Somebody out there knows all about this !!

[mtskull]

On 2/13/2023 at 10:44 AM, andy brown said:

I found they at the time Canada was rather laid back re pay back times on l.l but ifound that the US started to put the squeeze on Canadian gov; to push UK to pay for what they owed ,this late forty seven  ..one thing to bear in mind the US saw the labour gov; as a bunch of commis with there national health scheme and trade union council ,US had waited years for the opportunity to nail the UK to the floor and here it was on a plate......

To be continued......

I don’t think anybody doubts that in the late 1940’s the USA was in a position to dictate terms to the U.K. government (although that had nothing to do with Lend-Lease and everything to do with the 1946 Anglo-American Loan Agreement).

What I would like you to make clear is why you believe that the secret burial of 300-odd tanks would have made any difference?

[paul connor]

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.

 

[ruxy]

Regarding Lend Lease etc.  - of course it's true that prior GB had to be bankrupted ,  the good British investments within U.S.A and some other countries had to be fire sold and £$ raised handed over first.  US destroyers (to certain the delivery) sent to South Africa for any gold held there.  Some reverse lend lease in the final calculations , Some bitter disputes - of course a few para. in a forum post are no use. 

A good book to read  _  US Wartime Aid to Britain  1940-1946  by Alan P. Dobson  (1986) .   Even the Introduction page 1  to page 13 is far too much to type up.  Long time since I read it - but no mention of Churchill Tank supply from Canada.

----------------------------------------

Roosevelt grabbed all - even Al. Cappone's armoured limo. the best in the U.S.A.

[Bob Grundy]

6 hours ago, paul connor said:

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.

 

The Churchill was not a 'MBT', it was Infantry Tank Mk4.

[11th Armoured]

Right from the very start, this whole tale seemed to me to be the result of a kid with an over-active imagination who REALLY loved (& still misses...) his dad, but unfortunately either mis-remembered the details of the stories he'd been told, or didn't have the capacity at a young age to determine whether his old man was spinning a yarn or not.

Sadly, as the kid grew up, it became an obsession & no amount of facts, logic or common sense will now change a belief that has been held, literally, for a lifetime.

[andy brown]

5 hours ago, 11th Armoured said:

Right from the very start, this whole tale seemed to me to be the result of a kid with an over-active imagination who REALLY loved (& still misses...) his dad, but unfortunately either mis-remembered the details of the stories he'd been told, or didn't have the capacity at a young age to determine whether his old man was spinning a yarn or not.

Sadly, as the kid grew up, it became an obsession & no amount of facts, logic or common sense will now change a belief that has been held, literally, for a lifetime.

Like I said I came here to gleen information but it would appear that there's nobody at home ,can't say I didn't try ,........

[paul connor]

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.

 

[andy brown]

1 hour ago, paul connor said:

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 same line Hammond gave me ten years ago .the day he first visited the site ..Fallon wouldn't follow suite without Hammond counter signing the letter where Fallon re iterated Hammond's words even though he was in the driving seat .

[andy brown]

On 2/19/2023 at 6:03 PM, andy brown said:

On 2/19/2023 at 4:38 PM, paul connor said:

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 same line Hammond gave me ten years ago .the day he first visited the site ..Fallon wouldn't follow suite without Hammond counter signing the letter where Fallon re iterated Hammond's words even though he was in the driving seat .

It would appear that I have touched a nerve here ,thing is whose nerve is it ,? Just to clarify a couple of points ,one the Canadian Churchill's I through in earlier if you read

it through you would have seen that I did so just to prove that it didn't matter what I said it would be pounced on like a bone to a hungry pack of dogs , my thinking in doing so was that it would demonstrate a certain level of intelligence in not grabbing the bone , but no grab they did which goes to prove to how much thought goes into it before they pounce ....

Citing 300 + tanks as some one has as being a stretch of imagination of a child ,well what do they know as I've mentioned many times before I came looking to find answers and there are none hereabouts maybe your all to young to have first hand experience of how things actually worked back in the day , here you have linikear .speaking his mind back in the day he would have got five years , not so long back you had Simon Dee who was never heard of again , no you cannot possibly compare the last twenty years to what came before ,Ruth Ellis, my point is that you have never had it so good when it comes to information so much so that when you venture outside the box that they give you to answer yes or no in you've moved into dangerous territory as I found with the national archives , it is for the greater part designed as fodder for the many, so don't be surprised if I don't swallow what comes at me from those who were not there ,,just ask your self as I did when I came across the 1400 / 1500 chiselled of brass tank plates back in 98  Why When Who....?

[ruxy]

3 hours ago, andy brown said:

It would appear that I have touched a nerve here ,thing is whose nerve is it ,? Just to clarify a couple of points ,one the Canadian Churchill's I through in earlier if you read

it through you would have seen that I did so just to prove that it didn't matter what I said it would be pounced on like a bone to a hungry pack of dogs , my thinking in doing so was that it would demonstrate a certain level of intelligence in not grabbing the bone , but no grab they did which goes to prove to how much thought goes into it before they pounce ....

Citing 300 + tanks as some one has as being a stretch of imagination of a child ,well what do they know as I've mentioned many times before I came looking to find answers and there are none hereabouts maybe your all to young to have first hand experience of how things actually worked back in the day , here you have linikear .speaking his mind back in the day he would have got five years , not so long back you had Simon Dee who was never heard of again , no you cannot possibly compare the last twenty years to what came before ,Ruth Ellis, my point is that you have never had it so good when it comes to information so much so that when you venture outside the box that they give you to answer yes or no in you've moved into dangerous territory as I found with the national archives , it is for the greater part designed as fodder for the many, so don't be surprised if I don't swallow what comes at me from those who were not there ,,just ask your self as I did when I came across the 1400 / 1500 chiselled of brass tank plates back in 98  Why When Who....?

Carry on  , don't let go  -  your dealings with gov. dept's & QUANGO  such as their rubbishing of FOIR  - that I do believe possible..   The main thing with historical reearch is gathering evidence then logical interpretation .  Hearsay is nfu.

 

[10FM68]

4 hours ago, andy brown said:

as I've mentioned many times before I came looking to find answers and there are none hereabouts 

But, you have had an answer - a clear one, what do you find wrong with it - apart from it not being the answer you wanted?  Paul Connor replied to you - he's an expert in his field and this is what he said:  "... you got exactly what you asked for, 100% scientific confirmation that there is zero possibility of buried vehicles. "

So which question remains to be answered?

[john1950]

Sorry this is not what this forum is about in my opinion, Chill out please. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by john1950

[andym]

In another Forum for which I'm a moderator I would have locked this thread by now.  It's just going round in circles and rapidly descending into name-calling.

Andy

[Jack]

Thanks guys - we have had a good run at this one and is going around in circles. Have locked the thread. Will see you all in the HMVF Clubhouse for beer 🙂