Talk:Flight 19

message: Someone added on his own account someone named "Shipman" to one of the planes in Flight 19.  This is one of the problems besides vandalism here.  You have people who never bother to check records; never bother to check facts; never bother to study history related to these incidents; never bother to study anything remotely resembling history; yet they think that they can post a line here as if it was completely factual.  As to an individual named "Shipman": there is no one named Shipman connected with Flight 19; no one named Shipman connected with Training 49; no one named Shipman on the memorial plaque at the former NAS Ft Lauderdale base; and there is no one named Shipman listed on the official records of Flight 19. Click this link to see for yourself: Carajou 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding names 

message: "Flight Nineteen", which doesn't exist, needs to redirect. I did a search on "Flight Nineteen" instead of Flight 19 and did not get any results, I was going to give up--Gakhandal 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Incidentally, when you post an original comment to a talk page, your message goes at the bottom, not the top. Cheers. 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Much appreciated. I know about new messages going on the bottom (its just logic), I tried but it seemed to delete and "# 4 POV inferences removed" when I previewed the page, and I couldn't find out what the reason was. I was sure I did not delete it when I created this comment.. I tried putting on top and it worked. Excuse me for that.--Gakhandal 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs to redirect to this article 

message: Regarding "However, that is totally false," in Bermuda Triangle connection section.
A more neutral (and encyclopaedic) stance to the statement of falsity is desirable. Currently it looks more like a personal opinion than a fact. --Acolyte of Discord 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the line in favor of something neutral and readable.  Carajou 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral wording 

message: Made many changes to structure; made minor corrections; added an actual photo of one of the planes; restored the name of the lost PBM-5; added the names of all the lost men; and all in all, made it a bit more readable.  All that's needed now is a direct link to the official Navy report.  Tell me what you think. Carajou 02:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully improved 

message: When clicking on the link to the partial transcript for the Navy Inquiry, you will see at the top of the page 7 DEC 1945, which obsensively is the date the document was made.  At the bottom of the document it states the search took place 5-10 DEC 1945, so how could an official document be filed before a search it listed on the document had ended?  My impression is that the transcriber of the document made a slight error.  Currently, I am in the act of ordering a copy of the inquiry from the Navy, which should settle the matter. Carajou 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquiry problem 

message: The direct reference I found for this mysterious, final message is from the New York Times, dated December 6, 1945, and was available to me from Proquest, which is a newspaper and other information cataloging service.  Unfortunately, the service is password-oriented, available via colleges and universities.  I was able to see it through the portal at the James Walker Library, Middle Tennessee State University. Carajou 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT FT 

message: Found this little line today in the trivia section:  "Late Last year, Scientists have found flight 19 in a swamp in Georgia. They matched the numbers found on the wreckage to the no=umbers of the planes in the reports about flight 19 after the disapperance."  There are no references, no dates, no signature.  The individual posting it did not cite sources (i.e. newspapers), nor did he provide actual documentation needed for this site, such a photograph of the site showing an engine block number that could be matched and verified as coming from the missing flight.  I've never heard of this happening at all, and I've been interested in Flight 19 for years.  It was removed as being not only non-factual, but in my opinion, totally made up. Carajou 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this a couple of weeks ago; there was certainly no mention of Flight 19 actually having been found in the Okefenokee Swamp.  The bloke's theory sounded plausible enough but as far as I could tell it's just a theory. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia crash site problem 

