Talk:Bermuda Triangle/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: KC-135 Stratotankers

message: 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)
thread_title: New Info as to first magazine articles

message: 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.http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/myths___facts.html. 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent studies... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Length of article

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed pics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Chronological order, and main article links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POGO 22

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  dictionary of fighting ships? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  why 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Psychic