“For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.” Winston Churchill
On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George V, was killed when his aircraft crashed into Eagles Rock near Dunbeath, Caithness, Scotland. He was the first member of the British Royal Family to be killed on active military service for 500 years. His death is shrouded in mystery. The official report into his death has never been published. In fact, the government claim that it has disappeared from the archives.
I believe that Prince George was assassinated by the British intelligence services on the orders of Winston Churchill. Prince George was one of many people murdered as part of a cover-up operation. It is a story that also involves Allen Dulles and the US intelligence services. It is also a story that involved a trial run for the MKULTRA project and therefore provides insights into the JFK Assassination.
This cover-up has been so successful that historians have been unable to write an accurate account of the Second World War. In fact, when the full story is told, Winston Churchill reputation will be in tatters.
One of the reasons that the creation of the Churchill myth has been so successful is that it appeals to the vanity of the British people. Churchill’s message was not only of his own courage but that of those willing to fight by his side against tyranny and injustice. As a result, British historians have been reluctant to question the reality of Churchill's actions between 1930 and 1945. No doubt my postings will upset some British members. If so, I hope they will engage in a debate on Churchill.
Churchill once said: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He did. He was also in the position to destroy the evidence that contradicted the Churchill myth. That included ordering the assassination of people like Prince George of Kent.
I will be telling this story over the next few weeks. Hopefully other members will join in the investigation.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 19 2007, 08:37 AM) 
“For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.” Winston Churchill
On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George V, was killed when his aircraft crashed into Eagles Rock near Dunbeath, Caithness, Scotland. He was the first member of the British Royal Family to be killed on active military service for 500 years. His death is shrouded in mystery. The official report into his death has never been published. In fact, the government claim that it has disappeared from the archives.
I believe that Prince George was assassinated by the British intelligence services on the orders of Winston Churchill. Prince George was one of many people murdered as part of a cover-up operation. It is a story that also involves Allen Dulles and the US intelligence services. It is also a story that involved a trial run for the MKULTRA project and therefore provides insights into the JFK Assassination.
This cover-up has been so successful that historians have been unable to write an accurate account of the Second World War. In fact, when the full story is told, Winston Churchill reputation will be in tatters.
One of the reasons that the creation of the Churchill myth has been so successful is that it appeals to the vanity of the British people. Churchill’s message was not only of his own courage but that of those willing to fight by his side against tyranny and injustice. As a result, British historians have been reluctant to question the reality of Churchill's actions between 1930 and 1945. No doubt my postings will upset some British members. If so, I hope they will engage in a debate on Churchill.
Churchill once said: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He did. He was also in the position to destroy the evidence that contradicted the Churchill myth. That included ordering the assassination of people like Prince George of Kent.
I will be telling this story over the next few weeks. Hopefully other members will join in the investigation.
On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George V, was killed when his aircraft crashed into Eagles Rock near Dunbeath, Caithness, Scotland. He was the first member of the British Royal Family to be killed on active military service for 500 years. His death is shrouded in mystery. The official report into his death has never been published. In fact, the government claim that it has disappeared from the archives.
I believe that Prince George was assassinated by the British intelligence services on the orders of Winston Churchill. Prince George was one of many people murdered as part of a cover-up operation. It is a story that also involves Allen Dulles and the US intelligence services. It is also a story that involved a trial run for the MKULTRA project and therefore provides insights into the JFK Assassination.
This cover-up has been so successful that historians have been unable to write an accurate account of the Second World War. In fact, when the full story is told, Winston Churchill reputation will be in tatters.
One of the reasons that the creation of the Churchill myth has been so successful is that it appeals to the vanity of the British people. Churchill’s message was not only of his own courage but that of those willing to fight by his side against tyranny and injustice. As a result, British historians have been reluctant to question the reality of Churchill's actions between 1930 and 1945. No doubt my postings will upset some British members. If so, I hope they will engage in a debate on Churchill.
Churchill once said: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He did. He was also in the position to destroy the evidence that contradicted the Churchill myth. That included ordering the assassination of people like Prince George of Kent.
I will be telling this story over the next few weeks. Hopefully other members will join in the investigation.
Can't wait for this investigation to unfold!
Incidentally, Preparata has Churchill hand-in-glove with the mass murderers of Brit intel from circa 1909!
Paul
"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Winston Churchill
On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, took off from Invergordon in an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. The official story is the Duke was on a morale-boosting visit to RAF personnel stationed in Iceland. The crew had been carefully selected for the task. The captain, Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen, was considered to be Sunderland flyer in the RAF and had flown some of Britain’s politicians during the war. The rest of the crew was also highly regarded. The co-pilot was Wing Commander Thomas Lawton Mosley, the commanding officer of 228 Squadron. Mosley was one of the RAF’s most experienced pilots having completed 1,449 flying hours. He was also a navigation specialist and was a former instructor at the School of Navigation. In fact, the crew included four men who were qualified pilots and navigators. As one can see, this was no ordinary flight. Nor were they heading for Iceland. This was a cover-story. This will become clear when we examine the available evidence.
Officially the Duke of Kent was one of fifteen people on board the aircraft. Also on board were Prince George’s private secretary (John Lowther), his equerry Michael Strutt) and his valet (John Hales). It is also significant who was not with the Duke. Sir Louis Greig, Sir Sidney Herbert and Detective Sergeant Evans, his personal detective, all regular members of his entourage, were not on board. The absence of Greig, a close associate of Winston Churchill, is especially interesting.
The flying boat took off from Invergordon on the east coast of Scotland at 1.10 p.m. Being a flying boat, its standing orders were to fly over water, only crossing land when absolutely unavoidable. The route was to follow the coastline to Duncansby Head – the northernmost tip of Scotland – and then turn northwest over the Pentland Firth towards Iceland (see map below).
The S-25 Sunderland Mk III crashed into Eagle’s Rock later that afternoon (there is much dispute about the exact time this happened) at a height of around 650 feet. As you can see from the map below, the flying boat was well off course when the accident happened. Its 2,500 gallons of fuel, carried in the wings, exploded.
This raises some important questions. Why did the pilot take the flying boat off course? It was a clear day and he would be fully aware that he was now flying over land rather than the sea. Why, when the aircraft included four experienced navigators, did the aircraft drift a huge 15 degrees off course from its point of departure? Why did he descend to 650 feet when he was flying over high land? This is especially puzzling when one considers that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III had one major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight.
The crash was heard by local people and reached the scene of the accident about 90 minutes after they heard the explosion. This included a doctor (John Kennedy) and two policemen (Will Bethune and James Sutherland). They found 15 bodies. This included the body of the Duke of Kent. Bethune gave a radio interview in 1985 where he described finding Prince George’s body. He said that handcuffed to the Duke’s wrist was an attaché case that had burst open, scattering a large number of hundred-kroner notes over the hillside.
Marina, Duchess of Kent, collapsed in shock when she heard the news. The following morning the newspapers reported that everyone on board the Sunderland had been killed. Telegrams were sent to the next of kin of all members of the crew. However, later that day it emerged that Andy Jack, the tail-gunner, had been found in a crofter’s cottage at Ramscraigs. Apparently, when the flying boat exploded, the tail section was thrown over the brow of the hill, coming to rest in the peat bog on the other side. Andy Jack only had superficial injuries. What he did next was very surprising. Instead of going to the wreckage to see what had happened to his colleagues, and waiting for rescuers to arrive, he ran away in the opposite direction. This of course was in direct contravention of standard procedure – which was always to remain with the wreck. Andy Jack eventually found an isolated crofter’s cottage. The owner, Elsie Sutherland alerted Dr. John Kennedy by telephone. However, it was sometime before this information reached the authorities. Andy Jack’s sister Jean had already received a telegram telling her that her brother had been killed in the accident.
Winston Churchill made a statement in the House of Commons where he described the Duke of Kent “a gallant and handsome prince”. Of the many tributes and messages of condolence received from other countries, the most significant was from General Sikorski, the head of the Polish government in exile. The two men were very close and Sikorski sent a special dispatch to all Polish troops in Britain where he described the Duke as “a proven friend of Poland and the Polish armed forces”.
The Duchess of Kent visited Andy Jack several times after the death of her husband. It is believed that the information he provided influenced what was inscribed on the Duke of George’s memorial. This included the following: “In memory of…. the Duke of Kent… and his companions who lost their lives on active service during a flight to Iceland on a special mission on 25th August 1942”. The use of the words “special mission” is an interesting one. It was also the words used by Pilot Officer George Saunders, who also died in the crash. In 2001 Peter Brown, the nephew of Saunders, told a researcher that he was told that in August 1942, Saunders went home to see his family in Sheffield. Saunders informed his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”
A court of inquiry was held and details of their findings were presented in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, on 7th October 1942. The conclusion of the report was: “Accident due to aircraft being on wrong track at too low altitude to clear rising ground on track. Captain of aircraft changed flight-plan for reasons unknown and descended through cloud without making sure he was over water and crashed.”
Sinclair confirmed that weather conditions were fine and there was no evidence of mechanical failure. He added “the responsibility for this serious mistake in airmanship lies with the captain of the aircraft”. It was therefore suggested that the reason for the crash was the team of four pilot/navigators drifted off course and then failed to reach the necessary height to clear Eagle Rock.
The problem is that the documents that would enable researchers to re-examine the evidence have vanished. This includes the flight plan filed by Goyen before take-off.
The secret court of inquiry should have been made available after 15 years. When researchers asked the Public Record Office in 1990 for a copy of the report it was discovered that it had gone missing. The PRO suggested it might have been transferred to the royal archives at Windsor Castle. However, the registrar of the royal archives denies they have ever had the report.
Andy Jack, the only survivor of the crash, was forced to sign the Official Secrets Act while still in hospital. He later told his sister that he could not talk about the crash because he had been “sworn to secrecy”. Jean Jack did provide researchers with one piece of interesting information about the case. Frank Goyen gave Andy Jack a signed photograph of himself just before take-off on which he had written: “With memories of happier days.” Was this a reference to the mission they were about to undertake? Does it suggest that Goyen disapproved of the mission?
