Talk:Flight 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Flight 19 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents


[edit] Call letters

what did they do when the first people dissapeared.

I thought the five planes were discovered earlier this year (2005) ?

Actually I think the five planes were found in 1991, not 1981; see Newsweek for 27.05 1991.

They had the wrong call letters...which begs the question of what other group of five planes has ever been recorded as going down completely, that close together. More mystery rather than less, from it. Btw, please sign comments, it would help in possibly inviting you to join WP Paranormal, if you'd like to help. --Chr.K. 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur...I recall there was some minor hype about having found 5 planes all together (or very close, under the circumstances), but they were not the Flight 19 planes. But, the article went on to mention that there were numerous Avengers lost off Florida, as well as other plane types. It had to do with it being a major training area before, during, and after WW2.
Let's face it, Florida is all about coastline. And coastline means ocean. And that leads into transportation (recreational, commercial, or whatever), which means losses you can't see or find, back then... Add to it the early stages of air transport - over water in this case - and you get the real explanantion for the "Bermuda Triangle"...Engr105th 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Verification and sourcing

There are some references to support certain facts reported here, but it is not clear to readers which sources support which facts. Also, there appear to be some facts which are not sourced at all, especially about later findings. For instance, this claim seems particularly extraordinary:

In 1981 the wreckage of five Avengers was discovered off the coast of Florida , but it was found later from serial numbers on engine blocks that they were not Flight 19. The five tightly grouped Avengers had crashed on five different days in the exact same spot.

It may very well be true, but if so it would be appropriate to cite the most reliable source possible, and explain in more detail. -- Beland 10:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it's true, as I was just watching a Discovery Channel special about the Bermuda Triangle, which talked about Flight 19, and a submarine designed who had found the wreckage of five plains he believed to be Flight 19. Though, as it was said, that was disproved, and was not actually Flight 19.

Also worth noting - the reference for the Mariner being a flying gas tank does not refer to an independant source (the source is arguing against any other explanation). Can anyone provide a site that substantiates this claim that is not related to Flight 19 ? I was unable to find one (that does not refer to the site quoted in this article) using Google. One would assume that if this is a common or widely known description for this type of aircraft that there would be a non-domain specific reference to it. shaneg70
There are quite a few regulations in place in the Navy regarding smoking: when, where, for how long, etc. Onboard ships the phrase "the smoking lamp is lit in the starboard break" means one can smoke there and only there. Smoking is forbidden whenever fuel or fumes from fuel are present. The construction of the Mariner was such that the plane had weak points which allowed just enough fumes to enter the fuselage; not enough to jeopardize life, but enough to warrant a posted order forbidding anyone from lighting up inside the aircraft. As to the plane's "flying gas tank" nickname, well, nicks are just not written down. There are plenty of unofficial nicknames, past and present, for military ships, aircraft. One of my ships was called the "Tough-Tender", but you'll never find it by using that name online; you will find it by entering USS Shenandoah AD-44. Carajou 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if I remember the name of the documentary, but it showed that the bermuda triangle is one giant magnetic field that messes with compasses. This might have been the case with [Flight 19], in the same documentary they used a working Avenger to find out if it was the case. It (the test Avenger) was not outfitted with any new technology, only the compasses used by Flight 19. To repeat, I forget the name (of the documentation) but it exists, it may give us a clue to Flight 19's fate. Recent idiot
I too have seen these "documentaries". But I'd point out that most of these (Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc) are geared toward entertainment. They blend fact with heresay evidence, and the subtle intention is to increase the controversy, not make a definitive statement. Let's face it - theres a limit to how in-depth one can go in an hour long (or half hour long) TV program....My belief is 1) there is limited, if any, solid evidence for 'compass failure' and 2) in an open ocean area without landmark references, the tendency is for pilots or navigators to declare "instrument malfunction" when they think they're headed in a direction contrary to what the instruments say....I've heard similar disclaimers in the Army on the rifle range during Weapons Qualification - the first excuse a soldiers makes when he's firing badly is that "the rifle isn't shooting straight" (meaning 'theres something wrong with my rifle'). But- the rifle doesn't know how not to shoot straight! In other words, its the the human element that comes into play. Its the same with reading a compass - its pretty rare that a compass 'malfunctions' especially over long distance travel. Just my 2 cents worth...Engr105th 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adding names

