Swamp Ghost has been sold and should be come to.........

setter · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 12:01 am

Rob and Dave

Ah politics a wonderful thing - as i read it the aircraft is now at Lae?

John p

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:43 am

More problems for Swamp Ghost?? and future PNG recoveries??

The story posted above regarding the PNG Government intervention into the Swamp Ghost Export is front page news in the PNG Post Carrier, but unfortunately I cant lift a clear copy of the new photo from their thumbnail front page, which shows the recovered fuselage from another aspect.

However of greater concern is the local media attitude? as the same edition carries the following Editorial in the local PNG Press:

Quote:

Leave our war relics alone

WE condemn in the most strongest terms the removal of our war relics under the disguise of preserving them in foreign countries. World War II was fought on our soil and those who died and the remains of their war machines must remain in Papua New Guinea. Foreigners who want to see the relics or pay respects to the war dead should be given all the encouragement to visit this country and do so. But, to allow anyone to remove anything such as the Oro “Swamp Ghost” and move it to the United States is a total disrespect for the war dead. It also removes a historical link between the people of Oro and those who came and fought on Oro land. The place will become a desert of no interest to tourists. Yet, this is what we are promoting! What a shame. The National Museum is being utterly irresponsible in allowing the removal of important war relics from PNG without fully understanding the full implications on tourism to the country. We call for a total stop to all future removals of war relics from this country. We have lost far too many priceless pieces of war relics to foreigners who now sit back and enjoy their new treasures at the expense of the simple PNG villagers. No tourist will ever venture into the swamp left behind by the B17E. It is no longer there, thanks to the National Museum and Art Gallery. It claims to be acting under the authority of its own Act in giving the green light for the removal of this war aircraft. We say the museum has been misguided and it has acted in a way that does not serve the best interests of PNG. What is it that in this country while one arm of the government is trying to promote tourism — encouraging foreign visitors to visit PNG and see the unique and diverse cultures of this land, including the war relics — another arm of government is encouraging foreigners to remove these attractive features of our country. We cannot bring in more visitors if government agencies are not working together in unison and ensuring that they co-operate with each other to do what is best for the people of this country. The National Museum needs to rethink the way it is encouraging the removal of war relics from PNG. It must take a different approach and ensure whatever is still there in the jungles, are preserved and left as they are. Then tell the world to come and see for themselves.

http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20060524/wehome.htm

This seems to be a follow on from a News Item in the same newpaper (from the same website as well) earlier in May this year with similar views:

Quote:

News

Weekend Edition Fri - Mon May 05th - 07th , 2006

Dispute over Ghost Swamp

A dispute has arisen between the National Museum and an American tourist over the salvaging of an American World War II plane that crashed in a swamp in Oro Province. The dispute began when 28-year-old New Yorker Justin Taylan provided information on a feature story in the Post-Courier and a video tape aired on EMTV on the American B-17 bomber aircraft nicknamed Ghost Swamp that crashed at Agiambo Swamp. Mr Taylan was keen to promote tourism in Papua New Guinea and urged the Museum to keep war relics, especially the Ghost Swamp intact and in the country. He said the plane was valued at about K15-20 million. He said it was “best to leave the Swamp Ghost in the swamp so it can be visited by tourists. The local people had agree and have established rules and fees for visitors. Mr Taylan said he had raised public awareness about the aircraft’s historical value, dollar value and tourism potential. “The people of PNG must instruct the Government and the museum on these matters,” he said. Mr Taylan’s comments has angered National Museum and Art Gallery acting director Simon Poraituk who said the Museum Board of Trustees had allowed another American, Fred Hagen, to salvage and restore the plane.

I have posted the link to the PNG newspaper above so those interested can monitor news directly but having done so, I had concerns some of the attitudes and comments being made in this forum might be reflected into the local media debate which I think would be unfortunate and counter-productive.

While it is an American aircraft and American heritage is it also PNG Heritage and therefore a sensitive issue for all concerned.

I would recommend those of us who are very "passionate" about this issue try to refrain from arguing their points of view directly into the local media and leave this issue to be resolved by those who have put in the hard effort to recover the aircraft and now have the most to loose?

