Tuesday, 5 August 2008

DeHavilland Vampire VZ874: Scraps

De Havilland Vampire VZ874: Scraps
Originally uploaded by wreckhunter

Vampire VZ874 flew into Mynydd Mawr on 12th October 1956. All that is now to be seen are a few scraps like these scattered in the vicinity of the summit.

We understand that any bigger bits found their way to Caernarfon's Aviation Museum, where you might be able to see them for half the year at £5.50 per head, though their website says it is still closed for winter 2006 .

We note that the museum's website does not think important enough to mention a single one of the Snowdonia wreck sites we have been to so far, whose "recovered" parts supposedly ended up in this establishment (The ones that didn't end up melted down for scrap, or adorning someone's garden, that is). We would concede that however infrequently visited a museum might be, it is a preferable fate for bits of these old 'planes to becoming a private collector's toy.

We are sure that it is all very educational, and that its' seemingly amateurish and out of date website is unrepresentative of its world-leading position in aviation archaeology. Oh yes.

Location:SH 53981 54613

More info


Anonymous said...

This used to be an excellent site, but recently has degraded into a slanging match...

What happened to "Live and Let Live?" Just what is your problem with wreckologists, aviation archeologists, or whatever the hell they call themselves?
Some of us out here in Internet Land CANNOT climb mountains anymore and the only way to see bits of our aircraft is in museums.
For God's sake, get off your soapbox sir. History is NOT science, no matter how many times you tell us it is so, or how loudly you tell it.
The late, unlamented Dr Goebbels used that philosophy - Tell 'em something often enough, and loudly enough, and sooner or later everyone believes it.

Show us the crash sites, not opinions.

Sean said...

If you look up what a "blog" is, you will see that expression of personal opinion is the point.

You don't have to agree with me, but you have no right to tell me what to write.

I'm sure if you wanted to debate these issues, instead of making unsupported polemical statements, you would have revealed your identity.

I object to people looting war graves for garden ornaments. I'm not sure this is a minority opinion.

Why not enjoy the bit you like, and ignore my opinions?

Mick said...

I have no objection to professional recoveries taking place and the artifacts being placed in proper state-run and funded RAF museums. IE: Duxford, Hendon or Cosford. Where people such as yourself can view them and many other items of aviation history 365 days of the year. My objection is to self-appointed 'experts' disturbing these historical sites (bearing in mind that many still have human remains present)in an amateurish fashion and for no apparent good reason. The past record of these activities and the private museums is not good and we just wished to highlight this fact. We have been somewhat taken aback by the vehement reaction expressing our opinion has provoked in some. I leave you to draw your own conclusions from that

Anonymous said...


You clearly haven't looked at the law, recovery from sites where human remains are present it not permitted through the licensing scheme. If you are interested then you can read the MOD regs here http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2318DD7B-2DDC-41E0-8D35-7AD12333A1C4/0/POMRACTBOOKLET_May08.pdf

The people who run the small museums are not self appointed experts, have you ever been to one of them and spoken to the volunteers who give up their own time to run them?


I agree with anonymous history is not science.

You tried to start an open debate, nobody was interested so you uped your tone the next time. Still no debate. So on and so forth.

Now you have an opportunity for debate but instead you tell the person who replied to more or less go away. When people have used identifiable names you either use it as a chance to have a go at them or ignore them, hence the use of anonymous.

Why not answer the questions that have been put to you that have gone unanswered.

Sean said...

More vague nonsense from another nameless, gutless wonder. One of the mickey-mouse amateur historians, I'll be bound. What were those questions again? Am I the reincarnation of Goebbels? You think that is worthy of an answer?

Whether history is a science or not might be an interesting question for philosophers. Whether a bunch of unqualified amateurs unearthing a crashed plane with a digger to no useful effect to anyone other than their own train-spotterish gratification constitutes any sort of historical investigation is another.

You are mistaken as to the nature of a blog. This isn't a chat-room. We express our opinions occasionally. You don't have to like them, or even notice them. If you look, you will see that we have been expressing the same opinions more or less since the start. Since we started going to Wales however, we have been particularly disgusted by the valueless plundering of the sites there. Even so, the vast majority of postings make no mention of the activity of graverobbers.

Much of the material on here unpopular with the nameless ones is not however opinion. The fate of these planes is fact, unless someone has some contradictory evidence. If so we'd be glad to see it. Calling us names or telling us that something is so because you say so is not what we recognise as debate.

We do however publish every comment made, even those made by those too cowardly to reveal their identities. We like our detractors to make their irrationality, cowardliness, and lack of cogent argument public. They have never let us down yet.

Mick said...

As far as I can tell, anowreckologists have no claim to professional archaeological qualifications and are not appointed by any recognised historical institution or public body. That by definition makes them amateurs. Granted they may know a great deal about planes but this does not in any way qualify them to go digging around on historical sites. Neither do they seem to have a sense of history outside their own narrow field or they wouldn't tamper with it so lightly

As it happens a good friend of mine is a professional archaeologist. He studied for many years at University before being granted this title. The last dig he was involved in was more than 5 years in the planning before a sod of earth was even touched. Any results he reports are carefully scrutinised and ruthlessly appraised by his peers before any sort of consensus is reached. Any artifacts he recovers are carefully catalogued and examined before being removed to a place where they can be expertly restored and looked after. They are then displayed or stored in a museum that has properly managed facilities to ensure they do not degenerate or 'disappear'. All this is done in the full public gaze for anyone with an interest to follow. This painstaking process is the proper and accepted way to go about archeology. Blundering about with a digger one afternoon and taking stuff away to god knows where, certainly ranks as amateurish when compared to this.