Someone added on his own account someone named "Shipman" to one of the planes in Flight 19. This is one of the problems besides vandalism here. You have people who never bother to check records; never bother to check facts; never bother to study history related to these incidents; never bother to study anything remotely resembling history; yet they think that they can post a line here as if it was completely factual. As to an individual named "Shipman": there is no one named Shipman connected with Flight 19; no one named Shipman connected with Training 49; no one named Shipman on the memorial plaque at the former NAS Ft Lauderdale base; and there is no one named Shipman listed on the official records of Flight 19. Click this link to see for yourself:[1] Carajou 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Myth"

The term "Bermuda Triangle myth" at the top of the page is not NPOV. A myth is a claim unbacked by scientific study. Gian Quasar has done historical study of the bizarre nature of the disappearances in recent decades in the Triangle-region, in his volume Into the Bermuda Triangle, copyright 2004. --Chr.K. 08:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading this material, I am struck by how naive it seems to be on the nature of the flight, and the strangeness of the activity of what transpired within it; regardless of the eventual likelihood of the planes crashing into the sea, the original causes for disorientation of the flight was quite assuredly not a "prosaic" one. --Chr.K. 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
A myth is a myth if there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate it is not a myth. The myth is that the Bermuda Triangle has been the location of a disproportionally higher number of aircraft or ship disappearances/disasters than anywhere else. There is no evidence to support that myth when actual facts are applied. To use your words, "I am struck by how naive" someone can be to need to try to invent mysterious reasons why four aircraft got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. It happens. Moriori 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect on every front; not only are there more incidents in the "Bermuda Triangle" region than elsewhere, the Coast Guard is notoriously tight-lipped on the subject of how to deal with the matters. "Overdue" is a reason given on planes that have vanished off the radar screen in single passes of the scope. Planes have been founded ditched, but with the doors locked and the keyes still in the ignition. I don't recall anyone ever jumping from a plane and locking the door tightly behind them. In any case, do you wish me to give the litany of the events here, or on the Bermuda Triangle page, one after another? My concern is that the page will become somewhat difficult to load after the 150th section. --Chr.K. 08:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I here offer a "compromise" of sorts; "legendarium" is a word now present that means 'developed mythos'. Whether or not anyone agrees to the validity of such mythos, the flight WAS a foundational point for its development. That at least, is verifiably NPOV and objective. --Chr.K. 10:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Legendarium is a bit twee, but I'll go for legend if it makes you happy. This article is about Flight 19, NOT the Bermuda triangle. We obviously mention it, because that's where the aircraft ditched, but in the intro we should certainly NOT link to a book and says in its second sentence that the author was "the first person to really investigate this phenomenal disappearance with an eye to putting in order what really happened." That's bollocks. The navy board of enquiry thoroughly investigated the incident, and determined what actually happened - they got lost, ran out of gas, and ditched. I've noted your remarks about the Coast Guard, and other comments. Please provide irrefutable evidence. Moriori 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Technically there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. I can refute the claim that everyone in the world has to die someday, and claim that it need be only a matter of time before science finds a way to make humans immortal. There is no way to refute either claim, in such case; likewise, no other claim is beyond refutation. Providing substantial evidence, on the other hand? That I will do. Be warned, however: putting the direct litany of events as they transpired into the page may make it seem to contradict itself, claiming that it is both easy to explain and an intractable mystery of why, for instance, all their compasses pointed west while sending them far north, to a position tracked by Fort Lauderdale as roughly 200 miles due east of Jacksonville. --Chr.K. 07:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel I need to chip in, here. You are correct, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence - that is one of the foundations of science, but where is the burden of proof, here? If you make a claim which contradicts all accepted theories of reality, such as your claim of "no death", then the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your claim; it is not up to me to prove you wrong. I could claim that there are blue Giraffes in Africa which turn invisible when humans approach, and you could not prove than wrong. That does not make my claim reality, though.