Andy Jack was promoted and after the war served in Gibraltar. While he was there he was visited several times by the Duke of Kent’s widow, Marina. Clearly, she was still interested in finding out why her husband was killed.
On 17th May 1961 Marina brought the case to national attention when she visited the scene of her husband’s death. This created a discussion about the crash in the media. Andy Jack now came forward to give an interview to the Scottish Daily Express. He was still serving with the RAF and not surprisingly he went along with the conclusions of the official inquiry. He retired from the RAF on a good pension in 1964. However, he drunk away his money and died of cirrhosis of the liver at the age of fifty-seven.
An important witness to the crash was Captain E. E. Fresson. He piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat. The following day he took the only aerial photographs of the wreckage. In 1963 Fresson published his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. Amazingly, the book does not refer to the death of the Duke of Kent. According to his son, Richard Fresson, the book originally included a full chapter that covered his investigation into the crash. However, this material was removed by the publishers at the last moment.
There is also another interesting aspect to this story. Just ten days after the death of the Duke of Kent, another flying boat, also from 228 Squadron, crashed in the Scottish Highlands. The official explanation was that the plane had run out of fuel. Everyone on board was killed, including a very interesting passenger, Fred Nancarrow, a journalist from Glasgow. Nancarrow was investigating the Eagle Rock crash. He was also working on another case that I believe explains why the Duke of Kent was killed.
Here are some questions members might like to consider:
(1) In 2001, James Swanson, a former sergeant with the Military Police at RAF Wick, admitted that he attended the crash scene. He confirmed that he counted 15 bodies at the scene of the accident. He was also told that all the bodies of the crew were accounted for. Yet we know that one crew member, Andy Jack, had survived. Who was the extra person that was killed next day? Why was he never reported as missing?
(2) How do you account for Andy Jack fleeing from the scene of the crash?
(3) Where was the Duke of Kent really going that day?
(4) Why did the Duchess of Kent refer to her husband’s “special mission”? Why did Pilot Officer George Saunders tell his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”? What was this secret mission that appeared to concern Frank Goyen?
(5) Who was the unnamed passenger that died with the Duke of Kent?
(6) What motive could Winston Churchill have for ordering the death of Duke of Kent?
(7) How did the conspirators arrange the crash of the S-25 Sunderland Mk III?
On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, took off from Invergordon in an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. The official story is the Duke was on a morale-boosting visit to RAF personnel stationed in Iceland. The crew had been carefully selected for the task. The captain, Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen, was considered to be Sunderland flyer in the RAF and had flown some of Britain’s politicians during the war. The rest of the crew was also highly regarded. The co-pilot was Wing Commander Thomas Lawton Mosley, the commanding officer of 228 Squadron. Mosley was one of the RAF’s most experienced pilots having completed 1,449 flying hours. He was also a navigation specialist and was a former instructor at the School of Navigation. In fact, the crew included four men who were qualified pilots and navigators. As one can see, this was no ordinary flight. Nor were they heading for Iceland. This was a cover-story. This will become clear when we examine the available evidence.
Officially the Duke of Kent was one of fifteen people on board the aircraft. Also on board were Prince George’s private secretary (John Lowther), his equerry Michael Strutt) and his valet (John Hales). It is also significant who was not with the Duke. Sir Louis Greig, Sir Sidney Herbert and Detective Sergeant Evans, his personal detective, all regular members of his entourage, were not on board. The absence of Greig, a close associate of Winston Churchill, is especially interesting.
The flying boat took off from Invergordon on the east coast of Scotland at 1.10 p.m. Being a flying boat, its standing orders were to fly over water, only crossing land when absolutely unavoidable. The route was to follow the coastline to Duncansby Head – the northernmost tip of Scotland – and then turn northwest over the Pentland Firth towards Iceland (see map below).
The S-25 Sunderland Mk III crashed into Eagle’s Rock later that afternoon (there is much dispute about the exact time this happened) at a height of around 650 feet. As you can see from the map below, the flying boat was well off course when the accident happened. Its 2,500 gallons of fuel, carried in the wings, exploded.
This raises some important questions. Why did the pilot take the flying boat off course? It was a clear day and he would be fully aware that he was now flying over land rather than the sea. Why, when the aircraft included four experienced navigators, did the aircraft drift a huge 15 degrees off course from its point of departure? Why did he descend to 650 feet when he was flying over high land? This is especially puzzling when one considers that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III had one major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight.
The crash was heard by local people and reached the scene of the accident about 90 minutes after they heard the explosion. This included a doctor (John Kennedy) and two policemen (Will Bethune and James Sutherland). They found 15 bodies. This included the body of the Duke of Kent. Bethune gave a radio interview in 1985 where he described finding Prince George’s body. He said that handcuffed to the Duke’s wrist was an attaché case that had burst open, scattering a large number of hundred-kroner notes over the hillside.
Marina, Duchess of Kent, collapsed in shock when she heard the news. The following morning the newspapers reported that everyone on board the Sunderland had been killed. Telegrams were sent to the next of kin of all members of the crew. However, later that day it emerged that Andy Jack, the tail-gunner, had been found in a crofter’s cottage at Ramscraigs. Apparently, when the flying boat exploded, the tail section was thrown over the brow of the hill, coming to rest in the peat bog on the other side. Andy Jack only had superficial injuries. What he did next was very surprising. Instead of going to the wreckage to see what had happened to his colleagues, and waiting for rescuers to arrive, he ran away in the opposite direction. This of course was in direct contravention of standard procedure – which was always to remain with the wreck. Andy Jack eventually found an isolated crofter’s cottage. The owner, Elsie Sutherland alerted Dr. John Kennedy by telephone. However, it was sometime before this information reached the authorities. Andy Jack’s sister Jean had already received a telegram telling her that her brother had been killed in the accident.
Winston Churchill made a statement in the House of Commons where he described the Duke of Kent “a gallant and handsome prince”. Of the many tributes and messages of condolence received from other countries, the most significant was from General Sikorski, the head of the Polish government in exile. The two men were very close and Sikorski sent a special dispatch to all Polish troops in Britain where he described the Duke as “a proven friend of Poland and the Polish armed forces”.
The Duchess of Kent visited Andy Jack several times after the death of her husband. It is believed that the information he provided influenced what was inscribed on the Duke of George’s memorial. This included the following: “In memory of…. the Duke of Kent… and his companions who lost their lives on active service during a flight to Iceland on a special mission on 25th August 1942”. The use of the words “special mission” is an interesting one. It was also the words used by Pilot Officer George Saunders, who also died in the crash. In 2001 Peter Brown, the nephew of Saunders, told a researcher that he was told that in August 1942, Saunders went home to see his family in Sheffield. Saunders informed his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”
A court of inquiry was held and details of their findings were presented in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, on 7th October 1942. The conclusion of the report was: “Accident due to aircraft being on wrong track at too low altitude to clear rising ground on track. Captain of aircraft changed flight-plan for reasons unknown and descended through cloud without making sure he was over water and crashed.”
Sinclair confirmed that weather conditions were fine and there was no evidence of mechanical failure. He added “the responsibility for this serious mistake in airmanship lies with the captain of the aircraft”. It was therefore suggested that the reason for the crash was the team of four pilot/navigators drifted off course and then failed to reach the necessary height to clear Eagle Rock.
The problem is that the documents that would enable researchers to re-examine the evidence have vanished. This includes the flight plan filed by Goyen before take-off.
The secret court of inquiry should have been made available after 15 years. When researchers asked the Public Record Office in 1990 for a copy of the report it was discovered that it had gone missing. The PRO suggested it might have been transferred to the royal archives at Windsor Castle. However, the registrar of the royal archives denies they have ever had the report.
Andy Jack, the only survivor of the crash, was forced to sign the Official Secrets Act while still in hospital. He later told his sister that he could not talk about the crash because he had been “sworn to secrecy”. Jean Jack did provide researchers with one piece of interesting information about the case. Frank Goyen gave Andy Jack a signed photograph of himself just before take-off on which he had written: “With memories of happier days.” Was this a reference to the mission they were about to undertake? Does it suggest that Goyen disapproved of the mission?
Andy Jack was promoted and after the war served in Gibraltar. While he was there he was visited several times by the Duke of Kent’s widow, Marina. Clearly, she was still interested in finding out why her husband was killed.
On 17th May 1961 Marina brought the case to national attention when she visited the scene of her husband’s death. This created a discussion about the crash in the media. Andy Jack now came forward to give an interview to the Scottish Daily Express. He was still serving with the RAF and not surprisingly he went along with the conclusions of the official inquiry. He retired from the RAF on a good pension in 1964. However, he drunk away his money and died of cirrhosis of the liver at the age of fifty-seven.
An important witness to the crash was Captain E. E. Fresson. He piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat. The following day he took the only aerial photographs of the wreckage. In 1963 Fresson published his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. Amazingly, the book does not refer to the death of the Duke of Kent. According to his son, Richard Fresson, the book originally included a full chapter that covered his investigation into the crash. However, this material was removed by the publishers at the last moment.
There is also another interesting aspect to this story. Just ten days after the death of the Duke of Kent, another flying boat, also from 228 Squadron, crashed in the Scottish Highlands. The official explanation was that the plane had run out of fuel. Everyone on board was killed, including a very interesting passenger, Fred Nancarrow, a journalist from Glasgow. Nancarrow was investigating the Eagle Rock crash. He was also working on another case that I believe explains why the Duke of Kent was killed.
Here are some questions members might like to consider:
(1) In 2001, James Swanson, a former sergeant with the Military Police at RAF Wick, admitted that he attended the crash scene. He confirmed that he counted 15 bodies at the scene of the accident. He was also told that all the bodies of the crew were accounted for. Yet we know that one crew member, Andy Jack, had survived. Who was the extra person that was killed next day? Why was he never reported as missing?
(2) How do you account for Andy Jack fleeing from the scene of the crash?
(3) Where was the Duke of Kent really going that day?
(4) Why did the Duchess of Kent refer to her husband’s “special mission”? Why did Pilot Officer George Saunders tell his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”? What was this secret mission that appeared to concern Frank Goyen?
