How surprised I was to read the same story 50 years late, and find out it was made up.
Well not at all I imagine. Looking at the text again, the suggestion that, “Neither did they find identifiable markings from the [crashed] plane” is daft beyond belief. Bearing in mind that we have many, many examples of aircraft which dived straight into the ground and were recovered decades later but still identifiable, that one assertion alone is enough to make you realise it’s a nice made-up story done by someone who doesn’t know their way round an aeroplane. And thus understand how many serial-numbered parts there are on an aircraft that would each allow identification.
And that’s without the ridiculous geographical references which assume we won’t be taking a close look at the map.
Still, a nice basis for a film maybe? Certainly better an idea than yet another remake of something.
Sign In
