|
Chuck,
It's not of my business what kind of information you are providing on your pages.
Michael, Unless I post in those pages:
Special thanks to those people mentioned above who have asked these questions. It is only via the scrutiny of many that we burn away impurities and are left with the truth... -- Chuck
In which case it is. As I've left myself wide open for scrutiny... But expect the scrutiny to be a two-way street...
In addition I have also stated at least once previously in this thread and will do so again:
"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..."
But thanks for taking my opinion into account. I expressed my opinion, I tried to explain on which facts it is based and I think it's concludent.
As I said, I do wish I could agree with you that it is conclusive. But the evidence offered does not in my opinion, and others, meet the level of conclusiveness. Perhaps that will change due to efforts of both ourselves and others. I mentioned our debate to a girl I know today and she mentioned one of her parents worked behind the scenes at NASA during the 1970's and "has lot's of pictures"... Who knows?
As for the "facts it is based on" I believe they consist of Mr. Richon's narrative from his book. I've requested substantiating evidence to support your conclusion and have yet to see any. I've posted what I've found from a number of sources (even including a scan from Mr. Richon's book) to substantiate my statements.
I am not going to state that something conclusively happened when I have doubts in my mind. You will do what you feel comfortable with. I can't change that. But don't expect me to not call it for what it is...
I still can't follow your argumentation you are only making statements based on scientific proof otherwise you would mark it as your assumption.
I only make statements that I feel are conclusive when I believe they are substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt and supported but collaborating evidence with sources cited, as in the article I wrote. It is very clear to me and the hundreds if not thousands of people who have read that article since it was first included in the article back in January of this year. I've tried explaining it to you with little apparent success... I wish it were not so.
The difference between my evidence and yours is:
- I submit my evidence for scrutiny and revision should they be disproved/modified. This is straight from the Scientific Method which I mentioned elsewhere in this thread...
- On the other hand you state when talking about Mr. Richon "I think it should read just the other way round, so one can only agree with him." So you think that no one should question Mr. Richon's narrative or apparently your conclusions.
It is obvious to me, based on such statements, that you are not only not following the scientific method, you don't have a firm enough understanding about it to question anyone about it or means of verifing information. I hope you aren't a lawyer or a research scientist... With methods like these you'll be hard pressed to make any sort living at either...
For example the repeated statement, there had been 20 Speedmasters left, is not comprehensible for me. It's an assumption if not speculation.
No Michael, it's a cited reference, not an assumption. Perhaps you should read or reread the passage in question before you incorrectly call it an assumption or a speculation on my part. Perhaps you would comprehend it then...
I did not speculate that there was an inventory or that there were x Speedmasters left. I cited a reference in a book that any one of dozens if not hundreds of people in the forum can easily verify with their copies of Time Capsule. Which was written by a person in a position to know. Who has had access to NASA documents and reproduced dozens if not hundreds of them in his book.
You now seem to doubt that there was an inventory.
On page 124 of the Time Capsule there is a reproduction of a NASA memo dated March 24, 1972 discussing the inventory (in which Aldrin's stolen Speedmaster is mentioned confirming that story). It doesn't state that there were 20 Speedmasters left unused, but considering the fact that Mr. Imai had access to this document, it is not unreasonable to believe that he also had access to the documents that detail the information he related in his narrative.
And there are other points also.
I'm listening... I have continuously stated that my information is subject to change as new information is discovered. Your previous input has been useful if not particularly accurate... Like the date of the Sigma 7 flight... More on inaccuracies later...
We overehere call that as taking always the arguments which are just most fitting.
Michael, I cite references, from multiple sources with my writings, statements and conclusions, thus far you have only cited the narrative from a single source. Who is taking "always the arguments which are just most fitting"?
I'll also mention that, for what it's worth, that the Time Capsule has the following pertinent information (I realize it's not the Omega Saga Michael, but for the most part I am only citing reproduced NASA documents):
- Page 129:
- a NASA memo from the Deputy Administrator to the Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight dated 20 September 1972 which talks about actions to be taken: All manufacturers of watches should be asked on short notice whether or not they have a Chronograph that qualifies under the buy American Act, If no such Chronograph exists we will continue to use the Omega, If only 1 meets these requirements (Buy American) we will test it to make sure it qualities if it dies use it on Apollo 17, if more than one meets the requirements (Buy American) we will test them all and select one.
