\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

The Scientific Method... & a personal note... -->

Posted By: Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) <cmaddox@xnet.com> (power.xnet.com)
Date: 9/25/1 - 13:56:17

In Response To: I agree with Chuck on this ... (Gerry L.)

As a scientist, I prefer empirical evidence to mere statement of fact - no matter how authoritative a person the statement of fact originated from.

This is exactly the approach I take: The Scientific Method... Here are some excerpts from a page on the University of Rochester's website:
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.... However you don't have to be a Scientist to use this method of problem-solving...
The scientific method has five steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Testing of the hypothesis by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

4. Modification of the hypothesis in the light of the results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

After performing the testing:

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature.

If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

This is what I have been saying and using in my studies on this and virtually all topics.

Michael, you seem to think Chuck needs to see photos of the 861 on the moon with the back unscrewed before he will be satisfied. I imagine he will be satisfied with some documentation from NASA about the watches they procured and used.

In my part 2 reply in this thread I mentioned three different criteria that I would think settle the question: 1) a NASA verifiable photograph taken during a Lunar mission of a white painted logo Speedmaster, 2) A photograph of a Speedmaster with a c.861 movement that is attributed to being one worn by an astronaut on a mission by: the astronaut, a NASA person it a position to know, or an Omega representative in a position to know (Messers Stafford, Richon, Diethelm for example) 3) A photograph of a log of a watch (attested to as above in the second criteria) of it's use which has a serial number, and a c.861 movement... This is similar to the Richard Gordon picture from Mr. Richon's book...
In addition I should also point out that I have taken as fact the debriefing transcript of Mr. David Scott (Commander of Apollo 15 and consultant to the Film crew of the movie Apollo 13) that he wore a Waltham Chronograph on the moon without any other photographic or physical evidence because he was there. If we can find a Apollo Lunar mission astronaut who will say that he wore a White logo Speedmaster on a moon mission I'll say "A c.861 went too!!!".

So there are a total of Four methods of providing what I would consider conclusive proof short of Michael inaccurate statement: "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."

Four additional ways to prove Michael's conclusion. Put 'em up folks! I'll be happy to accept them based on the above upon verification...

Since I know one of the current astronauts, and I work with NASA (although NOT the manned spaceflight division), perhaps I can research this further. I wonder where these watches are now, and where the documentation for them would be buried.

As much as I'm sure the NASA/Omega Archivist have better things to do this is probably what it's going to take... Long hard difficult research will be necessary to come up with a concluding statement as to what and what did not make it to the vicinity of the moon.
When people ask why I don't self-publish a book this is why... What I have done is the condensation on the outside of the bucket, which is much less than even a drop in the bucket of questions that need to be answered... I can't afford to do the research on my own short of selling my watch collection. I mean I love you all but I don't love you all that much! ;-)

Unlike many things in history, the case of the Speedmasters that went to the moon CAN be researched, and DOCUMENTATION can be provided to support claims.

It's not the conclusion "Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long)" that I disagree with... It's the method that Michael uses to get to that conclusion: ,,This theory must be right, so that much is set in stone, so everything else has to be worked in based on that.,, This conclusion may/may not eventually prove to be correct, but the method is not Scientific. An odd way to go about things considering the contributions of the US Space Program to Science.
I mean, surely it's "early days" at this point, is it not? We know a bit, maybe even quite a bit... But there is so much more out there we can probably learn that may bolster one or more theories, confirm one or more theories conclusively, or even quash all of them. I've only started my study of Speedmaster lore less than three years ago, I don't know how long anyone else here has... There is bound to be buckets of information either surface or be dug up that we don't have right now. This will likely take years! I just think it's way too early to jump ahead and predict, much less stating as fact what the answers are based on a narrative in one book, regardless of the author...

If that documentation is present in the French book you mention, then that is good enough for me. If not, then no matter how great the person who wrote the book, it is NOT sufficient evidence to be absolutely sure about which watches went to the moon.

I concur...

But I find Chuck's tenacity refreshing. He seeks the truth. I admire him and his quest. I only wish more people thought the same way.

I'm not going to hold anyone else to any less of a standard than I hold myself.
Now that I have all of that out on the table I'd like to say something else...

I would like to formally welcome back Gerry L. to the Forum!!!
For many people who have not been active in the Omega Forum since the beginning, Gerry L. is one of the true pioneers in the area of on line Speedmaster research and authoring. Gerry L. is author of one of the earliest articles that describes the evolution of the Speedmaster, the first description of retrofitting a Display Back on a Speedmaster Moonwatch, and has one of the finest and most spectacular Speedmaster Collections I've ever had the privilege to see scans of (which includes a couple of real rarities: a Base 1000 CK2998, and a 376.0822)... I daresay that his Speedmaster collection and knowledge is likely the equal or better of anyone's here in the forum myself included.

If I "know a little bit" about Speedmaster's it is largely because of Gerry and other pioneers who came before me. I've learned much of the basics from these guys. His TZ Classics should be considered required reading

Gerry, I hope we will have the pleasure of more frequent posts! It'd be good to have one more person in the forum keeping me on the straight and narrow!

=)

Cheers!

-- Chuck

Messages in This Thread

What makes you so suspicious? Here comes more... - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/24/1 - 16:49:32
- I agree with Chuck on this ... - Gerry L. -- 9/24/1 - 22:47:55
  - For me it's sufficiant. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/25/1 - 18:19:34
    - As long as it's expressed that way, I have no difficulties with > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 23:34:02
      - Not a matter. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:06:44
        
        NASA docs cast additional light (& doubt) on your theories...> - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/27/1 - 00:31:38
        
        More additional light - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/27/1 - 21:18:18
        
        As for me, I'll continue to search for the answer. Pt . 2 - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/28/1 - 07:56:12
        
        As for me, I'll continue to search for the answer. Pt 1 - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/28/1 - 07:17:42
        
        But wait... There's more... > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/27/1 - 09:47:21
        
        Sorry for double posting! (nt) - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:08:35
      - Not a matter. - Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) -- 9/26/1 - 17:05:05
    - Hi Michael, - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 21:23:18
  - The Scientific Method... & a personal note... --> - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 13:56:17
    - Chuck - you flatter me. Thanks ... - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 16:35:42
      - Without ... would we have ... ? > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 18:08:25
        
        Chuck - we have GOT to get together! - Gerry L. -- 9/25/1 - 21:24:59
        
        I would be happy to. The question then becomes: - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/25/1 - 22:54:44
- Circumstantial evidence is not conclusive... > - Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) -- 9/24/1 - 19:43:54
  - This debate should go in TZ classics! - Timothy -- 9/24/1 - 22:29:59

\| View Thread \| Return to Index \| Read Prev Msg \| Read Next Msg \|

Omega Watch Forum - Page 4
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15