I think the urge to send letters of concern/support etc or enter the local PNG debate should be held back until the real details of what is really going on? and then perhaps those arguments should be put to the PNG Government or the intended IRC public inquiry?? not the media and general population?

The main issue is the airframe doesnt get left to rot and be vandalised in Lae like the Classic Jets P38!, and that other viable preservations/restorations dont end up being left to rot into the ground?

regards

Mark Pilkington

setter · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 3:46 am

Hi Mark

Couldn't agree more - best to let the team try to regroup and rescue the situation - who knows what dirty work happened at the crossroads on this !

As for leaving the war relics alone............

Good luck to all concerned

Perhaps when the dust settles and more important scandals hit the front pages up there this may be forgotten fairly quickly - one would hope so judging by the other stories in the paper......

Regards
John P

Regards
John P

B-29 Super Fort · **Joined:** Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:12 am **Posts:** 871

Has the png actually ever cited statistics to back up their claim of war relics such as Swamp Ghost being a major draw for tourism. I for one find it hard to believe visitors would plan trips to png just to visit these relics.

Raven · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 6:32 am

Good question.

From the news report:

Quote:

The local people had agree and have established rules and fees for visitors.

It's important here, if people want to see a useful resolution rather than an aircraft rotting on a wharf and lawyers getting richer, to try to see the other guy's point of view.

The local tribe and villagers have certainly gained from people visiting the aircraft over the years, and won't anymore. A few US dollars have a greater impact there, it has to be remembered by those living outside that kind of environment.

There's also a good case of 'hoping' for tourism rather than current numbers, not an unrealistic expectation. There's a relic battleship in a Harbor called Pearl... It's not a straight comparison, of course, but there's something to think about if someone was to propose raising and rebuilding it.

And the local guys to the crash site probably (certainly, I'd guess) have less respect for their governance than most of us. Frankly there'll be less done for the people by the bureaucrats than we get.

PNG isn't singing with one voice on this, and won't.

Shay · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 7:21 am

I'm trying to understand. They are saying that even though there is a documented legal agreement (as far as I know) that the people are asking the PM to void the agreement?

All being told at best estimate what are the total number of wrecks tourists can visit? Are we talking a handful or hundreds? Just curious

I apologize for comments I made. Just a lil miffed about the whole thing. I've edited most post as to prevent any possible impact no matter how slight.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Bruce · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:23 am **Posts:** 67

These artefacts are unquestionably part of PNG's heritage, as well as being part of a bigger picture.

PNG should have the opportunity to recover, display and restore a representative selection which stays in PNG.

However, basing your tourist economy on artefacts that are by their very nature temporary must be madness. Surely it is better to realise that now, and before these wrecks get dangerous to the point they will injure the people who wish to visit them.

In many cases, I fail to see the value in aircraft that are relatively abundant in the west, and will cost an inordinate amount of money (much more than they are worth) to restore. We have to draw the line somewhere!

Bruce

Mark_Pilkington · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 8:01 am

ROB,

With all due respect please "DONT",

This is exactly what I was concerned about!!!,
such actions at this time will only make things worse!

Quote:

Well Folks,

I think its time to flood the newspaper with letters via point out how the National Musuem has had chance in the past to save stuff and how if PNG is so worried about there Tourism then why do they allow the mass scrapping to still go on.

Also I want to know how in the he11 they think American Aircraft are there Heritage. Hey Justin thanks for getting the ball going and opening the gennie from the bottle.

Already start the letter if anyone needs backinginformation ask me and I'll provide it. I plan on siteing UNESCO stuff the musuem own policey and the original agreement they had with Charles and David oh this is going to be fun

Regardless of the American crew and American USAAC history of this aircraft it is also PNG wartime heritage, it is part of PNG's WW2 history, and they therfore DO have some stake in this.

The issue seems not about ownership but more about EXPORT rights, Australia has similar requirements regarding export of Heritage Items as does the UK, regardless of ownship rights.

