The Press FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1969. Sources Re-examined

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31983, 9 May 1969, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1969. Sources Re-examined

The reply from three members of the department of the University of Canterbury to the article criticising their use of source material on Omega has not been referred to Mr Nicholas Turner, the author of the article. There seems to be nothing in their reply on which Mr Turner might comment within the terms of his inquiries into the way in which authorities have been quoted and interpreted. Mr Turner’s article has already set their reference to “advertising material” in perspective; The “New Zealand Listener” says Mr Alastair Buchan “ considers that Omega does have a military “ purpose, probably a primary one ”. Mr Buchan’s opinion that the system has a military purpose is barely a revelation; the fact that all ships and aircraft may employ Omega obviously allows it to serve military vehicles. His estimate that the military purpose is “ probably ” primary is not supported by most of the literature on the system. The scientists, who refer in their reply to the vulnerability of Omega, would now do well to consider also the relative vulnerability of submerged submarines which briefly raise buoyed aerials—very small objects, scarcely distinguishable from an untold number of other objects floating on the oceans—to obtain extremely accurate navigation information from Transit satellites. Differences between the accuracy obtainable from a station in Tasmania and that obtainable from a New Zealand station will undoubtedly be considered by technical experts installing the system. And the question of cost will, no doubt, be exercising the Government Mariners and the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council will probably welcome the support for their interests. “The Press” does not believe that Mr Turner has been “quibbling” over wording and conflicting statements. Many of the critics themselves have attached much importance to such matters—and they would be among the first to agree that persons who draw attention to their views because of their academic authority, training, and knowledge must rank accuracy very highly. It is perhaps worth recalling that the first criticism raised by one of the three scientists, Mr Howell, was not in the form of questions but a series of firm statements about the Omega system. Subsequently, they have said that the system is a “ vital link in the United States “nuclear deterrent”; that the United States Navy has “ admitted that receivers have already been fitted “to missile-carrying Polaris submarines that commercial shipping had no need for such an accurate and “ costly ” aid; that the system had been designed by United States Navy scientists for providing accurate navigation for missile-carrying nuclear submarines. All these assertions have been answered on a number of occasions.