- Note it doesn't say use the new Omega, just "the Omega"...
- If there are now two types of Omega's on hand (the "Swiss" and the "Michigan", as you have suggested Michael, why are they referring to it in the singular tense and not Plural and/or not specifying which one type (Swiss or Michigan) they are talking about?
- But I can't and won't make any statements based on that. It's interesting, perhaps even circumstantial, but it would be an assumption to take it as meaning anything one way or another. But I find the wording odd and worth note...
- Page 130:
- Reproduces a document from George Low expressing concerns that only 16 (Bulova) watches have been manufactured and hence no reliability experience available for them and that although they are proceeding with testing and will use three of them if they pass (they didn't) and legal certifies that they qualify under the Buy American Act. However "Myers indicates that for "insurance purposes" the astronauts will probably also want to wear their Omega watch as a second timepiece"...
- NOTE: the underline in that quote... "their Omega watch" not "the retested", or "newly certified" or "NASA issued", but "their Omega watch". It strikes me as odd that there is no mention of Omega or any other watch being tested in this memo.
- Again I find the wording to be very interesting, not substantive but I suspect that if there were a new model of Speedmaster on hand and available and they wanted it used, they'd specify it clearly.
- Page 131
- Consists of reproductions of NASA documents including one titled "Chronograph Verification Comparison Matrix" pertaining to the testing of the Bulova Chronograph. It is very interesting to note that the document compares the Bulova with "Previous Test Limits - Others Inc. Omega".
- Note: this does not say that Omega's were being tested, just that they were the standard that the Bulova was being measured against...
- Why does this NASA document compare the Bulova's to "Previous Test Limits" if they were testing Omega's side-by-side, as you theorize Michael?
- On Page 132 (top right most column)
- Mentions that NASA did not send as you stated "For the second and biggest contest NASA invited all the manufacturers of the world and in the end 16 did participate in the contest.", but rather that Omega sent notifications to 17 watchmakers including Bulova, Omega, Breitling, Rolex and Seiko that wished to bid would have their products undergo environmental testing, and the watches passed the tests would be placed on the Qualified Products List (QPL). This is confirmed by a NASA document displayed on the next page of Time Capsule...
- For some reason you seem to believe that there was a massive retest of the Chronographs of 16 different manufacturers in 1972, however the NASA documents reproduced in the Time Capsule seem to indicate that only Bulova was tested (perhaps Omega was as well once again but it is not stated). See also the next item...
- Page 132 (Lower Left Column)
- There is a NASA Letter from the Office of the Administrator James Fletcher to Senator James Buckley stating: "We solicited the watch industry to find out whether any chronographs that qualified under the "Buy American" regulations were available. Only Bulova gave us an affirmative response." so it seems verified by NASA document that the of 16 companies that you listed in a previous post only Bulova gave an Affirmative response, not even Omega...
- Perhaps because Omega didn't have to because they had already passed the test? Or perhaps retesting wasn't necessary?
- Again, not proof but why state it in such a way? Omega was on your list after all, wasn't it Michael? You state that "I don't know why you never heard about the second test series of year 1972.",
- Apparently it was much less than a tests series as you state but more of a test of a single brand, namely Bulova...
- You also state that "Apparently this time NASA didn't buy the watches."
- Apparently, not only does it seems quite possible that NASA didn't retest them, but they did purchase at least one watch that flew on Apollo 17 and NASA didn't purchase it directly from Omega (see immediately below).
- Page 133 This is where I got the photograph of Ron L. Evan's Speedmaster:
 | - Please note the text in the scan: Omega Model 6129 purchased from the Norman Morris Co. in New York for use as the Apollo and Skylab Chronograph. Since Mr. Imai had "hands-on" with this watch long enough to photograph it is not unreasonably to believe that his statement in the caption is correct as it is likely he had "hands-on" with the document that has the information about Norman Morris Co..
- In light of this and the other items detailed above Your statement: "Your theorie whether they had some of the old ones left or not is irrelevant, since they never had used them anymore. Hey, they could buy as many as wanted for just $ 1.00 each! 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." is categorically wrong and incorrect on every single count Michael.
- Let me discuss these on a point by point basis:
- "Your theorie whether they had some of the old ones left or not is irrelevant,"
- It is not a theory, but a cited statement from Imai's book and via the picture of Ron L. Evans Speedmaster with a picture of the s/n on the side. It is neither a theory nor is it irrelevant because it flew to Lunar Orbit.
