Talk:Bermuda Triangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bermuda Triangle as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Ukrainian language Wikipedia.
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

See also: /Archive1


Contents

[edit] Chronological list

The chronological list is very scrappy, containing real mysteries, fakes and 'since-been-explained's - but without saying which are what. That sentence was also very scrappy :) .I'm going to put thumbnail details to each name, if I can find sources (that ship losing passengers - not even the ship's name? Come on!) Totnesmartin 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I did a mere bullet-statement type of entry in the list of Triangle incidents page. I would think that at best, what we should do is to turn that particular page into a links page...just very brief entries which lead the reader to separate articles for more detail, with maybe thumbnail pics for emphasis. Carajou 20:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, this article sites 1872 as the date for all of the incidents. Either this date is false or the article needs more incidents that go past 1872. ---> wow that got fixed fast!

[edit] Columbus

The article claims that Columbus and his crewmen saw various strange things, but the link given doesn't confirm this. Is there a reference (preferably not a BT book or website) that confirms this? Is his diary or log in print? Totnesmartin 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I found, and included, a link to Columbus' log, and it contradicts some of the supernatural incidents related to him and the Triangle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carajou (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Ok...I got tagged by a bot...here's my sign: Carajou 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranormal Claims

Intro section: If the claims are in between quotation marks, shouldn't there be a citation for these "quotes"? Otherwise the quotation marks ought to be removed.Anrie 13:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It should be re-worded to say something like:

Claims in favour of a 'paranormal' explanation include: the possibility of a time warp or dimensional vortex; hoistile activity by extraterrestrials, or inhabitants of Atlantis; - or something like that. Totnesmartin 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Totnesmartin

[edit] added cleanup-date template

I added a cleanup-date template to this page; while there's little NPoV issues left, the vestiges of it can still be found in bad grammar, general organization, extraneous comments, and informal tone. It needs some serious cleanup work.

I thought about using the story template instead, but decided on cleanup-date.

—auk 01:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and some information needs to incorporated from other articles into this one. Such as dates and times for some disappearances. Yes, they often have their own article with this information. That's not the point. It makes for too much inconsistency when you have to go to three or four different sources for shared information on things that basic. Shadowrun 19:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 19 and Star Tiger sections

Now that these two sections link to their respective articles, is there any need for the sections to be as long as they are? They could be cut down to (eg) a dozen lines each or something. Totnesmartin 22:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Berlitz

Doesn't the criticism of Charles Berlitz come a little early in the article? Reading through the article until "Kusche's The Bermuda Triangle Mystery—Solved" you finally encounter a criticism to his work, but there's nothing written about Berlitz himself in the article to warrant it. Isn't it an issue of equality? To provide criticism you first have to have something to criticize, you can't expect the reader to automatically know who you're talking about. Shadowrun 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think Berlitz, and every other author writing on this subject has opened themselves to criticism. For example, there's the Bimini Wall, which has been cited by Berlitz and others as evidence of Atlantis, and used by Atlanteans as either a road or a pier. The critics claim (and these critics are perfectly right) that there is absolutely no evidence of structures and other associated buildings either underwater or on land that would support such a road or pier. There are plenty of people who have written on this subject and proposed many outlandish theories to explain everything, and at the very least these theories simply do not stand up to the documented hard evidence that was collected by Kusche, the Coast Guard, the Navy, newspapers, etc over the years. And collecting, documenting, and displaying such evidence for this subject should be the mission of those using this website. Carajou 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Lawrence Kusche

He is criticised for "holding to his claim that 'nothing out of the ordinary' regularly occurred in and around the area, and yet several times admitting certain cases lacked conventional rational explanation (most notably in the Star Tiger and DC-3 cases)". Sorry, but the Star Tiger and DC-3 cases are exceptional, not regular events, proving that 'nothing out of the ordinary' does regularly happen. If Kusche had said that nothing out of the ordinary ever occurred, the critic would have a point. Subsequently, I do not think such evidently weak criticism should be in the article

