Talk:Bermuda Triangle/Archive 3

KC-135 Stratotankers

On this entry, I stated that according to the Triangle writers, there were two distinct crash sites, separated by 170 miles of water. According to Kusche, the second crash site was eventually ruled to be unrelated debris or seaweed (it's been a while since I read his book). The only references I found online were three newspaper articles, and I posted them on the Bermuda Triangle source page. They were written only a few days apart, and together they would support the two-crash site theory. At this time I am unable to provide additional sources which could refute that theory; in any case, all articles that I found are posted. Carajou 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have my copy of Kusche's book right by the computer. On page 203-204 (hardback first edition copy), he quotes a page-two article in the September 1, 1963, issue of the Miami Herald as stating that Major Fred Brent of the Air Rescue Service at Orlando AFB as saying that the second debris field "appears to be just large patches of seaweed, driftwood, and an old buoy." Hope this helps! Rdfox 76 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

New Info as to first magazine articles

I added some new information regarding the first accounts of a Bermuda Triangle. E.V.W. Jones wrote an article for the Associated Press in September 1950; George X. Sand wrote one for Fate Magazine in October 1952. Sand was the first to hint at a triangle (Gaddis was still the first to state "Bermuda Triangle"). Unlike Gaddis' article, I did not find anything online as to the actual articles written by Jones and Sand at this time. Carajou 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Why is there a disputed tag on this article? It reads fairly balanced, especially since Bermuda's Triangle is a bunch of hooey (scientific term for BS, such as Creationism, the Loch Ness Monster, and UFO's). I tried to find the discussion in here, but it doesn't exist. Shouldn't the tag be removed? Orangemarlin 23:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This very statement you just made is complete bullshit, actually. Funny, that. --Chr.K. 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the tag was added because there are those people who "dispute" the official, documented source on a given incident, prefering instead the traditional, "hooey" version. I added a factual accuracy statement above, which briefly describes my own views on the subject, my reasons for altering the entire article in favor of facts rather than fiction, etc.

The change in the article was justified due to the fact that previous editors had wanted a traditional slant that agreed with the "hooey". Like it or not, the reader is now faced with links to official Coast Guard and Navy reports, newspapers, photographs; as well as the original Columbus log entries Triangle writers seem to cite but never quote; the original article in Argosy Magazine by Vincent Gaddis which was the first mention of Bermuda Triangle and whose entries have been contradicted by official sources...the list goes on. The corrections were prompted by the b.s. I found in Flight 19, which I felt was a disgrace to the memory of the men lost. Related to the Triangle, I did massive changes to USS Cyclops (AC-4), SS Marine Sulphur Queen, and V.A. Fogg as well. They needed them. Carajou 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

a disgrace to the memory of the men lost - exactly what I felt when I was searching for information about lost ships, and came across a relative of someone lost on the Samkey - there are people who lost someone close to them without knowing what happened, and the last thing they want is some sensationalist guff about Aliens or Atlantis. Totnesmartin 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll do the Atlantis page next...have to alter it in favor of the bare facts! Carajou 19:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Studies

He made them. The notion of strange events in the Triangle is not "hooey," as several intellectually questionable individuals throughout the world have stated. If you don't like this fact, fine: don't like it. "Rationale" then, please. --Chr.K. 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The aren't any studies. At least on the referenced page. The very first Q&A states:

I have just received a list of vessels from the 7th district after 12 years of asking for and being denied missing vessel statistics, always receiving the reply “nobody tracks such statistics.” For the last 2 fiscal years this includes about 300 vessel names or types. And now I must start my search, to see which reported back to port (if any), what the weather conditions were like, etc.

As for "hooey": The Triangle Mysteries are not strange, they are just unsolved. Przepla 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent studies...

I removed this fragment from the first section of the article.

