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

As for me, I'll continue to search for the answer. Pt . 2

Posted By: Chuck Maddox (Chicagoland area) <cmaddox@xnet.com> (power.xnet.com)
Date: 9/28/1 - 07:56:12

In Response To: More additional light (Michael Stein (Cologne-Germany))




Continued from Part 1 You obviously are trusting that Imai-book more than others. No, Michael I am not. Well, it's your turn, but ot neccessarily more correct, than my sources. As I have stated numerous times, I don't trust it more than your sources, I don't have your source, the Omega Saga, so I'm using what I have available which consists of Imai's book, numerous articles on the subject, the Moonwatch book, several Japanese Speedmaster publications, NASA website, and the NASA documents/photos reproduced in the sources mentioned and directly from NASA themselves. But to speak to your point. I'll trust a NASA document or photo as better proof than a narrative. Even Mr. Richon's or Mr. Diehelm's. I'll take a picture of a NASA Speedmaster as better proof than a narrative. Even Mr. Richon's or Mr. Diehelm's. It those documents/photographs are genuine, verifiable and accurate. I've stated this and restated this. When it comes to narratives one can choose which one is a better source than another based on any one of a number of factors. 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. Note I stated this was a citation from a book. I didn't state it is a proven fact. 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. Which I stated in the book as you note below: 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? No but it is not a disputed statement unless I am missing something. Are you saying it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Imai would make that up or didn't have access to documents which would allow him to say that? So where in the world is the difference when I am citing passages of Marco Richons book? You seem to feel that Mr. Richon's narrative is established fact. I state that Imai's narrative is not disputed by facts. I also say that Mr. Richon's statement is vague at best. (at least Mr. Imai states a specific number 20, Mr. Richon does not state a specific date or mission that a c.861 flew.) There is a difference. I don't know if you will be able to be discern it, but it's pretty big and the key point in this. There is a difference between a single discrete number and a vague reference to towards the early 1970's... What does the early 1970's mean Michael? 1970? 1971? 1972? 1973? 1974? 1975? It could be any one of those years. It's vague. period. Chuck, the only difference is, that unfortunately only a few have access to his book and you aren't among them. No there is an additional difference, the way one chooses to express the weight the narrative has. When Mr. Richon states (unless your translation is in error) "early 1970's" it DOES NOT MEAN 1972! Mr. Richon did not state 1972! You made that ASSUMPTION based on other events that may or may not have a bearing directly or indirectly on the question at hand! THIS IS IMPORTANT! This is the difference! I would trust Marco Richon far more than K. Imai, but that's just my opinion. I would too if he actually said that c.861's flew on Apollo 16 or Apollo 17. Has he Michael? No, he has not. he said (according to your translation) "gradually brought in from the early 70's on.". I trust in "the early 1970's on", just not that it means 1972. Because it doesn't. It's vague. If that translation is accurate to what Mr. Richon said, possession ot the book won't change the fact that it is vague and doesn't answer the question, as you believe and are championing. 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. Only much of the time an ocean and portions of two continents away... Without the Internet or digital cameras, or E-Mail, or FAX, etc. 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. Just how often was Mr. Richon in Huntsville Alabama? Or Houston Texas? Or at the Cape in Florida? I don't know, but you seem to imply he was there. Is this the case? I don't know, I'm asking... Otherwise it's well known that the Imai book is often mistaken. It has a number of mistakes. Agreed. That is why I typically only use the pictures and documents when possible, and the narrative only when independedntly verifiable or I cite it as part of the narative. Perhaps some/many/most of the mistakes were introduced with the translation from Japanese into English. If I could read Japanese I could quantify or qualify translation errors. But I can't and I doubt I could learn it sufficiently to do so. 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. What I quoted was from Imai's book. Math wasn't involved as it was quoted. Call it a rumor if you want Michael, but I have yet to see any evidence advanced which disputes it. I do not believe it is beyond dispute. No one has disputed it though. Are you disputing that figure? If so based on what? and what is your source? If you are going to call this rumorous then we should call Mr. Richon's " Those were gradually brought in from the early 70's on." as rumorous on the same basis. I'm not, but that would be equal treatment... Imais story might be absolutely correct. Imai might or might not, it stands as it is for now. Until disputed. But does that prove that NASA didn't buy more watches? It does not prove that they did or did not. But don't think that NASA bean counters wouldn't question (and generate paperwork questioning) the need to buy new watches if (not disputed thus far) they already had some on hand. If NASA did purchase more Speedmasters then there would be paperwork no? You can't prove it doesn't/didn't exist, but we are unable to point to it at this point in time. If they bought more watches it is very likely that it was documented and archives somewhere. 