I corresponded with Kusche in 1977 and he emphasised that publishers only want books that will make them money - they often do not care about facts or accuracy. Because Kusche was dedicated to accuracy and objectivity (regardless of whether he made some errors, or of his research's conclusions), his efforts resulted in a book that was "dull", wasn't "sexy" and therefore had a hard time getting published. He was even told by some publishers that they would not publish "a book of knocks", however well researched, because it might harm the sales of a garbage-ridden pro-Triangle book. To sum up: The BT is a mystery, like a 1000 others, drummed up by the greedy and the gullible and perpetuated by people who are too captivated by claptrap or bored stiff with reality to realise that. If the Triangle doesn't exist, somebody would have invented it. And they did! Sorry (again), but I've been a fan of the paranormal for over 30 years and as much as I yearn - even need - to prove something exists that would get up the noses of stuffy, narrow-minded academics and scientists, all I've EVER come across is the foul-smelling stuff you find in cowsheds. Rikstar 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say you haven't looked obsessively enough. I'm still waiting for scientists to explain the bleeding walls cases of the 1950s, or some of the stuff Fort compiled. As for Kusche, Berlitz used bibliographic references compiled by Kusche (before the latter's —SOLVED came out) for his own material, so go figure. You can read about it on that link at the bottom of the Triangle page. --Chr.K. 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funny ...

Funny, I've been a skeptic, a freethinker, and a scientifically trained mathematician for damn near as long. Why do I get tired of of being thought a "stuffy, narrow-minded academic and scientist" simply because I reject all spiritual belief and all pseudoscience like the Bermuda Triangle & psychic phenomena? How many times have New Agers screamed at me, "You're not open minded!" The Christians only condemn me to burn in hell for all eternity. Life's rough.

dino 04:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Save it for livejournal mate, this page is for discussing the article. Totnesmartin 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dino, "stuffy..." in my comment should have been in quotation marks. I'm actually on your side. As a newbie, Totnesmartin, I thank you for informing me about the livejournal, mate. Please note my first comments directly concern the article. Rikstar 13:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I didn't criticise - your bit was relevant to the article. Dino, however, is just ranting about people calling him names. Totnesmartin 11:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the example of weak criticism as outlined in Criticism of Kusche Rikstar 11:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

this talk page is getting quite long, with lots of finished discussions. I'm going to archive it at the weekend, if nobody objects. Totnesmartin 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Totnesmartin 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp the article

(moved from top of page)

This article can and should stick to the facts. Incidents that have happened, such as Flight 19 and USS Cyclops, should be mentioned briefly with links to their own, main articles. What I think should happen is:

1) a detailed entry as to the documented history of the area, and if this history is no older than the April 1962 issue of American Legion Magazine (the "Lost Patrol" article), so be it.

2) brief-to-detailed mention of each paranormal reason for the disappearances or whatever else is strange, followed by anything that may refute it. If the article in question is a genuine mystery, such as Joshua Slocum or the loss of the crew of the Mary Celeste, then we state it.

3) why basic facts are missing in many of the incidents, as Kusche has pointed out in his book. For example, it is cited in many Triangle books that a plane crash took place in the surf, in front of hundreds of witnesses, at Daytona Beach, Florida in 1937, but not a trace of the plane was found. Since it would be a major story in the local paper it makes sense to check, but in this case the incident never happened.

4) Links to as much source material as possible, up to and including newspapers from the time it happened; official reports, etc. If we need to order official documentaion from places like the Naval Historical Center, then we do that and post it. It costs $10.00 by the way.

5) brief mentions only of selected incidents, and links to main pages for each one. These pages in turn should just stick to the facts, keeping the whole as balanced as possible. Carajou 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

be my guest, carajou.

1)and 2) we are trying to do that, give us time. it doesn't help that the page is frequently vandalised.

3) That case isn't in the article. "Why basic facts are missing" from books - well you'd have to ask the authors, but I think we can guess.

4)I can't afford to pay for those documents but maybe somebody else can.

5)This is a good idea, there's a separate article for a more complete list.

Please feel free to improve the article in the ways you suggest. be bold! (but don't forget that Kusche made mistakes too...) Totnesmartin 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

make the page off-limits to vandals; I will take a few stabs at it; $10.00 is affordable for a Navy report (who needs cigarettes anyway?); yes, Kusche made mistakes, but they weren't a deliberate attempt to blame the area on paranormal spinning compasses operated by two-headed space aliens looking for scrap metal; and I wont ask the other authors, as one of them is dead, and the others have already had their "facts" refuted! And yes, we can take our time, so smile and think of little dwarfs having their way with that Snow White girl! 74.241.173.131 22:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Ok, so I forgot to sign in! Carajou 22:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup and Revamping begun

First act was to get a hold of something better looking than the white outline map. NASA simply has better imagery, without the copyrights. Carajou 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph: The article has to be stated as to what it is, i.e. mysterious body of water, etc. It also has to to be stated here what it might really be, which is why I selected "half truths built on sea stories". But this is for lack of something better. Carajou 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