[...]recent studies have called into question the veracity of statistics often used to "debunk" the claims of anomalistic activity.. [1]

Referenced page contains no such studies but merely a lame argumentation that since there are some minor flaws with the statistics the paranormal activities must be going on the Bermuda triangle. The site quotes popular books about Triangle as the sources, instead of real studies. Przepla 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to have read the material, you'd have realized that Quasar has gone over more than 10,000 case files on the Triangle, including the fact that "Missing Aircraft" is not a reference that exists, but rather Overdue...humorous, in that that could be for any number of reasons, and therefore mixes the mundanes in with the utterly bizarre. Likewise, he also mentions at about point #3 or so (might be off on that) that no comprehensive study of the Triangle has ever been done...though frankly, if it was, I'd expect the results to be reminiscent of the Condon Report on UFOs, where the "Pro-UFO People" were kicked out by the "Anti's," and the notion of the subject then thoroughly attacked. Point being: if any study were actually done, I doubt it would be unbiased...which actually means you're right: purely scientific study hasn't been done. Only study by people who don't accept the "There is nothing strange at all" BS. --Chr.K. 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by the argument that the Triangle is a made-up legend of the 20th Century, and the writers of the popular Triangle stories simply do not have a leg to stand on. Any objections? Carajou 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't trash the page

First and foremost, the day I started editing this page there was very little to no documentation or evidence for many of these incidents; in fact, this article was dedicated to the "paranormal" "hoodoo" "mysterious everything" that the Triangle has been popularly known by over the years. In deference to Chr.K., I have also studied this area; I have sailed through this area; I have read the numerous Triangle books that have been published, and frankly most of the incidents contained within do not stand up to the actual documentation of each case. They don't even stand up to visual observation. Show me the clown who claimed Columbus saw freaky lights, and I'll pull out Columbus' actual logbooks to show what he really said (I did that here). Show me the clown who stated a body was found in a sunken ship with a coffee cup in his hand, and I'll pull out the official Coast Guard report (I did that too). It is claimed Raifuku Maru was a Triangle victim; how come the individual who included that article never bothered to pull out and post the newspaper which stated otherwise? I did. It's easy to do. The Coast Guard even documented the facts of a poorly-maintained ship that didn't survive going through a storm, but I would think that those who like the "popular" version would rather have the thing just sail into the unknown, and leave it at that. There's always someone who just can't stand the facts to get in the way of a good story.

Second, just looking at the layout of the page as of an hour ago disgusted me. If you're going to edit something, then do so; don't trash the layout of the page. I want this page to be a featured article. What that means is there will be facts, and only facts, and whatever is written into each heading and subheading is going to be well-written. It's going to be documented and sourced; if there's nothing official backing up what you've just added, don't even bother putting it in.

And if you write like Dick and Jane then you can forget about your edit lasting longer than twenty minutes. Carajou 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The powers that be have picked this article up as a foreign-language featured article. Facts and editing work. Carajou 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me the disappearance of the B-52 Stratofortress Pogo 22. I would like an explanation, likewise, of Flight 441's disappearance, one that was carrying no less than 111 life vests, and 46 exposure suits, along with a very floatable 660 paper cups. The disappearance of the pleasure yacht Witchcraft, which disappeared in the course of 19 minutes, left no trace whatsoever, as was searched for for over a hundred nautical miles out, would also be very appreciated...though, please, no imbecilic explanations of "downed in a storm" or drug trafficking gone bad (or God knows what else), just something actually believable. How about the two C-133 Cargomasters, gone in 1963? The C-119 Boxcar, 1965? The C-119 actually vanished straight off the radar scope, on a single pass; seriously. Explain to me Peter Jensen's vanishing on February 11, 1980, an example so bizarre that I'll make sure to make a page for it directly, where he was heard 11 hours after fuel starvation (and after already being heard, earlier, 1,000 miles away from where he could be to begin with) asking for permission to land, at a place he (or rather, the call numbers that corresponded to his plane) could never have realistically have reached to begin with? These are some interesting subjects...and usually brushed off by the pseudo-skeptics...like yourself, I suppose. The "freaky lights" of Columbus, incidentally, were seen back around the Canary Islands, long before the Triangle region...you can find that in the logbook, btw, when looked for...it was the erratic compass readings that took place over on this side of the Atlantic. And, if this material as written for your perusal is not written in such a way as to bring you any degree of satisfaction, or in fact brings implicit in your mind the notion that I in fact write as though I'm someone who either reads, or even admires, a volume such as Dick and Jane, then please let it be asserted here and now that in no way have I ever wished for this outcome, and in no way wish you any ill-will simply because of what seems to be a personal attack of some kind on a site well-known for frowning on such activities. Possibly overly-long, there...but then again, perhaps it might be useful to create a 106-word sentence there, for comparisons to Dick and Jane, eh? --Chr.K. 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies on the minuteness of that Witchcraft figure...the Coast Guard looked over one thousand, two hundred square miles for it, after it disappeared in shallow water (read: on the edge of the coast) and lovely weather, and never found it. --Chr.K. 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I expect you to provide the explanations.

