#111
|
||||
|
||||
When i read this, or one of the countless other, 100-octane threads i see two sides:
a) FC used only 100 octane through the BoB b) FC was in the conversion from 87 octane to 100 octane and used both fuels where a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used b) has evidence that 87 octane was used in the RAF and possibly in the FC but can not prove the use by the FC my resume would be a) tends to see the world in black or white, which never works this way in real life b) says that there is always a grey area, which should be taken in account, a practical approach, imo.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If no 87 octane was used then we expect to see no evidence for its use, and indeed there is no such evidence. British Piston Aeroengines and their aircraft: "...As a result of satisfactory trials in March 1940, it was decided to switch Fighter Command to 100 Octane fuel, followed by Bombed Command about year later..." p313 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
By your analogy (one side lots of evidence, the other side not so much - but a more practical approach) anything can be proven - which is precisely how the various conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, or whether or not Apollo reached the moon work. Just produce enough "evidence" to leave a little doubt, and throw lots of smoke and noise around to provide distraction and make the few facts thrown in seem far more important than they really are. I guess it works because people are taken in by this ahistorical approach to historical research all the time. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Crumpp and Kurfurst go to college...
Quote:
Anyone who has had to write a paper knows that they have to provide evidence for their thesis, and to date none has been forthcoming, for Crumpp and Kurfurst's thesis of mixed 87 octane and 100 octane fuel use by RAF FC during the BofB. |
#115
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. evidence is no proof 2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If that's true, I can prove the moon is made out of cheese; the evidence is lacking because when the Apollo astronauts landed with samples of moon cheese they were immediately turned into toasted cheese sandwiches and eaten by hungry NASA staff, and the reports were then fudged and rocks were substituted. Now, you can provide evidence in the form of moon rocks and scientific reports and I can dismiss the evidence because I didn't actually travel to the moon with the astronauts and watch them pick up the rocks, nor did I see the scientific reports being processed. So the fact is the moon is made out of cheese and my belief in that is scientific because I am not precluding the possibility, however remote it may seem; in fact there's even a web page showing that the moon is made of cheese and that's evidence in itself. It's a brilliant concept because I can prove anything I like! Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-23-2012 at 11:13 AM. |
#117
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Black and white scenarios are so rare in real life, i really doubt anybody here has experienced one. To think in black and white makes only shure you are NOT 100% right. Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.
__________________
Win 7/64 Ult.; Phenom II X6 1100T; ASUS Crosshair IV; 16 GB DDR3/1600 Corsair; ASUS EAH6950/2GB; Logitech G940 & the usual suspects Last edited by robtek; 05-23-2012 at 11:23 AM. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Meaning absolutely nothing can be proven, no matter how much evidence is presented, because there will always be doubt in someone's mind. All this is is a very convenient out from using ones brains, or for those who refuse to believe any evidence, no matter how compelling.
And for me, that clinches it: the moon is made out of cheese and there's nothing anyone can show me that will remove any doubt. NASA plotted to keep this important information from the public and Neil Armstrong ate the evidence. Last edited by NZtyphoon; 05-23-2012 at 11:57 AM. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200 Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415 Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
It's already been pointed out that common sense has to apply here. There was high turnover of fighter aircraft during the BoB by all squadrons -- combat, accidents, engine/airframe wear & tear. There was no shortage of replacement aircraft. It stands to reason the replacement aircraft were factory-new and using 100 octane.
The airfields did NOT have two sets of fuel bowsers driving about the dispersal area looking to see who took 87 or 100 octane. There was a war on, fergawdsakes!!!!
__________________
|
|
|