|
|
|
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Posted By: Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) <cmaddox@xnet.com> (power.xnet.com)
In Response To: What makes you so suspicious? Here comes more... (Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany))
Date: 9/24/1 - 19:43:54
What makes you so suspicious? Here comes more...
Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive evidence... Even though you think it is...There is an old navigator's adage: don't trust the map to be accurate... trust the land. For the map may be inaccurate, the land is never inaccurate.
Chuck,
The "Omega Saga" is a very valuable source for everybody who is interested in deep detail of special Omega models and the history around them. I would really recommend it to you. The only way to obtain it is direcltly from Bel. Just write to marco.richon@omega.ch and provide him with your address and card details and you will have it in only a few days. The Saga wasn't written for the book market, it was more a joint venture of Marco Richon, many Omega specialists, Marc Gassmann of the Omega Foundation and Nicholas Hayek to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Omega. The information this book provides is like an official statement coming from Omega.
I'll be happy to give this a shot. Who knows maybe it would work as well...
John Diethelm is certainly very knowledgeable as well, but he has a completely different background. He is the master over the Omega records and files, but more from a technical side. It's quite different to that, what Marco Richon does and what he especially did during his researches for the book. He also has a comparable history in terms of service and is head of the museum since it was opened in 1983. If John Diethelm should answere a special question, it wouldn't take me wonder, if he was looking it up in the Saga.
Why would he turn to a book when he could look at original records and files?
With respect to the other books you are mentioning, you didn't want to compare them with the Saga, did you?
I would love to be able to compare them first hand and hope to do so someday. Hopefully soon.
The Imai book is very nice and I like it for a quick reference. And the Rolex book, I don't see where it could provide more information on.. Wait until you have seen the Saga and you'll know what I mean.
I'm looking forward to that day.=) However Imai's book does apparently have one advantage over the Omega Saga it has usable topical photos... Apparently the Omega Saga does not or you would have posted them...
Back to our question:
I cannot provide you with what you accept as the only proof for the fact, that the 861 went also to the moon, which is a photograph showing a 861 on the surface of the moon with the back unscrewed.
Michael, I'm not asking for this, and you know that. sigh... I'd be happy to accept as proof any of the following:
I hold the c.321 up to that level of proof. Why can't we hold the c.861 up to that same level of proof? It is only fair.
I'm afraid you never will get that.
I won't make assumptions based on a misunderstanding as it would be using your quote out of context.
I don't know, if you will ever find a pic whith a shot close enough to identify the movement and the lunar environment at the same time.
Why not?We have seen pictures from Apollo-Soyuz Test Mission that shows Tom Stafford is wearing a Applied Metal Omega Logo Speedmaster. It would be incredibly unlikely that a c.321 would have a White painted Omega logo... I'll make you a deal if you'll post me one picture of a photo taken during an Apollo lunar mission I'll conclude it's a c.861. I think that is reasonable. But it has to be from a source that NASA can verify with their photo's. (Photoshop can make the unreal seem real...)
It seems to me you would even doubt a first hand verbal information., as long as you don't see your pic.
Making assumptions is what got this dialog going in the first place. It gets people in trouble all the time. Don't assume, because you will probably be wrong...
But what we have at least is a second hand information that states the 861 was used.
Probably used in the early 1970's... That means to me from 1970-1975. It doesn't mean that for certain it was worn on a moon mission (1972 or before). This is another assumption, Michael...
And we have a lot of first hand information about circumstances from wich we can conclude to that.
You can based on your standards anyway. circumstances = Circumstantial evidence, not conclusive.
From both we can say that the use of the 861 has been most certainly and to speak in your terms, it's very close to 100%. The underlying evidence is so huge, there are people sentenced to death by a lesser grade of evidence.
If the underlying evidence is so huge then why can a photo be located? Why can a record be shown? I'll grant that Mr. Richon is exceedingly knowledgeable but to base a conclusion as a "very close to 100%" certainty based on ,,used towards the early 1970's,, is not overwhelming evidence in my book.
For the second and biggest contest NASA invited all the manufacturers of the world and in the end 16 did participate in the contest. Those second tests had a completely different testing programme to the first ones. Every watch had to undergo twice the circle of each test. They had quite a big machinery af test apparations (You can see a pic in that book). They cooperated with other institutions like that in Neuenburg to have some tests done which they couldn't perform. All that was certainly very expensive.
The winner out of all those testing procedures was the Speedmaster cal. 861 in a case from Star Watch, Michigan.
I can not attest to this because I don't have the book, but I'll take your word for that.
Dou you really believe NASA did neglect all that and did use the old version of the Speedmaster?