For each incident you listed in your above paragraph, you're going to provide citations and links to the official USAF, USCG, or Civil Aviation reports, and newspaper articles on the subject from the time the incident happened. At the same time, you're also going to include what the various Triangle authors had to say on the incident in question. You see, I'm not going to explain Peter Jensen's vanishing to you; I'm not going to explain the C-119, or the Witchcraft or anyone or anything else to you; you're going to gather the evidence and explain it to me, and if you're just repeating what the Triangle authors have fictionalized over the past 50 years and not citing official sources, then you haven't got a case. Carajou 13:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The "freaky lights" you mentioned as being seen by Columbus around the Canary Islands long before his landing I would accept, but not for this article. The reason for it is two: first, the Triangle authors (that's the people who wrote the Triangle books) stated that Columbus saw these "freaky lights" just days before his landing on San Salvador (see the prologue in Richard Winer's book The Devil's Triangle). That brings up the second reason, which is to cite the Columbus log book entries for this incident in the days before the landing. And if the Canary Island lights are cited, wouldn't that again be proof that these lights occured elsewhere, and not as the Triangle authors have stated? It's called proof of fact, Chr.K. Wouldn't you agree that this article and this subject benefits from facts? Carajou 14:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts I love: implication that the Triangle (a name I'm coming to hate, incidentally, or at least find annoying, as the Western North Atlantic Region is vastly more factual) is nothing more than "fanciful fiction" is pure POV, plain and simple. You cannot make that claim: enough people have "lived to tell the tale" of electronic fogs or ships literally invisible with a rope stretched taut into nothingness (that was a strange one, I'll find it for you soon) on programs ranging from Discovery Channel to Unsolved Mysteries (though the latter's episode was rather poor, and rehashing several openly-admitted large fallacies) that you'd basically be accusing thousands of people of all making it up without any knowledge of the frankness, or the quietness (which should be obvious, eh?) of their testimony. Those people sometimes do exist: bermuda-triangle.org itself has exhibited one who claims to have been massively involved in "the Flight 19 drama" (and he coming out on the massive debunking side) and had nothing to do with it, at all. These people do exist. But the unassuming, I Don't Want To Be Another Statistic, individuals exist too. The statement at the beginning (which was, so far as I could tell, the only revision of note that I did, and certainly not of the Dick and Jane variety)...is wrong, period, because it is SUGGESTIVE. Yes...a lot of them are mundane; others are NOT. The military searched 250,000 square miles for Pogo 22...and in a tactical nuclear simulation exercise, no less; I wouldn't be mentioning it if the end result wasn't obvious. Witchcraft...I already mentioned several statistics on. You want the official records on them? I have no doubts they exist...but as mentioned before, the authorities in question have been historically recalcitrant to obsecene levels on it; I suppose they feel it gives them a bad name, to have ships and planes "just go poof" (that is the more rare kind, but has happened easily more than five times under similar circumstances, which moves beyond coincidence)...as such, they have no list of Missing Vessels; Overdue is the term...for freakin' 50 years or something, and quietly adding "presumed lost at sea" to it, keeping it very quiet. It's annoying: if it were up to me? I would give nothing BUT the official transcripts: the Frederick Valentich UFO disappearance is on Wikisource right now because of that mindset. Show me where one finds notoriously hard-to-uncover transcripts (and if I simply have trouble doing it, and it's actually easy, I'll be the first to admit it), and I'll copy entire sections to Wikisource (and by extension accessable to Wikipedia) verbatim, if necessary. That said, I'll tell you right now I won't be "explaining" anything accept the facts as I am also able to cull them on what is known: the tale of the vanishing Cargomasters is as bizarre to me as anyone, and anyone wanting to shout "It's little GREEN MENNNN, lolllllllll...." would be in danger of me threatening to track them down myself, and sue them for birsmirching the human race itself, and that only if in a good mood. What I will do is draw up the cases individually, for their own unexplained disappearance pages, and have the weight of them stand up to the ridiculously stupid affirmation that "overwhelming evidence" shows it