History: not finished with it at this time, but since a lot of authors have cited the compasses getting screwy on Columbus' ships, why not do that one thing avoided before: get a link to Columbus' logs...which I did. Carajou 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

More or less done. I am satisfied with the structure of the article. There are still some minor add-ons and possible tweaking, but accomplishing that should be no problem. Carajou 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Feb 1964 Argosy magazine cover, as this illustrates first known use of the title "Bermuda Triangle". The reader, I feel, needs to see evidence that the Triangle stories are not older than the middle of the 20th Century. Carajou 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is DOOM777, and what did he do to this site? Carajou 04:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't have a userpage but he did this: [1] Totnesmartin 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo problem

At the top of the article is a satellite photo of the west Atlantic and the Triangle borders. It was uploaded three times; each time the proper copyright tag was added (NASA image). Apparently the tag was not accepted, and the image is subject to deletion. There is a similar image for the article on Flight 19 that I uploaded with no problems. Anyway to correct this? Carajou 20:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Theories section

I included this section due to the fact that these explanations and similar theories have been included in some form or fashion about the Triangle. As it stands right now, this entry is pretty weak and looks more like an opinion entry than fact. I just don't have the sources yet to make it better, so if anyone out there can help out... Carajou 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USS Scorpion

This incident occured outside the Triangle, and has nothing to do with the Triangle, but writers in the past have included it in their works as part of the Triangle, notably Berlitz, Spencer, Winer. The same is true with Mary Celeste and V.A. Fogg, both mentioned in the article. Carajou 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And a few others besides. it's called Not Letting The Facts Spoil A Good Story. Totnesmartin 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] we should include some of the crazier theories on this article...

I think that with all the published material out there on supernatural and ufo-related explanations of the Bermuda triangle, these theories deserve to be mentioned, sourced, and explained (and maybe some information about the people who give these theories too), as Wikipedia includes plenty of information on pseudoscience and mythology. All we have to do is make sure that everything is written dispassionately, in a neutral point of view. Blueaster 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on just that (Popular theories). I know some of these theories constitute opinion, but they have been cited and used by the Triangle writers over the years. If you run across something like that, or maybe want to improve what is written, please do. Carajou 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Incidents

This entry may not need to be on the page, as there is a listing of famous incidents above it, and a separate page within Wikipedia linked below. What you you think? Carajou 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked the same question several weeks ago, and no-one responded. I'll move it now. Totnesmartin 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I plan on making minor corrections to that page as well. Other indvidual pages detailing incidents will be taken care of as they come; Flight 19 is essentially done in that regard, but I'm still looking for the official Navy report. Carajou 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The list has been merged, to the benefit of both lists.Totnesmartin 23:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is getting better, and that's a good thing. Carajou 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing and grammar

Just to let everyone know: when a magazine, book, or newspaper is written anywhere, the name is always in italics. Any article within a magazine, book, or newspaper, is written inside "quotation" marks. Such an example here would be "A Lady Vanishes," one of the chapters in The Bermuda Triangle, by Adi-Kent Thomas Jeffrey. I've had historians at college tell the class how they look with distain on Wikipedia, and part of the problem is writing and grammar, in addition to some inaccuracies on various pages. To remove this problem we all have to do our utmost to be as professional as possible. I know some would think this is extremely petty, and they'd be right, but we all have to begin somewhere if we want even the least of Wikipedia's pages taken seriously. Carajou 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

there is bad writing on WP, and it is annoying, but it's mostly bad organization or convoluted and overwritten sentences, or inappropriate tone, not something as small as a stylistic error. Blueaster 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeppers...and I for one have made quite a few spelling mistakes, grammer mistakes, accuracy mistakes...and still I strive for no errors. Carajou 01:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do an addendum to my own accuracy mistake: I stated the V.A. Fogg's bodies were all recovered by the Coast Guard (in the "Other Responses" section). Reading the report closely, three bodies were recovered, the rest missing. And no body was found with a coffee cup. But I'll tell you what...reading that report was sobering. I could imagine the writer of it, deadpan accurate with the boring personality of a tax man, it was that matter-of-fact. A lot of people are dead because they just didn't get trained in handling a certain chemical; they were pretty much lazy in other things, like lifeboat drills. This crew acted like cleaning benzine out of a tank was like cleaning the algae out of a swimming pool...no big deal. Now they're just Triangular statistics with a captain glued to his coffee mug! Carajou 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If writing help is needed, head to a library or bookstore and get the Harbrace Manual, by Harcourt Publishers. It is standard issue in colleges and universities in the country (including mine, MTSU). Carajou 07:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coast Guard records

