This article derides the other for not having any sources, but still doesn't actually have a source that says, "no, there are zero buried diggers". There's a screenshot of Twitter and some guy saying "my company wouldn't do that".

I think we still have no idea if this is done or not. Someone call a real journalist.

You are asking someone to prove a negative?

That is ludicrous. Imagine your statement applied to any other scenario such as law...

Prove the person didn't commit the murder or he gets life.

It is precisely why those alleging a hypothesis must prove the thesis, it is not the job of everyone else to disprove an unproven hypothesis.

That escalated quickly! Yes, the fact that they can't find a source that says, "oh yeah, we bury those things all the time!" is certainly suspicious. But on the other hand, I don't trust any of the blogs involved to actually dig up a source. Instead they just post screenshots of Twitter, which doesn't really add any information.

Surely the diesel and oil could be removed very easily?

Anyway, this comment on the article you reference is interesting:

"The truth is somewhere in between, if the JCB's were mini diggers and secondhand it would make economic sense to bury the kit and not a lot of space would be lost..."

Also this quote from http://www.itv.com/news/london/2014-06-06/hundreds-of-jcb-di...:

"The diggers used are tiny little machines and they can be lifted out with a block and tackle. There is always an exit strategy for the equipment."

I'm going to agree, this strains credibility. If they can get the materials in to finish the basement, they can get the digger out. Any sane engineer could figure this out.