to be "made up." Martin Caidin, one of the most respected authors in any technical field in history, culled stories of the place: this information can be found, incidentally, in Ghosts of the Air, an excellent work (which we'll no doubt need to cite alot); a lot of people, in fact, were uncertain what to make of Caidin's "Triangle" stories, because to doubt he meant exactly what he said would be lunacy. In any case: what I wrote, that many ARE unexplained, IS true: they are. Period. You just are willing to warp the page toward POV until I prove otherwise, eh? So be it: "war desired will be war given," to paraphrase something I wrote elsewhere. On a brief side note, it was you who first used the phrase "freaky lights" regarding Columbus, there, and I was copying your term, per your tastes; "anomalous" would've been much more effective. Also, if this has been Dick and Jane thus far, I must applaud the magnificence of our educational systems in the last two weeks of apparently scintillating brilliance. --Chr.K. 16:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On another side note, but of a technical nature: placing a main article, if there is one, underneath a reference is a practice I learned from Wikiproject Formula One, the most amazingly detailed project I've ever seen; they do it on the featured Formula One article, when alluding to Formula One history: "See main article, History of Formula One." Your removing a similar practice to be developed for Wikiproject Paranormal thus makes no sense to me, as if a more detailed summary of a given event is available, one should automatically link to it in a prominent fashion; I would do the same as I did with NC16002 with each such case, blown out of proportion or not, if the pages existed. --Chr.K. 16:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said find the documentation, you side-stepped it by sayin "I'm sure the documentation exists". That's a copout. If you're either afraid or incapable of finding articles from newspapers or reports from official agencies, then you shouldn't be editing any article here. If you want to engage in debate about making this article better than it is, I'm all for it. Carajou 16:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] An example of trying to get the pertinent information; it is doubtful that the majority of the disappearances on the linked list are all unexplained (due to the intelligence of clumping them all together with the Overdue tag), but that the Coast Guard has not responded (at all) to his repeated inquiries for more information, despite "being required by law" (direct reference by the author), is intriguing. As it stands, I've used more than five search engines to find any reference possible to the Pogo 22 report; the information, when present, has amounted to "[The military] was unable to determine the cause of the disappearance, and presumed it lost. [Then on to more important matters, such as Sky Shield II in general]..." If you are in turn attacking me for not being physically present in order to personally go through each paper file in question on the occurrances, then I suppose I'm sorry we don't all live where you do. --Chr.K. 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I just step in and say that tempers seem to be flaring a bit here; I suggest you guys cool it a bit before the insults start flying. Perhaps some WP:TEA is called for. Totnesmartin 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dick and Jane thing that I mentioned has to do with the quality of writing that I have seen from many individuals who have come into any article on Wikipedia and added whatever info they felt was relevent...but with the result that the grammar and sentencing and wordage was choppy, shoddy, or plain bad, as if the guy needed to go back to the third grade and do it all over again. As I've said, I want this article to be a featured article, and that means the whole article will be the best it can be...and I will toss out any edit where the writing is just plain Dick and Jane bad. Carajou 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you referenced all the other ones in relation to mine, not because mine were like it, but because you wanted to vent at other posters who've done such things. Nice. --Chr.K. 00:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't really removed the Dick and Jane entries...I have gone in and polished what was there at times. So cite me for making something bad better! Carajou 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Janet and John over here. But yes, I also try to correct bad English wherever I see it. any topic that attracts schoolkids will have bad English in it - talk about irony. Totnesmartin 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been cool, Totnesmartin. No temper here. And I like green tea! Carajou 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Biscuit? Totnesmartin

