Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[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.

[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!!!!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

Priceless

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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

I think this is my new sig.