Do you really believe that they would eschew all of the previous experience with the existing stock of Speedmasters and take a chance on a new product at most 2 missions and most likely one final mission? When they had 20 some unused existing models? When there was no reason to change?
Watches they had purchased by chance and which didn't participate in the second test?
The only watches I am aware of that they purchased "by chance" were the initial one's purchased via the Houston dealer. Others were purchased from Omega either directly or via Omega's agents in the US...
Come on, nobody would believe that!
As your assertion that the watches were "purchased by chance" is not particularly accurate I don't feel this is particularly relevant. But if you want, Michael you can call me "nobody"...
Your theory whether they had some of the old ones left or not is irrelevant, since they never had used them anymore.
Another assumption Michael? Based on what hard evidence?
Hey, they could buy as many as wanted for just $ 1.00 each!
We have both already stated that money was hardly a factor, especially if they had a watchmaker on staff. Are you now saying that money was a factor in this decision?
And they were new, provided for being better (by Omega) and they won the second test! And since they came from Omega directly, I'm quite sure they have been tested at Omega also, before they were provided to NASA.
How many watches did Omega provide Michael? You are stating this as if Omega shipped a batch of these watches to NASA. Does it say that in the book? What were the number that they shipped? Or is this another assumption?
Do you really think NASA had acted like a good housewife, who is first using up her left-overs (if there were any) before buying and using new stuff?
Do you really think NASA would risk changing something that did not need to be changed just to use something new? When the risks were so high?How many housewives go out an buy new china for every meal Michael? Even and bargain prices?
Remember what the other guy here in this forum was posting about discarded or left-in drawers Speedmasters. I believe they didn't care at all about the old watches, if there were some left anyway.
Ah you're talking about Russ... Unused after 20 or 30 years? Yes, certainly, but for a 5 or 6 year watch? Two different things Michael.
And there is another point: What do you think had happened to that NASA guy, who has been responsible for the decision to use the old and untested (in second tests) watches in case something went wrong with a watch?
You seem to think that the second tests invalidate the second tests. I don't. I have never read any narrative that has stated that the second tests did anything but validate and underscore the first tests. With this being the case (unless there is something to say otherwise), and both tests are/were valid it seems to me that the watches that passed the first test would likely not all of a sudden considered to be junk.To say the c.321's were untested is laughable.
I also don't think that a watch that had been tested in a torture test would be then strapped to an astronauts wrist. But this is one of my assumptions.
What, if the press had discovered, that despite to the "Buy America Act" and all the efforts of Bulova, the lobbyists, and the test series, NASA was all that ignoring and still using an "unamerican" product?
If it was a Swiss product I don't think they would particularly care. The Swiss have a certain reputation for making fine watches. Most American made watches of that era (and what few were left) were rarely thought of as being in the same class as a Swiss watch.
No Chuck, you won't expect, that anybody would believe that.
I won't expect what?An example, the Shuttle has flown for 2 decades with a Canadian made lifting arm... Do you hear Americans gnashing their teeth about that?
How many American's own and drive German and Japanese (Italian, British, Swedish, etc.) cars?
You are asking for a 100% security in those questions. I'm afraid you'll never get them. It's only sure for 100% that you and I will die one day.
I'm able to find and produce pictures and documents as evidence for my conclusions.You have not, nor has anyone else thus far including me, been able to produce a similar level of evidence for the c.861's.
Don't be angry at me about that...
I own a c.861 moonwatch myself. I own three times as many Omega c.861 movements than Omega c.321's... I'd love so see evidence that a c.861 went. I haven't seen it yet. I haven't been able to find it, you haven't been able to find it, Bill Sohne hasn't, Simon Debrux (SideB) hasn't either. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.
You included some links to your page. I like it very much and use it sometimes to get a quick reference. But in some places you are providing some things a a fact, which are wrong or assumptions or not up to date.
I concede the c.1045 is in dire need for updating. Time I spend on this pushes it back the same amount of time.What others?
Here is not the space to go through all the things, but let me shortly go into some parts of the section, which is headed "What can we conclude as fact". (I added the link for ease of reference...
After what you were telling me about conclusions and facts, what is it now? Conclusion or facts?
If you'd like I'll change the passage to "what I can conclude as fact beyond a reasonable doubt..."
1. Your first fact seems to be wrong. The Mercury programme took place between 1961 and 1963. But NASA started to procure the watches of the ten participating brands already in 1962.