Found a database maintained by the Coast Guard containing actual reports of many ship losses, including those in the Triangle. These are not watered-down or edited; they are photcopies in .pdf form, they are complete, and links were placed on the Triangle page, or you can click here: [2] These records will go a long way in laying out some basic facts on the incidents covered. Carajou 07:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition to that, I also found the full text of the Vincent Gaddis article in Argosy Magazine, Feb 1964. Both of these items happened in less than twelve hours, not including sleep! Carajou 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you deserve a bit of sleep now mate! Totnesmartin 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
nahhh, I'm having too much fun! Carajou 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Coast Guard records, I have started a reworking of the page belonging to SS Marine Sulphur Queen, a major incident in the Triangle. At the bottom of the page are as many official sources as I could get, which was posted prior to my laying out the page and adding a write-up. None of the sources pertain in any way to the Triangle...it's just the way they were written at the time. Let's see if anyone here can use the sources and see what they could do. Carajou 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Totnesmartin, In answer to your question in page history, no, Keegan did not write that about Marine Sulphur Queen. I did, and I based it on the source material collected on MSQ's page. Carajou 18:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methane Hydrates

In this section, the article text claims the following:

Laboratory experiments carried out in the Monash University in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water [6], though this would leave a smell and does not account why wreckage would not have bobbed to the surface when water density returned.

Leave a smell? According to the article on methane, it is an odorless gas. I think someone confuses it with flatulence.

Also, I find it reasonable that a ship that sinks in a cloud of bubbles may not rise when the cloud clears, since the sudden onrush of water from all sides may fill it with water very quickly.

Init 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose by 'wreckage' they meant lifebelts and suchlike; although they would get scattered pretty quickly by the gulf stream. I'll just go and edit that bit. Totnesmartin 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

On several shows pertaining to the Triangle on the History, Discovery, and SciFi channels videos were shown of such experiments on scale models; and the same thing was accomplished with a full-sized cabin cruiser. But I can't find a good link to any of it as of yet. As to the smell of the stuff, if it happens in the Atlantic, the wind general blows from west to east, so the smell, if any, would head out to sea. Carajou 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't seams in an encyclopedic style:

"Methane also has the ability to cause a piston engine to stall when released into the atmosphere even at an atmospheric concentration as low as 1%[citation needed]. Well....maybe all this HAS actually happend! who knows?"

More preciselly the last sentence.

[edit] Vandalism again

Found this in the record: 07:41, 30 December 2006 218.102.23.116 (Talk) (→Other responses)

What I saw on checking the appropriate block was this idiot who thought he was being slick, i.e. "Lloyd's of London charges higher rates to enter the Triangle"...that routine. What I would love to see is a bot placed on this website that, at the touch of a button, heads straight for the source of the offending I.P. address, gets to his hard drive, and fries it! Carajou 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a naval man :) you'll just have to get used to the idiots on this article, it seems to attract them. Totnesmartin 12:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
At one time on my third ship, a destroyer tender named USS Shenandoah, we had flight deck small arms training, and there was this camera viewing the whole thing, with monitors on the bridge, Combat Information Center, Damage Control Central, and the captain's cabin, and what they saw was everyone and their shipmate brothers wanting a crack at a cartoon that I drew, on a target, of the executive officer! Carajou 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
is that why you're ex-navy? :) Totnesmartin 20:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope...I retired after 20 years...clowns like the above were just comedy relief! Carajou 21:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-1950s correction

I had to remove the mild reference to the mid-1950s in the intro paragraph, which led the reader to think that disappearences have been going on since that time. It is claimed by Triangle writers that strange things have been going on there since Columbus, which is explained; it is also explained that the stories, and I stress the stories, by Triangle authors date no older than the mid-1950s. Carajou 11:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual incident pages

I have done, nearly done, or severely-edited the following: Flight 19, USS Cyclops, SS Marine Sulphur Queen(in progress), V.A. Fogg. My idea for them, and for each one as it comes up, is to have a separate entry within the page titled "Bermuda Triangle connection" which would be a catch-all for the theories and explanations based on the Triangle stories, separate and distinct from the officialy documented evidence. This would also help in tying the whole subject together. What do you think? Carajou 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use photographs!

