
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  [NonSubscriber 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 <snip> >>I recently became aware of the article and am drafting a letter >>of response to the Inquirer right now. Thomas did exactly the >>same thing as Printy, claiming that since he could reproduce >>Moore's (bogus) calculation, Moore was right and I was >>mathematically "incompetent." The problem was, Moore's >>calculation was full of "mistakes" and the mathematical >>equivalent of 2 + 2 = 3. All the fatal math mistakes were >>pointed out on my website, but Thomas, naturally, doesn't >>mention a single one of them, calling them only "quibbles" and >>"shrill accusations." I have reviewed Rudiak's website again, and my own copy of the math calculations for Charles Moore's trajectory calculation, and have come to this conclusion: David Rudiak has disagreements with C. B. Moore over how to model the Flight #4 trajectory. Some of these disagreements might even have some merit  say, using the same wind speed for a given altitude interval on the way up as on the way down. However, all of these disagreements amount to simply "Well, if I was modeling this trajectory, I would have used THIS approach, and THESE assumptions." However, I can find NO justification whatsoever for Rudiak's persistent accusations of fraud and hoaxing against Dr. Moore (Moore received an honorary doctorate from New Mexico Tech earlier this year). Instead, the "Fuzzy Math" Rudiak complains about stems from Rudiak's approach to how HE (Rudiak) would have done the calculations, and NOT what Moore published or said he did. Using Moore's own data, and following the directions in his table, I was able to easily reproduce Moore's chart. I did not have to "push back 5 points" as Rudiak claims. I did not have to "push back all data points" as Rudiak claims. I simply typed in the givens, applied Moore's stated formulas, and plotted the trajectory, which agreed extremely well with Moore's own calculations. I've included a chart of same on my web page about Rudiak and the Sci Fi Channel's "Roswell Smoking Gun" show; this is at: http://www.nmsr.org/sfgun.htm (The link didn't come through on the original message). Here's an example from my calculation: The 15th line of Moore's table (reproduced on Rudiak's site here: http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Flight4_Table5.html The first 5 entries are givens  assumed values developed by Moore in his analysis. The first entry is altitude in feet: 42651. The 2nd entry is rate of rise in feet per minute: 600. The 3rd entry is time into the flight, in minutes (67.0) The 4th entry is wind speed in miles per hour (83 mph). The 5th entry is the angle the wind is coming from (242 degrees) The remaining entries are all calculated from the givens. The 6th entry is for u, eastwest wind speed in mph: this is calculated as =D16*SIN((E16180)*PI()/180) in my spreadsheet, where cell D16 is 83 mph, and cell E16 is 242 degrees. This formula results in a value of u for this row that is 73.3 mph (towards the East). Moore's table shows his calculation to have the same result: 73.3 mph. The 7th entry is for v, northsouth wind speed in mph: this is calculated as =D16*COS((E16180)*PI()/180) in my spreadsheet, where cell D16 is still 83 mph, and cell E16 is still 242 degrees. This formula results in a value of v for this row that is 39.0 mph (towards the North), again agreeing exactly with Moore's calculation in his table. The 8th and 9th entries are the actual trajectory values (x and y), the subject of this discussion. In my spreadsheet, I calculated eastwest distance x as the value of the preceding line's xposition (which was 33.9 miles in my spreadsheet), PLUS the product of the eastwest wind speed for the interval (73.3 mph) and the time interval. The latter I obtained by subtracting the previous time value (61.6 minutes) from the current time value (67.0 minutes), obtaining 67.0  61.6 = 5.4 minutes. 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 xvalue 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 yvalue; here, the time interval (still 0.09 hours) times the NorthSouth wind speed (39.0 mph) yields 3.51 miles; adding this to the previous line's yvalue of 25.25 miles (in MY spreadsheet, of course) yields a new ycoordinate 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. The differences between Moore's calculation and mine can be attributed to roundoff, 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 1/4mile difference at one data point. I used exactly what Moore said he used  in his own words from the aforementioned 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 yvalues. Where is the math "mistake"? Does David Rudiak really claim that 33.9 + 6.6 does NOT equal 40.5???? The "fuzzy math" Rudiak decries exists in his own mind, not in the real world. 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. However, I see NO evidence of a "hoax" or a "blatant math error." If Rudiak wishes to continue these accusations, then he is attempting to discredit Roswell skeptics by character assassination, pure and simple. All this model was intended for was to see if it RULED OUT Flight #4 landing near the Foster Ranch. It did not. If the model showed the balloon heading to El Paso, now THAT would have been a problem for the Mogul hypothesis. I thank David Rudiak for pointing out, through his numerous attempts to remodel the trajectory, that MANY different approaches still show the balloon train landing near the Foster Ranch. The 17mile "discrepancy" is simply the uncertainty of simple models based in incomplete data. I also call on him to cease with his unwarranted attempts at character assassination. 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 http://www.nmsr.org "Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once."  Thomas Huxley
[ Next Message  Previous Message  This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index 
UFO UpDates  Toronto  Operated by Errol BruceKnapp