(5) Who was the unnamed passenger that died with the Duke of Kent?
(6) What motive could Winston Churchill have for ordering the death of Duke of Kent?
(7) How did the conspirators arrange the crash of the S-25 Sunderland Mk III?
John,
What do you make of Picknett and Prince's book "Double Standards - The Rudolf Hess Cover-up", which argues that the unnamed passenger was the real Rudolf Hess and that the plane was actually bound, not for Iceland, but for Sweden where George was going to sign a treaty with Hitler to join forces and attack Stalin?
I found this theory quite interesting, particularly as the last person to see Prince George alive was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who dined with him the evening before. Bernhard was a devoted nazi and widely believed to be a nazi spy.
David
What do you make of Picknett and Prince's book "Double Standards - The Rudolf Hess Cover-up", which argues that the unnamed passenger was the real Rudolf Hess and that the plane was actually bound, not for Iceland, but for Sweden where George was going to sign a treaty with Hitler to join forces and attack Stalin?
I found this theory quite interesting, particularly as the last person to see Prince George alive was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who dined with him the evening before. Bernhard was a devoted nazi and widely believed to be a nazi spy.
David
There is so much that we don't know as a result of the disappearance of records. Body count "may have been an error ( partially dependant on the actual condition of bodies ).
I feel that if Andy Jack "had an inkling of what occurred", he would have been an immediate "goner"!
He could have suffered post traumatic stress .....survivors guilt?...confusion. I would say that he knows "nothing", or was a very good intelligence agent.
With the distingushed crew, it is highly unlikely that they would have been off course over Scotland.
Good weather....summers day...excellent visibility. May have been NO radio transmissions as a result of mission secrecy.
The type of aircraft chosen would have been quite unusual, if this had not been a planned flight over a great expanse of water. A big, slow, longranged aircraft. The "number of persons in the flight crew seemed unreasonably high (4 pilots); as was the total number of personnel (15) to have been involved in a mission of highest security classification.
I find strange also, as I have served as a "top secret military courrier", that the head of the "delegation", the Duke, would have been THE person with satchel handcuffed to his wrist. The aircraft was "most secure", and the handcuffed satchel becomes very uncomfortable over a long journey as it impedes normal processes such as toilet use and eating. This could have been attached to a lower ranking member of the crew / delegation. It is unikely this satchel would have POPPED open upon impact...unless it was "torn open".
It is stated that the crash remains were examined and that the aircraft seemed to have undergone NO mechanical failure. I wonder if there was any way to test the amount of petrol or whether there could have been contamination of such.
But, I suppose that all we know of the examination of the aircraft, due to non existant records, is merely what we are meant to know.
IMHO, still the most intruiging aspect of this is survivor "Andy Jack". Why did he survive and why was he unable to "have a good idea" of what caused the crash.
One might speculate, if having as paranoic a nature as mine.....that "this" Andy Jack was never aboard that aircraft and was a military intelligent agent so "planted".
Why or how else could he have both survived, and also to have known nothing, regarding cause of this incident? And why would an intelligent agent have been so planted?....if in fact he was !
This looks very unprofessional and "Sloppy"!
This isn't how the war was won !
Charles Black
P.S.
The plane could not reasonably have been off course with this crew, while flying over land, and in perfect weather. It may have dropped from an already secretively low altitude, from, as I suggested, a fuel failure.
I feel that if Andy Jack "had an inkling of what occurred", he would have been an immediate "goner"!
He could have suffered post traumatic stress .....survivors guilt?...confusion. I would say that he knows "nothing", or was a very good intelligence agent.
With the distingushed crew, it is highly unlikely that they would have been off course over Scotland.
Good weather....summers day...excellent visibility. May have been NO radio transmissions as a result of mission secrecy.
The type of aircraft chosen would have been quite unusual, if this had not been a planned flight over a great expanse of water. A big, slow, longranged aircraft. The "number of persons in the flight crew seemed unreasonably high (4 pilots); as was the total number of personnel (15) to have been involved in a mission of highest security classification.
I find strange also, as I have served as a "top secret military courrier", that the head of the "delegation", the Duke, would have been THE person with satchel handcuffed to his wrist. The aircraft was "most secure", and the handcuffed satchel becomes very uncomfortable over a long journey as it impedes normal processes such as toilet use and eating. This could have been attached to a lower ranking member of the crew / delegation. It is unikely this satchel would have POPPED open upon impact...unless it was "torn open".
It is stated that the crash remains were examined and that the aircraft seemed to have undergone NO mechanical failure. I wonder if there was any way to test the amount of petrol or whether there could have been contamination of such.
But, I suppose that all we know of the examination of the aircraft, due to non existant records, is merely what we are meant to know.
IMHO, still the most intruiging aspect of this is survivor "Andy Jack". Why did he survive and why was he unable to "have a good idea" of what caused the crash.
One might speculate, if having as paranoic a nature as mine.....that "this" Andy Jack was never aboard that aircraft and was a military intelligent agent so "planted".
Why or how else could he have both survived, and also to have known nothing, regarding cause of this incident? And why would an intelligent agent have been so planted?....if in fact he was !
This looks very unprofessional and "Sloppy"!
This isn't how the war was won !
Charles Black
P.S.
The plane could not reasonably have been off course with this crew, while flying over land, and in perfect weather. It may have dropped from an already secretively low altitude, from, as I suggested, a fuel failure.
I am especially interested in any connection the US security apparatus, as indicated in your first notation. There were certainly a number of US businessmen from our ruling elite with large investments in Nazi firms, notably Farben.
Thanks
Jonathan
Thanks
Jonathan
Hello Jonathan
I am terribly sorry, but it has been so long since I have truly addressed the subject of U.S. business ties to Nazi Germany, that I cannot offer anything of true value.
However, there was something which I meant to mention in my previous post on this subject, but apparently failed to.
In that I am pressed for time at the moment, I will just touch on the relevance that the "Sunderland" was a "flying BOAT", that was apparently headed into an area of the ocean which was heavily patrolled by U Boats.
This "could be" somewhat of a stretch, but perhaps not that far. A possible rendezvous with a U Boat in mid ocean.
I wish that I had more time, but with a little imagination, one might suggest that the extra dead body recovered was "the real Rudolph Hess" !
The seemingly half witted gentleman who was portrayed as Hess well past the end of the war, may not have been "The Hess" !
The Hess whom I studied was not a "dim wit" but quite bright as well as being a good pilot (which was not his field). Piloting multi engined military aircraft, was not for "dim wits" any more in 1940, than at present. I have always been unable to accept the given reason(s) for his venture.
This connection, as was suggested in another post,
may not at all be in the least bit ridiculous.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help with your question.
Charles Black
I am terribly sorry, but it has been so long since I have truly addressed the subject of U.S. business ties to Nazi Germany, that I cannot offer anything of true value.
However, there was something which I meant to mention in my previous post on this subject, but apparently failed to.
In that I am pressed for time at the moment, I will just touch on the relevance that the "Sunderland" was a "flying BOAT", that was apparently headed into an area of the ocean which was heavily patrolled by U Boats.
This "could be" somewhat of a stretch, but perhaps not that far. A possible rendezvous with a U Boat in mid ocean.
I wish that I had more time, but with a little imagination, one might suggest that the extra dead body recovered was "the real Rudolph Hess" !
The seemingly half witted gentleman who was portrayed as Hess well past the end of the war, may not have been "The Hess" !
The Hess whom I studied was not a "dim wit" but quite bright as well as being a good pilot (which was not his field). Piloting multi engined military aircraft, was not for "dim wits" any more in 1940, than at present. I have always been unable to accept the given reason(s) for his venture.
This connection, as was suggested in another post,
may not at all be in the least bit ridiculous.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help with your question.
Charles Black
John would it be possible for you to provide citations for the claims made in your previous post? As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error. In the Wellstone thread I documented cases were experiencecflight crews
-circled JFK till they ran out of fuel
-got so distracted by a problem with a landing gear light that they failed to notice the auto-pilot had disengaged and they were quickly losing altitude
-flew below the manufacture's mimimum recomended speed
-flew into a mountain they should have known was in front of them.
From what you tell us the records should have neen made available in 1957 (after 15 years) but you only mention that someone tried to get ahold of them in 1990. Do you know if anyone tried to get them between 57 and 90? Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?
Why do you think he was "murdered"?
-circled JFK till they ran out of fuel
-got so distracted by a problem with a landing gear light that they failed to notice the auto-pilot had disengaged and they were quickly losing altitude
-flew below the manufacture's mimimum recomended speed
-flew into a mountain they should have known was in front of them.
From what you tell us the records should have neen made available in 1957 (after 15 years) but you only mention that someone tried to get ahold of them in 1990. Do you know if anyone tried to get them between 57 and 90? Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?
Why do you think he was "murdered"?
I hope that anyone investigating Churchill will consider carefully this anecdote by Fletcher Prouty:
http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html
Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.
Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.
Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Best,
Dr. Gregg Wager
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager
http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html
Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.
Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.
Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Best,
Dr. Gregg Wager
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager
John,
Could you clear something up? You mentioned the official report which said "...descending through cloud..." but elsewhere I get the impression it was good weather.
Is there a weather report for the area on the day in question?
Could you clear something up? You mentioned the official report which said "...descending through cloud..." but elsewhere I get the impression it was good weather.
Is there a weather report for the area on the day in question?
QUOTE (Dr. Gregg Wager @ May 21 2007, 03:09 AM)
I hope that anyone investigating Churchill will consider carefully this anecdote by Fletcher Prouty:
http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html
Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.
Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.
Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Best,
Dr. Gregg Wager
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager
http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html
Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.
Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.
Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Best,
Dr. Gregg Wager
http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager
I had not heard this story. Stalin was aware that Churchill was willing to order the assassinations of other political figures. In fact, one one occasion Churchill ordered the killing of one leading politician on behalf of Stalin (it was in both their interests that he died). This killing is linked to that of the Duke of Kent and I will be writing about it later.
It was in Churchill's interest for Roosevelt to die in 1945 (he considered him far too soft on communism). However, I very much doubt if he had the power to get rid of Roosevelt.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 20 2007, 09:54 PM)
As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error.