message: Too much emphasis is given over to the Bermuda Triangle rather than to solid facts, and that pretty much sums up every Triangle incident that happened before and since.
There are two official Navy reports on the matter, one dated 26 December 1945, and the other dated March or April, 1946 (I have to get a hold of the actual report to be sure).  The first one has the entire transcripts of the radio communications between Flight 19 and NAS Ft Lauderdale, and between Training 49 and NAS Banana River.  There is nothing in this report indicating anything remotely supernatural.  Responsibility for the loss of the flight was placed on the flight leader, Lt Taylor.
The second report was done on the demands of Lt. Taylor's mother, who did not like, nor would she tolerate, an official report blaming her son for the loss of five planes and fourteen men, especially when there was no evidence or bodies produced.  The Navy subsequently changed its finding to "cause unknown".  Again, there was nothing in the second report hinting at the supernatural.
I also added a similar anology to Flight 19, and that was the Diamond Crash involving the USAF Thunderbirds that took place in 1982; the similarity was that they played "follow the leader" to the end.  I apologize to both the USAF and USN for a poor choice of words, but I cannot think of anything better in describing a situation in which pilots could have left a formation on their own to avoid a loss of life.
I would like very much to get a link to the Navy reports, but it's not available yet, unless one buys it from the Historical center and starts scanning all five hundred pages.  Carajou 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You immediately assume the situation is being accused of being supernatural, simply because those like I state it to be unexplained to this day. Both Taylor's compasses were reported out; the likelihood of both failing at the same time is suspect, but acceptable. Why could a consensus not be reached when he asked for a read from others? Did all the compasses fail? Most curious. Why did the directional fix (which is shown in the article) pick them up far to the east of Jacksonville? The compasses, again (or at least those of the leader/leaders), had to have been reading irrationally, as north was never once mentioned as a rational direction to go in the intraflight chatter. This, again, is not "supernatural": it would be a magnetic anomaly of indeterminate origin, and such anomalies have been encountered other times. Later foolish imbellishment by storytellers mucked up the proverbial waters, yes...but the basis of the material remains as some highly curious events, not least of which being why they didn't just follow the setting sun to head west, and instead wound up so bloody northward. --Chr.K. 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem I don't have is with someone who states such and such loss was unexplained; this conclusion acceptable, and it's based on lack of wreakage, witnesses, bodies, etc.  For this article to state it explicitly is also acceptable.  But the problem I do have are those who wish to invent fantastic or b.s. stories to explain this loss, and the wording they choose to use either ignores the official reports or twists them altogther to make it seem to say something it does not.  That is why we as editors here have a duty to collect the facts and post them; we have a duty to find and post the origins of the every story related to it and what they have been saying; and we have a duty to find and post the official records as well.  So, if you know of any other stories about Flight 19, post them, cite them...make the article that much more interesting...perhaps expanding the "Bermuda Triangle connection" subheading, which I think is pretty dull anyway.  Carajou 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also another reason for getting the Navy reports.  The communications between Flight 19, Flight 74, and NAS Lauderdale were recorded and transcribed.  The communications between NAS Banana River and Training 49 were also transcribed.  The logbook of USS Solomons, the carrier which saw Training 49 disappear off radar, is also available.  I've done the logbooks to four ships in my time, and the Navy demands accuracy and attention to detail, as they are legal documents.  I don't like what is transcribed as coming from Taylor that is in this article, and I know it comes from the Navy brief supplied by the Naval Historical Center; some of the transcriptions could also have come from any one of the Triangle books, and we all know how accurate they were, which isn't saying much.  We can get into a lot of detail for this article.  Carajou 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy sources vs others 

message: I have no knowledge of this topic other than what's in the article, but it raised an obvious question. The sequence of events, and the radio chatter described, strongly points to the conclusion that the students knew what they should do, but were reluctant to challenge the instructor or break formation and fly west. The article obviously suggests this as a conclusion without ever quite joining the dots. It seems this should be more directly tackled: did the enquiry, for example, form a view as to whether a reluctance to challenge the flight leader had contributed to the deaths? Or would the navy just bot go down that road? (ie suggesting that in some circumstances the chain of command should be challenged). Just wondering - at the moment it seems the article merely alludes to something that would be better tackled head on.--Cinephobia 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Navy, and the other branches of the military, personnel of all ranks are sworn to obey all lawful orders from their superiors.  Very rarely is an unlawful order given, and even then the rank and file is so ingrained with discipline and following orders that unlawful orders are rarely disobeyed.  In this case, you have to remember that there was one individual piloting an aircraft with more than 2,500 hours of flying time, and one individual with proven combat experience: Lt Taylor.  None of the others, faced with that one obvious fact, dared to peel off on their own. Carajou 05:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carajou is correct, re: lawful orders, etc. One problem with Flight 19 is the students, far as I can tell, only knew Taylor as an "instructor, with combat experience". It is unlikely they were aware he had a 'habit' (for lack of better term, here) of getting lost and had ditched planes before. If they had known that, its far more likely one of students(who are officers themselves) would have taken initiative and broken formation. Note the names/ranks in the article - there are two USMC Captains (grade O-3). Thats equal to a Navy Lt (Taylor). A young 2Lt or Lt(jg) would be even less likely to question the instructor. And it sounds like there was radio discussion/argument over the options - the Marines at least would know basic map reading and compass use...But, another problem is the timing: Once you've gone too far astray, the window of opportunity to correct is permanently lost, no matter what you decide, due to fuel. And thats the part the trainees would have no experience in dealing with...My guess is Taylor became disoriented after the practice bombing run. Sad situation, all around...(PS - notice the map of "Navigation Problem 1". It does not appear to be terribly difficult. Anyone have any info on how new the trainees were? In my experience - Army, using map/compass on land nav - the biggest problem is soldiers not trusting the compass - in the case of a flyer, I'm told that translates to not trusting his instruments. Thats when you start hearing things like "my compass isn't working", things don't "look right", etc). Sorry for the long post.... Engr105th 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's not true.  It's a later invention by someone wishing to add to the Triangle stories.  Navy records accounted for all the aircraft in-flight and on the ground that day, and the only ones missing were the five in Flight 19 from Ft Lauderdale, and the Mariner from Banana River NAS.  In fact, the Triangle stories really got off the ground in the early 1970s with a slew of books on the subject, and not one of them mentions Wheeler or Meehan. Carajou 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also a curious little ditty about the one who got sick and decided to stay off the flight.  According to Richard Winer in The Devil's Triangle it was Cpl Allan Kosnar; according to Adi-Kent Thomas Jeffrey in The Bermuda Triangle it was a man named Eagle Boloton.  Someone's right, or someone's wrong...or both are wrong.  The reason both skip the flight is based on premonition, which adds an additional aura of mystery to that aura of mystery that these writers have spun into the subject. Carajou 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the Corporal Allan Kosnar claim before but not the "Eagle Boloton" one.  Unfortunately what references are available doesn't show that there was supposed to be a Corporal Allan Kosnar to fly on Fight 19 that day.--67.16.87.47 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re Chain of Command 