Some rules for this page

I've removed it because it is me forcing rules on everyone else. That cannot happen.

But I do insist on some guidelines:

• If an incident is included in this article as a Triangle victim, it has to include documentation to either back it up or refute it. There are too many incidents right now that have never happened at all.

• If there is a story within the Triangle books and no where else, then that fact has to be admitted.

How's that? Carajou 16:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, according to what Chs.K. has written above, we have some common ground regarding evidence and documentation. Carajou 16:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We certainly can't leave out a well-known triangle-victim just because there's no official reference to it; people reading the article will expect it. If the paperbacks are the only source, say that. If they conflict with anything official, say that as well. The point is that it's not for Wikipedia to say whether there's a Bermuda Triangle or not - rather it has to say what other people say about it. Totnesmartin 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, hence the small disclaimer about such-and-such being in a Triangle book and no other...like the minor ref to the single captain being onboard the V.A. Fogg with his coffee cup. That alone was mentioned in one book (the one by Spencer), refuted in another book (the one by Winer), and refuted decisively by the Coast Guard (in its report). These books are full of what Wikipedia calls POV; so it's going to be a he said/she said subject for the most part. So balance on this subject demands the Triangle point of view (the stories) vs. the documentation. This is for the reader of the article; he needs to see that particular incidents are factual, or relegated to just the Triangle stories.

As to checking the facts out, I think on this subject we have to. An example of someone well known would be jocky Al Snyder, who according to the stories vanished in 1948 after riding Citation to the Triple Crown. I wanted to know if A) Snyder was a real person; B), did he in fact disappear as the stories state; and C), did he ride Citation and win the Triple Crown? The first two were borne out as fact, while the third wasn't true at all (he rode Citation, but not in any Triple Crown event)...so it would seam that one Triangle writer (Winer) was guilty of making up his own stuff just to make an incident more dramatic.

And no, we don't do biscuits with tea over here. Chocolate chip cookies maybe... Carajou 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Arcaro, possibly the most famous American jockey of all time, rode Citation to the Triple Crown, in so becoming the first and thus far only to win two. --Chr.K. 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is longer than the 32Kb recommended size, so let's not get too much into details. Most of the entries that have their own articles can be cut down to a short paragraph. I'm thinking of the Flight 19 section, which is much too long for a subject treated on its own page. I'm quite good at chopping down excess text, want me to do it? Totnesmartin 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Short paragraphs are fine. If they don't have their own article, then I suggest brief statements of pro-con, like the Ellen Austin, KC-135 tankers, Connemara IV, etc. Go for the chopping! Carajou 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got it down to 38Kb; I'll have another look at it tomorrow and see what else can go. Totnesmartin 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a little back into it. The line about the Marine Sulphur Queen was just a line; its claim to fame was that is was the first victim mentioned in the first article under the name "Bermuda Triangle"...the Feb, 1964 Argosy Magazine article by Vincent Gaddis. What I felt needed to be cited was the severe contrast between Gaddis' mere "it sailed into the unknown" vs. the Coast Guard report which documented the ship's severe lack of common-sense maintenence. Carajou 13:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed the importance of that, I simply thought tyhere were too many examples in one part. It's down to 37kb now, so most of the rest couyld go just by tightening up the sentences rather than removing them completely. Totnesmartin 15:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed pics