Yes we have indeed received lengthy diatribes from the usual suspects and they tend to try to justify themselves by quoting their rather tenuous connections to the entertainment industry or such like. That certainly seems to impress them but not me. I find it rather sad and bordering on delusional.


That having been said, it is MY opinion that being granted a licence seems all too easy and needs some rethinking on the part of the authorities in charge of these sites.

I am indeed familiar with the Protection of Military Remains Act but that does not mean that I find its contents entirely satisfactory

Granting of licences to unqualified amateurs is making a mockery of what the law was intended for. Nothing seems to have changed since 1986. Its time to think again before these sites are irrevocably and needlessly lost to posterity

Mick said...


I have perused the document you suggested. What a fascinating read. I am under the impression that what constitutes known human remains can be rather vague and I do not see a place to enter this on the application form? I believe Dr Goebbels may be able to enlighten us on that This just reinforces my idea that this system renders the act useless and pointless. That recovered items can be considered the property of the licensee is outrageous

Peak District Air Accident Research said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sean said...

Thought it was you. I called you "uneducated" because of your writing incoherent gibberish like this, Alan. Let me explain.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy intellectual debate, because you wouldn't recognise one it it was tattooed on your forehead.

I will however make a few points, which will help you to understand why I consider you a pitiful train-spotter rather than any sort of researcher, scientist, historian or whatever.

Incidentally, your repeated quibbling about the precise terminology someone uses for you, your "organisation" and your no-life mates is very, very sad.

1. "What does that make you?"- you actually thought this playground taunt was a serious question? You are in worse shape than I thought.

2. Where did I accuse you of being an investigator? That is something I would never do, as I explained above. You seem to be a hobbyist with delusions of grandeur.

3. Your own website says that you removed all traces of metal from the Vampire site. Are you now denying it?

No, I haven't checked, and the implied threat in your post is the reason why we have not commented further on your posts or replied to your emails up to this point. Your petty vindictiveness is beneath contempt.

4. Your nonsense about the law and dictionary definitions of graves is disingenuous at best. You must know perfectly well that only seven pounds of body bits are enough to claim the recovery of a body from a wreck, leaving the rest to be cast aside by you and your friends in your rush to gather a few worthless bits of scrap. And your websites are so full of sentimental nonsense about respect for the dead. Shame on you all!

5. Professional archaeologists do not excavate these sites because they do not consider them archaeologically valuable yet. Leave them be, and they will become so.

6. If you read the signature, you will see that it was Mick one the railway bridge, not me. You are as sloppy as ever, Alan.

7. I was indeed rude to your puffed -up pissant of a friend. Neither you nor he seem to understand the lack of wisdom of starting a relationship with someone with an email demanding in capital letters that they remove "libellous material" from their website, and accompanying this with a moral lecture. I do not take such lectures from people as morally questionable as you and your friends. The material is still up there, your friend seems to have made threats he cannot deliver on .

Your spinning of the non-existent implications of someone's statements into a straw man, so that you can attack something a person neither said (nor to any reasonable person implied) is why it is hard to believe that you are scientifically qualified as you claim.

You do not have "colleagues", Alan, just a group of self-important sad anoraks with delusions of being involved in some sort of research or investigation activity. What you are actually doing might be more accurately described as a circle jerk.

This concludes any comment from me on any postings you and your kind might make on here. I will probably still post your comments, despite you deleting your link to this site from your website on the day I had an argument with your friend.

You clearly have no idea how weak, emotional, ill-informed, sloppy, arrogant, childish, and illogical your comments are, and how very far you are from being qualified to research or investigate anything in this area. Keep on posting, though, because everyone else can see all too clearly what is obscured to you.

Peak District Air Accident Research said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mick said...

Fucking SHOUTING, I didn't know I was. Netiquette isn't something I have much time for either Emphasis is more what I was after

I have been to many and all kinds of museums. (I have other interests) Duxford several times, its that good. Apart from KSCVC in Florida it is the best run museum I've ever seen. Not only are thee fantastic tactile displays of aircraft but you can visit the workshops and see the machines in action. Last time I was there we spoke to a geezer restoring his own Spitfire. That's a man you can respect. My father was also able to point out the work he had done on various aircraft and entertain us with stories from his RAF days. We once went to some sad little place in Norfolk that had various pieces of aircraft lying about but nobody seemed to know what they were. I have been to some truly awful little museums in my time. Usually it turns out they are run by little amateur groups who have no knowledge of how to present material in an interesting, informative and educational way. I don't think I've ever been to one of the ones you recommend but I think we intend to visit the one Mat ZX has written about. That is, when the weather doesn't permit much of a walk.

As for your patronising comments and empty threats,it's pathetic.I don't have to resort to abuse or telling you what I really think of you because you show yourself up on a regular basis. (Don't you just know you've won an argument when someone has to resort to this kind of behaviour).

As far as I can remember that Farm has his garden clearly marked as private but the footpath is a little hard to find and then follow as it is not clearly marked and appears to be obstructed. We may have strayed slightly because of this but if you care to check the law you'll find this is acceptable under these circumstances. We took our usual photo of metal lying around and some cords so. What exactly are you inferring, is the landowner actually bothered at all

We are a couple of middle-aged blokes, who nowadays have to get our kicks from exercise. To make it more entertaining we've invented a silly and pointless little game that lets us play with all our gadgets. Its a bit of harmless fun really if you don't take yourself too seriously. We are sad but we know it and don't care