Likewise, there is not reason to believe any claim of paranormal activity in the triangle. From all accounts I have read, only one compass went awry, not all of them. It was the instructor who got lost - the students seemed to have a fair idea of where they were, but he did not listen to them. If he did, they would have survided.
Please, do some research, if only to try to prove me wrong, but consider all the reported facts on equal grounds, then ask yourself, which version is the simplest, makes most sense, and fits our current understanding of reality. Qarnos 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
After due consideration of all the facts surrounding the location, it is quite evident to me that attempts to explain what happened to both Flight 19 and a large number of other disappearances in the area (including but not limited to the rather documented disappearances, all without any reasonable trace, of a C-54 in 1947, the on-page loss of the Star Tiger in 1948, two DC-3s, the NC16002 and N407D in 1949, Star Tiger's sister plane Star Ariel under almost exactly the same circumstances in 1949 [the second incident causing the model, perfectly working in nearly all other cases, to be removed from open service], an R7V-1 termedFlight 441 in 1954, a Martin Marlin in 1956, the Stategic Air Command B-52 Pogo 22 in 1961, the KB-50 tanker Tyler 41 in 1962, two KC-135 Stratotankers in 1962 and 1965 respectively, two C-133 Cargomasters, the largest aircraft in the Air Force at that time, in 1962 and 1963, and a C-119 Flying Boxcar in 1965. Be aware, these are all cases of military aircraft vanishing without trace, and pared down to roughly 10% of what's available for note, for readability sake...the civilian 'overdue' list is much, much longer, and the list of derelict vessels, some of which having the key still in the ignition, and both doors locked) by mundane means are in such denial of given facts as to make explanations like Mr. Kusche's, and others', all but ludicrous. In the end, I suggest you research the events in depth, and come up with explanations for air traffic controllers (as I've mentioned elsewhere) losing all radio and radar contact with aircraft more than 30,000 ft. up in a single pass of a radar scope (one of the most documented of cases occuring 1979). --Chr.K. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
On further review, something else of note; would your blue giraffes in Africa that turn invisible be backed up by the claims of more than 1,000 people over the period of a quarter of a century? If so, then I would actually be willing to give credence to your claim, for the sake of scientific study alone. --Chr.K. 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't really want to be dragged into this discussion, but I have to ask — what exactly is it that "is quite evident" to you, Chr.K.? After writing 185 words in your opening sentence to the first of your two postings immediately above, you apparently forgot to include the verb clause that identifies what happened to the "attempts to explain what happened to Flight 19, or a large number of other disappearances in the area". Could you complete that thought? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies; have attempted to fix it for you. Basically, to say it in vastly simpler words, mundane explanations for the verifiably inexplicable, as well as claims that certain explanations should be marginalized by default, are a disservice to science as a whole. --75.2.22.184 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this discussion should only be about Flight 19, and (unfortunately for fans of the paranormal) in this case there is a mundane explanation - it is called pilot disorientation. After the turn to North, the instructor did not see the island formations he expected (because the turn occured later than it should have), and decided that he was looking at the Florida Keys. From this, he concluded that his compass was "out", because it didn't agree with the direction he arbitrarily decided they were now heading in. He didn't say the compass was "spinning", or "wandering", and the evidence indicates that all the compasses were working fine. The instructor is is a classic case of someone sticking to a belief even when presented with evidence proving them wrong. A simple explanation for an unfortunate incident. Logicman1966 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes and Navy report link