message: I'm sorry I haven't noted this earlier, the image went up a few days ago. I also want to agree with what Carajou said above: ...faced with that one obvious fact, dared to peel off on their own. This is exactly what happened, the trainees were afraid of getting in trouble if they had broken off from him. (Had they known he got lost a couple of times in the Pacific they may not have followed him so long). I think they thought Taylor would find his way back before they ran out of fuel and didn't want to explain why they disobeyed his orders. By the time they realized how lost he was it was too late for them to make it back to base. Anynobody 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added rendering of FT-28 

message: One of the problems with editing of any article on Wikipedia is that there is always someone who has to feel they must add a bit of info, but without elaboration or supporting content.  For example, the "Mission" block of this article was changed at the end to state that nothing more was heard from Flight 19 until the summer of 2006.  And that's it.
Just what exactly was referenced for the "summer of 2006"?  Did anyone from Flight 19 return a phone call last summer?  Did anyone from Flight 19 walk into a Wal-Mart and buy kitchen towels?  Was a wing removed from one of the planes and made into a surfboard for someone in Miami Beach?  Pardon my sarcasm, but this is another example, not of vandalism, but of an individual who made something up and thought it be a good idea to express his own importance in adding that non-sensical line rather than stressing the importance of the article itself and backing it up with the required info which could have shead some light on what he thought happened with Flight 19 in the "summer of 2006".  Give us all a break!  Carajou 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone came up with a theory, is what is being claimed. Unfortunately, the juicy details of what these ground-breaking facts are remain shrouded in someone's mind, and unavailable to us at present. That said...you're absolutely right, and its inclusion in the work is basically pointless. --Chr.K. 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Summer of 2006"?

message: On the surface the comparison seems sound, two separate incidents where wingmen followed the leader to death in formation. The problem is, that when flying formation the wingmen concentrate on staying as close to their leader as directed which is easier siad than done anyway. Flight 19 was probably in a loose formation, meaning a good distance apart because there is no need to be in tight (close) formation on a training mission. The Thunderbirds (and Blue Angels, and really any aerial demonstration team) fly REALLY tight formation. It's incredibly difficult and to get an idea, imagine having to tailgate a car at times by less than a foot around a race track at 150 mph. Then imagine having to do it going 420 mph in a climbing loop. Here are a couple of pictures to give you an idea what I mean:. The wingmen would've simply not had enough time to realize and do anything about the fact that the lead aircraft wasn't going to pull up.
Flight 19 happened over a period of hours, at any given minute they could have broken off from Taylor. The Thunderbirds didn't have that luxury. Anynobody 10:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thunderbirds]] 

message: (Moved from my talk page)
If you insist that specific details of the PBM should be included in the lead -- not forgetting that the death toll from that aircraft is already mentioned in the lead - then I will insist that all other pertinent details are included as well, such as the ship etc. Moriori 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the info about it you want to include would be appropriate for the lead section, if it were true that all pertinent info should be included about anything mentioned in the lead then more info about flight 19 should be in it too (The HF/DF fix, FT-74, etc.). The BuNo name should be in the lead though, since there is a section devoted to it. Anynobody 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight 19

message: "flew off to Mars" Maybe this incident is connected to other unexplaiable ones such as the one in Aurora Texas   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.155.8 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't, because there is nothing unexplainable about the loss of Flight 19. It was pilot disorientation, plain and simple. There is no evidence that the pilots saw, heard, or experienced anything unusual. Logicman1966 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flew Off to Mars 

