Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[robtek]

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.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by robtek

a) has lots of evidence that 100 octane was used but no proof that 87 octane was not used

Evidence for 100 octane fuel use and no evidence for 87 octane fuel use = proof of 100% 100 octane fuel use by RAF FC

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

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

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

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

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.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

and present their history prof with a thesis:

"RAF FC used 87 octane and 100 octane fuel during the Battle of Britain"

"An excellent thesis" says the prof, at the start of the term, "if you can prove it you will have altered our understanding of one of the most crucial battles in modern history."

A few months later they are called into the prof's office: "How are you two getting along with your paper? I expected something from you by now...but I'll let you have a few more days. By the way, what proof have you got? Remember, the term is almost over, and I expected a finished paper by now."

Crumpp and Kurfurst pull out a 1/2 dozen pages and place them on the prof's desk: "Well we have some papers dating from 1938 and we think that some aircraft manuals state that 87 octane was required."

"Hmmm..." says the prof, staring at the meagre number of pages: "You mean to say that's all you've got? I think you need to go the library, the archives, and the even the web, and dig up some solid evidence for 87 octane use during the actual battle...after all there's numerous sources that state that 100 octane fuel was used during the battle. You are now making an 'extraordinary claim' which is all well and good but as you well know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I'm sorry gentleman, but I don't see any such proof in the rather sparse data that you've presented.

Crumpp and Kurfurst look downcast and stare at their feet: "We have looked high and low and this is all we can come up with."

"Oh my" says the prof... he pauses for a few moments, moves back to marking papers and then glances up and states: "No problem gentlemen; you have a few more days...just make sure that your paper states that you conclude that your thesis is false, based upon the lack of any direct evidence for 87 octane fuel use, and the mass of contradictory evidence stating that 100 octane fuel was in universal use. Good day"

It looks like they're headed for a failing grade...

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.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

The fact that Dowding felt the need to send out a memo to all squadrons in FC during the early stages of the battle reminding all pilots not to use +12 lbs boost for trivial reasons is proof enough that all squadrons were using 100 octane fuel.

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.

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

The facts are:

1. evidence is no proof

2. to preclude a possibility, however remote, without proof is unscientific

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

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!

[robtek]

Originally Posted by NZtyphoon

Evidence is no proof? That means any evidence can be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how solid it is. How do you work that one out?

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!

The problem is only seeing black and white, believe me.

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.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by robtek

Evidence is only proof if it removes any doubt.

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.

[Kurfürst]

Robtek, I find the argue with fanatics is a waste of time. You can't fix their head.

[ATAG_Snapper]

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!!!!