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect.
- "since they never had used them anymore"
- Then why was the name and initials of Ron L. Evans as well as "This watch was worn by Ron Evans on Apollo 17" on a watch which has a applied metal logo and a s/n of 63 if these watches were never used? It was used in this instance...
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, again.
- "Hey, they could buy as many as wanted for just $ 1.00 each!"
- Hey! It was bought from the Norman Morris Co. in New York! I doubt it was purchased from them for $1.00 each!
- Would Mr. Imai have put that in there if he couldn't have backed it up? He had "hands-on" the watch, is "hands-on" the procurement document a stretch?
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, yet again.
- "And they were new,"
- They were most certainly not if it has an Applied Metal Logo...
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, still again.
- "provided for being better (by Omega) and they won the second test!"
- The documentation I have cited in this post cast doubt that Omega was tested again in 1972. It appears from the NASA documents that the Bulova's test results were simply compared to the previous test results, not ongoing ones.
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, once again.
- "And since they came from Omega directly,"
- purchased from the Norman Morris Co. in New York
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, once more again.
- "I'm quite sure they have been tested at Omega also, before they were provided to NASA."
- Omega didn't provide this one as it was purchased from Norman Morris Co. in New York not Omega.
- Your statement is wrong and incorrect, one more time yet again.
- Four sentences, Seven statements, All Seven of them wrong and incorrect.
- The next pages are in the 1973-1975 section so they really aren't relevant, but they have the first mention in the Time Capsule (that I can find) of the "Star Watch Case Co." in a memo dated Oct 13 1978. But that is not relevant because there may, and probably, exist NASA and Omega documents which bear an earlier date.
On one last item you mention:
If the answer to that question was really so essential for me, I would try to write to somebody who definately will know about it for example one of the astronauts of Apollo 17. If one of them still has the watch, he could easily describe the logo.
I can tell you for a fact that there is at best a 50-50 chance that Gene Cernan no longer has the watch he wore on Apollo 17... Keep reading...
Or maybe I would ask Marco Richon directly to that special question.
That would be a very good idea as he or rather the Omega Museum is in possession of Gene Cernan's Speedmaster... Or at least one of them (Special Thanks to Mark Foster for pointing out the link to me...)
Gene Cernan: April 30, 1999 at the World Watch, Clock and Jewellery Show, Basel, Switzerland
The key sequence is: "In an emotional moment during the press conference, Gene Cernan presented his personal OMEGA Speedmaster watch that had accompanied him to the moon to the chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO of the Swatch Group Nicolas G. Hayek.
It will be displayed in the OMEGA Museum."
While going through my library I discovered that I have a picture of a watch that is purported to be Eugene Cernan's. Now I can not say that this is the same watch, because I don't know that. But the copyright of the book is November 1999 so it is possible, perhaps even probable, that the watch pictured (below) is the same one in the Omega Museum. I say probable because it is much easier to take a picture than to track down a person and get them agree to allow pictures to be taken. It would not be difficult to get a picture of Mr. Cernan's watch with a six month window should it be in the Omega Museum.
A couple of interesting things to note about this watch. 1) It has the early band on it as suggested by Wally Schirra based on his previous experience with the Speedmaster as a Test Pilot. 2) Not only is the watch a c.321 but it's a Pre-Pro c.321. 3) Gene Cernan is one of a select few men who made two trips to the moon: Apollo's 10 and 17. It is conceivable that this is his Apollo 10 watch and not his Apollo 17 watch.
But if this is a picture of Cernan's watch, and it's the one in the Omega Museum, and it's the one from Apollo 17 then it's the second crew member of Apollo 17 to have a c.321 and the odds of the c.861 having made it on Apollo 17 as you suggest are not looking very good.
In summary, I have made even more exhaustive searches for additional information on the subject. I've all but hand typed the pages pertaining to 1972 from the Time Capsule into this document. In each instance there has been nothing to substanicate the theories, speculation and assumptions you have made. On the contrary what I've found has been NASA document after NASA document after NASA document that seems to cast plausible, serious and strong doubt on those theories, speculations and assumptions you have made.
Again, even after all of this, I still believe it's possible that a c.861 made the journey, after all a Rolex GMT Master and a Waltham have. I hope that we find that it did. But we aren't going to make it a fact by making unsubstantiated, unsupported and uncollaborated claims.
-- Chuck |