message: The previous version was hardly admirable; WP:LEAD says: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.
* It did not mention Navigation Problem No. 1
* It did not mention that the OIC led the students off course
**Instead it just said flight 19 was disoriented implying that all of them were, when at least two wanted to fly west because they knew their real position. Anynobody 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous lead 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 19, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: A well written article, much effort and thought has gone into it
:2. Factually accurate?: Backed up by verifiable references
:3. Broad in coverage?: The article contains all the relevant details associated with the topic
:4. Neutral point of view?: This article has a NPOV
:5. Article stability? No Edit wars or noticeable conflicts involved with this content
:6. Images?: The images compliment the article well and contain a useful amount of information on their own
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
— Jdrewitt 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, I guess we'll have to find a way to make it an A class or dare I say, WP:FA someday. Anynobody 05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: What if the crew for flight 19 flew the wrong planes?  I mean, if they found 5 planes about 1/2 mile of each other, then surely it has to be them, because how else did they get there?--71.116.25.134 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, as hard to believe as it might be, a couple of ways Avengers could end up in the drink off the Florida coast. During the war NAS Ft. Lauderdale was a huge training base for Avengers, more than a few were lost over the course of WWII due to various accidents and student errors. Then, in what seems like a minor historical tragedy to me, the Navy disposed of dozens of old Avengers (and other types) after the war by simply dumping them offshore of their bases. Anynobody 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing planes................ 

message: IONO if it has been discussed before: Why 14 crewmembers? The TBM had a crew of 3 (pilot, turret gunner, radioman/bombardier/bellygunner). So one plane must have been missing a crewmember - presumably Taylor's flew sans turret gunner (it needed a radioman after all). Any hard data on that? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 14?

message: On a couple of occasions the article mentions "VTB-type aircraft", which is linked to torpedo bomber and referenced with a National Geographic article. However, neither torpedo bomber nor the reference explain what "VTB" means. I assume this is US Navy jargon; it needs explanation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VTB

message: In the section headed "The Bermuda Triangle" that features the news article that sets out the "popular story", is it possible to get some more detail about what the claims in this story were based on, if anything?  If the author was basing his claims on even spurious or disputed documents or sources, can this be mentioned?  At the moment it's unclear if this article (including the quotes about "white water" etc) is based on some accepted evidence, disputed evidence, or if it's entirely a creation of the author's imagination.  (Obviously if there's different viewpoints about this that could also be mentioned.)  Just speaking as someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia who came to this article to read it, it's a little confusing.
DustFormsWords  —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The white water reference supposedly come from Allen W. Eckert (April 1962). "The Lost Patrol". American Legion.  In the "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle". NOVA/Horizon. PBS. 1976-06-27 Kusche said he corresponded with Eckert and Eckert could not longer remember where he got the reference and there was no indication where where it might have come from.  Unless something has come up in the 33 years since it was filmed Kusche's statement about that being as far back as the traditional story about Flight 19 can be traced still stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bermuda Triangle Section / "popular story"

message: The Charles Carroll Taylor article contains two sections: "Military Background" and "Flight 19". The latter duplicates what is already here; the former should be merged into this article, per WP:BIO#People notable only for one event. One possibility would be a single new paragraph within the existing "The men of Flight 19 and PBM-5 BuNo 59225" section. Any objections or alternative suggestions? 124.157.250.127 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a new Flight 19#Charles Carroll Taylor section, moved a small amount of content to there from the "Authorized overwater navigation training flight" section,  and then synched it with Charles Carroll Taylor#Military background . I don't think Charles Carroll Taylor now has any content that isn't already here. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now merged & redirected. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles Carroll Taylor merger proposal

message: I'm no expert, but I don't ever recall seeing a TBM/TBF Avenger with twin machine guns in the rear turret, just curious how accurate that is and if it needs to be corrected?
Limitedexpresstrain (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CGI Images accurate?

message: A T.V. Documentary on this incident stated that the pilots had taken the wrong Maps. As an American expert interviewed on the Documentary said; 'It all falls into place when you consider the radio broadcasts. When the pilot was saying; 'everything looks different' 'the Sea looks strange' etc. If you take those comments in the context of a man looking at maps that are the wrong maps for that area everything would look strange'. The 'increasing panic of the training pilot' also falls into place when you consider the 'wrong maps explanation'. He is out at Sea with only his compass to fly by. Even an expert flyer like Amelia Earhart got lost at sea with a skilled navigator on board 8 years before Flight 19. Also Amy Johnson, the British woman Pilot vanished, presumed drowned in the river Thames 3 years before Flight 19 after her Plane crashed into the River.Johnwrd (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Maps 