I've created a "Footnotes" section to accomodate a bit of sourced information that clarifies the grouping of the non-Flight 19 Avengers found off Ft. Lauderdale — within 1.5 miles of each other, not "the exact same spot" that was previously claimed. (Hyperbolic exaggeration is a common problem with popular tales of mysterious incidents.) This amply demonstrates why it's so critical to obtain reliable, verifiable sources for articles. It's a very good idea in articles about controversies to add references to specific statements, as had already been done for the Navy investigation mentioned in the intro paragraph.

I changed the Navy link into a footnote that provides the same link primarily because of two problems: limitations of some source information and limitations of wiki markup. Some sources, as the video program I cite for the Avenger grouping, do not lend themselves to direct links as the Navy data does. The markup problem occurs because of the way WP handles footnotes. The video-source link causes a numbering problem because footnotes share their link numbers with raw URLs. Therefore, if you're going to use footnotes, you need to convert unlabelled external links to footnotes as well. (An alternative is to add the full citation in the text, but that is cumbersome and interferes with the flow of the text.)

This might seem a bit more work to some, as a reader must now click on the footnote number for the Navy info to get the footnote, which then includes the URL for the cited article. I might not have done this if the article already had proper citations of specific information, but as it currently stands, it really needs more of these links, so a proper footnote section is justified. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious?. You deliberately eliminate a single link action to create two distinct actions. I am reverting to the logical link. If you believe there are other link problems, then fix them. I refuse to accept this dumbing down of Wiki. Moriori 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC).
Please calm yourself, Moriori. This isn't dumbing down anything. The link is still there. What this is is improving the references of Wikipedia articles. If you hadn't noticed, many WP articles are far below the cornerstone standard of verifiability through reliable sources. Just do a "Random article" walk some time to see how many articles are stubs, and how many of the remainder cite no sources whatsoever. Even the ones with so-called sources are usually links to obscure websites that don't come close to being reliable sources. As I write this, this article claims only three sources, one of which I added (reliable but not easy to access), one which is the Navy report (reliable), and an air-show site (far below usual reliabilty standards). There was no specific source cited for any of the "Bermuda Triangle" information until I added my semi-satisfactory one. We could still use some additional sources, like a citation of a Berlitz book that sets out his claims.
That said, I'm not wedded to the footnoting of the Navy link. I just want to make sure that any non-inline references are adequately documented without confusing the reader with missing numbers or broken links (which is the current state of the article after your last edit). And whether or not the Navy link is a bare one, it should be listed as a source of information. Based on my quick perusal of that URL, I'd say it's a rather critical one, supplying most of the facts cited in the article. It should be properly documented, and is now. All we need to do is agree on how to present the inline link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I've resolved this issue to both our satisfactions. Based on the most current recommendations at Wikipedia:Footnotes, I've replaced the note/ref templates with ref/reference XHTML tags, which now automatically generate proper references. Because it really isn't a footnote per se, I've moved the info on the Navy report to a new "References" section, which provides proper citation while leaving Moriori's bare URL link in place. Hopefully we can all be happy now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV inferences removed

I deleted two parargaphs which lamely tried to justify the POV statement that “an anomaly involving abnormal forces was responsible for the disaster”. Some of my reasons are:

  • There has been absolutely no evidence cited for the claim that the navy “were careful to omit” details from its findings
  • It is preposterous to say the enquiry gave no consideration to the fact that Flight 19 was actually exercising over the Bahama Cays -- that was Flight 19’s actual mission
  • There was absolutely no mystery about lack of radio tringulation for the enquiry board to address as claimed. What is mysterious about aircraft radio message breaking up, being interfered with by Cuban radio stations, and eventually disappearing because the aircraft flew out of strong radio signal range and ended up in the sea?
  • Why did the flight leader need to ask for radar to be switched on? Because it was peace time, when radar wasn’t the 24/7 aid it is now. And even if it could have been used, they would have initially been looking for aircraft out west of Florida because that’s where the leader erroneously said they were.

Speculation? No more so than the two conspiracy theory/paranormal paragraphs I have deleted. They sucked. Moriori 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand the point being made here by Moriori unless he has some personal axe to grind rather than serve the interests of Wikipedia. How would the "radio stations" of liberal (not Communist until the 1950s) Cuba interfere with radio transmissions in the Atlantic? Radar is not really relevant. The unresolved question is the radio triangulation, or lack of it. USN radio bearing apparatus in use at the time was able to obtain the bearing of a transmission in the Atlantic lasting only three seconds. Wherever these aircraft were, triangulation should have been possible, and an explanation of why this was not possible is the very matter which Moriori lamely invents, and the USN Board of Enquiry was "careful to omit". Geoffreybrooks
Please post here your evidence that the USN Board of Enquiry carefully omitted to explain why triangulation was not achieved. Moriori 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs to redirect to this article

"Flight Nineteen", which doesn't exist, needs to redirect. I did a search on "Flight Nineteen" instead of Flight 19 and did not get any results, I was going to give up--Gakhandal 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, when you post an original comment to a talk page, your message goes at the bottom, not the top. Cheers. 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Moriori
Thank you, Much appreciated. I know about new messages going on the bottom (its just logic), I tried but it seemed to delete and "# 4 POV inferences removed" when I previewed the page, and I couldn't find out what the reason was. I was sure I did not delete it when I created this comment.. I tried putting on top and it worked. Excuse me for that.--Gakhandal 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral wording

Regarding "However, that is totally false," in Bermuda Triangle connection section.