If they were going across land they would not have chosen to use an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. As I pointed out that the Sunderland had a major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why it was assumed that its route was over water.
Weather was fine (as the government pointed out in the House of Commons). The weather reports for that day confirmed this. Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, confirmed that conditions were fine in his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. However, this was removed by the publishers. After his death, his son, Richard Fresson, published the censored chapter in the "Scotsman" newspaper in 1985.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 20 2007, 09:54 PM)
Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?
Yes it does. These documents should not have been removed from the national archives. I suspect that they have indeed been moved to Windsor Castle as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to documents in the royal archives. There are other files relating to this case that are being held back by the government on grounds of national security. One junior minister who talked to a researcher about these files ended up being blown up in his car. Another MP who called for these documents to be released also died the same way. Both deaths were blamed on the IRA. More about this later.
QUOTE (Charles Black @ May 20 2007, 07:52 PM)
This "could be" somewhat of a stretch, but perhaps not that far. A possible rendezvous with a U Boat in mid ocean.
Sunderlands were only really allowed to land in sheltered waters. There's an interesting quote from the site below, which says "Like other flying boats, it could land and take-off only from sheltered coastal waters. From 1942 onwards, landings in open sea were expressly forbidden, except in special circumstances and with permission.":
http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/sunderland.htm
Sunderlands did do search-and-rescue missions, and one once rescued over 30 seamen from a torpedoed merchantman, but it was risky for them to land on the open sea, since they'd have problems taking off again. You'll find a photograph of the interior of a Sunderland on the page above.
If the British wanted to rendezvous with a U-boat at sea, an MTB or motor launch was probably a better bet. Take a look at these memoirs of a telegraphist on British MTBs operating in the North Sea between the coast of Britain and the coasts of occupied Europe from Norway down to France:
http://www.smesh.co.uk/ml108/interest.htm
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 21 2007, 07:24 PM)
Weather was fine (as the government pointed out in the House of Commons). The weather reports for that day confirmed this. Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, confirmed that conditions were fine in his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. However, this was removed by the publishers. After his death, his son, Richard Fresson, published the censored chapter in the "Scotsman" newspaper in 1985.
Well, that makes it quite interesting. Looking at the initial track, I got the impression that they thought they had passed Wick, turned north, then turned north-west after passing John o'Groats. Those days you were using manual air plot, a reliable navigation method - if your navigation fixes were accurate (that was one of the first styles of navigation we learnt as navigators).
If the weather was poor, I'd be favouring a nav error and descent into ground.
If the weather was fine, however, that theory is completely ruled out. They deliberately turned over land. The track over land now becomes interesting; it wasn't a straight line so they apparently weren't just trying to 'cut the corner'. Why the course alterations?
Looking forward to hearing more.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 21 2007, 06:24 AM)
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 20 2007, 09:54 PM)
As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error.
If they were going across land they would not have chosen to use an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. As I pointed out that the Sunderland had a major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why it was assumed that its route was over water.
I guess I didn’t make myself clear, I suggesting that perhaps the flight crew decided to take a short cut. I can only see only 3 reasons for the plane being off course:
1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then. There are two variants for 1) A) it was a decision made the crew violating orders or B) they were following orders. B) seems unlikely because as you point out standing orders were for the plane to fly over water when ever possible. I don’t see the fact that the plane was taking a more direct route to its ‘official’ destination as evidence that it was really going anywhere else, especially not to Sweden since that country was to their east and the plane had deviated west.
What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 20 2007, 09:54 PM)
Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?
Yes it does. These documents should not have been removed from the national archives. I suspect that they have indeed been moved to Windsor Castle as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to documents in the royal archives. There are other files relating to this case that are being held back by the government on grounds of national security. One junior minister who talked to a researcher about these files ended up being blown up in his car. Another MP who called for these documents to be released also died the same way. Both deaths were blamed on the IRA. More about this later.
I don’t know 48 years is a long time, did anybody try to get a hold of these documents earlier? Who would have the power to secretly move the report to Windsor Castle and get them to lie about it? Could the PM do this without cooperation from “a royal”?
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 21 2007, 11:50 AM)
I guess I didn’t make myself clear, I suggesting that perhaps the flight crew decided to take a short cut. I can only see only 3 reasons for the plane being off course:
1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then....
What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.
1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then....
What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.
I believe that the flying boat was actually on its right course. That is why the logged flight route has gone missing. I believe Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen took this route to pick up the extra passenger.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 21 2007, 11:50 AM)
I don’t know 48 years is a long time, did anybody try to get a hold of these documents earlier? Who would have the power to secretly move the report to Windsor Castle and get them to lie about it? Could the PM do this without cooperation from “a royal”?
One of the reasons why many people believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman was because the Kennedy family did not call for a new investgation into the case. The reason why Robert Kennedy kept quiet was because of what he feared would be revealed about the family if an investigation took place. The same is true of the Duke of Kent's death. The Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up because of their own secret activities during this period. Churchill and LBJ used the same tactics to ensure a cover-up.
Regardless of what the Sunderland was "designed " to do, this was wartime, and this aircraft made many landings in open ocean. It was used for much more than coastal duties. The weather on the "day chosen", certainly would have made this operation's success highly likely. When you consider "pilot error" or navigational error over land, in friendly territory in excellent weather and only shortly into the flight....please reconsider why a crew of this caliber was chosen ! The crew was not tired or confused, hampered by weather and was over land. Consider the number of non essential members aboard this flying boat, and most importantly "who" they were. Consider the wrist shackled briefcase and to "whom" it was shackled.
How can anyone suggest that this was ANYTHING other than a "very special mission".
Do you believe that "Royalty" was over Scotland on a pleasure flight?
I am hearing much "nay say" and not a great deal of common sense. Why so often is "the obvious" given the least consideration when it is in fact, the most, after the fact, OBVIOUS.
I personally don't have any vested interest in this subject, but why are you so quick to discount what is the MOST OBVIOUS. I would think that the most obvious theory should at least be considered and dismissed, before proceding with the "highly improbable".
Begin by trashing the theory that the Sunderland could not land at sea in the N. Atlantic, in August under ideal weather conditions. That is absurd!
Considered a hand cuffed satchel and to whom it was attached ! Now consider the general direction in which the flight was headed.....not many possibilities.
I feel also that it is absurd to suggest that in midlflight, during wartime, and in perfect weather, that the crew decided to alter the flight plan of their own volition. "It just ain't done"!
Why such a distinguished crew.....was the Prince afraid of flying? Do you feel that they intended to land in enemy held territory as had Rudolf Hess?
I feel that instead of considering what the mission likely "was not", a little better progress might be made, if you consider the "VERY FEW" options of what this mission "most likely" was !
Are any of you under the misimpression that such missions did not occur, and in fact, still are occurring ?
Don't forget THE surviving crew member !
Charles Black
P.S.
The use of a "patrol boat" would have been totally unacceptable for a daylight clandestine mission. Coastal waters were highly patrolled by both coastal sea craft and aircraft.
How can anyone suggest that this was ANYTHING other than a "very special mission".
Do you believe that "Royalty" was over Scotland on a pleasure flight?
I am hearing much "nay say" and not a great deal of common sense. Why so often is "the obvious" given the least consideration when it is in fact, the most, after the fact, OBVIOUS.
I personally don't have any vested interest in this subject, but why are you so quick to discount what is the MOST OBVIOUS. I would think that the most obvious theory should at least be considered and dismissed, before proceding with the "highly improbable".
Begin by trashing the theory that the Sunderland could not land at sea in the N. Atlantic, in August under ideal weather conditions. That is absurd!
Considered a hand cuffed satchel and to whom it was attached ! Now consider the general direction in which the flight was headed.....not many possibilities.
I feel also that it is absurd to suggest that in midlflight, during wartime, and in perfect weather, that the crew decided to alter the flight plan of their own volition. "It just ain't done"!
Why such a distinguished crew.....was the Prince afraid of flying? Do you feel that they intended to land in enemy held territory as had Rudolf Hess?
I feel that instead of considering what the mission likely "was not", a little better progress might be made, if you consider the "VERY FEW" options of what this mission "most likely" was !
Are any of you under the misimpression that such missions did not occur, and in fact, still are occurring ?
Don't forget THE surviving crew member !
Charles Black
P.S.
The use of a "patrol boat" would have been totally unacceptable for a daylight clandestine mission. Coastal waters were highly patrolled by both coastal sea craft and aircraft.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 21 2007, 08:07 AM)
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 21 2007, 11:50 AM)
I guess I didn’t make myself clear, I suggesting that perhaps the flight crew decided to take a short cut. I can only see only 3 reasons for the plane being off course:
1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then....
What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.
1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then....
What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.
I believe that the flying boat was actually on its right course. That is why the logged flight route has gone missing. I believe Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen took this route to pick up the extra passenger.
I still don’t see a coherent theory. Any idea who this mysterious “15th man” was? Did they pick him up just so that he could be killed along with the Duke? Why did Churchill want these men dead?
I imagine that the flying boats couldn’t land on land but only on water so the plane would had to have landed on a lake (loch) that was big enough for behemoth to land and secluded enough that no one who couldn’t be controlled would notice. Are there any such lakes located near where the plane crashed? The only loch of any size I could see on your map was beyond the plane's path.
I still don’t understand how you think the plane was made to crash. I guess theoretically they could have sabotaged the plane in such away that it wouldn’t have been able climb fast enough from it’s secret landing place but “they” would had to have done so in a away that the flight crew would not have noticed during the preflight checks, the original take off or the rest of the flight. Even then unless clearance around the secret loch was too high in all directions they could not have been sure the pilot would have flown into the mountain.
Perhaps they did pick up some mystery passenger and Goyen unaccustomed to flying over land miscalculated the plane’s ability to climb.
Why were so many people on the plane? Was that to get it heavy enough or were they people Churchill wanted to get rid of too?
QUOTE
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 21 2007, 11:50 AM)
I don’t know 48 years is a long time, did anybody try to get a hold of these documents earlier? Who would have the power to secretly move the report to Windsor Castle and get them to lie about it? Could the PM do this without cooperation from “a royal”?
