|
|
|
| | View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg | |
|---|
Posted By: Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany) <tz@moonwatch.de> (p3ee0f885.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
In Response To: NASA docs cast additional light (& doubt) on your theories...> (Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area))
Date: 9/27/1 - 21:18:18
I think we are now at a stage where the debate becomes quite annoying!
The way you are putting some of my statements out of any context and your repeating statement I were "categorically wrong and incorrect on every single count" is neither very serious, nor especially "scientific", nor correct. I think it's high time you come off your perch!
If you are seriously interested in a discussion and learning more about the details in history, you then should reconsider about an appropriate sound of your statements.
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...
I don't want to discuss your "scientific methods" again, but it's absolutely inappropriate to vent your feelings using such assumptions about my professional and private business. As for me I'm feeling very comfortable with my professional success. And if I was a janitor, it would be not of your concern.
You obviously are trusting that Imai-book more than others. Well, it's your turn, but ot neccessarily more correct, than my sources.
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.
I followed your advice and what I found is a narration of Mr. Imai where he describes a survey which had been made with the result of 20 watches left. But there is nor reference to documents or pics.
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.
You are making assumptions? So where in the world is the difference when I am citing passages of Marco Richons book? Chuck, the only difference is, that unfortunately only a few have access to his book and you aren't among them. I would trust Marco Richon far more than K. Imai, but that's just my opinion.
There was not only NASA a part of this history, there were also Omega people who took part in that game and often enough in the same place. It's just the other side of the same coin. And Marco Richon accompanied most of the business between Omega and NASA during his long period of service. Otherwise it's well known that the Imai book is often mistaken.
When I said, you were speculating, I had in mind your maths you are doing on your page, taking the rumorous 20 watches as a base and.... you know that better.
Imais story might be absolutely correct. But does that prove that NASA didn't buy more watches?
On the other hand there is a document shown in the Imai book where NASA is considering about the wishes of the astronauts to keep their watches and thet NASA is afraid to come in a shortage of watches. So one could probably take that as a base and come to the conclusion that they bought indeed more watches.
You didn't even know about the second test procedures in 1972 before I cited about it from the Omega Saga. (And Imai also didn't mention it. He only shows documents from the time during and before the tests, but it's set in relation to the tests in 1978).
Well, I'll save myself and others quoting your following hair splittings about the use of singular or plural of watch(es). It leads to nothing, IMO. Can you imagine, that other people icluding the people from MSC did not care about the movement of an, in their eyes, absolutly identic watch of the same brand?
Here's another quotation, resuming the results of all the test:
"Once again, the Omega chronograph had appeared of higher quality than the other watches tested: Speedmaster Professional fulfilled all the environmental requirements, had the best technical results, and was offered to the lowest price. Consequently, it was accepted to be the official equipment. It is interesting to raise here that it was about the same model as that of 1962. (note: more or less.)"
It comes from the article I was translating and typing the whole evening over several hours, just to pass more information to you and other interested. I will post it above again where everybody can see it. It is written by Alan A. Nelson and he is introduced in the following way:
"Dr. Alan A. Nelson, Doctor of Psychiatry, impassioned watch enthusiast, who indeed wrote the most detailed and most complete watch history about the Speedmaster. This text was published by the NAWCC - National Association of Watch and Clock Collectors, in its Bulletin No 282, of February 1993, reproduced extensively here (free translation)".
And my re-translation between two, for me foreign tongues is certainly not the best. The article is available to every NAWCC member and I really wonder why nobody else in this forum did mention it so far.
It's an interesting paragraph, isn't it? I know you will promptly jump onto the first part, but I think the three words of the subnote are much more interesting. This is written by a WIS to the interested public of many other WISs. And (Attention, Assumption!) I think for those the small subnote was made, just enough to indicate that it was NOT the same model.
Thus you see, why I wrote it was irrelevant how many of the initial watches had been left at this time.
The next sentence is also very interesting:
"A watch invoiced with NASA at the cost of 0.01 $ part! "
Is it also hair splitting, if I would conclude that NASA must have bought those watches prior to getting invoiced?
You will find many more answers in this article - that the watches were purchased in Huston and not in NY, a detailed explanation about the second test requirements (showing the vast differences to the first tests, and intending that the old Speedmasters were untested, as long as they hadn't undergone the second round again).
And maybe you will find in addition to that some new information, for instance about Coopers's Accutron during the last Mercury mission, about the two watches and the GMT-question ( Huston Time and elapsed mission time on the other hand), about good reasons to use a chronograph.
And if you doubt again and it isn't scientific enough for you, then have a look at the end of the article first.
Bottom line: Although it's an interesting topic, I'm still of the opinion I already posted: It's sufficiant for me, what I know. I'm not a maniac in those questions and I want to spend my spare time with some work on my watches and not squeezing my brain for proper English words over hours. It's 4.15 AM now. Imagine, that such a work for me needs several times as much as you or others here would need. So consequently this will be my last posting on that topic.
Michael.
| | 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
