Talk:Lamont Young

Stove in

Good article. I can only suggest that a brief explanation of stove in and stove out be added. --Roisterer 02:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - done with a wiktionary link for the moment--A Y Arktos\^talk 02:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

all the talk of a blue bottle is rubbish added later by others to try explain the mystery. when the audit of the boats contents was conducted by constable berry it was not recorded. subsequently when asked to send the bottle to his superiors for analysis berry wrote on at least three occasions that it did not exist. whatever happened the men were not poisoned. now can we move on to the more important question of who did not get on the boat why not and where did they go. as well the boat had to be pulled ashore where it was found and if this is so what happened to these people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.179.2 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC) talk about bullets is also misleading. it is almost certain that no one was shot and the bullets that were found embedded in the boat and on the beach were in all likelihood used as sinkers. if there had been 3 shots fired and 4 or 5 men killed then why was it that noone heard anything when the beach along the way of the boats course was packed with over a 1000 miners who were prospecting on the very beach where this is supposed to have taken place. so it is safe to say that the men were not poisoned they were not shot and despite initial suggestions they were not drowned as the distance of the boats grounding and the safety of the shore is no more than 10 meters and very shallow. talk of raging currents and man eating sharks is untrue. the fact that the boat was stove out thta is the hole was caused from inside the boat as well as the presence of 3 large heavy stones suggests that the boats controller in all likelihood wanted the boat to sink once they had made good their escape. 3 witnesses have testified that 3 or 4 men were on board the morning the boat left not 5 as cyril pearl suggested in his book. every police report that i have read nominates 4 as the likely number which begs the question what happened to the fifth person and who could it have been. young had been overheard seeking to hire a boat for sunday and it would appear that towers may have been engaged by him when he failed to organise a lift to the corunna site from one of the ferrymans acquaintances. if the 3 men from the bay towers lloyd and casey intended to return to the bay and having an interest in the corunna field it is natural to imagine that they were aboard. this leaves young and schneider to fill the 4th spot. young then by reason of his position and knowledge filled the final spot. so what happened to schneider. i believe he never was aboard the boat having been charged by young to break camp and move it to montreal where young had stated on the saturday that he intended to relocate to. why did he not do so and what happened to him i will leave for another day It was Daniel Casey and not Samuel Casey - NSW Birth and Deaths will verify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.38.201 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

statement made that Casey's name was Samuel is incorrect

The text below was added to the article by 14.201.224.154, but the way it's worded suggests that it belongs on the talk page, not the article, so I've moved it here instead.

The statement made above that Casey's name was Samuel is completely incorrect. Ann Casey's gravestone includes the inscription "Beloved Wife of D Casey one of the party who so mysteriously disappeared at Bermagui in October 1880". Casey was known as both Bartholomew and Daniel but definitely not Samuel. It is correct that the monument at Mystery Bay has Lloyd's name wrongly inscribed. The monument reads "Frank Lloyd" but his correct name was William Henry Lloyd. Note also the spelling of "Ann". The gravestone at Moruya cemetery uses this spelling (not Anne).

I'm not familiar with the subject, so I make no comment as the correctness of the comment or the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lamont Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906141736/http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/CulturalMap/history/MysteryofMysteryBay.htm to http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/CulturalMap/history/MysteryofMysteryBay.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)