing" detailing of his
spreadsheet calculation, rather than discuss the real math
issues, but unwittingly brings up another example of Moore
playing games with the numbers.

>This equates to 0.09 hours; multiplying
>wind speed (73.3 mph) with this time (0.09 hours) yields an x-
>increment of 6.6 miles (6.597 if you wish to assume more
>accuracy than is warranted). Adding the increment of 6.6 miles
>to the previous x-value of 33.9 miles yields the NEW value for
>the 15th line, x = 33.9 + 6.6 = 40.5 miles.

>The same goes for the y-value; here, the time interval (still
>0.09 hours) times the North-South wind speed (39.0 mph) yields
>3.51 miles; adding this to the previous line's y-value of 25.25
>miles (in MY spreadsheet, of course) yields a new y-coordinate
>of 25.25 + 3.51 = 28.76 miles, which rounds off to 28.8 miles
>for the accuracy shown.

>Where I got a (u,v) coordinate pair at (40.5mi, 28.8mi), Moore's
>own calculation yielded (40.4mi, 28.7mi). That is, my numbers
>are not EXACTLY what Moore published - they are a whopping 1/10
>of a mile off. I suspect that all that happened here is that
>Moore's table used his original data from start to finish; the
>"givens" may or may not have been rounded off. For example,
>where I typed in the value of 67.0 for time in minutes, perhaps
>Moore was using a slightly different value (say, 66.967 min),
>which rounded off to 67.0 when displayed with one digit.

Moore mutates the first data point

If Thomas really knew what he was talking about and had followed
the debate during the course of the last year, he would know
this wasn't a round-off error, but a consequence of Moore's
weird handling of his first and second data points, more indeed
of Moore's "fuzzy math" techniques.

Remember, if you calculate the table backwards (what Thomas
denies is being done, but is in fact being done), then the first
data point gets pushed right off the charts. It's thrown away.

_Except_ Moore did something even stranger. He threw out the
wind direction value at time t = 0 and the wind speed value of
the next data point at t = 2.8'. Then he combined the remaining
speed value at t = 0 with the direction value at t = 2.8' to
form some sort of mutant hybrid of a data point. This is the
actual wind values he used to calculate his first x and y
displacement values, and it throws everything off further down
the line a little bit. This again is mentioned on my web site in
my very first point about where Moore's math goes wrong.

Credit for figuring out exactly what the hell Moore did here
actually goes to Tim Printy, who somehow didn't find this very
strange at all (naturally).

It was very evident to me from the start that something was very
odd indeed about Moore's first x,y displacement calculation. He
has the wind coming almost directly out of the west at azimuth
197 deg., yet his north y displacement is only a little smaller
than his easterly x component.

You could justifiably argue that this is a "quibble" since it
has little effect on the trajectory, and I noted it only in
passing for exactly that reason. But the big point is that it is
yet another example of Moore's "creative math" techniques. I
would like Thomas to tell us exactly where in Moore's
"instructions" that he describes what he is doing here. But more
importantly, what possible justification is there for handling
the math in this way? I have never in my life seen two separate
data points spliced together this way, and I seriously doubt
whether anybody else has either.

What I suspect really happened is that Moore knew full well that
he was throwing out his first wind data point using his faulty
push-back technique. He also knew this to be completely improper
and would be readily apparent if he actually did it. As a way of
covering his tracks, he only partially threw it away by
combining half of it with half of the next data point. That left
people like me knowing that something was wrong with the
calculation but scratching our heads as to exactly what he had
done.

Of course I'm just speculating here. I don't know why he did it.
But I've seen him pull similar stunts in his Mogul trajectory
plot alterations, also discussed here ad nauseum on Updates and
on my website. E.g., for Flight #5, which on the original Mogul
trajectory plot clearly passed very close to Roswell base and
crashed only 16-17 miles to the east, he removed Roswell base
from the map, replacing it with Roswell town, and then invented
a completely new crash site nearly double the distance from the
base from the original plot. All of this was done to seemingly
obfuscate just how close Flight #5 actually came to the base.