I'll correct that, however your "fact" is also wrong:Imai's book states:
Speedmaster's relationship with outer space began when NASA's flight equipment buyer went to Corrigan's watch shop in Texas to purchase a chronograph. This was in 1961. At that time, the NASA flight equipment buyer purchased five chronographs, all of different brands, including the Omega Speedmaster. The intended use for the chronographs was not made clear. What brought the NASA equipment buyer to a jeweler's on a Texas street comer was most likely none other than President Kennedy's speech.So both of us are wrong on the date... I'm wrong it was not after Mercury and you're wrong that it happened in 1962. That is if we can trust Mr. Imai on this point... Since the Japanese use Arabic numbers I think we can.
BTW: The first Speedmaster in space was the one of Walter M. Schirra with Sigma 7 on October 10, 1962. But well, that one was bought by Shirra himself.
You are incorrect. As noted on another article I wrote and confirmed by the Official NASA Mercury information page, Mr. Shirra mission of 6 orbits occurred on 3 October 1962 not 10 October as you indicated.
2. There is many information about the fact, that NASA procure the 861 before 1978 (see above and earlier postings). Just remind of the $1.00 Speedies for the second contest in 1972.
However this was not brought up until Bulova raised the issue. This occurred during 1972. I'll update this to state that Speedmasters were tested in 1972, but it is unclear if NASA procured them or if they were merely submitted for testing... There remains no photo's or NASA documents of c.861's riding along for the ride.
3. Now you acceppt J.D.'s answer as a fact? I thought you only trust in photos?
I stated:According to John Diethelm who is as close to Canon as we are likely to get aside from speaking to the actual Moonwalker's [at least two of which have since passed away]). The first watch worn on the moon was a c.321 worn by Aldrin.John Diethelm did state that. It is a fact that he stated that.
Are you disputing that Aldrin's Speedmaster was a c.321? We don't know as we can't point to it (which I have stated elsewhere in the article) because it was stolen. If we dispute the words of John Diethelm who in your own words "He is the master over the Omega records and files" we can't trust Mr. Richon any more...
As "the master over the Omega records and files" Mr. Diethelm is as close to Canon as we are likely to get, at least as close as Mr. Richon.
5. Yes, but how could they. They didn't get a feedback from NASA about which one of the dozens of watches were used and in which of their space programms. They certainly know about it, but they have no "Official Stetement".
The difference between your "evidence" and my "evidence" is that I can point to photographs and photographs of NASA documents that indicate with exceedingly high levels of certainty that these astronauts watches were a c.321, you have not been able to produce the same level of evidence to support your conclusions.I am NOT saying that c.861's worn during lunar missions do not exist, merely that we can't find any pictures or documents of them. I haven't been able to, have you? If (when) we do, I'll have another big addendum to write!
10. The quotation of J.D. sounds very much like Marco Richon's statement made in the Saga and quoted earlier by me. But when I did so, it wasn't relevant for you.
And you seem to consider Mr. Diethelm records to be of lesser import than Mr. Richon's narrative. There is a difference between photo's, records (NASA's and Omega's) and a narrative. a half a dozen posts later you do not seem to understand this. I am running out of different ways to explain it.
And in you Bottom Line:
1. "Omega has stated as fact" ... What now? Are Omegas statements now facts? For you, so you told me earlier, it's not.
"Omega has stated as fact", Mr. Diethelm is a representative of Omega, and he stated something as fact. There is no inconsistency here.For what it's worth John Diethelm has also stated that it is possible that c.861's flew on later flights. Which I agree with too! I believe it is possible, just not proven.
3. I think we now are a huge step ahead of that. There is a lot of evidence, that the cal. 861 was used on moon missions.
Just no photographic, recorded documentation from either Omega or NASA that anyone has been able to locate and publish. I can point to a higher standard of "evidence" than you have, at least thus far.You can think there is a lot of evidence, but at best most if not all of it is circumstantial, implied and not at all physical, at least at this point in our investigations.
I personally doubt you will ever receive potographed eveidences on all the questions.
I do not know that I will either... That is ok though, a person should reach for it anyway. I've not given up hope. Nor should you!
And it's certainly not necessary. Imagine there was a court case about those questions. What do you guess were the result based on all evidences and conclusions we now have?
The finding of the jury in part one of the indictment: That based on what evidence I and others have been able to produce, we can place a c.321 near the moon (Shepard, Evans, Gordon), and on the moon (Shepard) beyond a reasonable doubt.The finding of the jury in part two of the indictment: While there is circumstantial evidence to believe that possibly a c.861 could have been on a lunar mission, there is no conclusive proof that one did so beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cheers, Michael
Cheers,-- Chuck
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 |
Copyright © 2001-2004 A Bid Of Time, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Back to top of page | Return to Time Zone Home Page
Copyright © 2001-2004 A Bid Of Time, Inc., All Rights Reserved
E-mail: info@TimeZone.com
