|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2014 18:58:41 GMT 12
Don't let common sense and sound research get in the way of a good story.
|
|
|
Post by TS on Nov 7, 2014 21:49:36 GMT 12
True... To be fair if it is real we would all love to hear on here first so lets encourage instead of discourage....
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 7, 2014 22:22:35 GMT 12
Why do you keep changing your username wasapilot/bumf/starman...?
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Nov 8, 2014 3:22:13 GMT 12
That might explain it, Peter. Channel IIs were powered by Siddeley-Deasy Pumas; was the reason for the engine change because of this or merely an expedient to increase the power output? The Deasy was not the most reliable engine out, but the Beardmores, both the 120 and 160hp engines were very reliable (for the time). Neither the Beardmores nor the Pumas survivie in large numbers round the world.
|
|
|
Post by grgrimmer on Nov 11, 2014 23:15:06 GMT 12
I've now finished reading Martin Butler's latest book and I'm very impressed with all the evidence he has contained in it. Evidence such as: 1/ Written confirmation of Captain Isitt (in charge of the removal of the aircraft to Torpedo Bay at the time) advising the Minister of Defence that he remembers the Boeings being stored in North Head in a disassembled state, 2/ An Army 'Minute Sheet' detailing exactly what was disposed of (sold) and what was destroyed by fire on the beach (not the Boeings), 3/ Eric Paton (George Bolt's neighbour whose house overlooked the Kohimarama Beach) statement, “ I would stake my life on it that they were not burned on Mission Bay (Kohimarama) beach”. Eric was also one of the pilots of The NZ Flying School and knew the planes well. 4/ George Bolt's letter to Boeing (1959) saying it was his belief that the Boeings were sealed up in a tunnel at North Head. … So much evidence, that it simply becomes irrefutable! He even has a tape recording of a conversation between John Earnslaw and Bob Tizard (Minister of Defence at the time of the recording) admitting that they had sealed up the (hidden) tunnels as it was the cheapest method of 'disposing' ammunition that had become too dangerous to handle. As far as I can make out, the story of the Boeings being burnt on the beach derived from a newspaper article showing George Bolt and George Salt showing aircraft fittings dug up on the beach at Torpedo Bay where the aeroplanes (3 xDH9's & 3 x Avro 504K's) were burnt, but what the newspaper article did not say was these parts were sent to Boeing, and Boeing said they were not from a Boeing aeroplane. I notice that many are prepared to make judgement on this topic when they obviously know very little about it, so I suggest one buys a copy of Martin's book before they comment further... and then they will be in a position to comment! I've had it asked, “Why would Avro 504's and DH9's be burnt and not the Boeings?” I believe the answer is simply this – If you had a shed full of mass produced cars that were given to you (say Toyota Corollas), along with a couple of very 'hard to come by' Morgans, and you needed to get rid of some of them to make some room in the shed, which ones would you get rid of? The Avro's and the DH9's were all war surplus planes that had been gifted to NZ and although we would today class burning them as sacrilege, you need to bare in mind there were quite a few around after WW1. It wasn't that long ago (30-40 years?) that Tiger Moths were dumped and burnt as they were classed as being worthless!
Gavin Grimmer
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2014 0:37:47 GMT 12
If it is true that tunnels were sealed because they are full of unstable explosives, why would the Defence Department and Government allow public access to the site including some of the underground structures, and have it open as a park where people take their families? A hill full of unstable and dangerous explosive material doesn't sound like the ideal park to me.
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Nov 12, 2014 7:05:09 GMT 12
Could it be that the "unstable explosives" are OK if they are not disturbed/shifted?. Besides when has a government always made sensible decisions?
|
|
|
Post by TS on Nov 12, 2014 7:13:20 GMT 12
Why do you keep changing your username wasapilot/bumf/starman...? A change is as good as a holiday......I get bored with them....Didn't know there was a rule about changing your username so to make you happy I will go back to nz5218.