The pics in question were removed to free up space for additional information as it comes in. The ones remaining have more to do with the content of the headings then the others; for instance the Teignmouth Electron discovered a few days after being abandoned; the Deering two days before being found deserted; the remains of the trailboard from Marine Sulphur Queen. The others have to do with either the history or the science of the Triangle. Carajou 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Inference"

Some of these "possible explanations" for incidents, inferring that they are not what they in fact are, unexplained, are really reaching: how can the circumstances surrounding Star Dust going down "because of possibly not paying attention their instruments" be a conceivable clue to the disappearance of two aircraft under quite different conditions? Was Star Dust in regular communication with a base or airport within minutes of its disappearance, as Tiger and Ariel were? On that sub-section, there is more written about Dust than there is about the Atlantic disappearances. The inference that the reports did not report magnetic problems overlooks the fact that this very lack of focus by the inquiry has seen none-too-little criticism down through the years (most recently by Quasar, who brought my attention to it); the compasses DID go out: obviously on Taylor's, on Powers' as well given the nature of their recorded conversations, and likely on the other pilots' aircaft, since they never reached much consensus on which way was east, either. The batteries on NC16002 were low, but were being recharged during the flight by the plane's generators, unless Linquist didn't do what he said he would. For all the straightforward exposing of the hoax-disappearances (and incidentally, I am all for it), the article seems to be becoming unwilling to state a given case as "cold case unknowns." --Chr.K. 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On Star Dust, that was my call. I added it for comparison purposes: all three planes were in the service of the same company; they all disappeared more-or-less at the same time; and each disappearence was complete, until Star Dust was found in the Andes just a few years ago. Star Dust's accident has human error all over it; someone on the plane or on the ground just wasn't paying attention to detail. It was either Ariel or Tiger that was reported flying just 2,000 feet above the sea, leaving no room for recovery should an accident happen.

The Civil Air Board in it's report cited a number of things with the DC3, but it ended with the obvious fact that determination of the cause of the accident cannot be determined due to a lack of wreckage. So, there's going to be speculation by us, by the official documentation, by the Triangle writers, and since it's still part of the Triangle's history, I think it should be written as such..letting the reader reach his/her own conclusion.

Sorry for my rants, Chr.K. I just want this article to be the best it can be, and if you'll look at the history, we've got a problem with vandals. Carajou 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The numerous attempts to explain why Star Tiger would've gone down at all was mentioned in the reports (shown in the main article) as being highly questionable no matter which one was suggested; that alone is of note to me, that completely rational and knowledgable men couldn't figure out how it could be lost so suddenly. And on top of that, Star Ariel was at a reported 18,000 ft. instead of 2,000 at time of final transmission: if we're going to mention the one, shouldn't the other be present as well? Likewise, some have indicated 2,000 ft., avoiding the strong headwinds, as further reason why there shouldn't have been a problem, rather than a contributing factor to cause. Also, be aware of something...several of the events you've successfully shown to be hoaxes I had never even heard of to begin with...hence my anger at claims of "the entire affair being bogus"...I would seriously enjoy your help on Pogo 22 and the others I've mentioned, finding any and all information on them: if it can be shown without reaching into implausability (human error wouldn't keep floatable items from drifting in the hours after, during S&R) that their vanishing was not that mysterious...fine. I am completely confident of the opposite, however. --Chr.K. 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are several "cold case unknowns" here: Joshua Slocum and the Spray; Marie Celeste. What I believe I tried to do with this page was to show two versions: the Triangle version and the documented/actual version, and hopefully regardless of what I personally believe, both versions cana and should be written here. In the case where we cannot find source material on a given incident, we should at at least admit it as such...for example, so-and-so was an incident reported in Winer's book, book not verified by newspaper search, etc.