Moore has played fast and loose with the data in all sorts of
ways. Tim Printy tried to make excuses for Moore, just like
Thomas is doing, but Moore's shenanigans are impossible to
defend if one is the least bit honest in analyzing the data.

>The differences between Moore's calculation and mine can be
>attributed to round-off, pure and simple. I've seen the very
>same thing when converting FORTRAN codes to C++, for example.
>The WORST my model did in comparison to Moore's was a 1/4-mile
>difference at one data point.

Not so "pure" and not so "simple." And it's not round-off error.
It's due to Moore screwing around with the numbers yet again.

Moore doesn't follow his own instructions (and neither does Thomas)

>I used exactly what Moore said he used - in his own words from
>the afore-mentioned Table 5, "x = balloon displacement toward
>the east (sum of products of the mean eastward wind component in
>the altitude interval with the time interval required for the
>balloon train to rise through the specified layer)," and
>similarly for y-values.

Anybody with normal reading comprehension would interpret those
"instructions" to mean to take the wind value and carry it
"upward" ("rise through") to the next _higher_ layer. That would
be true on both the rise and fall sides of the trajectory table
to maintain Moore's wind data symmetry.

Had Moore actually done the calculation that way, he would have
been calculating things properly. He wouldn't have needed to
throw away (or mutate) his first data point. He would have
maintained the symmetries and correspondences in his table that
I discussed in Part I, and not corrupted his own data. I could
accuse him of many other things, but not miscalculating this
aspect of his table.

But that _isn't_ what Moore did, or what Thomas did in
replicating Moore's trajectory. Moore's push-back of all data
points means he calculated _down_ to the next lower layer on the
rise side, and calculated _up_ to the next higher layer on the
fall side. He calculated in opposite directions on the two
halves of his table. Only the fall side is calculated according
to his own instructions.

Raise a straw man and keep ducking the real issues

>Where is the math "mistake"? Does David Rudiak really claim that
>33.9 + 6.6 does NOT equal 40.5????

Thomas using straw man argumentation to dodge discussing the
real math issues. A more proper question is does Dave Thomas
really claim that a rise of only 100 feet in 12 minutes computes
to 350 ft/min rise rate? Or does Dave Thomas really claim
throwing away one's first data point (or mutating it) is a
proper way to do the calculation? Or does Dave Thomas really
claim that doing the calculation so that the balloons turn at
drastically different altitudes on rise and fall is a proper way
to do the calculation? Etc., etc.

"Fuzzy Math?" - what "Fuzzy Math?"

>The "fuzzy math" Rudiak decries exists in his own mind, not in
>the real world.

No the "fuzzy math" exists in the mind of Dave Thomas, who seems
to be either completely clueless about the real math arguments
or is lying through his teeth to try to redeem Moore.

Now Dave, does 100/12 really equal 350? Please explain to us
"UFO believers" just how this works in your "real world" without
resorting to the use of either "fuzzy math" or drugs.

Misrepresenting the real issues - again

>Now, if he wants to argue about HOW to model such a balloon
>flight, that's no problem. Rudiak is certainly entitled to argue
>the merits of how HE would do such a calculation, why he
>disagrees with Moore's assumptions re symmetry, and so forth.

Thomas is back to trying to claim this is merely a difference of
opinion on how to calculate the model. No it's no that. Moore
flat out calculated it improperly for all the reasons I outlined
in Part I and above.

See no evil, speak no evil (of a fellow debunker)

>However, I see NO evidence of a "hoax" or a "blatant math
>error."

Only a blind man or a lying propagandist could claim there was
"no evidence" of a hoax or math errors. I would like to see
Thomas refute a single one of my math arguments. Does he really
think, e.g., that a 100 foot rise in 12 minutes really
calculates out to 350 ft/min? If that isn't a "blatant math
error" then I don't know what is. And there are numerous others.

If you can't attack the facts, attack your opponent

>If Rudiak wishes to continue these accusations, then he
>is attempting to discredit Roswell skeptics by character
>assassination, pure and simple.