message: Flight 19 represents five hapless crews of an atmospheric phenomenon called "Alpenglow".  Alpenglow is when the western sunset just before and post-the winter solstice from December through January, reflects over cloud covers (broken or solid) horizon-to-horizon west to east.
On January 12, 2008 - I'll never forget it because it happened on my 61st birthday - it was dusk near dark traveling south toward the Mary River just across the Florida-Georgia state line with an unobservable oceanic surf to my left just over the inland dunes.  Immediately north of the narrow Mary River Bridge on Route 17, my girlfriend Annie dozed off in the passenger seat on this long coastal drive as we were on our way to visit friends in Vero Beach, Florida.
Me being perfectly aware and crisply alert with my accelerated line of travel, Annie suddenly awoke startled to see the crimson reflection of the western sunset cast across the eastern sky's horizon that even had a vaguely defined orb of light concentrated against it whence she exclaimed, "Babe!  Babe! How's come we're going back north!
Smiling to myself I didn't know the word for it then, but what Annie was observing hit me with an impact that curiously brought to mind the disappearance of Flight 19, an easy goof when you think about it that must have run out of gas going far out to sea making the same erroneous observation as my dear Annie, only these poor lads were irretrievably committed to water rather than asphalt.  It wasn't like a two-person crew in a Jeep Liberty could easily dismount on the shoulder as one sticks out their thumb with a frustrated look and the other with a jerry can held in their hand.  I'm sure these guys who thought they were navigating north to southwest were actually navigating south to north east and out of radio range with Fort Lauderdale where they went down.  Bet any money that's where five TBM Avengers with matching serial numbers can be found!
When we arrived back in Pittsburgh from our visit to Florida, I got online and started pecking out data in my computer's web browser using key words and phrases such as "Sunset reflection on eastern skies", etc., whereas I finally came up with the term "Alpenglow" which fit exactly and explained in precise detail what a startled Annie observed from sleep disorientation but what I was steadily acclimated to, aware of, and crisply alert to with my surroundings and accelerated line of travel.  I made several calls and even sent detailed graphics through PDF document emails explaining our experience to the chief curator of the Naval Air Museum at the Fort Lauderdale Naval Air Station, whereas he wound up ignoring me as though I were some kind of nut case telling me to "shut up..."
...Whereas, I rest my nut case here simply saying screw 'em!  I know what happened.
72.185.1.17 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALPENGLOW: FLIGHT 19 BORE FIVE OF ITS HAPLESS TBM AVENGER CREWS MISSING 

message: What is the right name. The numerous sources contradict each other on this issue... 109.66.25.117 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Robert Fox, see point 23 of the findings. Anynobody(?) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert F. Fox or Robert F. Cox?

message: Not having done much editing, I'd like to run this up the flagpole before changing the description of the route:
Based on the Navy report excerptat the Ibiblio site, my ideas are 1) change "almost due east" to "course 091 degrees true", 2) change "back to NAS" to "then returning to NAS", 3) recompute all the km values on the assumption that the mileages in the Navy report are nautical miles, not statute miles.
The subtle rewording in #2 is because I've discovered that the route, as given in the Navy report, does not form a closed figure. It fails to close by 10.6 nautical miles, or 3.4% of the total distance. However, on careful reading the report doesn't actually say the last leg takes you back to the field. I believe the article should should be equally ambiguous.
Why plan a route which intentionally misses the destination? It's an old navigation trick for making landfall. If you aim right at the field, you're not sure which way to turn if it's not in sight upon reaching the Florida coast. But if you aim to definitely miss to the south, all you have to do is hit the coast and follow it north.
Incidentally, it was my attempts to re-fly the route in Microsoft Flight Simulator that revealed the misclosure. No matter what pains I took, such as using the autopilot, and even allowing for the turn radius of the plane, I kept missing the field by miles. At first I thought the sim was inaccurate. Then I did the math, which agreed with the sim! Paul S. Hirose 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. An exercise involving three legs, but a flight involving four. I've tried to explain it better. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made further changes to accurately indicate what was planned. I have also removed the miles-to-kilometres conversions because almost certainly these guys were flying nautical miles. Even if we can't be certain of that, we are less certain that navy aviators would use imperial miles. I've changed the caption as well. Will see who the creator was and ask for amendments. Moriori (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intended Route 

message: There is a real mismatch between the article's lead section and the content of the main body. The main body is a pretty straightforward account of a navigation training flight getting lost, running out of fuel, and crashing -- exact details unsure, but basically just an ordinary tragic mishap. The lede describes "trouble of an unknown nation" "complete confusion and irrational fears," "enduring mysteries," and cites various pulp magazines and paranormal enthusiasts.
Instead of promoting this "enduring mystery" that isn't actually very mysterious, shouldn't the lede say something like, "Flight 19 was a training flight that got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. Then the story got roped up into UFO enthusiasm circles?" EvanHarper (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Enduring mysteries?" 

