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

As long as it's expressed that way, I have no difficulties with >

Posted By: Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) <cmaddox@xnet.com> (power.xnet.com)
Date: 9/25/1 - 23:34:02

In Response To: For me it's sufficiant. (Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany))

Michael writes:

For me I'm satisfied from all the evidence we already have and I'm deeply convinced, that NASA's official Moonwatch after the second tests in 1972 was a 861. It's at least my personal opinion from all I've read.

I have no difficulties with this as long as it is expressed in that way: as your personal opinion...
For what it's worth I have no problem with this statement too:

It is fairly well established that the c.321 Speedmaster was worn on the moon, as was a Waltham Chronograph worn by David Scott on Apollo 15, a Rolex GMT Master was worn by Jack Swigert during Apollo 13's Lunar Flyby. It is suspected that a c.861 also made a similar journey and we are looking for suitable information to prove this. It is also possible that other brands of watches were also worn by astronauts as backup watches as well..

I believe this to be fair and reasonable. A shortened version would be:

Speedmaster c.321 & Waltham Chronograph were worn on the moon. Rolex GMT was worn during Lunar Fly-by. Speedmaster c.861 suspected of making a lunar journey. Others may have too.

Existing statements subject to change should new information become available.

Fair enough?

-- 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