The debate is about Moore's incorrect math, "pure and simple."
Unable to deal with the math _facts_, Thomas tries to claim the
debate is nothing more than "accusations" and "character
assassination"

If Moore says 2 + 2 = 3 and someone points out it is not, they
become a "character assassin" "attempting to discredit Roswell
skeptics." Thus, with ThomasSpin, it is nothing more than
"accusations" and "character assassination" on my part to point
out, e.g., that Moore's 100 ft in 12 minutes does not compute as
350 ft/min.

Keep spinning if you can't argue the facts

>All this model was intended for was to see if it RULED OUT
>Flight #4 landing near the Foster Ranch. It did not.

Did too! Moore, if anything, was likely the first person to
realize that his wind data for Flight #4 probably DID "rule out"
the Foster Ranch as a crash site, since he couldn't get it there
in any straightforward way. That makes the ranch a HIGHLY
IMPROBABLE crash location.

But he was determined to get the balloons there nonetheless,
probably because he was as firmly convinced as Thomas that it
_must_ be the explanation, even if the wind data didn't support
it. Hence the rationalized cheating he used to get it there.
Thomas apparently sees nothing wrong with this deception either,
so long as it supports the scenario he too so religiously
believes in. This is a classic example of pathological
pseudoscience. Only a typical debunker would dare pretend it to
be correct or proper.

Moore's public misrepesentation of his model's accuracy

Moore has also claimed far more for his model than seeing if a
Foster Ranch crash site was merely "possible." He has publicly
insinuated that he practically proved Flight #4 landed on the
Foster Ranch. This is a direct quote from Moore on a 1997 Sci Fi
special on Roswell (the quote is also on my website in the
introduction):

"The winds on the morning of June 4th were **exactly right** to
carry the balloon from Alamogordo to the Arabela area. If the
balloon behaved as the balloons did on the next two flights we
made, i.e. going into the stratosphere and catching the easterly
winds in the stratosphere, it is possible - **I have calculated
a trajectory that would have exactly landed the balloon on the
Foster Ranch."**

The problem is the winds were NOT "exactly right" to carry the
balloon to the Arabela area. The real wind data would have
caused a 50% overshoot of his critical Arabela turn point (also
blown them a dozen miles east of Arabela at closest approach as
they passed by).

To prevent this, Moore foreshortened his ascent trajectory over
30 miles by: 1) Having an overly fast rise rate through the
upper atmosphere by secretly eliminating lifter balloon cutoff,
in contradiction to his stated assumption that this balloon was
very similar to Flight #5 the next day, and 2) Miscalculating
the table with his bogus push-back method of all his data
points, which shaved 30 minutes off his rise trajectory and
forced an early turn. This is how Moore really got Flight #4
"exactly" to the Arabela area.

Landing his balloon "exactly" on the Foster Ranch depends not
only on changing assumptions and miscalculating his table on the
up side, but also having his balloons drop overly fast on the
fall side (compared to the other early neoprene Moguls)to
prevent severe overshoot. On top of this, Moore altered his
internal rise/fall rates so that they no longer agree with his
table values, apparently a way he "tweaked" the final trajectory
so that the balloons would land "exactly" on the ranch.

There are a number of other things Moore did, which I can't get
into here, but is the reason for the "mindnumbing length" of my
website. Moore screwed around with the data and numbers in all
sorts of ways to get his balloons "exactly" to the ranch, and it
takes a long time to go into them all.

WAve Your Hands And Pretend It's A Showstopper

>If the
>model showed the balloon heading to El Paso, now THAT would have
>been a problem for the Mogul hypothesis.

More idiotic spin by Thomas. He made the same silly statement in
his Skeptical Inquirer article. In fact, it is little more than
a desperate hand-waving argument, since _quantitatively_ you
can't get Flight #4 to the Foster Ranch without playing a lot of
games with the numbers.

The real point is that if Moore had actually carried through his
stated assumptions and then calculated his table properly (per
his own instructions), the balloons would have missed by a huge
margin (approximately 70 miles), being carried well to the east
and north of the Foster Ranch.