As much as possible, use photographs to illustrate this page and individual pages of the incidents. They help better convey the article; you can usually find them connected with the source material; and they can refute some of the bad, Triangle theories quickly (see SS Marine Sulphur Queen for an example). Carajou 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Ariel, et al

Ok, if you look in the history section where the I.P. addy was added to record Star Ariel and others, it was me. Dummy that I was, I forgot to sign in! Carajou 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put Stars Tiger and Ariel back in was, according to bermudatriangle.org, their losses, in addition to Flight 19, were responsible for creation of the Bermuda Triangle, even though the name itself would not come to print until 1964. And there still is the genuine mystery surrounding the two planes that has yet to be solved. Maybe someone can get a multi-gazzilion dollar expedition to the mid-Atlantic and drag a sidescan sonar along the route? Carajou 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Cyclops

This is probably not worthy of inclusion; it is my opinion only.

Richard Winer's book "The Devil's Triangle" has a type of writing style which left a "haunted" feeling in me...which was why I read it many times when I was a kid. I felt it better written than any other work on the subject (yes, I believed in the traditional Triangle b.s. back then). But in the author's bio, it stated Winer was at work on a book about the USS Cyclops. The first printing of the book was 1974; it is now 2007, 33 years later. No book on the Cyclops. Could it be that he abandoned it becaause the facts that he might have found got in the way of the theories? I myself would have loved to have read it. Carajou 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he couldn't find a publisher for it. The triangle is a well-known subject, but individual events connected with it aren't really, apart from Flight 19. I also remember Winer's book, in fact I preferred it to Berlitz. Then I started looking deeper than "ooh, that's a good story"... Totnesmartin 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Dates

I've noticed that the dates of many events in the article are ascribed the same time period-1872. For example, Flight 19s disappearance is noted as having occurred in 1872- obviously impossible, since aircraft didn't even exist. Can someone place the correct dates? Achilles2.0 08:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit: Its apparently intentional vandalism. A mention of a certain modern film is listed as having released in 1872. ) Achilles2.0 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was vandalism, by the individual who had this I.P. addy: 138.88.227.90, and it involved changing every date to 1872. I wonder if he knows that an IP address can always be traced to a front door? Carajou 11:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What is needed is a LOCKOUT of every article in Wikipedia to anyone not logged in and registered. Carajou 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just block the clowns!

Ok, I did fix the page from the recent vandal who thinks he got his rocks off by doing that; and yes, it was an individual, not a bot, as this guy is already recorded coming back to fix a "mistake" he made.

I also put his IP addy in the block list, but I don't know if I did it right. If you see anyone like that in the future, block the clown immediately. Let him be the one slamming his fist on his keyboard at the thought that he can't get back in. All of us have spent too much time trying to improve these articles for everyone's benefit. We're not going to let an idiot try to change things here when he's got mental problems that he can't take care of at home. Carajou 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article, so the vandals can slam their(school) keyboards. While I'm at it, I'll do the same at Loch Ness monster which gets just as much idiocy.Totnesmartin 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There was a user, I guess he was an administrator, who removed this protection, and said that we should go through the proper link to warn such individual first. Not upset with it here at all; we'll just continue to never let the young punks ruin it for everyone. 72.150.123.36 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Excuse me...I did it again! Carajou 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake and accidently blocked out Zzuuzz's message here, when I was saving my own edit below. He stated we should follow Wikipedia's rules regarding vandals and page protection. Sorry, Zzuuzz! Carajou 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The comments are here. I was just pointing that the only way a page can get protected is by an admin. As you suggest, not everyone knows that. And this page is also on my watchlist now :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't realise. There's a ton to learn about Wiki... oh well. Totnesmartin 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This individual did it again. ArrgggH!! So, I went to a website that does a WHOIS on his two IP addys he left behind, and it popped up servers in Amsterdam and Verizon in the US. Since I am a Verizon customer myself, I notified them about this individual misusing the internet. They are easy to find. Carajou 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well finally we got the page semiprotected. Now the idiots can go and vandalise Justin Timberlake or whatever else they just saw on TV. Totnesmartin 16:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is DONE!

This is just to let everyone know that the article as it stands is DONE! The cleanup tag at the top was removed; the Wikiparanormal page was updated; the whole is now very informative, and tightened and tweaked with regard to spelling and grammar. And if one looks at the history page, and overlooks the bad eggs and their vandalizing ways, you will notice there were a lot of people besides me who attempted improvement (I consider someone who comes in and corrects a single mis-spelling to be just as important as one who supplies a whole article). There are good illustrations throughout. And maybe this will bring the grade up from B to A.