A more neutral (and encyclopaedic) stance to the statement of falsity is desirable. Currently it looks more like a personal opinion than a fact. --Acolyte of Discord 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the line in favor of something neutral and readable. Carajou 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopefully improved

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


[edit] Inquiry problem

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


[edit] FT FT

The direct reference I found for this mysterious, final message is from the New York Times, dated December 6, 1945, and was available to me from Proquest, which is a newspaper and other information cataloging service. Unfortunately, the service is password-oriented, available via colleges and universities. I was able to see it through the portal at the James Walker Library, Middle Tennessee State University[2]. Carajou 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia crash site problem

Found this little line today in the trivia section: "Late Last year, Scientists have found flight 19 in a swamp in Georgia. They matched the numbers found on the wreckage to the no=umbers of the planes in the reports about flight 19 after the disapperance." There are no references, no dates, no signature. The individual posting it did not cite sources (i.e. newspapers), nor did he provide actual documentation needed for this site, such a photograph of the site showing an engine block number that could be matched and verified as coming from the missing flight. I've never heard of this happening at all, and I've been interested in Flight 19 for years. It was removed as being not only non-factual, but in my opinion, totally made up. Carajou 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Navy sources vs others

Too much emphasis is given over to the Bermuda Triangle rather than to solid facts, and that pretty much sums up every Triangle incident that happened before and since.

There are two official Navy reports on the matter, one dated 26 December 1945, and the other dated March or April, 1946 (I have to get a hold of the actual report to be sure). The first one has the entire transcripts of the radio communications between Flight 19 and NAS Ft Lauderdale, and between Training 49 and NAS Banana River. There is nothing in this report indicating anything remotely supernatural. Responsibility for the loss of the flight was placed on the flight leader, Lt Taylor.

The second report was done on the demands of Lt. Taylor's mother, who did not like, nor would she tolerate, an official report blaming her son for the loss of five planes and fourteen men, especially when there was no evidence or bodies produced. The Navy subsequently changed its finding to "cause unknown". Again, there was nothing in the second report hinting at the supernatural.

I also added a similar anology to Flight 19, and that was the Diamond Crash involving the USAF Thunderbirds that took place in 1982; the similarity was that they played "follow the leader" to the end. I apologize to both the USAF and USN for a poor choice of words, but I cannot think of anything better in describing a situation in which pilots could have left a formation on their own to avoid a loss of life.

I would like very much to get a link to the Navy reports, but it's not available yet, unless one buys it from the Historical center and starts scanning all five hundred pages. Carajou 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You immediately assume the situation is being accused of being supernatural, simply because those like I state it to be unexplained to this day. Both Taylor's compasses were reported out; the likelihood of both failing at the same time is suspect, but acceptable. Why could a consensus not be reached when he asked for a read from others? Did all the compasses fail? Most curious. Why did the directional fix (which is shown in the article) pick them up far to the east of Jacksonville? The compasses, again (or at least those of the leader/leaders), had to have been reading irrationally, as north was never once mentioned as a rational direction to go in the intraflight chatter. This, again, is not "supernatural": it would be a magnetic anomaly of indeterminate origin, and such anomalies have been encountered other times. Later foolish imbellishment by storytellers mucked up the proverbial waters, yes...but the basis of the material remains as some highly curious events, not least of which being why they didn't just follow the setting sun to head west, and instead wound up so bloody northward. --Chr.K. 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem I don't have is with someone who states such and such loss was unexplained; this conclusion acceptable, and it's based on lack of wreakage, witnesses, bodies, etc. For this article to state it explicitly is also acceptable. But the problem I do have are those who wish to invent fantastic or b.s. stories to explain this loss, and the wording they choose to use either ignores the official reports or twists them altogther to make it seem to say something it does not. That is why we as editors here have a duty to collect the facts and post them; we have a duty to find and post the origins of the every story related to it and what they have been saying; and we have a duty to find and post the official records as well. So, if you know of any other stories about Flight 19, post them, cite them...make the article that much more interesting...perhaps expanding the "Bermuda Triangle connection" subheading, which I think is pretty dull anyway. Carajou 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's also another reason for getting the Navy reports. The communications between Flight 19, Flight 74, and NAS Lauderdale were recorded and transcribed. The communications between NAS Banana River and Training 49 were also transcribed. The logbook of USS Solomons, the carrier which saw Training 49 disappear off radar, is also available. I've done the logbooks to four ships in my time, and the Navy demands accuracy and attention to detail, as they are legal documents. I don't like what is transcribed as coming from Taylor that is in this article, and I know it comes from the Navy brief supplied by the Naval Historical Center; some of the transcriptions could also have come from any one of the Triangle books, and we all know how accurate they were, which isn't saying much. We can get into a lot of detail for this article. Carajou 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Chain of Command