message: The NAN73 reference cannot be accessed. A great deal of this article depends heavily on that reference. Moriori (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref needs fixing

message: The map image leaves a lot to be desired. I would have taken this up with its creator User:Anyeverybody but he may have left Wiki. If anyone can suggest someone else who is good with creating such images, please tell me and I will contact him/her. 
In the mean time, I will make some changes to the existing caption.Moriori (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration needs replacing/amendment 

message: I also saw the programme which suggested flight 19 ended up in a swamp. As pointed out there were the usual good vague details.
There could be a simple answer to this suggestion. After the flight took off nobody saw it again. Had the flight actually crossed land again, somebody, somewhere, would have seen something. A flight of aeroplanes, even flying low, is something that can be seen from a great distance.AT Kunene (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okeefenoke 

message: I added the following to the article while watching the documentary on H2: (It's also been reported that Taylor's last message was received at 7:04 pm.) ref> History Channel, Decoding the Past - The Bermuda Triangle (SO1 Ep16, 2005) - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's also been reported that "Taylor's last message was received at 7:04 pm." - History Channel, ''Decoding the Past - The Bermuda Triangle''  

message: Bruce Gernon's electronic fog experience is very relevant to Flight 19 imo. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzeJaGwVykw). The calculated speed of 2000mph is simply the speed of the lunar earth tide at this latitude. A dark matter 'rocking stone' embedded in the crust with a 2g graviton cone of influence could simply have flung the aircraft *and* surrounding pocket of air across the Florida Strait, causing the effects described. 195.59.118.106 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute rubbish. Good God.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Gernon's electronic fog experience is very relevant to Flight 19 

message: I've red , more than once, that Taylor at some point left the command to another pilot. And that the last recieved message was something like "It appears as we are on our way on to that white water". (a "white water" of which hadn't been mentioned before) Boeing720 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've read, even more than twice, that people who read or hear something somewhere from someone, without knowing what, where and by whom, are not to be considered trustworthy. I say God Himself has kidnapped the pilots to the moon, and if you read this paragraph again, you can say that you've read this more than once. --146.60.149.33 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taylor 