|
|
|
Post by grgrimmer on Nov 12, 2014 7:32:40 GMT 12
It all sounds preposterous - I agree, but in my opinion over the 125 years plus since it first became a fort, there has been one bad decision after another until the problem of disposing of all this ammo has compounded until it has become so big that the only way out was to hide it all and make out it never existed. I don't think it was ever envisaged that it would become a park and to stop it becoming a park would have meant someone would have had to stand up and take all the flack for everyone else's bad decisions. No, better just to go with the flow and keep the fingers crossed and hope that nothing happens. In the event that it did blow, whether there were people with their families picnicking on it or not would not make any difference as most of Devonport (if not more) would be taken out. There are several Countries around the World that have a similar problem - take the SS Richard Montgomery for one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Richard_Montgomery So it appears NZ has an enormous problem - especially as it is calculated there is far more explosives stored in North Head than what is on the SS Richard Montgomery... if anyone wants to face it. As said in the youtube video, "Do you attempt to do something about it and risk setting it off?" or in our case, do you just bury your head in the sand and hope that nothing ever happens. Not a decision I would like to make! Making it a historic park where it becomes very difficult for anyone to do any development that could trigger it off, in this light does actually make sense if one wishes to lessen the chances of detonating it and not have to admit to it at the same time. In this day and age, I'm sure someone could come up with a solution to neutralise it so that it could be safely removed. "A problem shared is a problem halved." All I can say is get hold of a copy of his book and then form your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2014 7:53:06 GMT 12
It doesn't make much sense, why didn't they simply chuck it all into the sea? That's exactly what they did after WWII. Cook Strait got hundreds of tons of ammo dumped into it.
Plus why was the ammunition not pulled out in WWII and reissued? A lot of the ammo issued in WWII was from WWI surplus, before the munitions factories got into full swing.
|
|
|
Post by grgrimmer on Nov 12, 2014 8:18:34 GMT 12
Yes, there was a lot of it dumped into the sea, but there was heaps more that had been there so long it was too dangerous to move as it was weeping. There have been numerous ex-military eyewitnesses who have signed statements to this effect.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2014 8:35:53 GMT 12
If this is truly the case, then I hope no-one ever decides to let people in to look for the aeroplanes. It's not worth the risk. I rather like Devonport and would hate to see it flattened simply so someone can prove a theory.
|
|
|
Post by grgrimmer on Nov 12, 2014 8:57:45 GMT 12
My involvement has never been to find the Boeings (although it would be a bonus if someone did). I became involved when I learn't that a Judge had the audacity to discount over 300 eyewitnesses as having vivid imaginations as their memories did not fit into the 'official'version of North Head. Many of these eyewitnesses were in the Military and used to work in these tunnels. As one of them told me, "You don't know what it's like to be accused of lying by a Judge when you know you aren't... you never get over it!" What needs to happen is the Authorities admit to it, and then we all put our heads together and see if we can come up with a solution. With the technology available today, I'm sure we can, but first we all need to work together. Our problem is far, far worse than the SS Richard Montgomery. At least their problem is under water and as the youtube video says... the water washes the weeping explosive away. The Government and our military of today cannot be blamed for the mistakes of those in the past.... unless they choose to continue the cover up!
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2014 10:13:16 GMT 12
They seem to be looking for a way to bring Auckland house prices down, maybe this is it. "You're all sitting on a huge bomb!!"
Why was there a judge involved? What is the reason this was in a court?
I'm a firm believer that military secrets are secret for a good reason, it really annoys me when people think they know better and feel the need to expose them - like those idiot Waihopai attackers and the media releasing info on our SAS operations. However I would kind of like to know one way or another if there's any truth to the myths about this place.
|
|
|
Post by grgrimmer on Nov 12, 2014 15:03:08 GMT 12
Sorry Dave, I'm on the road for a few days so it's getting rather difficult to post. Best you get a hold of Martin's book and check it out for yourself. If you wish to know the truth, you won't be disappointed in his book. It's pretty comprehensive and after two decades of research he sure has a lot of evidence as proof. Regards, Gavin
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 12, 2014 15:14:10 GMT 12
I'm not really that interested to go and buy a book, I'm afraid. I'll wait for the movie...
|
|
|
Post by baz62 on Nov 12, 2014 16:57:44 GMT 12
Wonder if the books in the Library?
|
|
|
Post by craig on Nov 12, 2014 18:17:51 GMT 12
If there is nothing to hide... why is there such resistance to private parties opening up the tunnels at their own cost?
|
|
|
Post by fwx on Nov 13, 2014 16:28:27 GMT 12
Hey, our valuation just arrived - you guys stay out of Devonport and keep your theories and rumours to yourselves!! - A Very Concerned Resident.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Nov 13, 2014 17:43:11 GMT 12
A brief period of contentment - until the rates assessment arrives.
|
|