I have no knowledge of this topic other than what's in the article, but it raised an obvious question. The sequence of events, and the radio chatter described, strongly points to the conclusion that the students knew what they should do, but were reluctant to challenge the instructor or break formation and fly west. The article obviously suggests this as a conclusion without ever quite joining the dots. It seems this should be more directly tackled: did the enquiry, for example, form a view as to whether a reluctance to challenge the flight leader had contributed to the deaths? Or would the navy just bot go down that road? (ie suggesting that in some circumstances the chain of command should be challenged). Just wondering - at the moment it seems the article merely alludes to something that would be better tackled head on.--Cinephobia 00:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Navy, and the other branches of the military, personnel of all ranks are sworn to obey all lawful orders from their superiors. Very rarely is an unlawful order given, and even then the rank and file is so ingrained with discipline and following orders that unlawful orders are rarely disobeyed. In this case, you have to remember that there was one individual piloting an aircraft with more than 2,500 hours of flying time, and one individual with proven combat experience: Lt Taylor. None of the others, faced with that one obvious fact, dared to peel off on their own. Carajou 05:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Carajou is correct, re: lawful orders, etc. One problem with Flight 19 is the students, far as I can tell, only knew Taylor as an "instructor, with combat experience". It is unlikely they were aware he had a 'habit' (for lack of better term, here) of getting lost and had ditched planes before. If they had known that, its far more likely one of students(who are officers themselves) would have taken initiative and broken formation. Note the names/ranks in the article - there are two USMC Captains (grade O-3). Thats equal to a Navy Lt (Taylor). A young 2Lt or Lt(jg) would be even less likely to question the instructor. And it sounds like there was radio discussion/argument over the options - the Marines at least would know basic map reading and compass use...
But, another problem is the timing: Once you've gone too far astray, the window of opportunity to correct is permanently lost, no matter what you decide, due to fuel. And thats the part the trainees would have no experience in dealing with...My guess is Taylor became disoriented after the practice bombing run. Sad situation, all around...
(PS - notice the map of "Navigation Problem 1". It does not appear to be terribly difficult. Anyone have any info on how new the trainees were? In my experience - Army, using map/compass on land nav - the biggest problem is soldiers not trusting the compass - in the case of a flyer, I'm told that translates to not trusting his instruments. Thats when you start hearing things like "my compass isn't working", things don't "look right", etc). Sorry for the long post.... Engr105th 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Is it true that a nurse (Margaret Wheeler)at the naval station claimed one of the flyers (LtJG Edward Meehan)did indeed break off, spotted a huge, "blue-green" (his description)whirlwind in the clouds, reported this, and was told he didnt see anything; actually made it back to the naval base and was hospitalized for "mental exhaustion"? Also that he was confined for over 3 months, never saw his friends or family (who apparently were never told he survived), and after being discharged was never seen again? Is there anything to support that? I can't find it!

No, it's not true. It's a later invention by someone wishing to add to the Triangle stories. Navy records accounted for all the aircraft in-flight and on the ground that day, and the only ones missing were the five in Flight 19 from Ft Lauderdale, and the Mariner from Banana River NAS. In fact, the Triangle stories really got off the ground in the early 1970s with a slew of books on the subject, and not one of them mentions Wheeler or Meehan. Carajou 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There's also a curious little ditty about the one who got sick and decided to stay off the flight. According to Richard Winer in The Devil's Triangle it was Cpl Allan Kosnar; according to Adi-Kent Thomas Jeffrey in The Bermuda Triangle it was a man named Eagle Boloton. Someone's right, or someone's wrong...or both are wrong. The reason both skip the flight is based on premonition, which adds an additional aura of mystery to that aura of mystery that these writers have spun into the subject. Carajou 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added rendering of FT-28

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

[edit] "Summer of 2006"?

