If you call photographs, NASA documents, and Astronaut testimonies to be "my assumptions" as opposed to factual elements, then I understand why you don't wish to talk about them. When you dismiss these items I bring to your attention in favor of a narrative and latch onto a vague statement (as reproduced below from your initial post in this thread:
My French is not the best and even worse than my English, however, I tried it and it gives you at least an idea:
"One could ask for the reason why the first Speedmasters which went to the moon were equipped with the caliber 321 and not with its successor. The answer is quite simple: Because they already had been regularly tested by the NASA, which was not yet the case with the successors. Those were gradually brought in from the early 70's on."
as proof to be considered on an equal and even superseding import than photographs of the watches themselves, or NASA Documents I can understand why you don't wish to discuss my "Scientific methods". Because there is no comparing the two...
If pieces of the puzzle I bring to the table are questioned yours are going to be to. If you make statements about me "only making statements based on scientific proof otherwise you would mark it as your assumption." when I have stated what I my sources are for each element and the reasons for my conclusions, then you should expect the same in return. Talk about perches! If you don't like it then don't do it yourself, Michael.
Assuming your translation of Mr. Richon's statement is accurate (I'm not disputing it) then the statement you cite could just as easily be assumed to read ,,...The answer is quite simple: Because they (c.321's) already had been regularly tested by the NASA, which was not yet the case with the successors (c.861). Those were gradually brought in from the early 70's (could be any point from 1970-1975) on.".
There is nothing in Mr. Richon's statement to suggest a specific date or even year where this occurred!
You also state "And that was the case in year 1972 when the official supplier had to undergo the second test series with regard to the "Buy American Act" of 1933 forced by Bulova."... The NASA document I referenced from Page 131 of the Time Capsule seems to cast severe doubt that Omega "had to undergo the second test series". and also "For me the main evidence is that Omega changed to another case manufacturer, the Star Watch Case Co., Michigan, which Omega acquired only some time later. The change to a domestic manufacturer and a local casement was necessary to comply to the requirements of that Act. (Also the competitor, Bulova, wasn't able to provide a bigger stake of homemade production)."
Ok fair enough...
But this is the thing about making assumptions... They can be interpreted many different ways. based on these three points (gradually brought in from the early 70's on, Bulova testing and Michigan cases) one could make completely different assumptions...
You are making the assumption this happened in 1972 and calling it a fact (title which started off this thread: "Both, the 321 and 861 went to the moon! (long)"... You have since softened this to say it's your opinion. I accept the statement "Both the 321 and 861 went to the moon" as your opinion. It is not a fact. At least not yet. But I and others are working on that.
The thing about making assumptions is the end result will vary depending on the assumption... Were one to choose to do so one could take the same three points and speculate... "Since NASA didn't have to "Buy American" in 1972 it took it's time in transitioned in the c.861's, after all earth orbit missions are much safer and less risky than lunar missions, so that by the time retesting was considered for the Shuttle Chronograph, there was a Speedmaster with a Michigan case in place to compete and was of sufficient American cost to qualify under "Buy American". it's much easier to send up some spare Speedmasters for testing with the Skylab module, than to carry them This also is an opinion, not a fact, but something someone could conclude... I don't, but this illustrates that one's assumptions can effect a conclusion. This is why I prefer photo's and documents to narratives.
The idea when trying to solve a mystery is similar (not exact but similar) to solving a mathematical equation... Eliminating or quantifying variables (or unknown elements) until you can state, for example, x = 2, y =5, z = -7.
In this case the important variable is the date that c.861's first flew into space. Until and unless one gets to the point that one can cite a specific value the element we are concerned with, the date c.861 first flew, we are speculating.
But we can make the following two statements without fear of contradiction:
If the date c.861 first flew was on Apollo 8, or Apollo's 10-17 (all lunar missions) then number of c.861's that flew to the moon is more than zero.
If date c.861 first flew is greater than 1972 then number of c.861 that flew to moon is 0 (didn't happen). This is of course, unless we resume lunar missions and take along a c.861 for the ride...
You have said that "After all I'm quite sure the ST 145.022 has been the Moon Watch from 1972 on." based on the points you raised in your initial post.
You are reading Mr. Richon's statement (which really only means the date c.861 first flew is before 1976) adding in the Bulova test which occurred in 1972 and again later in the late 1970's, and that Omega had arrangements with Star to infer that the date that the c.861 first flew is before 1973 and hence c.861's went to the moon.
My point is that we do not know the date c.861's first flew. Mr. Richon's narrative only means early 1970's (1970-1975). Until we know that date c.861's first flew we are only guessing. So let's state it as an opinion, a guess, an assumption, but not conclude it as a fact. Because it is not. It may have happened, but until we know that it did, we can not state that it is a fact.
I feel the statement that I choose to make "They possibly and maybe even probably flew prior to the end of the lunar missions" to be much more consistent and supportable with what we know than your statement "After all I'm quite sure the ST 145.022 has been the Moon Watch from 1972 on."
We can also state the following statements which are outside of this topic and thread:
If date c.861 first flew on NASA mission is after 1972 but before than 1975 then number of c.861 that flew on Apollo-Skylab Missions is greater than 0.
If date c.861 first flew on a NASA mission was after 1974 and before 1981 then c.861's flew on Apollo-Soyuz but not to the moon.
If either of the two above are true then we can say that c.861's flew on Apollo missions, but not necessarily to the moon unless we can confirm a c.861 flew on a Apollo Lunar mission(s)).