message: We are currently told:
They had been declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete and were simply disposed of at sea within 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of each other.[7] 
[7]Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004); telecast on The Science Channel, February 17, 2006. 
However back in August 2009 (here), the same source was being used to support two different stories:
In 1991, the wreckage of five Avengers was discovered off the coast of Florida, but engine serial numbers revealed they were not Flight 19. They had crashed on five different days "all within a mile and a half [~2.4 km] of each other."[7] Records showed training accidents between 1942 and 1946 accounted for the loss of 94 aviation personnel from NAS Fort Lauderdale (including Flight 19.)[8] In 1992, another expedition located scattered debris on the ocean floor, but nothing could be identified. In the last decade, searchers have been expanding their area to include farther east, into the Atlantic Ocean. It has been determined through Navy records that the various discovered aircraft, including the group of five, were declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete, and simply disposed of at sea.[7]
[7]Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004); telecast on The Science Channel, February 17, 2006. 
Under the different title "The Bermuda Triangle: Beneath the Waves", this source has been re-broadcast 7 times on BBC4 since December 28, 2013, most recently yesterday evening (when I viewed it, for the second time) and again early this morning. It was first first broadcast by BBC1 on Sunday March 14, 2004. It makes no mention of any Navy dumping, but describes the crashes in the same tiny area as a truly amazing fluke (incidentally, there would only have been 4 crashes, not 5, as it says one was a mid-air collision of two planes).
It describes the program as: Professor Bruce Denardo attempts to prove whether there is any truth behind the legend of the Bermuda Triangle, where many ships and planes have disappeared in mysterious circumstances. New investigation techniques reveal the truth behind the infamous disappearance of Flight 19. Graham Hawkes is also able to reveal, by using a state-of-the-art submarine, how five wrecks mysteriously wound up 730 feet down in the heart of the Bermuda Triangle. 
It also tells us that the producer is Will Aslett. It is clearly the same program as our cited source Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004), as that is produced by Will Aslett in 2004, and includes Bruce Denardo and Graham Hawkes in the cast as themselves, and no other Bermuda Triangle work is attributed to Denardo, Hawkes, or Aslett.
So clearly a proper citation is needed, and I will next be replacing the current citation with such a request. However I am leaving the existing text about being dumped by the Navy unchanged, due to the superficially plausible nature of the statement. If somebody wishes to re-insert the existing source the text needs to correctly reflect the source, and it needs to be re-phrased to comply with WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which would mean somethng like:
In March 2004 (subsequently repeated in 2013 and 2014), the BBC documentary The Bermuda Triangle: Beneath the Waves concluded that all 5 planes had crashed on 4 different days (including one mid-air collision), ending on the seabed all within a mile and a half [~2.4 km] of each other, in what, according to the documentary, seemed to be an extraordinarily improbable coincidence.
(I should point out that even if the 'navy dumping' claim turns out to be incorrect speculation (as seems quite possible, given the apparent conflict with some of the details of the BBC claims,  given the lack of any BBC correction 10 years later, and given their statutory obligation to 'educate,..., and inform'), it might still be the case that the BBC documentary is simply wrong in its claims of astonishing improbability, as there might be factors favouring a concentration of crashes, such as a nearby training target, or whatever, though that is of course just speculation on my part, and if the explanation is that simple it's a bit strange that the documentary never mentions it as a possibility). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out it was seemingly easier to fix than I expected. If anybody wants to restore the claim about navy dumping (which was mis-sourced, and seemingly conflicts with much else, as mentioned above), along with a 'citation needed' request, please feel free to do so, and please indicate in Talk how long you feel it should remain unsourced before being deleted. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to re-use the BBC citation as it is a reliable source when it shows Hawkes finding and identifying 23990, which seems relevant to his later claim that he probably found Flight19. I leave out the 'astronomical' odds bit, as it is not from the BBC voice-over but just the opinion of one member of the team with no stated statistical expertise, and it has been omitted from the partial transcript (they probably had to cut something to fit in the ads, so they probably cut that as dodgy stuff). I leave in their conclusion about a random collection of accidents, as once we realize that it's not the BBC saying the odds are astronomical, it ceases to be any kind of clear-cut case of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Indeed we are not allowed claim that we are expert statisticians who know the BBC are wrong, and, though it's not all that relevant, I actually know enough about stats to suspect they just might be right for any number of possible reasons. So I'm including it as it appears to be the conclusion of a normally reliable source - but to be safe I cite it as their conclusion rather than as fact. If other editors are unhappy with this, they are of course free to try to improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with WP:IAR, and because of the many complex issues raised above, I've decided to include as 2 notes some ways in which those BBC odds might be reduced, mentioning the fact that the dumping theory used to be here, and making the statements self-evidently true (and thus hopefully uncontroversial and thus not requiring supporting citations even if I didn't also have WP:IAR as justification) by preceding them by a qualifier such as 'It is obviously possible to speculate that..'. If other editors are unhappy with this, they are of course free to try to improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally it is quite easy to identify any aircraft wreck even if its BuNo or Serial Number is not available, as every major piece of equipment, engine(s), guns, etc., will each have a unique serial number that can be traced back to its fitment in that particular aeroplane. In many cases these serial numbers are affixed to the relevant parts by the outside suppliers, e.g., an undercarriage (landing gear) manufacturer will affix a data plate to each individual undercarriage unit made. The same for engines, guns, etc. These serial numbers are usually recorded in the aircraft manufacturer's records for each aircraft built. So if an aircraft wreck is found one only needs to find one serial number from any component to positively identify the aircraft. An interesting 1981 TV programme with details on this, here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's interesting (though I haven't been able to get your video to run for me). But diving to view and/or recover and closely examine plane parts costs money. In the case of the BBC's Phantom Five, they seemingly only used cameras that seemingly could only pick out rather large serial numbers, and once one plane was identified and found not to be part of Flight 19, I'd guess nobody's been interested in funding any further attempts to identify the others - or if they have, we seemingly haven't got a reliable source for it (so far anyway).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons why Citation Needed for 5 aircraft disposed at sea 

message: At the bottom of the page, above the categories, are blue bars with all the Bermuda Triangle incidents. I'm viewing in Safari on ipad and the lower bar, and the items with it, is all out of whack, I can't tell if it goes off the side of the page but there do seem to be incidents missing. Also when I click the heading on the bar the incidents there seem different to what I can see listed here. 86.134.83.50 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: The link to reference 2 is dead. I suggest 
http://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Lost-Patrol.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:70:CF4C:DEE3:C890:450F:3F19:60EF (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced dead link with link above provided. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Reference 2 