This does not mean that there's no more room for improvement. I still feel wee need a bit more detail in history, natural explainations, and popular theories sections of the article. We should also go into some of the links to the famous losses section and work on each article one at a time (I did Cyclops, Flight 19, Marine Sulphur Queen, etc). Always a way to make it better. Carajou 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Of course an article is never complete - they could find Flight 19 tomorrow and make us do lots more writing! Totnesmartin 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes! And there's always new information coming up every so often that can be added. But as it stands, I am comfortable with the fact that someone can access the page and find what he's looking for in this article, and I think that's the bottom line as far as Wikipedia goes. Carajou 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FACTUAL ACCURACY STATEMENT

The statement at the top of the article means just that: there are incidents within the Triangle that are just not confirmed by official sources. What we have to rely on is A) those sources that are readily available from the United States Coast Guard, United States Navy, United States Air Force, NOAA; as well as various news agencies, credible witnesses, and the reports from foreign governments should they become available; and B)the various articles and books specifically about the Triangle from the various authors who have believed the popular stories. Carajou 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of my own opinion, I do not believe the Triangle is this paranormal place that caused a lot of problems, which is why I chose the "both sides" route for this page, i.e. briefly list what is written in the Triangle tales and provide anything official which may dispute it. Some incidents are obviously unsolved, and such incidents should still be listed as a question mark. An example is USS Cyclops, and if one follows the link to its page, they are left with the impression that a) the ship was lost in a storm, or b) the ship was handed over to the Germans, or c) the ship was torpedoed, and all three are based on checks of reliable sources. At no time is there an impression that a space alien took it. Some incidents never happened, so the reader is left with an option that he/she can go to a source listed on the page, or can research a lost vessel through an archived newspaper to see if it actally happened. Carajou 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American spelling vs others?

There's some mild differances in American spelling vs British or Norwegian or...

I spell differance with that 'a', but I could be wrong. The other guys in Britain spell tire tyre...so what do they change o a car? Check out the resulting links to see who's right! Carajou 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, my question is, if they get a flat, where is it changed? But is their flat an apartment, or what happens when they drive over a nail...in Lebanon? One can get a severe headache just thinking about it! Carajou 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
There is always a danger of mixups happening - when I spell checked this article it was for American spelling (as I understand it). An automated reversion of my edit, suitable only for vandalism, didn't make it clear which words I mixed up. I'll give you skeptical and occured (as variants), but not bouy, disappearence, or mean't (I stand to be corrected). Conclusion - don't use automated rollbacks for edits which aren't vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
True. Spell checking is very important. I did a number of errors here that a few have picked up and corrected. Carajou 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If anyone could point out any error in my edit I would be obliged. My guess is that there was nothing wrong with it in either language. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
"Occurred", "buoy", "disappearance", and "meant" are all the predominant spellings in American English, and as far as I'm aware, everywhere it's spoken natively. The OED confirms that "sceptical" is the predominant UK and Commonwealth spelling, and "skeptical" the American spelling.
"Difference" significantly outnumbers "differance" pretty much everywhere, but the OED does note it as a possible alternate spelling. —ptk✰fgs 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's nothing to worry about, and yet still vital, even in the least. If you look at the history, someone just did an incredibly minor punctuation correction on the main article a few minutes ago...all he did was shift the position of a period before a quotation mark. I consider that just as important as if he had remade the article with the credibility of an established author, and it's very much appreciated. Carajou 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On other articles a convention has developed: American articles use American spelling, and British articles use British Spelling. As this is more American than British, we should go with American spellings. Totnesmartin 13:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Graveyard, etc etc Title

A title to the Triangle is "Graveyard of the Atlantic", but it is more correctly used in reference to Cape Hatteras and the area around Sable Island, and both are responsible for a number of sinkings. Good trivia info to make the article more interesting, and the subject more explainale. Carajou 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

explainable! still misspelling words here! Carajou 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia really really really needs a spell checker! Totnesmartin 13:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Might I recommend FireFox 2.0? When typing things into a text box it automatically underlines misspelled words much like Microsoft Office Mr toasty 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In a way, I'd rather not have the automatic spell checker. If you look at the history page, you'll notice I have a habit of going in and doing a lot of adjusting, a lot of tweaking, a lot of fine-tuning, and there's a few more pages that have that. I did that with some fiction that I am currently writing, and I do the same thing here; I like to make an article read better. I just believe that Wikipedia should be a very reliable source for anyone looking up anything. Carajou 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC TV show entry

This is for the individual who made the latest entry in "natural explanations"... If you're going to post something you saw on TV and suddenly post it here, you're going to do several things:

1) You're going to write better English. I didn't work on this article for this long in the way it is now for someone else to place in it something that's written on a 4th grade level.