Mary Celeste was not a Western North Atlantic incident, as you already know. As for the fake versions, I myself see no use in putting these up, save as to what specific authors...and they in turn identified, errors and all...erroneously claimed.

There should be three sections: verifiable (official reports found) hoaxes, verifiable (same method) unexplained disappearances, and not-yet substantiated stories. Just because some are (admitted it for you, no problems) BS doesn't mean others are. --Chr.K. 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Marie Celeste, plus several others, were not within the traditional Triangle boundaries, but they're cited by the Triangle authors in several books, hence their inclusion. As to the "three sections" division of the article, do you think it would be too weighty? I'm all for as much detail as possible, but the end result may be separate articles for each incident. Let's experiment and see what happens. Carajou 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time I am working on getting a CD copy of the actual Navy report on Flight 19, because it contains the logs and traanscripts of communictions not cited in the popular books. As far as Pogo 22 is concerned, we do need the USAF report, because all I have besides what was written in the Triangle books (and blurbed here) are three newspaper articles that I pulled up from Proquest (listed on Bermuda Triangle source page); and even then the general public cannot read them because Proquest requires an access password via a college or university. I may just transcribe them word-for-word and have them posted on a separate article. Carajou 15:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order, and main article links

The order of the events should be chronologically presented, oldest to newest. Putting Flight 19 first puts undue emphasis on an incident that, while extremely mysterious (how could the compasses have pointed west as being almost due NORTH, per the directional fix by Fort Lauderdale that evening??), seems to have acquired equivalency to Roswell, per the latter's "litmus test for UFOs" position in the modern anomalistical psyche. Also, the NC16002 main article should be under the DC-3 sub-section, since the others have their own. --Chr.K. 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just remember: there are two versions of this incident, and one has been repeated/rehashed by the Triangle writers. That's why we need to have a copy of the Navy report for this incident for everyone to see. Carajou 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Flight 19 should go first - it's the most famous case for a lot of people, the first or only case they can name. The others can come after that, either chronologically, alphabetically or some other way. But Definitely F19 first, I think. Totnesmartin 11:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

POGO 22

A lot of the Triangle writers simply sit at their desks and re-hash what a previous writer had already said. They have also invented quite a bit to make the story sound scarier, more dramatic, whatever. So, admitedly I had my doubts about Pogo 22, the B-52 bomber lost in the Triangle back in 1961. What had to be done first was to establish the fact of the story; prove the plane was real, prove the plane disappeared without a trace, prove the men on it existed, stuff like that, and it had to be done in a way that would avoid the Triangle books...except to give us an idea as to dates. But don't worry too much...the results of my search, at least involving titles, are on Bermuda Triangle source page. As soon as I get my Adobe Acrobat re-installed, I'll get copies of the paper in question posted here. It's possible that enough exists for a separate article on the subject. Carajou 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[3] I would take this as proof that Pogo 22 was quite real; sixth paragraph on third page of article, first reference; second reference at sixth paragraph of fourth page; the only indicator of possibility, in this article, the Coast Guard chasing a flare, but no indication as to where it came from (nothing found), or whether it was even Pogo. The almost off-hand manner of the conclusion, and the final air force/navy verdict of them being lost at sea, is ample enough to me. --Chr.K. 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Periodical images and Fair Use

I've again removed images that do not qualify for fair use in this article. To use the images of publications in an article, the article must be about the publication. This article discusses some content, not the publication itself. If this article is ammended to include discussion of the magazine or the NYT itself, feel free to bring the articles back. In the meantime, the casual mention of the articles as references here does not enable Fair Use. -- Mikeblas 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree

However, I have left a message with this person, asking for arbitration. In the meantime, the article itself will not be changed restoring the images. Carajou 15:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the reasoning you've left on my talk page establishes Fair Use for the images in this article. Would you like to open an RFC? -- Mikeblas 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I left it on your talk page because this should have been discussed amicably between us; however I note some sarcasm in your response, as well as questioning a link (see below) when the answer is obvious. So my question to you is: do you have every intention of changing this article to reflect only what was written in the Triangle books by removing any established facts which might refute it? Carajou 19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the dictionary was linked wasn't obvious to me. And that's why I asked. The link is related to the subject of the article only secondarily -- the article is about a oceanic region, not any ships. More than only US Naval craft have met their demise in this region, and the link isn't to a reference for any specific ship. Per WP:EL, it's a bit of a stretch to include it here, though it certainly could be relevant. So, I asked. It's unfortunate that you've decided that my asking was a sign of hostility.