message: These two references currently read as follows:
15. It is obviously possible to speculate that various currently unknown or ignored factors might help to lower these odds, such as if all the crashes happened near a much frequented bomber training target, and/or the planes suffered from a design fault that tended to get triggered at roughly the same time after some particular bombing maneuver, and so on... It can be speculated that mid-air collisions in a busy airspace, such as near a bomber training target, might reduce the number of crashes needed to 4 or even 3 - the 2004 BBC documentary states that one of the planes may have lost its tail section in a documented mid-air collision in August 1944.
16. It is obviously possible to speculate that odds would be lower if the unidentified planes had been declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete and were simply disposed of at sea in a single operation and/or in a single perhaps recommended location. One might even speculate that the identified plane might also have been dumped there if it originally ditched elsewhere in waters perhaps shallow enough for it to present a shipping or environmental hazard, from where it had eventually been recovered and disposed of in a standard location deemed more suitable for such disposal. Indeed from December 2006 earlier versions of this Wikipedia article simply asserted (using wordings that varied slightly over time) that all the planes "were declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete, and simply disposed of at sea", although this assertion was initially unsourced and then in August 2008 it was incorrectly sourced in a way that made the source contradict itself in the same paragraph until the contradiction was removed by removing the correctly sourced statement in August 2014); also some parts of the assertion's wordings at least appeared to conflict with other known facts.
"It is obviously possible to speculate..." all sorts of things, but to do so would be original research (well, not really research either). If reliable sources elsewhere are 
doing that speculation, we should record it and reference it. Otherwise this doesn't belong in a Wiki article. The second half of Note 16 "Indeed from December 2006 earlier versions of this Wikipedia article..." is just crazy. It goes beyond WP:CIRCULAR violations to reference versions of articles that we know to be wrong.
I propose removing both of these notes. Chuntuk (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 15 and 16 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight 19. 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/20090413074152/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq15-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq15-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Currently the headline image is a crude CGI drawing of the flight. It's technically poor, it looks like the work of a child, and there is a much better image already available. Everything about it is misguided - the little cartoon pilots, the motion blur, the low-resolution textures. Fundamentally the concept is misjudged. It makes the article look bad and would have been inadequate as an illustration in the early 1990s. I understand the user who created the image has a yen for creating CGI images of aeroplane crashes, and he may well have a following here on Wikipedia - but this is awful. How come it has lasted so long? Who is keeping it up? What went wrong here? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Main Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flight 19. 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/20000823114007/http://history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This element is completely missing from the article, and as a result it reads like something fit for Wikia. The one and only reason this incident is remembered on such a scale is because of all the UFO claptrap that has surrounded it since the Bermuda Triangle books started coming out. 93.136.205.44 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, suggest something. Moriori (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest using the sources from the Skeptoid page listed at the bottom, for a start. 93.136.205.44 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the "Skeptoid page listed at the bottom" does not mention the word "paranormal" anwhere. Moriori (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Filed under History & Pseudohistory, Paranormal" 93.136.205.44 (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere -- nowhere -- does that skeptoid article mention the word paranormal. It could never be used to support paranormal in our article. Rolls eyes indeed.Moriori (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: the only reason this incident is worth a Wikipedia page are the conspiracy theories invented by Berlitz & Co. It's pretty obvious from the topics on this talk page too. By reading the article you'd never guess that any controversy ever existed. Maybe you figure I believe in these theories. I don't and I'm not asking to pretend that there is merit to them. But if we don't mention them, what's the point of having this article? 93.136.151.154 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to agree with that assessment. Consider how many planes with military origin are lost in peace times, and it is pretty obvious that Flight 19 is way more prominent a topic than it would usually deserve, and the sole reason for that is the claims about paranormal occurrences during its disappearance. Like the commenter above, I don't believe anything mysterious or paranormal happened to the flight, but there should at least be some mention that this incident got so prominent, due to those claims made by Berlitz and Co.Die-yng (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The incident gained notability due to legends about the Bermuda Triangle, and our high quality sources use the term "supernatural" to discuss these (admittedly pseudoscientific) beliefs . - - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal 

message: This spans two episodes: E7 and E8 of S8.
In the second one they scan the ocean floor near the position of the last contact and find a 3 blade aluminum hub and a two cylinder row motor. 
I just saw it translated on Tele5 in Germany where it is in the mediathek at the moment of writing this comment (DEC-13-2021).
Episode descriptions found here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4305162/episodes?season=8
If I not overlooked a link to an extra article about the rescue plane and if one exists please add link to the article. There is a link to the plane model articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_PBM_Mariner but the article does not contain any links to the one lost on search for flight 19.
Runeb2 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last sentence says it all. nothing here to add to the article. Moriori (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Expedition Unknown Mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle supposedly the Martin Mariner is found 

message: Corky Meyers in his book talks about mining safety oxygen masks being a problem. They were not up to standard and most but not all were replaced.Oxygen starvation causes confusion.
Could faulty masks have been the problem?
Corky Meyer's Flight journal p.70  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:44F8:C9E5:9232:B4D9 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxygen masks 

message: This is a Grumman TBM Avenger, or am I incorrect? I could not edit it.  Odanny (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Grumman TBF Avenger article, Grumman developed and initially produced the TBF Avenger. Later, production was shifted to the Eastern Aircraft division of General Motors, with those aircraft being designated as the General Motors TBM Avenger. Indyguy (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Motors TBM Avenger Torpedo Bomber