2) You're going to cite the source exactly. You saw it on TV? What program? What copyright date? Who produced it? And what exactly was the subject you saw? I got a pretty good idea as to which show it was ("Dive the Bermuda Triangle", on A&E), because I knew it was on just a few hours ago...which means he ran to the computer as soon as it was over.

3) The Flight 19 page details what was found in the waters off Florida; there's no need to detail it here, however amateurishly. And what was written just didn't fit in this article in the spot where it was placed. Even your entry on methane bubbles made no sense at all.

So, if you're going to edit stuff on Wikipedia, please follow all of the above! Carajou 12:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice to see a padlock

I looked at the history page, and there seems to be a few people who's sole purpose is to get into articles and damage them, and it's so nice to see that little padlock at the top of the page. Perhaps it's because there's a lot more people who care about the integrity of what's in Wikipedia then those who don't. Carajou 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bimini Road and Edgar Cayce

Someone did a nice little correction/add-on to the "Atlantis" part of the Popular Theories section. While I don't necessarily object, if they are going to state that a Dr. Greg Little uncovered evidence of Atlantis at Bimini, they are going to write down the FACT that Dr. Little has a well-established connection to Edgar Cayce and the Association of Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, Virginia. And it took me less than thirty seconds to run his name through the Yahoo search engine and establish that connection.Carajou 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In all the years of collecting money from customers seeking the winning lottery number, not one psychic has ever won the lottery. Think about that when you read the following:
The scientific method demands not only observation, but experimentation to check the results of a hypothesis. Professional archaeologists have been on the Bimini Road site since 1968. How is it that an individual who is connected with a psychic research facility is able to find what an archaeologist couldn't? How is that when this man claims he's finding evidence underwater, at no time did a professional archaeologist of any kind find a support structure on land? Those questions demand answers, and those answers simply cannot come from a bunch of psychics or anyone connected with them. 72.150.123.48 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Carajou 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grading the Page

This page has a B-grade rating. What does anyone say about changing that...maybe to a B+? Carajou 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) We could nominate it... If I knew how. Totnesmartin 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added it for peer review...I think it's the first step. Carajou 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda Triangle source page

Added this page yesterday, due to the amount of references that are available, which if placed on this page would needlessly over-do it. Carajou 22:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founder vs Flounder

I know that some can get petty when it comes to spelling, including myself. But these same people doing it might not intend to be petty...they just intend to correct what they see as a spelling error. So, from the top...

The word FOUNDER is an old word meant to describe one specific act: that of a sinking ship. Some may also use it to describe what they discover in their underwear drawer after having an emotional upheaval some months before while describing the same object they have lost.

The word FLOUNDER means to flop about uselessly, stagger, etc, usually in reference to a certain ugly fish left by itself on a dock somewhere.

Sooooo, we can and should try our best to use words properly! Carajou 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Acts

I've added a section related to acts by man which could have resulted in losses in the Triangle. This includes war, piracy, acts of wreckers, acts of stubborness, stupidity, etc. Perhaps more can be added to embellish it. Carajou 22:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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]. [3]

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)

[edit] 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)
[4] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[5] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] why

why do boats disappear? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Sources

As this page deals with a contentious issue I think that it might be a good if somebody went through and sourced them to a book or journal etc before this page starts attracting Tag and WP:V nazi.

I'd do it myself, but I don't know enough about most of the incidents to do so accurately.

perfectblue 08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I did as much sourcing as I could and had it listed on the Bermuda Triangle source page, as there's just no room in the article. I'm still finding stuff and adding to it. Carajou 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A re-make of the article

Ok, this article needs to be a FEATURED ARTICLE, with that little barnstar in the upper-right corner, so I think there's more that can be done. So, here's some suggestions:

  • Since this article is about the Bermuda Triangle, the various books on the subject should be treated as primary sources and placed in first position in all subheadings. If one has any of these books, like the Berlitz version, cite it where needed.
  • A rebuke should follow in second position, and that includes anything which clearly contradicts what the Triangle writers have said, like the newspapers I cited. If there is no separate article on an incident, such as the KC-135 takers, we should go into detail here about it.
  • If there is a genuine mystery with any given incident (like the Witchcraft), say so. If the incident in question is found only within the Triangle books and no where else, say so. If the Coast Guard has admitted such, say so.
  • Go into as much detail as you can on any subheading...here's what the Triangle says...here's what the facts say...something like that.