One of the reasons why many people believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman was because the Kennedy family did not call for a new investgation into the case. The reason why Robert Kennedy kept quiet was because of what he feared would be revealed about the family if an investigation took place. The same is true of the Duke of Kent's death. The Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up because of their own secret activities during this period. Churchill and LBJ used the same tactics to ensure a cover-up.
QUOTE (Dr. Gregg Wager @ May 20 2007, 11:09 PM)
I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Due to the inexperience of the pilot in the former crash and the known incopotence of both pilots in the latter, pilot error seems the most likely explaination in both cases.If you are interested in the Wellstone crash there is lengthy thread on the topic in the History Books section where Jim Fetzer, the primary proponent of the theory the crash wasn't accidental, was unable to substantiate his claims.
The notion itself that Churchill was the sort of person who could do this is not so farfetched.
There was an attempt to assassinate Churchill in june 1943.
The breaking of the German code had revealed that there were observers in Lisbon looking out for Churchill and an attempt would be made to shoot down his plane when returning to England.
It appears that Churchill ordered his bodyguard to disable an engine on his plane that was to take him from Lisbon to England. He apparently did so by removing a part from one of the engines. The result was that Churchill's return was delayed by a day.
Instead a civilian aircraft was shot down.
The circumstances outlined in the following article here suggests that Churchill knowingly sacrificed a number of Intelligence officers, including a leading anti-Nazi ampaigner, the actor Leslie Howard.
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...er_1ashley.html
"........The 50-year old actor perished in a strange incident in WW2--an apparent attempt to assassinate Winston Churchill in the air. On June 1, 1943 the BOAC DC-3 commercial airliner Howard was aboard was shot down by the German Luftwaffe over the Bay of Biscay, the portion of the Atlantic Ocean immediately north of Spain and immediately west of France. There were 17 persons on board, 13 passengers and 4 crewmen. None survived.
The doomed airliner, named Ibis (after the water bird venerated by the ancient Egyptians), had departed from Lisbon that Tuesday at 9:40 a.m., local time, heading for England on a regularly scheduled daytime flight. Three hours later, at 12:54 p.m., with the Ibis flying over water and the Spanish peninsula 200 miles behind, the airplane's wireless operator suddenly broke radio silence and tapped out a chilling message in code: "From G-AGBB [Ibis's call sign] ... I am followed by unidentified aircraft ... I am attacked by enemy aircraft ..." No more signals were received from the airliner, and no trace of its occupants or wreckage was ever found.
.............
Amazingly, three persons who had boarded and been seated on the Ibis in Lisbon that fateful Tuesday were taken off the plane before it took off, and thereby narrowly escaped certain death.
One was a Catholic priest* who benefitted from a mysterious anonymous telephone call summoning him back to Lisbon.
The other two were the young son of a British diplomatic official and the boy's nanny; the two were bumped to make room for Leslie Howard and Alfred Chenhalls."
Leslie and Alfred passed at light scrutiny as doubles to Churchill and his bodyguard.
Churchill himself called the affair 'a twist of fate.'
*who?
There was an attempt to assassinate Churchill in june 1943.
The breaking of the German code had revealed that there were observers in Lisbon looking out for Churchill and an attempt would be made to shoot down his plane when returning to England.
It appears that Churchill ordered his bodyguard to disable an engine on his plane that was to take him from Lisbon to England. He apparently did so by removing a part from one of the engines. The result was that Churchill's return was delayed by a day.
Instead a civilian aircraft was shot down.
The circumstances outlined in the following article here suggests that Churchill knowingly sacrificed a number of Intelligence officers, including a leading anti-Nazi ampaigner, the actor Leslie Howard.
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...er_1ashley.html
"........The 50-year old actor perished in a strange incident in WW2--an apparent attempt to assassinate Winston Churchill in the air. On June 1, 1943 the BOAC DC-3 commercial airliner Howard was aboard was shot down by the German Luftwaffe over the Bay of Biscay, the portion of the Atlantic Ocean immediately north of Spain and immediately west of France. There were 17 persons on board, 13 passengers and 4 crewmen. None survived.
The doomed airliner, named Ibis (after the water bird venerated by the ancient Egyptians), had departed from Lisbon that Tuesday at 9:40 a.m., local time, heading for England on a regularly scheduled daytime flight. Three hours later, at 12:54 p.m., with the Ibis flying over water and the Spanish peninsula 200 miles behind, the airplane's wireless operator suddenly broke radio silence and tapped out a chilling message in code: "From G-AGBB [Ibis's call sign] ... I am followed by unidentified aircraft ... I am attacked by enemy aircraft ..." No more signals were received from the airliner, and no trace of its occupants or wreckage was ever found.
.............
Amazingly, three persons who had boarded and been seated on the Ibis in Lisbon that fateful Tuesday were taken off the plane before it took off, and thereby narrowly escaped certain death.
One was a Catholic priest* who benefitted from a mysterious anonymous telephone call summoning him back to Lisbon.
The other two were the young son of a British diplomatic official and the boy's nanny; the two were bumped to make room for Leslie Howard and Alfred Chenhalls."
Leslie and Alfred passed at light scrutiny as doubles to Churchill and his bodyguard.
Churchill himself called the affair 'a twist of fate.'
*who?
Some interesting information relating to this affair can be found on the website of Martin Frost
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/royal_nazis.html
The links to the relevant sections are at the top left and take you to a small second part should you wish to read more. There may be more information elsewhere on the site perhaps although it is a little disorganised and finding things can be tricky. In fact I was unable to find links to these sections at all from the main pages so there they appear to be pretty well hidden....There are further pages on spying in the Second Section of the website as it is called
http://www.martinfrost.ws/index.html#Second_part_starts_here
Although I wasn't able to see anything at a quick glance I will add the link in case of anything John might spot as he's a bit more involved with the subject matter and names than myself....
Edit as I have just come across more reference to Prince George at the bottom of this page on Princess Diana - including the claim that his (Martin Frost's) father might have been involved
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/diana1.html
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/royal_nazis.html
The links to the relevant sections are at the top left and take you to a small second part should you wish to read more. There may be more information elsewhere on the site perhaps although it is a little disorganised and finding things can be tricky. In fact I was unable to find links to these sections at all from the main pages so there they appear to be pretty well hidden....There are further pages on spying in the Second Section of the website as it is called
http://www.martinfrost.ws/index.html#Second_part_starts_here
Although I wasn't able to see anything at a quick glance I will add the link in case of anything John might spot as he's a bit more involved with the subject matter and names than myself....
Edit as I have just come across more reference to Prince George at the bottom of this page on Princess Diana - including the claim that his (Martin Frost's) father might have been involved
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/diana1.html
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 20 2007, 08:10 AM)
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Winston Churchill
(1) In 2001, James Swanson, a former sergeant with the Military Police at RAF Wick, admitted that he attended the crash scene. He confirmed that he counted 15 bodies at the scene of the accident. He was also told that all the bodies of the crew were accounted for. Yet we know that one crew member, Andy Jack, had survived. Who was the extra person that was killed next day? Why was he never reported as missing?
(1) In 2001, James Swanson, a former sergeant with the Military Police at RAF Wick, admitted that he attended the crash scene. He confirmed that he counted 15 bodies at the scene of the accident. He was also told that all the bodies of the crew were accounted for. Yet we know that one crew member, Andy Jack, had survived. Who was the extra person that was killed next day? Why was he never reported as missing?
This is fascinating and I can't wait to see what the further research you've been performing reveals.
Having considered the questions you pose, I ask, Can you be sure there were 15 bodies? I know nothing about Swanson and the context of his admission. It seems to me to say all 15 died at the site, would be the most convenient and simplest way of hiding the fact there was a survivor, which would have been interviewers/reporters/investigators gold, especially in the death of a Royal. Also get the survivor to sign an OSA, and just like that, no survivors, no witness to the event, no-one to reveal the true mission or why the plane took the course it did. Cover up, essentially, complete in a simple stroke. No-one would have talked, no-one to talk.
Need there be a 'mystery man' who died in the crash for this episode to be any more intriguing?
I'm looking forward to the rest of this piece of original research.
Another interesting point is that according to one source (not to hand, but on the internet so I can find it again), FSGT Jack said that he did go back to the wreckage and that Prince George was at the controls.
I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.
What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).
I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.
What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ May 22 2007, 10:58 AM)
Another interesting point is that according to one source (not to hand, but on the internet so I can find it again), FSGT Jack said that he did go back to the wreckage and that Prince George was at the controls.
I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.
What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).
I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.
What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).
I am pretty sure that Andy Jack never said this. Strangely, he was never called to give evidence at the official inquiry. The only time Jack talked about the case was in an interview with the Scottish Daily Express on 18th May, 1961. He was still serving with the RAF and not surprisingly he went along with the conclusions of the official inquiry. Jack said that as he was in the tail of the plane he did not know what was going on in the cockpit. The only time he spoke to the people in the cockpit was at around ten minutes into the flight.
It is true that rumours have been spread via the internet that the reasons for the cover-up was that the Duke of Kent was flying the plane when it crashed. I think this is highly unlikely, especially when they were flying above ground as they knew this was a dangerous thing to do in a S-25 Sunderland Mk III. Also, they people in the cockpit were badly burnt. According to eye-witnesses, this was not the case with the Duke of Kent. Finally, Will Bethune, a local policeman who was first on the scene, gave a radio interview in 1985 where he described finding Prince George’s body. He said that handcuffed to the Duke’s wrist was an attaché case that had burst open, scattering a large number of hundred-kroner notes over the hillside. Experts have said that the Duke of Kent would have found it very difficult to pilot the plane with an attaché case handcuffed to his wrist.
Here's that quote - unsourced, though:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715
QUOTE
Alternatively there is a story that is said to come from the only survivor Flight Sergeant Andy Jack, whose niece claimed that her uncle had told her that he had found George dead at the controls of the plane, with the clear implication that the Duke had been flying the plane when it crashed despite not having been trained to fly Sunderlands.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715
Much too spoiled for me to swallow !