IE if one of the Two ex USAAC P-39's that crashed in Australia during WW2 were attempted to be exported they would need to achieve an export permit, regardless of the fact both are currently privately owned, and both would be unlikely to be permitted to leave, despite the fact that they were not owned at any time by the Australian Government or indeed flown by the RAAF or Australians, they did however feature in "Australian History".

It would seem PNG Customs and its Minister is questioning the National Museum's authority to allow the item to be exported?, not so much to recover it or permit ownship? changes?

I think a bunch of foreigners writing to the local paper explaining how its not "Their" Heritage and "they werent looking after it properly anyway" is likely to raise public opinion firmly against the prospect of it EVERY leaving PNG rather than "convincing" them to let it go.

If you stir up public and media opinion enough you may back the PNG political processes into a corner, there is little point trying to argue UNESCO conventions to this population? and media?

By all means develop a logical, respectful submission and hold it for the IRC public inquiry if you feel so inclined?

The ability to apply limits and control of these wartime relics by the current PNG government is no different from modern UK claiming control of ancient Roman ruins on their soil, or indeed the US claiming control and protection of Spanish ruins on their soil or wrecks in their territorial waters.

Swamp Ghost IS part of PNG's heritage, but regardless of PNG's preferred future it cant go back into the swamp, or be left to be used as wharf fill due to ongoing neglect or vandalism!

If PNG is arguing it cant leave the country because its too valuable in terms of PNG heritage they have to plan to do something meaningful and long term with it, and any other viable airframes! already in the National Collection, as well as still recoverable.

regards

Mark Pilkington

peter · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 8:10 am

in that newest article, does it look like the nose glass has been knocked out?

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 9:18 am

Mark_Pilkington wrote:

By all means develop a logical, respectful submission and hold it for the IRC public inquiry if you feel so inclined?

Very well stated Mark! All too often recently statements made on WIX have shown a distinct lack of respect for others, and in this case "others" is a nation. Nations such as PNG may not be as highly developed as the US, but that does not mean they should be disrespected.

Mike

FlyingFortB17 · **Joined:** Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:55 pm **Posts:** 217

Is the link to those recovery pictures still down?

Shay · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 11:11 am

Col. Rohr wrote:

Also I've been looking at the actual ownership question I mean does the USAF still have ownership because while the US gace up all aircraft that were left at active fields they never gave up the ownership of aircraft lost durning combat.

I think you'll find that the USAF will lay no claim of ownership to abandoned aircraft unless they are historically significant above all others. I don't think it's likely the Gen. Metcalfe would go after this one.

Historically significant - Is a B-17E rare and unique?...Yes. Is the Bendix turret rare?.....sure. Does it have a Combat history?.....yeah somewhat. Is it a historically significant aircraft?.......well I guess it depends on who you ask the question to. Is Swamp Ghost on par with Enola Gay and the X-1? I don't think so. Does Swamp Ghost deserve better in the next 64 years? You bet she does. Who is to say who can do that best....again depends upon who you ask. Hopefully good things will come of this. Maybe PNG will become more proactive in recovering the aircraft for the purpouses of preserving them or will come up with a program to let aircraft be recovered by outside folks and restored under a extended lease program. But letting the aircraft sit out to rot and be scavenged as well as vandalized is not a responsible option.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

bluethunder28 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:26 am **Posts:** 199

I wonder how much of the plane will be left in the next 30 years IF the Swamp Ghost doesn't come home. I remember seeing pictures of her when she was first re-discovered and a lot has disappeared including the swamp!

Time to bring her home.

Jase · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 1:59 pm

Hey guys,

FULL STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This means you Rohr, and everybody else no matter how well intentioned. Please, I beg you guys, just let this drop right now.

DO NOT do something hotheaded to cause certain bureaucrats to dig their heels in out of spite. This means no letters etc.

Please........

At this point I cannot say more.

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Wed May 24, 2006 2:03 pm

Quote:

FULL STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I concur
I said it before and I'll say it again,
QUIT TRYING TO POLICE THE WORLD!

Warbird Information Exchange

Swamp Ghost has been sold and should be come to.........

Who is online