In my website addendums:
http://www.roswellproof.com/Flight4_Addendums.html

...I mentioned Flight #17, a flight that actually did pass
directly over Arabela (perhaps the flight the Moore mistakenly
associated with Flight #4) and is the only documented Mogul
flight that passed even remotely near the Foster Ranch. It
headed in roughly the right direction too (on even a more direct
initial heading), but it ended up in Kansas. Whether the initial
heading is roughly correct is not the point. Where the balloon
ends up is, and the actual wind data shows that Flight #4 would
have badly missed the Foster Ranch because the winds were too
strong.

When all else fails, use the big lie technique

>I thank David Rudiak for pointing out, through his numerous
>attempts to re-model the trajectory, that MANY different
>approaches still show the balloon train landing near the Foster
>Ranch.

This is nothing but flagrant lying by Thomas.

In the real world, what I _actually_ showed in my various
modeling is that if you calculate _correctly_ and use any
_plausible_ set of assumptions, the balloons NEVER land anywhere
near the Foster Ranch.

The simple fact is that the winds were actually somewhat
stronger than for Flight #5 the next day. And #5 ended up about
110 miles from Alamogordo. Flight #4, if it were really modeled
closely after #5, would have ended up even further away, not the
85 mile distance from Alamogordo AAF to the Foster Ranch.

This alone is a big clue that something funny is going on in
Moore's model. The only way to shorten the distance is to resort
to various ruses, such as Moore pulled, e.g., making his
balloons fall or rise way too fast, and then calculating his
table improperly on top of that.

When I used normal rise and fall rates like Flight #5 (what
Moore implied he was doing but didn't), left Moore's other
assumptions untouched (such as late night launch and grossly
extended flight time), and then calculated Moore's own table
correctly (what a concept!) the balloons still missed by about
70 miles to the northeast.

Instead of 85 miles NNE of Alamogordo, they end up over 150 NE
of Alamogordo, practically an 80% overshoot. There is nothing
about this that is a "near miss" or "qualitatively" correct, as
Thomas tries to spin it in his Skeptical Inquirer article.

Can you imagine a plane overshooting its destination by 80% and
the crew claiming they actually landed "near" the intended
landing site? Maybe Thomas was their navigator or their PR man.

I did create my own Flight #4 trajectory to the Foster Ranch,
but only by severely rotating the winds to the north and
drastically cutting wind speeds. I didn't resort to any of
Moore's extreme assumptions, such as a highly extended flight
time or having his balloon fall like a rock. Nor did I calculate
improperly, as did Moore. However, the problem with this model
is that I had to invent wind data to get it to work instead of
using the real data. One can get anything to work by inventing
numbers, but this is just another way of cheating. Good modeling
requires sticking to the known data as closely as possible. The
wind changes I needed to make I argued to be highly improbable,
making this model trajectory to the Foster Ranch just about as
improbable as Moore's.

However one tries, you just can't get the balloons to the Foster ranch in a plausible fashion with the real wind data because the winds were blowing much too strongly and also in a too easterly direction.

Another big lie

>The 17-mile "discrepancy" is simply the uncertainty of
>simple models based in incomplete data.

More lying. This is not about "the uncertainty in simple models"
or "incomplete data." The 17-mile "discrepancy" is the
difference between calculating Moore's own table numbers right
vs. doing them wrong. It is about correct math vs. bad math.

[Actually the "17 miles" was a more conservative calculation. If
one carried wind velocities upward to the next layer throughout
the table (what Moore said he was doing but didn't), then the
"discrepancy" becomes more like a 20 mile overshoot to the
northeast.]

And this is just the final trajectory calculation. It doesn't
even deal with the FACT that Moore said he was doing one thing
and then internally altered his numbers. In his table he treated
Flight #4 like a balloon with faulty equipment when his stated
assumptions were the best equipment and perfect flight, very
similar to Flight #5. He further altered his rise and fall rates
so that they are in disagreement with his claimed rise/fall
rates. This again is an _irrefutable_ math FACT.

If one plugs in Moore's actual assumptions, using the rise and
fall rates of Flight #5 (leaving his other assumptions
unchanged), the "17 mile 'discrepancy'" turns into more like a
70 mile "discrepancy."