Fifteen dead immediately with some burned....the other, a survivor, unscathed but disappeared !
Terrible crash of which the survivor had no warning
of an impending problem.
Under the reported conditions, it would take some effort on the part of the pilot to fly into the ground or a mountain, even were he a "student pilot", much less one of the more trusted in the RAF.
The Rosetta Stone is WHY a "disappeared survivor" who had no inkling of a "problem", or an impending crash, in fact disappeared without seeking help for his crew mates.
My reasoning tells me that the "survivor was faked"......but for reasons which I can't imagine.
This story wreaks !
From my deepest paranoid and conspiratorial recesses, I can come up with but one possibility that makes any sort of semi-sense.
The "survivor" sabotaged the plane and bailed out.
He would have come to earth a considerable distance behind the aircraft... a problem which may have not been given proper consideration. His absence from the crash site was not a part of the planning.
His duty station, in the tail gunner position, would have given him unlimited "privacy"....he would have been literally invisible to the other crew members !
Charles Black
Fifteen dead immediately with some burned....the other, a survivor, unscathed but disappeared !
Terrible crash of which the survivor had no warning
of an impending problem.
Under the reported conditions, it would take some effort on the part of the pilot to fly into the ground or a mountain, even were he a "student pilot", much less one of the more trusted in the RAF.
The Rosetta Stone is WHY a "disappeared survivor" who had no inkling of a "problem", or an impending crash, in fact disappeared without seeking help for his crew mates.
My reasoning tells me that the "survivor was faked"......but for reasons which I can't imagine.
This story wreaks !
From my deepest paranoid and conspiratorial recesses, I can come up with but one possibility that makes any sort of semi-sense.
The "survivor" sabotaged the plane and bailed out.
He would have come to earth a considerable distance behind the aircraft... a problem which may have not been given proper consideration. His absence from the crash site was not a part of the planning.
His duty station, in the tail gunner position, would have given him unlimited "privacy"....he would have been literally invisible to the other crew members !
Charles Black
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ May 22 2007, 11:53 AM)
Here's that quote - unsourced, though:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715
QUOTE
Alternatively there is a story that is said to come from the only survivor Flight Sergeant Andy Jack, whose niece claimed that her uncle had told her that he had found George dead at the controls of the plane, with the clear implication that the Duke had been flying the plane when it crashed despite not having been trained to fly Sunderlands.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715
It is true that Andy Jack did say that he returned to the wreckage before leaving the scene. However, he said he went back to see if there were any survivors. Why would he drag the Duke of Kent's body out of the cockpit? Why would he then lie about it? What he never explained why he left the scene of the crash.
One small point that's been bugging me is "hundred kroner" notes. 'Kroner' denotes the currencies of Iceland, Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden (where it'd be 'kronor'). This might be a British mistake, though.
Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.
Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.
QUOTE (David Richardson @ May 22 2007, 02:01 PM)
One small point that's been bugging me is "hundred kroner" notes. 'Kroner' denotes the currencies of Iceland, Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden (where it'd be 'kronor'). This might be a British mistake, though.
Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.
Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.
They were in fact kroner notes which reflects the fact they were going to Iceland. However, as Iceland was occupied by Britain and the USA at the time, its own currency was virtually valueless. This fact has raised questions by researchers. Why did the Duke of Kent not take dollars with him to Iceland?
It seems strange that he had handcuffed to his wrist an attaché case that was carrying valueless currency. Could it be that Andy Jack removed more important documents from the case? Could these documents explained the real reason for going to Iceland/Sweden.
I can understand post incident trauma for his actions to some degree, but the fact that he didn't try to contact the RAF immediately is very confusing.
Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).
I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.
Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).
I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ May 23 2007, 02:52 AM)
I can understand post incident trauma for his actions to some degree, but the fact that he didn't try to contact the RAF immediately is very confusing.
Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).
I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.
Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).
I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.
Here is some extra information that should help you to solve this mystery.
(1) The usual route from the UK to Iceland was from Prestwick to Reykjavik. The RAF normally used a Liberator for this journey.
(2) If it was vitally important for a flying boat to be used the journey was from Oban to Iceland. This is where 228 Squadron was based. The reason for this was Oban was out of range of most German fighter-bombers. Yet the Duke of Kent travelled from Oban to Invergordon in order to catch the flight on 25th August 1942. The RAF or the government has never been able to explain why it was necessary for the Duke of Kent to take the far more dangerous journey from Invergordon.
(3) The reason why the flying boat crashed was that it had descended to 650 feet over land. According to the official report the pilot had gone off course. However, if the pilot knew he was flying over land the last thing he would have done was to descend. However, if he did not know he was off course, there would have been no need to descend.
(4) It is also impossible to believe that such an experienced team of pilots and navigators would have drifted 15 degrees off course. The official report states that the pilot descended to 650 feet in order to establish his position. However, that is the last thing the pilot would have done. It should also be pointed out that the flying boat was equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar. This enabled the navigator to accurately find the position of the coastline. There was also a radio beacon at RAF Wick that was used for pilots and navigators to establish their position. Therefore, there was no need to risk the lives of the people on board by flying low in order to take visual bearings.
(5) Goyen’s flight-plan has never been released. Is it possible that Goyen’s flight plan indicated that he intended to fly over land? If so, why did he need to take this route. Another possibility is that the flight-plan changed during the flight. Normally, Goyen would have had to radio back to base to get permission to do this. However, Thomas Lawton Mosley, the commanding officer of 228 Squadron, was on board. Did Mosley give permission or even order Goyen to change course? Does this explain why it was decided at the last moment for Mosley to travel on this flight?
(6) E. E. Fresson took an aerial photograph of the crash. This was initially censored and did not enter the public domain until 1987. The ground markings suggest that the Duke of Kent’s plane did not approach the hill directly from the south but was turning into Eagle’s Rock from a more westerly direction.
(7) The squadron record book states that the Sunderland took off at 13.10 and crashed at 14.00. However, the crash site is only 25 minutes from Invergordon. What was the aircraft doing in the other 25 minutes?
Hi John,
Do you subscribe to the Hess theories?
If so do you believe the plane landed in Loch More to pick up Hess during the unaccounted for 25 minutes. Perhaps a sluggish ascent into the West side of the mountain caused the crash. This would also be the rough route to Scandanavia.
IF, the above is true, what happened Hess?
IF the journey was a peacekeeping one then the Kroner would have some worth after a deal.
Lots of if's for me, but no conclusion. Then again if it were murder then perhaps after the Hess pick-up, West may have left the plane after performing some form of sabotage, hence his subsequent survival.
Have you a substantive next piece prepared yet, in this intriguing 'mystery'.
It also seems that at one time Andrew Mackinlay (Labour MP) had more than a passing interest in the case
See here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/40513w04.htm...I've copied the relevant portions below.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all official documents relating to Rudolf Hess are now in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [170549]
Mr. Leslie: A search of the National Archives' electronic catalogue provides details of records relating to the career of Rudolf Hess originating from several Government Departments and now kept at Kew. All of this material appears to be available for public consultation. Since Mr. Hess did not die until 1987, it is quite possible that more material relating to him is still held in Government Departments, in accordance with the 30-year rule and other provisions of the Public Records Acts.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents relating to the late Duke of Windsor are withheld from public inspection in the Public Records Office, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [170541]
Mr. Leslie: Many public records relating to the Duke of Windsor, including some concerning his career after the Abdication in December 1936, were made available to the public for the first time on 30 January 2003. Further information about these and other records relating to the Duke kept at the National Archives can be obtained from its electronic catalogue on the internet at http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk. A search of the catalogue has not revealed any reference to the Duke's career which is not available for public consultation.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all the documents relating to the death of the late Duke of Kent in 1942, with particular reference to
13 May 2004 : Column 483W
the itinerary of his final projected journey, are now in the public domain and available for inspection; and if he will make a statement. [170544]
Mr. Leslie: The National Archives holds some correspondence and papers relating to the Duke of Kent's fatal air crash in Caithness in August 1942, mainly among the Air Ministry records. It is not aware of any significant body of material concerning this matter in other public archives.
(My emphasis)
Do you subscribe to the Hess theories?
If so do you believe the plane landed in Loch More to pick up Hess during the unaccounted for 25 minutes. Perhaps a sluggish ascent into the West side of the mountain caused the crash. This would also be the rough route to Scandanavia.
IF, the above is true, what happened Hess?
IF the journey was a peacekeeping one then the Kroner would have some worth after a deal.
Lots of if's for me, but no conclusion. Then again if it were murder then perhaps after the Hess pick-up, West may have left the plane after performing some form of sabotage, hence his subsequent survival.
Have you a substantive next piece prepared yet, in this intriguing 'mystery'.
It also seems that at one time Andrew Mackinlay (Labour MP) had more than a passing interest in the case
See here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...xt/40513w04.htm...I've copied the relevant portions below.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all official documents relating to Rudolf Hess are now in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [170549]
Mr. Leslie: A search of the National Archives' electronic catalogue provides details of records relating to the career of Rudolf Hess originating from several Government Departments and now kept at Kew. All of this material appears to be available for public consultation. Since Mr. Hess did not die until 1987, it is quite possible that more material relating to him is still held in Government Departments, in accordance with the 30-year rule and other provisions of the Public Records Acts.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents relating to the late Duke of Windsor are withheld from public inspection in the Public Records Office, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [170541]
Mr. Leslie: Many public records relating to the Duke of Windsor, including some concerning his career after the Abdication in December 1936, were made available to the public for the first time on 30 January 2003. Further information about these and other records relating to the Duke kept at the National Archives can be obtained from its electronic catalogue on the internet at http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk. A search of the catalogue has not revealed any reference to the Duke's career which is not available for public consultation.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all the documents relating to the death of the late Duke of Kent in 1942, with particular reference to
13 May 2004 : Column 483W
the itinerary of his final projected journey, are now in the public domain and available for inspection; and if he will make a statement. [170544]
Mr. Leslie: The National Archives holds some correspondence and papers relating to the Duke of Kent's fatal air crash in Caithness in August 1942, mainly among the Air Ministry records. It is not aware of any significant body of material concerning this matter in other public archives.
