paul connor

I remember when I was about to buy my first MV, which was around 1999/2000, there was an abundance of 109 HVVPK & VPK vehicles for sale, where have they all gone? I regret selling my first MV, which was a HVVPK 109 (JAW ***W?) which went to Scotland and was never seen again. I remember the chap bought it blind over the phone after a lengthy conversation, paying in full, then came by train two months later! He simply jumped in the vehicle and drove it to Scotland. I can imagine many saw the scrap pile, or were stripped to become civilian spec for resale value. How many do we have on the forum, out of curiosity ?

Hello Cliv, Really sorry, I read it and it solved my questions perfectly. I was then sidetracked at work and closed the browser window and totally forgot to reply! Thanks again, albeit a bit late! Paul

How unusual. I was going to suggest it looks like a Ford Canadian Military Pattern truck, just from the wheel spacing and the radiator placement, but that is a wild guess. It does look as if the name would indeed reflect the driving experience.

Andy, you quite literally got all the information you asked for. I made some calls and confirmed that Oxford Archaeology surveyed the area and there are no buried tanks under any part of the site. So you got exactly what you asked for, 100% scientific confirmation that there is zero possibility of buried vehicles. I'm sorry that's not to your liking, but any other answer would be simply untrue. The only thing you're not trying is to actually listen to what I keep telling you. Mystery solved. Case closed. No tanks buried on that site.

That's the difference, Andy, your tale has been disproved with scientific evidence; GPR and Res survey of the whole site by Oxford Archaeology. Yet you continue to suggest you're being disregard and that my reply (and others) are linear and will not change - that's simply not true. I work within a scientific field and my theories continually change, that's the nature of science. But, when your tale is subject to archaeological fieldwork that disproves the whole thread, where do we go? As you'll not accept any evidence, yet it is an apparent obsession based on oral testimonies and mild paranoia for the state. You're suggesting ridiculous ideas, the Churchill MBT being manufactured out side of the UK for a start. And stating that on a military vehicle forum is really the worst stage to damage your credibility. I think I would be better of debating this with my sheep.

Wow, that's some extensive research right there. An aerial photograph with no contextual source, and a graph from 'miketodd.net' suggesting historical exchange rates; with no sources and completely subjectively bias text. Please Andy, learn to understand bias and agenda. Your subjective views are not quantifiable, websites are also not valid as references within any academic or amateur research. You're using dubious sources to arrange a very inconsistent and unconvincing argument to project your own personal narrative and agenda within this thread. It's probably best this thread is locked.

Hello, I was wondering if people could help with a few questions? 1.The Bowman antenna bases that are on the Wolf 90/110 front wings - are these simply attached to the wing mounting brackets that were for Clansman ATUs (RRC8359) or do they have a spacer or specific piece between? 2. The Clarke 8m mast brackets for the rear wing/panel - how are these attached, are they simply bolts and a strengthener piece behind - is there a fitting kit instructions EMER? 3. What is the difference in Bowman antenna base, as some have a thread coming from the spring in the centre, others appear a female attachment, is there a specific for locations, IE wings and side mast supports? Many thanks Paul

Not in this fable, nothings off the table.

You need to look harder, Matt W

I have six sheep here in Germany, and they are always talking about buried tanks in a field they used to graze in, with remarkable detail. Olga, she is 9 now, suggested that there is a Panzerkampfwagon II, a Jagdpanzer achtunddreißig, and two Sonderkraftfahrzueg zwei buried in the corner under some brambles. Her father's friend saw that happen in the 50s, who told her and drew a plan on the ground with his hoof. She did suggest another area with Stermgeschütz Drei guns buried, but I think she is exaggerating with that second claim. I once found a panel from the Amber Room while I was digging drainage in one of my fields, but it was not to my taste so I used my digger and front loader to break it up and put in a 20 ton container. It was terrible gaudish. On a serious note, I did find a wheel from a GMC CCKW in a field locally with a 1944 dated tyre. Can someone please help me start a thread on that - as must be cover up! Nothing to do with being close to Wittmundhafen airfield and post war occupation, it has to mean something!