If you want to move the discussion to my talk page, that's fine by me. I thought you might have wanted to have the conversation here as that allows more people to find the conversation and participate. On my talk page, you asked me to find some administrators and explain the situation to them, and I also think that more naturally happens here.

I haven't read any of the books except for one, almost three decades ago; I'm sure I couldn't recall the title or the author. As such, your question about my intention is completely unfounded. My interest is in trying to assure that Wikipedia dosn't inappropriately use material that's protected by copyright. It's an issue I'm personally passionate about, and a very grave one as Wikipedia content can be (and is!) freely replicated all over the internet. Integrating content into an article, even uploading it into the site, can cause it to be copied again and again, far and wide, making a nightmare for those who own the rights to the violated material.

Rather than jumping to conclusions about my intent when I ask an honest question, or looking for sarcasm until you're sure you've found it, I'd thank you to assume good faith in our next steps. It'll make matters easier for the both of us. Please let me know how (and where!) you'd like to proceed. -- Mikeblas 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement as to the quality of every Wikipedia article. Since you intend to discuss the matter in good faith, I will do likewise. With hostility tossed out the door, or course. I did go to higher authority as per your request on the images in question, and will accept whatever they say either way. Carajou 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad it's sorted. Please let me know where the review conversation is taking place so I can watch and participate. -- Mikeblas 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the article up for review with the paranormal page some time ago, but I don't think anyone reviewed it. As it stands I don't think it's complete; some subheadings could use a little more detail; the writing could be smoother and more polished in places. Maybe we all should give it a careful look-over and see about making corrections happen. Carajou 23:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Any word back on the decision to remove the periodical covers because they're not Fair Use? -- Mikeblas 10:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

dictionary of fighting ships?

Why is a link to the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships in the External links section of this article? Its relationship to the article seems ancillary at best. Was it meant to be in the References section, footnoted for some specific ship? -- Mikeblas 15:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there are several U.S. Navy ships claimed to have been lost in the Triangle, as well as source material that refutes those claims. Carajou 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The USS Memphos, USS Scorpion, and the USS Cyclops are mentioned in the article. Wouldn't it be better to provide links directly to the pages within the directory for each of those ships, inserting the links as references? -- Mikeblas 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to whether or not to remove it. What you say is good, but there are other ships, such as Nereus, Proteus, Grampus, and several others which have no separate article. Carajou 21:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

why

why do boats disappear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.112.6 (talk • contribs)

Nobody knows why they disappear. We have some information about how they disappear, though. -- Mikeblas 18:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Psychic

  I think we should send a psychic out to the Bermuda Triangle.  

Maybe we should send a willing psychic out there who doesn't fear the paranormal, because, who knows, it might actually be the "Devil's Triangle". Or, maybe, it is the lost city of Atlantis, or a time warp, or even a way to the parallel universe that scientists are looking for. Why can't we just do that, the person doesn't have to be God-fearing, but maybe a person like that will help us figure out what is going on! We need to know what is happening. I don't fear dissapearing into an unknown area, because, unlike some people in America, I don't fear the unknown! AylaRosier

Atlantis was supposed to be a sub-continent, not just a city; as for sending a psychic, that wouldn't really be the responsibility of an encyclopedia, which merely reports on what has thus far happened, not goes out and finds out for itself...at least, not wholly serparate from members doing it individually, then the papers and science journals reporting on it for WP to reference, anyway. --Chr.K. 10:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)