On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:38:36 +0100, Peter Alaca <[email protected]>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> "Peter Alaca" wrote:
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> "nadia" 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
>> english under George Orwell? :-)
>No, under Inger Johansson
>> Apart from that: of course I've never seen it. The probability of
>> in Auckland, New Zealand, flying over the Newport Tower in an
>> aeroplane is virtually zero. But somebody has both seen and
>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 cited my source (in this case Suzanne Carlson) and it
>>>> should not be too hard to follow it up.
>>>> Suzanne Carlson is well known as having long studied the Newport
>>>> Tower and while not all might agree with her views I don't know
>>>> that she has ever been accused of making things up.