(My emphasis)
QUOTE
However, if he did not know he was off course, there would have been no need to descend.
Slight correction there.
I said in an earlier post they would have been using manual air plot (MAP). Upon further reading, it seems they would have been using manual track plot (MTP) for this stage. A small lesson in air navigation is necessary here.
MAP is a basic system that will take you practically anywhere. It works like this. You start from a known point (the airfield). From that point you plot your heading and airspeed for a set time (normally 30 mins). This gives you an 'air position' (a position if there were no outside effects on the aircraft). At that time (30 mins) you also plot a navigation fix (derived from navigation aids, radar, visual fix, etc). This gives you your actual position, allowing for the effects of wind. The difference between your air position and actual position is the vector (bearing) and magnitude (distance) of wind for a 30 min period. Double the wind magnitude (distance) gives you the wind velocity for 1 hour.
This now gives you a fairly accurate wind.
You then apply that wind velocity (W/V) to your heading and airspeed from the navigation fix for a three minute period, and it will give you a pretty accurate position of where you are at that time (departure + 30 mins + 3 mins). Using that information of where you actually are, plus a fairly accurate wind, you plot a course to regain your original planned course within a set period (normally 30 mins). At that time (departure + 30 mins + 3 mins) you turn onto your corrected heading.
This system will get you anywhere you want to go - almost. It relies upon an accurate navigation fix. If you dont have the ability to get an accurate fix, then you'd revert to a system called manual air plot (MAP).
Once again, you start from a known point. With this method, you do not rely upon a position fix; you base your calculations upon your estimates of the wind affecting the aircraft. You start from a known point, and applying the W/V you have calculated, work out where you should be. This system relies upon constant updates of the wind velocity (W/V), normally done at no more than 15 minute (at MOST! We used to use 6 minutes) intervals.
You determined the wind through several methods. One was to look at the sea and simply estimate the wind direction and strength. This could be very inaccurate, depending upon the observer. Another was to observe the drift on set headings, 30 degrees apart. You'd fly your base course, and looking at your track over the sea, estimate your drift (x degrees left / right). You'd then turn 30 degree left of base course and fly that heading for one minute, again estimating the drift. After one minute, you'd turn 60 degrees right (and thus 30 degrees left of base course) for two minutes, again estimating drift.
After the set two minutes, you'd return to your base course (the one minute left / two minute right effectively canceling each other out). Plotting the drifts encountered on your Mk4 speed / time / distance calculator (the 'wheel of fortune'), it would give you a new W/V. You'd apply this to your plot, and update your position.
Naturally, every time you could get a solid navigation fix (radar, navaid, landmark, etc) you'd update your plot. MAP wasn't very accurate after an hour or two, but was the only thing available to aircraft that flew off of aircraft carriers of the day. It was also used by aircraft that would fly low level over the sea that were not taking astronavigation shots (not that great at the best of times).
So they could have well thought they were somewhere they were not if the estimates were off, but IIRC they had only been airborne about 30 minutes so the nav error should not have been that great - unless conditions were considerably different from that of forecast.
This leads me back to my questioning of weather conditions.
If they thought they were over ocean, then they would descend through cloud in order to determine the W/V by looking at the sea. If, however, the conditions were clear then I question why they seemingly flew into the ground.
John (Simkin)
This site gives a very different explanation of the incident.
http://www.rafoban.co.uk/page9.htm
Can you document any of your various claims (i.e. the weather was fine). Some seem dubious to begin with i.e. unsubstantied claims made decades after the fact
Len
This site gives a very different explanation of the incident.
http://www.rafoban.co.uk/page9.htm
Can you document any of your various claims (i.e. the weather was fine). Some seem dubious to begin with i.e. unsubstantied claims made decades after the fact
Len
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 23 2007, 01:21 PM)
John (Simkin)
This site gives a very different explanation of the incident.
http://www.rafoban.co.uk/page9.htm
Can you document any of your various claims (i.e. the weather was fine). Some seem dubious to begin with i.e. unsubstantied claims made decades after the fact
Len
This site gives a very different explanation of the incident.
http://www.rafoban.co.uk/page9.htm
Can you document any of your various claims (i.e. the weather was fine). Some seem dubious to begin with i.e. unsubstantied claims made decades after the fact
Len
To quote the website:
"The subsequent Court of Enquiry under the chairmanship of Wing Commander Warren Kay, apportioned blame for the accident upon the captain of the aircraft, Frank Goyen. They specified poor airmanship in failing to follow the course given to him in the flight plan and failing to make height to ensure a sufficient safety margin to clear anticipated high ground on the specified track. Weather conditions were not gauged to be so adverse that a pilot of Goyen's experience should encounter any difficulty in coping with them. The aircraft's engines were examined after the crash and found to be set at full throttle with propellers at coarse pitch, thus indicating that the aircraft was still climbing when it hit the obstruction and not in cruising configuration. This fact was not made clear at the enquiry but was noted by members of the 63rd Maintenance Unit whilst clearing the debris."
It was Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, who said the weather was fine. Even so, the Court of Enquiry admitted: "Weather conditions were not gauged to be so adverse that a pilot of Goyen's experience should encounter any difficulty in coping with them."
There are a lot of misleading information on this website. I will be dealing with that later when dealing with the motive for the killing.
John,
Reference the comment about being equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar: do you have more details? I'm aware that Sunderlands of that time were equipped with ASV but this was not a navigational radar. The ASV sets gave a vertical readout, not usable for navigation.
The traditional PPI (Plan Position Indicator) radar we know of today came about with the development of centimetric radar through the klystron and magnatron. This was still in development during mid-1942, and didn't see operational service until late 1942 / early 1943 (IIRC). This system was known in the RAF as the H2S radar, and could be used for navigation. They were fitted initially to Bomber Command Halifaxes, Stirlings, and Lancasters, and to Coastal Command Wellingtons.
I'm unsure if they were ever fitted to Sunderlands.
Reference the comment about being equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar: do you have more details? I'm aware that Sunderlands of that time were equipped with ASV but this was not a navigational radar. The ASV sets gave a vertical readout, not usable for navigation.
The traditional PPI (Plan Position Indicator) radar we know of today came about with the development of centimetric radar through the klystron and magnatron. This was still in development during mid-1942, and didn't see operational service until late 1942 / early 1943 (IIRC). This system was known in the RAF as the H2S radar, and could be used for navigation. They were fitted initially to Bomber Command Halifaxes, Stirlings, and Lancasters, and to Coastal Command Wellingtons.
I'm unsure if they were ever fitted to Sunderlands.
I'm also curious about the apparent disparity between the accident board's findings that he "... descended through cloud without ensuring he was over water..." and the engines being at full throttle, indicating the aircraft was in a climb configuration. It is possible they were descending, realised they were heading for rising terrain, then went full throttle in order to climb away but still...
I thought this might be of interest, from the Met Office: "I had a look at the plotted charts for 25th Aug. 1942 and conclude the following for Scotland: A cloudy day with rain at times, except in the far north. Fog along the southeast coast. A moderate to fresh East wind, cool in the east but warmer in the west. If you require more detailed information about specific stations, the original paper records for Scottish stations are held at our Archive in Edinburgh."
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ May 23 2007, 10:25 PM)
John,
Reference the comment about being equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar: do you have more details? I'm aware that Sunderlands of that time were equipped with ASV but this was not a navigational radar. The ASV sets gave a vertical readout, not usable for navigation.
Reference the comment about being equipped with the latest air-to-ground radar: do you have more details? I'm aware that Sunderlands of that time were equipped with ASV but this was not a navigational radar. The ASV sets gave a vertical readout, not usable for navigation.
The Sunderland was fitted with Mark II anti-surface vessel radar. Although primarily designed for detecting enemy ships, it was also routinely used by flight navigators to find the coastline.
QUOTE (Norman Pratt @ May 24 2007, 12:10 AM)
"I had a look at the plotted charts for 25th Aug. 1942 and conclude the following for Scotland: A cloudy day with rain at times, except in the far north.
This fits in with E. E. Fresson's account who said it became clearer the further you went north. He said that there was no cloud on the northern coast as he approached Pentland Firth. This is no doubt why this chapter of his book was censored.
Hi John,
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ May 24 2007, 10:43 AM)
Hi John,
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
I will address this point and others you have made later. My plan is to take you through the evidence concerning the crash itself. Then I want to tackle the possibility of the extra passenger. Then I will go on to look at the motive which is connected to the extra passenger and their real destination. This will then lead us to looking at the actions of Churchill between 1930 and 1947. This will I believe result in a completely new way of looking at the Second World War and the establishment of the Cold War.
I also plan to try to get Norman Baker involved in this investigation. He will be in a position contact to Andrew Mackinlay and Rhodri Morgan, who have both asked questions in the House of Commons about this story.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 24 2007, 10:54 AM)
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ May 24 2007, 10:43 AM)
Hi John,
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
Are/were you aware of what Andrew Mackinlays seeming interest in the case was as I highlighted in one of my previous posts. I haven't found an awful lot on the web to indicate a direct research involvement.
Gary
I will address this point and others you have made later. My plan is to take you through the evidence concerning the crash itself. Then I want to tackle the possibility of the extra passenger. Then I will go on to look at the motive which is connected to the extra passenger and their real destination. This will then lead us to looking at the actions of Churchill between 1930 and 1947. This will I believe result in a completely new way of looking at the Second World War and the establishment of the Cold War.
I also plan to try to get Norman Baker involved in this investigation. He will be in a position contact to Andrew Mackinlay and Rhodri Morgan, who have both asked questions in the House of Commons about this story.
Thanks John, I thought you were ignoring me
I'm continuing my own 'research' into this in the meantime. David Guyatt also has a very informative webpage I found, this gives a nice overview for someonw like me of the relationships at this time http://www.whale.to/b/guyatt32.html
Gary
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 24 2007, 05:58 AM)
QUOTE (Norman Pratt @ May 24 2007, 12:10 AM)
"I had a look at the plotted charts for 25th Aug. 1942 and conclude the following for Scotland: A cloudy day with rain at times, except in the far north.