This is just a suggestion, and I'm sure someone has a better idea. Carajou 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not near featured-article status yet, as a large number of the reports have not yet been "digested" with the original source material, as you've said before. Likewise, several WP:Paranormal writers have shared my criticism of the article being biased-POV toward skepticism of the disappearances, which ARE strange . Whether liked or not, there ARE strange events in the region...and point blank, as my own assertion, the military and Coast Guard claims of the region being just as safe as any other can't be trusted not to lie about it, if they lie with ease on other things so blatantly. In any case...a lot more work before any FA talk. Still waiting for the Pogo 22 info, btw. --Chr.K. 10:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Expect 6 to 8 months for any reports; it's that way with Flight 19 via the Naval Historical Center. I don't know what the Air Force is. But, should you or anyone decide to get one, ask for it to be placed on a CD as a PDF file, and have it uploaded to the WikiCommons, if that's possible. Carajou 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility problem

I don't like the recent news on TV or the papers about Wikipedia's image. I don't need to repeat what happened, but it does ulimately reflect on us, the average editor, as to content in any given article. In this particlar article some of you are mad at me because I have insisted on sticking to the facts and insisting on documentation. I think the problem is partially my fault because it alters the Wikipedia policy of neutrality; it makes it lean toward one side at the expense of the other.

But the point is I want this article to be the best it can be, where there's just no questioning its credibility. I want the average student who is doing a research paper on the Triangle confident that he can use this article as a well-written source. It means also that I have to swallow some pride here, drop my own personal beliefs in the subject (I don't believe in it, by the way!), and make it better. What say you? Carajou 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if someone loses their credibility, then anything they say will be tainted. Even if they cite their edits, someone could say it's a selective citation. Ultimately, they would have to leave off editing. I've steered clear of major edits on Mothman (a favourite subject of mine), after being accused of bias. I just didn't want to have to justify myself or my work every time. Incidentally my name really is Martin and I really do live in Totnes! Totnesmartin 20:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Do the edits anyway, both major and minor. If you know you have the facts, documentation, and other stuff to bolster your argument, then you can't go wrong. And the supposedly tainted stuff by a dis-credited writer...it can be used provided that we can look up the sources that may back it up. And I'm Brian, and I live in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, just a stone's throw away from the Battle of Stones River. Carajou 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Brian? I prefer Carajou. Perhaps you change your real name... Totnesmartin 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought about changing it a long time ago, but the county court where I went thought "Herbert Dinwiddie" was too laughable, so I gave up! Carajou 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest newspaper story with the name "Bermuda Triangle"

I went through Proquest's newspapers again, looking for the oldest newspaper report on a missing aircraft, ship, whatever, and the incident in question had to have the words "Bermuda Triangle" as part of the story. The search was limited to the New York Times (not much of a choice with Proquest...I would like to see many others), and the search was limited between the dates 01/01/1960 to 01/01/1975. All that came up were advertizements for vacations on Bermuda, as well as the Berlitz book being on the New York Times best seller list for the end of November, 1974. No incidents at all. None. Nada.

That means the oldest newspaper account in which the writer uses the words "Bermuda Triangle" to describe a disappearance has to be the SS Sylvia L. Ossa, which went down south of Bermuda in 1976. I put up references on both the Bermuda Triangle source page and SS Marine Sulphur Queen, as they were sister ships. But again, that is limited to dates I entered while searching through the New York Times alone.

The point of all that is I want to see references to the oldest Triangle writings. We have Gaddis listed here; we have George X. Sand referenced, and a few others who have made their marks in magazines. I thought it would be interesting to have the reader see the oldest use of a newspaper entry with the Triangle title directly related to a disappearence. What say you? Carajou 04:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freak Waves

I moved the section on Freak Waves to the Natural Explanations section, as this is a natural explanation. Why it was previously under Popular Explanations, I do not know. It may be popular, but it fits better under natural phenomena. Thelastemperor 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally placed it there, possibly as it was one of the popular theories regarding the incidents...but it still works where you placed it. I also moved the related pic to go with it. Carajou 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation on methane concentration

This sentence is requesting a cite: "Methane also has the ability to cause a piston engine to stall when released into the atmosphere even at an atmospheric concentration as low as 1%[citation needed]" under Methane Hydrates. I saw it on the show Dive to Bermuda Triangle on The Science Channel. Is that a reputable cite? MDfoo 02:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/Talk%7EBermuda_Triangle_eb47.html"