Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:
Peter Alaca wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
"Peter Alaca" wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
If this "rectangular building outline" is so obvious, why don't
you post the picture so we can see it. After reading all of
your post about it, I get the feeling that you have never even
seen this photograph your talking about. So I ask you Eric,
have you ever seen this picture of the "rectangular building
outline"? Or are you just repeating unconfirmed and uncited
reports from other people?
No, I have never seen it but i have read of it on a number of
So the two 'naysayers' Eric and Inger never saw it.
I'm not a naysayer. Quite the reverse, in fact. I want to do
The naysayers are the ones who don't want to do things. Did you
study english under George Orwell? :-)
No, under Inger Johansson
Apart from that: of course I've never seen it. The probability of
me, in Auckland, New Zealand, flying over the Newport Tower
in an aeroplane is virtually zero. But somebody has both seen
and reported it.
I didn't expect that you saw the real thing.
What I did expect is that when you keep talking
about such a feature, you at least saw a photo
Peter, I think you are trying to be trying. When I first raised this
question I quite clearly wrote:
Suzanne Carlson in her article 'Tilting at Windmills: The Newport
Tower' NEARA Journal Vol XXX, 3&4, wrote:
"... it is interesting that on many air photos of the park, one
sees a color variation of the grass approximately twenty
meters southeast from the tower which forms a sharp
rectangular outline, perhaps a house foundation."
Attempts have been made in the past (I think both Mallory and Godfrey)
to obtain permission to explore this area but the permission has
always been withheld. I would like to think that this time, this area
was explored with Ground Penetrating Radar and electrical resistance
measurements but it would not surprise me to find that it was not
included in the current exploration.
There is nothing in that to suggest that I have done any more than
read Suzanne Carlson's article. I have not seen the photograph she
refers to. I certainly have not seen the site.
Why on earth should you think I know any more about than I wrote?
I don't think that.
But why do you stress so vigoriously the necessity
to excavate an area, while all you have is such a
vague claim? I have experience in interpretating aerial
photographs, so I know how easy it is to see all kind
of things. And NEARA is no recommendation.