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. Yes, there is So one could probably take that as a base and come to the conclusion that they bought indeed more watches. Or could probably take that as Astronauts reluctant to part with their watches, as was also noted in this or another NASA document in close proximity. One could take it any of a number of different ways. 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). I didn't know that Omega's were retested in 1972. The Time Capsule doesn't show any NASA tests of Speedmasters or any other watch than the Bulova in 1972. You didn't present that. I was unaware of what you presented which is quite different than what is born out by the NASA documents reproduced in the Time Capsule. The way you expressed it sounded as if it was testing among a number of different manufactures. What was it 16 or 17 different manufacturers that you listed? Why list them out if they were not relevant to the discussion (i.e. they were tested)?. Then there is a NASA document in Time Capsule, a book you apparently have since as you talk frequently about being able to compare them... A NASA document that states that only one company submitted candidate chronographs for testing in 1972... I don't own Omega Saga, so I do not know what it states. Expecting me to know it's contents is not a reasonable expectation. I'm not a psychic Michael. If I were a psychic I'd tell you one way or another the answer to the question at hand. 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? I don't need to imagine, I know that as long as the item does the job, is easy to use, and reliable they would probably no care one way or another. But this paragraph leads to nothing as well! So why waste your time, my time and everyone else who reads this thread by brining it up? Sheesh! You complain about "hair splittings" when you interject such irrelevancies into the discussion? Goodness Gracious!!! The issue is when the c.861 first flew. "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.)" But is this refering to the tests in 1978? or something else? What is the timeframe of relevency? 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: Cool, I looked at it briefly before looking down here, it looked from my skimming it to be a candidate to be archived in TZ Classics. "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)". Nearly six years before I got bit by the bug... I wonder if they have back issues... 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. Nearly six years before... I was unaware of it. I can't speak for anyone else... 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. It's an interesting paragraph but it is really no more specific than Mr. Richon's narrative about "early 1970's on". Here is the specific quote from above so that I can specifically speak to this point... It is interesting to raise here that it was about the same model as that of 1962. (note: more or less.) Ok, in 1962 the Speedmaster that was being produced was the CK2998, the same model that Wally Schirra wore on Sigma 7. We know that by the time Ed White II flew, he wore a 105.003, and again we know that because we can point to the picture of his watch with the letter from Ed White's son. That's more or less about the same model as 1962. We also know that Alan Shepard, who didn't wear a watch (or at least it wasn't recorded as to what he did wear) on his Mercury Mission in 1961, wore a Speedmaster Professional which was produced in 1966-67 (picture is consistent with this) on Apollo 14 which was likely either a 105.012 or a 145.012... That's a second "about the same model as that of 1962", Gordon's and Evan's Speedmasters which also are either 105.012's or 145.012's as best as we can determine. It's interesting, but it doesn't mean anything, anything specific anyway... It is interesting to raise here that it was about the same model as that of 1962. (note: more or less.) So as noted about we have three c.321 models that are "about the same model as that (CK2998) of 1962"... It doesn't get us anywhere in this context as it could mean anything one wants to read into it. As such it's no less vague than Mr. Richon's "early 1970's on" narrative and may even be more vague... Thus you see, why I wrote it was irrelevant how many of the initial watches had been left at this time. Oh good. We agree... Whew! I was worried! The next sentence is also very interesting: "A watch invoiced with NASA at the cost of 0.01 $ part! " Ok, it is interesting. But did Dr. Nelson have access to these watches? I don't know. Mr. Imai apparently had access to the watches mentioned elsewhere long enough to take pictures, and access to the NASA documents long enough to duplicate them for each of them appear in his work... Mr. Imai also states that Norman Morris Co. in New York was the firm NASA purchased from. We know Imai had enough access to produce the pictures/documents in his work. I don't know about the access that Dr. Nelson had. We have a quandary. Note that in my earlier post I stated "I doubt it was purchased from them (Norman Morris Co.) for $1.00 each". Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation that we haven't puzzled or dug up yet... Yet more work we have to do! Is it also hair splitting, if I would conclude that NASA must have bought those watches prior to getting invoiced? Michael, let's not conclude anything one way or another. Ok? Neither one of us know, so let's not conclude, let's leave it unanswered and continue to look for more information, OK? Fair? This is not something that has to be known one way or another. It is very unlikely it has any bearing to the question we really would like to have answered: when c.861's first flew into Space. You will find many more answers in this article I'll find more information... If they are answers or not will remain to be seen. - that the watches were purchased in Huston and not in NY, It has long been established that the initial watches selected for the initial testing were purchased in Houston... From Corrigan's if I remember correctly. This doesn't mean that all of them were bought in Houston, especially if they were bought directly from Omega at $1.00 each! LOL! Unless Omega had a store of their own in Houston... =) I don't see anything in the article that states all of the watches were purchased in Houston. 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). Huh? I'm confused!!! Are you now saying that the Speedmaster wasn't tested during the second trials? That they weren't tested in 1972 (if this is the year of the test you are referring to?)? If so then NASA could not choose "newly tested" "Michigan Speedmasters" over previously tested Speedmasters for Apollo 17 as you have advanced previously in this thread... Because if you are saying this then the "Michigan Speedmaster's weren't tested. The NASA "Chronograph Verification Comparison Matrix" sure is an odd document if the Speedmasters were being tested side-by-side and concurrently with the Bulova in 1972 Or are you saying that the Speedmaster was not tested during the second trials in 1978? There are two possible timeframes for this: the Bulova testing of 1972 or the 1978 testing for Shuttle chronographs. If the article is discussing the 1978 tests they are irrelevant to the topic of c.861's with regards to the moon. As the paragraph which ends "It is interesting to raise here that it was about the same model as that of 1962." is several paragraphs after the one that starts with "In September 1978" it seems that that reference is referring to the 1978 tests. As the document seems to be written in a chronological order I would tend to believe that they are referring to the model that was selected for the shuttle in this context. It seems the most logical possibility. And maybe you will find in addition to that some new information, for instance about Coopers's Accutron during the last Mercury mission, I knew that. 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. Knew that too... And if you doubt again and it isn't scientific enough for you, then have a look at the end of the article first. Ok, lets look at the end of the article: Thanks: The author wants to point out the invaluable assistance of Lee Saegesser, NASA-archivist in Washington D. C, and the services rendered by Janet Kovacevich, of the historical office of NASA at Johnson Space Center of Houston, Texas. He particularly thanks General Thomas Stafford and the many astronauts who provided him first hand information on all the aspects of the manned space programs.... Ok, fair enough. But, and this is the point... Does it answer the question at hand... Which is: When did c.861's first fly on a NASA spacecraft? No it does not. It is an interesting article, I like it, it should be preserved in TZ Classics. But it doesn't answer our outstanding question. 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. It's sufficient for you. It is not sufficient for me. 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. That decision is up to you. I long ago realized that there was little chance that I could make any inroads against a mindset that states "It's not necessary to speculate about it." and that "the early 1970's on" means that it flew on a Lunar Mission. Minds are like parachutes, they only work properly when open. From the begining it looked unlikely you were interested in learning more as you state "it's not necessary" This has not appeared to have changed. As for myself I'll continue to pursue the answer to the question that is outstanding. Because it is unanswered... I'll continue with or without you. I'll continue with a mindset open to the possibility that a c.861 made it onto an Apollo Lunar Mission. I hope it did. I hope I find the answer. I'm not afraid of what I'll find one way or another, only that perhaps it can't be found... Michael. -- 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

---

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