Of course, we nicked all the land off the Welsh years ago ! 🙂

Probably belongs to the Prince of Wales then? 🙂

Well certainly this may be a little interesting topic as its my understanding that the site lies between high and low tide, so who owns it as thats a gray area in itself?

Actually I meant the fact that the site is between high and low water marks…

…does that make the Queen the ‘landowner’? :confused:

Snoopy seems to be up-and-around…..well, around, if not up yet. 🙂

http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/scene/cambridge/080731/snoopy.htm

My father…..was shot down on his last op of his second tour, a trip to Mannheim on September 23rd 1943.

Unlucky, but at the same time incredibly lucky; to have survived two tours (especially at this dangerous time) was remarkable and to survive being shot-down as well. On average only a single crew member survived from each Lancaster shot-down and the wireless-operator was statistically not one of those most likely to survive.

Those pages from your father’s log-book are absolutely fascinating; thanks again for posting.

That 97 Squadron Association website is a great resource…..I suppose one day every ORB will be available on the web.

A couple of threads referencing one of the many who didn’t survive (Peenemünde) … here and here

Fascinating threads; it is very interesting to read some of those that were from before my time on this forum, and great to see so much information forthcoming…..it is what this forum does best.

I think there are three conspiracies…..that make a lot more logical sense.

More logical sense than what exactly?

1) The Plane was shot down.

So you think the most logical is that it was shot down?

First of all try reading this list of those killed on flight United 93, it is easy to do, you just click on their names and the link will tell you who they were and in most cases the names of their spouse, children, siblings and parents. There are only forty so it shouldn’t take you too long.

http://www.sep11memories.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks:_plane_passengers

The next thing I did was to list all the evidence that you had that the aircraft was shot-down:

– The aircraft crashed.

– Some ‘wreckage’ (pieces of paper / insulation) was reported to have been found nine or ten miles from the crash site.

Then I read this account and tried to find anything that couldn’t be explained by the theory of the aircraft being shot-down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Give it a try and let me know how you got on.

Our Aircraftcarrier would only make 24 knots going down Niagara Falls…

Very good! 😀

I’ve read various accounts about this Sea Harrier mission (Ian Mortimer 801 Squadron) with various ‘contact’ distances; one account states ‘10 miles’ another states ‘less than 25 miles’.

The second of these accounts states “radar-silent high-level outbound to 200 miles, next 40 miles at 200 feet without picking up anything on radar-warning equipment. Switched radar to transmit (four ships contacts)…and all hell broke loose!”

Was ARA Veinticinco de Mayo group radar-silent at this point; relying on the Trackers radar detection equipment? I would guess so.

The Sea Harrier was illuminated by many types of radar but it was the Sea Dart fire-control radar Type-909 (that made the Sea Harrier turn) and that indicated that at least one Type-42 was present, and it was assumed that this was an escort for ARA Veinticinco de Mayo.

Interesting that Veinticinco de Mayo could only make 20 knots. My previous post was just thinking (out loud) about how direct a route she took from where the Sea Harrier made contact to where she was probably heading. My thinking was that if the route was more-or-less direct then it would support my theory that that a British SSN would have little difficulty in finding her, but the distance is not a large as I had thought.

In your original post you said something like “There is no way that I want this to become a conspiracy theory subject” which is why my original post starts the way that it does.

Why did you edit that line out; do you now want this thread to become such a subject? Just curious. 🙂

[Also, why does the ‘Last edited by…’ hyperlink not work on General Discussion? Anybody?]

Anyway back to the conspiracy theories:

I saw something on TV the other day that suggested that the distances that the wreckage was spread that conspiracy theorist use in there theories were based on PC ‘routefinder’ distances (that is by road) and the actual furthest piece of wreckage from the impact point came down a mile or so on the other side of a large lake which the road route had to go around. Also the wreckage was pieces of paper, light insulation and so on, things that could have been carried by the wind following a very large impact and explosion.

Also if (and I say if very cautiously) the 757 did break-up in the air, is it not possible that the break-up was caused as a result of the purely mechanical, gravitational and aerodynamic forces imposed on the aircraft during a loss of control following a struggle in the cockpit?

Of course conspiracy theorist will tell us that any aircraft that falls to the ground in more than one piece has to have been shot-down even if there is absolutely no other evidence whatsoever.

I think these two explanations sound plausible. What do you think?

I don’t know how you expect this not to become a conspiracy theory subject but here we go…

…crashes into the ground, and will fully well know that a 757 bound for the East Coast from the West, Can not disappear over a 9-10 mile radius hence why I ask this question.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here; are you talking about the wreckage being spread over this radius?