Andy, here is an example of hindsight and hearsay mixed with oral testimonies. While some of the information might be true from below, the much is lost in passage of time. We do not always quite remember events as they actually happened, rather our own subjective experiences within those events, which later we paste together to present a subjectively bias story for effect. Statement: I was at the War and Peace show 2003, when approached by an elderly gentleman who drove my ‘Saracen’ in Northern Ireland. He was very knowledgeable and knew the vehicle well. Presenting stories of ramming things and being shot at. Reply: It was a Humber FV1612 Mk1 Pig, I owned it and I am pretty sure I was right. A Saracen has 6 wheels, not 4 and although I pointed this out, I was just a "stupid young man", how dare I challenge him. Statement: I met an old gentleman while I was surveying some WW2 structures, who told me the pillboxes in the field I was in, were for shooting down Axis aircraft, which followed the river north to London. "That is how they navigated, you know?". Reply: Type D F/W 24 pillboxes are for stop line defence, you cannot fire vertically inside one, even if you tried. Furthermore, the Axis did not bomb the UK with a road atlas as a guide. Subjective oral testimonies at their best. Statement: When I was in Seaford surveying a fuel pumping station, I was told this was a flame fougasse (sea flame barrage for the sea, wrong name for a start), which would have been ignited had an invasion come. He remembered them testing it. Reply: It was a fuel pump station for sea planes. Nothing to do with defence. No sea barrage defence in that area, as it was proved to be useless at the testing phase. None every tested in Sussex at all. Statement: While generating data for a 3D rendering of a pillbox I was told by an elderly man walking a dog that these were built and manned by the Home Guard. Reply: Pillboxes were to be manned with regular soldiers; by July/August 1940 when most pillboxes were built the LDV were in no position to defend stop lines. The main armament of such structures being Boys ATG, Bren LMG and small arms of which the LDV had very few. There was a large regular and TA force, as well as Canadian, Australian and New Zealand forces tasked with the invasion threat. Statement: While sitting in a Land Rover XD Wolf 110, I was told by a REME veteran that I was in a Land Rover Series 3 Long Wheel base. Reply: While at the Army recruiting day, in the RE Land Rover, I was quite sure that when we left the barracks that day, it was a Wolf, it certainly was at first parade and when it was signed out? Statement: While recording a pillbox in Sussex, I was told how there was a 12-pounder artillery piece in this particular pillbox and he remembers them test firing it when he was a child. Reply: The D F/W type 28 pillbox I was working at, which was fitted for a 6lb Hotchkiss QF gun, that was never actually fitted, could never accommodate a 12-pounder. The rear doorway is 1m wide and the embrasure too narrow for the barrel to traverse. Furthermore, home defence didn’t have such guns in this area at all during 1940-1941 which were tasked with stop line defence. Oral testimonies are as dangerous as conspiracy theories, as in the modern era they are accepted with no quantifiable evidence. This is very prevalent in WW2 Archaeology, as everyone is an arm-chair-expert armed with the conversations of the past and the internet search engine. Thankfully I do not encounter this as much with prehistory! "My mates Dad knapped that arrow head, he was firing at a bear over there, I remember it, it was black bear, it was a Tuesday. We buried some tanks afterwards under an apron. Good times back in the Neolithic, you've got it easy now. Cheese burgers were a penny then".

Andy, please pause, and read the following, stop your internal dialogue, critically analyse and think objectively: "There hasn't been much other than assumptions and a will to do a demolition on me" - There are no assumptions, the data from Oxford Archaeology is 100% quantifiable. This proves there are no tanks on the site. I am sorry, but that is just scientific fact; denying that you may as well suggest the world is flat and Big Foot is thriving in the Lake District. "Ever present shadow of Hammond hovering in the background" - I will try and not sound too harsh with this, but your fixation on this MP is not healthy. I am sure they don't even give you a second thought, never mind actively plotting against you. You are fixated, and if you continue to press unwanted attention and deformation of this person online, suggesting corruption and foul-play you may find yourself in trouble with the authorities. "Just a few showing their frustration" - Yes, I would say you are frustrating people, as your story changes with the wind, and you refuse to accept any evidence at all other than your memories of conversations. Your posts are erratic, irrational and lack context, you are refusing to accept clear evidence when it is presented; and it is clear that even if the aprons were lifted you would adjust your story to suit you bias agenda, suggesting a reason or new location. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/critical-thinking.html Please, read the above link, and maybe try and understand how and why your views are subjective, why you are influenced by personal agenda above factual data, and how this directly moulds your interpretation.

Send me the TNA reference please, so I can read and interpret this objectively.

Hi Alec, Geoarchaeological samples were taken, although I have not read that report. If there was anything suggesting scale contamination my friend would have informed me, as we were talking about the fantasy idea of buried vehicles. So, unless they are around 40m down, which isn't possible, the only tanks located at the site are for fuel and water.

I guess we never asked the most obvious question - what scale were the tanks that he buried? 1:32, 1:48, 1:72?

Still no tanks there.

The GPR data from Oxford Archaeology already proves there is nothing under the apron, only geological deposits. That is your proof right there, which part of that statement do you not understand? I have checked the data myself, or am I mistaken, underqualified or a liar? You are wrong, 100% wrong. There is no debate here! within the boundaries of that site there are no tanks buried. So unless you head there with your own digger and put some there tomorrow, there will still be no tanks there today, tomorrow, or in 50 years. Just to recap - there are no tanks there. PS. No tanks. PPS. Still no tanks. No tanks there.

