Talk:Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 article.

Article policies
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Is this conspiracy for real? Sheesh. -Joseph (Talk) 05:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Hard to accept, but so it is... --Raistlin 18:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I once read in a magazine that many of the Italian Air Force officers who handled this case have been killed in automobile accidents or suddenly died while being in perfect health; which argues for conspiracy theories. Then, the same article said that the search for debris on the ocean ground has been carried out by US intelligence officials using a French vessel; Italian officials and those of other NATO countries could not review the debris found. Even an air-air-missile has been recovered from the ocean base - but one that was introduced into military use after the accident happened. I'm sorry that I can't remember which magazine it was, but I really don't read those about UFOs and aliens! :-) --Keimzelle 08:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

IAF officers sudden deaths: true (and sad). Search of the debris by a french vessel later suspected of being a US/NATO coverup: true. Time-travelling missile: first time I hear of it, but I'm less inclined to believe it :p. --Raistlin 10:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


It probably was a coverup by the Italian Air Force --Smoth_007

Contents

[edit] See also

Is there a good reason for links to some of those other flights? How do they relate? We've got a suicide, a couple actual shoot downs, an exploding gas tank, and a CFIT. -HiFiGuy 22:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] film

I would like to add that there is a good Italian Movie about this subject. It is called Il Muro di Gomma. It is the history of 10 years after the disaster and it is inspired by the memories of the journalist that was writing about it in Il Corriere della Sera

Fabio

[edit] Article name

It's bizarre to title the article Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 when the incident is known in Italy as "Ustica" or "The Ustica Disaster" or the "Ustica Affair" or "Ustica Tragedy" etc. No one calls it "Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870". See the corresponding it.wiki article for example which is titled "Strage di Ustica".

In English it is common to refer to such incidents by the flight code. For example, Flight 800, Flight 77, etc. In the UK, the Guardian Newspaper recently ran a story called "The mystery of flight 870" [1], although its possible that the choice of title was influenced by this wikipedia article. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added some info and removed some

I'm the original creator of this article, I would like to apoligise for the lack of sources and the confusion - I created this under a different account when I was still a new wikipedian. I removed some unecessary unformation and added some. Its not really much but it is much clearer now that before. --James Bond 06:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories and "connecting the dots"

"Connecting the dots" is not permitted under Wikipedia rules; it constitutes original research. As such, the conspiracy theory section violates Wikipedia policy. See [2] Morton devonshire 01:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This information is not Original Research. It is taken directly form the sources and references listed. This includes the synthesis. Please see the sources and references before jumping to conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The synthesis you point to is contained in a self-published website, which is not a reputable source under Wikipedia rules. See WP:RS. Morton devonshire 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The same information is contained in "Natos Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, by Daniele Ganser" Self-Described Seabhcán 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the publication for that? Needs to be an objective media source with editorial oversight to qualify under Wikipedia sourcing rules. Morton devonshire 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Nato's Secret Armies" is an acedemic work published by Routledge (formally "Franc Cass Publishers"). The author is Dr Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not qualified to judge the reliability of that source. I'm not familiar with the publication or the publisher. Morton devonshire 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as the wikipedia article on Routledge starts: "[It] is one of the most important European imprints for social sciences." I think it passes WP:RS. Dr. Ganser hasn't published anything else in English, however, his institution is extremely prestigious, having produced 20 Nobel Prize winners, including Einstein. Self-Described Seabhcán 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the book's foreward again: the contents are actually an edited version of Dr. Ganser's PhD thesis. ETH Zurich awarded him a doctorate for this work, thus lending their considerable reputation to his conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flight Transcript

This part of the flight transcript is a reference to the fact that the navigational beacons in Italy were turned off that evening. I recall hearing at the time that turning off the beacons was standard procedure when military jets were dogfighting over Italy. The idea was to remove from the Libyan jets the opportunity to navigate by civilian beacons. Does anyone remember where this news report could be found online these days?

"F/O Yes...neither Ponza is working ? We've found a graveyard this evening; coming from Firenze we didn't find one beacon working properly.
Rome ACC In fact, everything is a bit out, Ponza too. What's your heading now?"

[edit] Reputable websites

The site that "confutes" (I think "refutes" would do just as nicely) the bomb theory/evidence is a self-published page on Geocities. My Italian is practically non-existant, but from what little I know it doesn't seem in that academic a tone - with plenty of rethorical questions, it reads like the average JFK conspiracy website. Perhaps a native Italian speaker, unbiased in the incident, can comment? Even so, if the page is self-published, according to the discussion above it shouldn't be included. --70.108.140.252 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)