This fits in with E. E. Fresson's account who said it became clearer the further you went north. He said that there was no cloud on the northern coast as he approached Pentland Firth. This is no doubt why this chapter of his book was censored.
John can you provide a link to and/or a direct quote of Fresson's account. Did he give it during his lifetime or was this as reported by his son?
QUOTE (Gary Loughran @ May 24 2007, 11:36 AM)
Thanks John, I thought you were ignoring me
I'm continuing my own 'research' into this in the meantime. David Guyatt also has a very informative webpage I found, this gives a nice overview for someonw like me of the relationships at this time http://www.whale.to/b/guyatt32.html
I'm continuing my own 'research' into this in the meantime. David Guyatt also has a very informative webpage I found, this gives a nice overview for someonw like me of the relationships at this time http://www.whale.to/b/guyatt32.html
Yes, I am sure David Guyatt will get involved in the debate when we get onto people like Prince Bernhard.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 24 2007, 11:37 AM)
John can you provide a link to and/or a direct quote of Fresson's account. Did he give it during his lifetime or was this as reported by his son?
Richard Freeson published his father's account in the Scotsman on 7th September 1985.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 24 2007, 07:45 AM)
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 24 2007, 11:37 AM)
John can you provide a link to and/or a direct quote of Fresson's account. Did he give it during his lifetime or was this as reported by his son?
Richard Freeson published his father's account in the Scotsman on 7th September 1985.
Can you provide a link to the account or post here (or on Sparticus) I couldn't find it on the Net, not even the paper's website but it seem for some reason articles from 1951 - 2000 aren't available and I doubt many members will be able to find 20+ year old issues of that paper in their local libraries.
Can you post a copy of the crash scene photo as well?
QUOTE (John Simkin @ May 24 2007, 06:58 PM)
The Sunderland was fitted with Mark II anti-surface vessel radar. Although primarily designed for detecting enemy ships, it was also routinely used by flight navigators to find the coastline.
AH! Okay, that makes sense. I tend to think of navigation as a position fix, but the ASV would certainly detect the coastline as long as there was sufficient vertical relief.
Thanks!
It is my opinion that the evidence suggests that the Sunderland flying boat was not off course. That Goyen/Mosley intended to take a route over land. This is also implied in the official report when it says: “Captain of aircraft changed flight-plan for reasons unknown and descended through cloud without making sure he was over water and crashed.” The report does not say that the Sunderland had deviated from its flight plan. At what stage did Goyen/Mosley changed the flight-plan? Was it changed before the flying boat took off? Is this why the original flight-plan has not been released?
As I said earlier, the squadron record book states that the Sunderland took off at 13.10 and crashed at 14.00. However, the crash site is only 25 minutes from Invergordon. What was the aircraft doing in the other 25 minutes? This increases to 55 minutes if you take into account a report that appeared in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). It included an interview with David Morrison (the farmer who raised the alarm). Morrison stated he heard the explosion at 2.30 p.m. He sent his son, Hugh, on motorcycle to raise the alarm in nearby Braemore. Hugh returned at about 3.00 with military personnel. They then formed a search-party and it took them another hour to find the wreckage.
Considering the fact that an extra body was counted at the scene of the crash it would seem that the missing 55 minutes could be accounted for by picking up a passenger. The idea of an extra person is supported by a news item in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). After describing the funeral of the Duke of Kent it states that the bodies of ten of the airmen had been sent south by train and four others had been taken to Oban. That of courses makes 15 bodies rather than the official number of 14.
In the John o’ Groat Journal (4th September, 1942) the newspaper reported that Andy Jack was the: “sole survivor of the plane crash in which the Duke of Kent and 14 others lost their lives.” On 14th September George VI visited the scene of the crash. A local newspaper reported that the King asked about the “15 victims of the crash” and also made “special enquiries about the progress of Flight Sergt. Jack, the only survivor.” A local history book, Caithness – and the War, 1939-1945 by Norman Glass, that was based on reports from local newspapers, also said that 15 people died when the Sunderland Flying Boat crashed on 25th August 1942.
Then we have evidence that the Duke of Kent was involved in a “special mission”. This has been claimed by the Duchess of Kent and the relatives of some of those killed in the crash. It was also confirmed by Sir Samuel Hoare, who told friends at a meeting in Madrid in October 1942 that at the time of the Duke’s death he was undertaking a special mission on his behalf. (I will return to the activities of Hoare later).
Could the flying boat have landed on an inland body of water? According to Robert Brydon, who has carried out an in-depth study of this case, there are only three possible landing sites. The main one is Loch More that is two miles long and a third of a mile wide. This was on the land of Sir Archibald Sinclair. Yes, the same Archibald Sinclair, who was the air minister at the time and the man who set up the inquiry into the crash and delivered its report in the House of Commons. Loch More lies about eight miles to the north of the crash site. It is the middle of Sinclair’s family estate and is not overlooked by the public.
By the side of Loch More are two cottages owned by the Sinclair family (Braemore Lodge and Lochmore Cottage). Sinclair’s son, Robin (Lord Thurso), claims that when he was a boy his father used flying boats on the loch. A S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat needs three-quarters of a mile to take-off and even less to land. It was therefore possible for Goyen/Mosley to pick up a passenger from someone staying at one of these two cottages.
The Sunderland would have approached from the south and landed towards the deeper end near Braemore Lodge. It would then take off in a southerly direction. To get back the official flight-plan, it would have needed to head for the coast. The safest route would have been to follow Berriedale Water. That would have taken it over Eagle Rock, the scene of the crash.
But who was the passenger? Lord Thurso told the historian Stephen Prior, that according to his mother, Rudolf Hess was kept at Braemore Lodge during the summer of 1942. This story is supported by the testimony of Lady ‘Bunty’ Gunn, who lived in Caithness during the war.
If Hess was one of those killed in 1942, who was the man who was murdered in Spandau Prison on 17th August, 1987? Is Hess the first man to be murdered twice?
As I said earlier, the squadron record book states that the Sunderland took off at 13.10 and crashed at 14.00. However, the crash site is only 25 minutes from Invergordon. What was the aircraft doing in the other 25 minutes? This increases to 55 minutes if you take into account a report that appeared in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). It included an interview with David Morrison (the farmer who raised the alarm). Morrison stated he heard the explosion at 2.30 p.m. He sent his son, Hugh, on motorcycle to raise the alarm in nearby Braemore. Hugh returned at about 3.00 with military personnel. They then formed a search-party and it took them another hour to find the wreckage.
Considering the fact that an extra body was counted at the scene of the crash it would seem that the missing 55 minutes could be accounted for by picking up a passenger. The idea of an extra person is supported by a news item in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). After describing the funeral of the Duke of Kent it states that the bodies of ten of the airmen had been sent south by train and four others had been taken to Oban. That of courses makes 15 bodies rather than the official number of 14.
In the John o’ Groat Journal (4th September, 1942) the newspaper reported that Andy Jack was the: “sole survivor of the plane crash in which the Duke of Kent and 14 others lost their lives.” On 14th September George VI visited the scene of the crash. A local newspaper reported that the King asked about the “15 victims of the crash” and also made “special enquiries about the progress of Flight Sergt. Jack, the only survivor.” A local history book, Caithness – and the War, 1939-1945 by Norman Glass, that was based on reports from local newspapers, also said that 15 people died when the Sunderland Flying Boat crashed on 25th August 1942.
Then we have evidence that the Duke of Kent was involved in a “special mission”. This has been claimed by the Duchess of Kent and the relatives of some of those killed in the crash. It was also confirmed by Sir Samuel Hoare, who told friends at a meeting in Madrid in October 1942 that at the time of the Duke’s death he was undertaking a special mission on his behalf. (I will return to the activities of Hoare later).
Could the flying boat have landed on an inland body of water? According to Robert Brydon, who has carried out an in-depth study of this case, there are only three possible landing sites. The main one is Loch More that is two miles long and a third of a mile wide. This was on the land of Sir Archibald Sinclair. Yes, the same Archibald Sinclair, who was the air minister at the time and the man who set up the inquiry into the crash and delivered its report in the House of Commons. Loch More lies about eight miles to the north of the crash site. It is the middle of Sinclair’s family estate and is not overlooked by the public.
By the side of Loch More are two cottages owned by the Sinclair family (Braemore Lodge and Lochmore Cottage). Sinclair’s son, Robin (Lord Thurso), claims that when he was a boy his father used flying boats on the loch. A S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat needs three-quarters of a mile to take-off and even less to land. It was therefore possible for Goyen/Mosley to pick up a passenger from someone staying at one of these two cottages.
The Sunderland would have approached from the south and landed towards the deeper end near Braemore Lodge. It would then take off in a southerly direction. To get back the official flight-plan, it would have needed to head for the coast. The safest route would have been to follow Berriedale Water. That would have taken it over Eagle Rock, the scene of the crash.
But who was the passenger? Lord Thurso told the historian Stephen Prior, that according to his mother, Rudolf Hess was kept at Braemore Lodge during the summer of 1942. This story is supported by the testimony of Lady ‘Bunty’ Gunn, who lived in Caithness during the war.
If Hess was one of those killed in 1942, who was the man who was murdered in Spandau Prison on 17th August, 1987? Is Hess the first man to be murdered twice?
I'd just like to say that I'm finding this thread fascinating. Well done, John, for starting it …
John,
Are you aware that there was a recent documentary covering some of this mateial, including the Hess flight? I saw it on the history channel (I think) in the last few weeks. It went into detail about the Duke's flight and the possibility that the Hess that died in 1987 was not the original one. Apparently Hess has bullet wound in his armpit which was not identifiable on the 1987 Hess.
John
Are you aware that there was a recent documentary covering some of this mateial, including the Hess flight? I saw it on the history channel (I think) in the last few weeks. It went into detail about the Duke's flight and the possibility that the Hess that died in 1987 was not the original one. Apparently Hess has bullet wound in his armpit which was not identifiable on the 1987 Hess.
John
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.