Don't mention Churchill, he was in on this from the start!

My reply used the word 'afraid' as an adjective, not in the literal sense of fear of phobia. It was me politely introducing my disagreement to your evidence; stating that context, much like your argument throughout this thread, is missing. As for the rest of your reply, well, it is as illegible as your evidence for buried tanks, unfortunately.

Yes, that shows some plates were sold, that you were likely the seller. That is where this exciting new piece of evidence ends I am afraid.

Having also driven many tracked AFVs I would not have the courage to hard tiller at 30mph! Maybe this was an early "Drift Churchill"?

Andy, if you take away oral testimonies from your story, what do you actually have that is quantifiable primary source evidence? As so far within the entire context of this thread it appears to revolve around tales that are subjectively interpreted and bias. A few points I would like to ask: 1. You once were in possession of ID plates from some vehicle, yet somehow, these have been interpreted as buried vehicles and have a direct link to you late father. Yet you found these in a scrap yard, and they were so important in the tale that you sold them. Slightly whimsical links, don't you think? Very subjectively bias to attach to your story, yet are you go-to evidence? 2. Being removed from the TNA - well, may I ask about your conduct there - as if it is similar to your content within this thread, they likely asked you to leave as you were being disruptive to people conducting genuine research? 3. Hammond asking you to desist from communications - Well, again, that is likely your personal conduct, and after being asked to stop persisting a fantasy story, he also was likely genuinely asking you to stop bothering him, after he answered already to the best of his knowledge. 4. GPR use: You suggest you searched the whole site with a GPR, yet, you gained no data on the concrete aprons, yet Oxford Archaeology(OA) did. OA have shared the data set with me and their QGIS and layer, which clearly, quantifiably, and accurately, debunks your entire theory. Why do you not accept that? 5. You suggest at one stage you found files from the WD at TNA (The National Archives), please supply me the TNA reference, I will have the files sent to my work in the morning to see what revelation you located. For an example of oral testimonies, I would like to use Isfield Command Stores (Isfield, Uckfield, Sussex), or, as locals always suggest - Isfield Army Camp. The local stories are of 2000 Canadians camped there in tents. Dunkirk and D-Day both utilising the railway siding for tanks, troops and more. The locals even call it a Canadian camp. It is a local legend, and everyone knows best as their father/grandfather/friend or cat suggests so. A colleague and I were on site prior to demolition as archaeological specialists, and provided plans, costing and pictures of the surveying and later construction of the railway siding from primary source documents. We also presented WD files for the surveying, costings and building of the site, including lists of stores and staff. We also had aerial photos from the RAF from 1940, 42, 44, 45. Where is this going you might ask? Well, it was a field until July 1944. So it did not exist, only in the memories and tales that have become truth in the community, but, they are just tales, hearsay, ridiculous oral testimonies based on no evidence. As for Canadians, well, no units were camped of that scale in the area, nor were they in that village - ORBAT and unit diaries support that from primary evidence. Do you see how tales become fact, yet are based on fantasy? We didn't find any tanks under the concrete pads there either.

"Who are you to even question me?", well, who are you to suggest Oxford Archaeology as a professional commercial unit are lying with their GPR results? Who are you to question my fellow archaeologists interpretation of data, furthermore my own? Who are you to post a single thread on a forum and disregard everyone who questions or provides answers and data? Even arguing with them and continually avoiding direct questions. Your posts are inconsistent and contradictory at best, bordering on the realms of fantasy with subjective interpretation of selective and dubious evidence. I'm done. I wish you all the best, and hope that someday you find peace from this obsession, and stop bothering authorities and MPs with fantasy theories.

Right, let's unpack this. Firstly who allowed you access with an excavator onto the properly when you seemingly spend most of the time looking through the fence? Much experience with excavators, I'm guessing you have your ticket for that? Secondly, there is not packed granite on the site under the pads, you're in the realms of fantasy now. I've been supplied images of a sectional profile of the pads depth, as requested that OA undertake. 2 pours of concrete pads, pretty much standard. I've monitored works at three airfield and that's pretty normal. Normal practice for substrates for airfield runways and pads isn't granite. Shall I supply you the WD regulations concrete pads I'm afraid commercial GPR isn't the kind you would hire easily. And I've seen the data from the site and it is far from inconsistent. If you're still not convinced I can arrange for you to likely attend a GPR course so you can gain further understanding? Maybe then you may realise that the data suggests there isn't vehicles under this section? I guess next you'll suggest I'm a sleeper cell working for TNA and your local MP?

I suspect they dug another hole to put the spoil in from the first hole.