Again, this has nothing to do with "the uncertainty in simple
models" or "incomplete data." It has to do with actually using
one's stated assumptions instead of secretly changing the
numbers. Oh yes, it also means calculating correctly again.

Daring Thomas to refute the math arguments

I dared Tim Printy to refute a single one of my math arguments
when I debated him last year on Updates. He wasn't able to
because he couldn't. and he finally fled the debate. (As he
slammed the door behind him, he, like Thomas, claimed that I had
actually proven Moore correct. These guys can't even lie
straight.)

I similarly dare Dave Thomas to refute any of my math arguments.
Go ahead! Give it your best shot! Stop ducking the real math
issues.

Like Printy, he won't be able to. Instead both he and Printy
have to use propaganda rather than scientific argumentation
because they have no facts to argue. Thus if Moore gets 2 + 2 =
3, they try to argue that this isn't wrong but a simple
"disagreement" in modeling, or a minor "discrepancy" ("Hey, it's
only off by one!") or the result of "uncertain data" ("How do
you know the 2 isn't a rounded off 1.5?"), or, "qualitatively
correct" ("He got a positive integer, didn't he? Now 2 + 2 = -3,
that would be wrong.") Furthermore, as in the next statement, to
merely point out that 2 + 2 does not equal 3 seemingly turns one
into a "character assassin."

Again with "character assassination" - the pot calling the
kettle black

>I also call on him to cease with his unwarranted attempts at
>character assassination.

What a hypocrite! Dave Thomas deliberately ducked my critical
math points, only flippantly dismissing them as "quibbles" and
"shrill accusations," and then labeled me "mathematically
incompetent" in his Skeptical Inquirer article.

Since it is impossible for Thomas to refute a single one of my
math facts, he should "cease with his unwarranted attempts at
character assassination" and _immediately_ issue a full
retraction of his article in the Skeptical Inquirer.

>Rudiak wants to marginalize Moore (and Mogul by extension),
>but his unreasonable personal attacks reveal the depths he
>will sink to to bolster up the leaky Roswell ship.

>Sincerely,
>Dave Thomas

Mr. Thomas is anything but sincere. At this juncture, only
somebody completely incompetent or disingenuous would continue
to argue that Moore did it the right way after it has been
demonstrated time and again that he did it wrong. Sorry, but
100/12 does NOT equal 350, no way, no how. It does not make me a
"character assassin" to point out that Moore made _many_ serious
math "mistakes" like this.

Thomas' repeated accusations of "character assassination" is
nothing but a diversion, an attempt to get the heat off of Moore
and himself.  The problem for Thomas is that he has no case to
argue. (Moore "didn't want to get into the math" for exactly
that reason.) What Thomas just can't bring himself to openly
admit is that the math _proves_Moore cheated repeatedly with his
numbers. It's not a "disagreement" or just my opinion. Anybody
who is honest and half-way competent with math can repeat the
work and will get exactly the same results. (Remember, one has
to be _honest_ about it.)

THE EMPEROR HAS NOT CLOTHES - SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

This may reflect poorly on Moore, but that's not my fault. Moore
brought this on himself. Saying that the emperor has no clothes
when the emperor has no clothes may be embarrassing to the
emperor, but it doesn't make the whistleblower a "character
assassin." Instead Thomas would rather shoot the messenger than
admit the emperor is naked.

It's about time for Dave Thomas and others like Tim Printy to
GROW UP and stop making excuses for Moore. Moore hoaxed his own
model, "pure and simple." But I rather doubt they will ever
admit to this since their own religious beliefs about Roswell
seem so deeply intertwined with Moore and his little lost Mogul
balloon. But Moore's model _properly done_ can't get Flight #4
anywhere near the Foster Ranch using the given wind data and any
_plausible_ set of assumptions. That's a severe body blow to
their touching faith that Flight #4 _must_ have caused the
Roswell events.

>http://www.nmsr.org >"Life is too short to occupy oneself with
the slaying of the >slain more than once." - Thomas Huxley

Good quote. Maybe Thomas should take it to heart after he
brushes up on his math and integrity skills. I'm tired of
arguing with the likes of Thomas and Printy that 2 + 2 does not
equal 3.


David Rudiak