One of the problems with editing of any article on Wikipedia is that there is always someone who has to feel they must add a bit of info, but without elaboration or supporting content. For example, the "Mission" block of this article was changed at the end to state that nothing more was heard from Flight 19 until the summer of 2006. And that's it.

Just what exactly was referenced for the "summer of 2006"? Did anyone from Flight 19 return a phone call last summer? Did anyone from Flight 19 walk into a Wal-Mart and buy kitchen towels? Was a wing removed from one of the planes and made into a surfboard for someone in Miami Beach? Pardon my sarcasm, but this is another example, not of vandalism, but of an individual who made something up and thought it be a good idea to express his own importance in adding that non-sensical line rather than stressing the importance of the article itself and backing it up with the required info which could have shead some light on what he thought happened with Flight 19 in the "summer of 2006". Give us all a break! Carajou 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone came up with a theory, is what is being claimed. Unfortunately, the juicy details of what these ground-breaking facts are remain shrouded in someone's mind, and unavailable to us at present. That said...you're absolutely right, and its inclusion in the work is basically pointless. --Chr.K. 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thunderbirds

On the surface the comparison seems sound, two separate incidents where wingmen followed the leader to death in formation. The problem is, that when flying formation the wingmen concentrate on staying as close to their leader as directed which is easier siad than done anyway. Flight 19 was probably in a loose formation, meaning a good distance apart because there is no need to be in tight (close) formation on a training mission. The Thunderbirds (and Blue Angels, and really any aerial demonstration team) fly REALLY tight formation. It's incredibly difficult and to get an idea, imagine having to tailgate a car at times by less than a foot around a race track at 150 mph. Then imagine having to do it going 420 mph in a climbing loop. Here are a couple of pictures to give you an idea what I mean:

diamond formation
diamond formation
tight formation
tight formation

. The wingmen would've simply not had enough time to realize and do anything about the fact that the lead aircraft wasn't going to pull up.

Flight 19 happened over a period of hours, at any given minute they could have broken off from Taylor. The Thunderbirds didn't have that luxury. Anynobody 10:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 19

(Moved from my talk page) If you insist that specific details of the PBM should be included in the lead -- not forgetting that the death toll from that aircraft is already mentioned in the lead - then I will insist that all other pertinent details are included as well, such as the ship etc. Moriori 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the info about it you want to include would be appropriate for the lead section, if it were true that all pertinent info should be included about anything mentioned in the lead then more info about flight 19 should be in it too (The HF/DF fix, FT-74, etc.). The BuNo name should be in the lead though, since there is a section devoted to it. Anynobody 20:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flew Off to Mars

"flew off to Mars" Maybe this incident is connected to other unexplaiable ones such as the one in Aurora Texas [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.155.8 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, because there is nothing unexplainable about the loss of Flight 19. It was pilot disorientation, plain and simple. There is no evidence that the pilots saw, heard, or experienced anything unusual. Logicman1966 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

What were you thinking with your recent edits to Flight 19? I reverted them because they are unhelpful. Moriori 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with articles should really be discussed on that article's talk page. Which is where I'm moving this thread from my talk page.
Would you please read Wikipedia:Lead section and explain how mentioning important aspects of the article in the lead section is unhelpful?

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

Anynobody 08:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you get a grip on reality. The existing intro admirably met requirements. Had all following text somehow been excised, that intro would still have given a fair precis of the story. Your amended intro fell far short of encapsulating the story, and included info that didn't need to be mentioned until later. Also, it was poorly written. Moriori 08:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore -- do not state your POV in the article that the OIC suffered from "confusion" or "irrational fears". The ref makes absolutely no mention of it. Moriori 08:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

also from my talk page,

Maybe. But I think its needs stating here as well -- do not state your POV that the OIC suffered from "confusion" or "irrational fears". The ref makes absolutely no mention of it. Moriori 08:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually it does,

Later, when asked to switch to 3000 kc, the search and rescue frequency, FT-28 called: "I cannot switch frequencies. I must keep my planes intact."...We now know that FT-28 took the lead sometime after the turn north on the second leg, thinking that his students were on a wrong heading. We know that FT-28 would not switch to the emergency radio frequency for fear of losing contact with his flight.

Let's assume that was a rational fear, losing contact with the other members of his flight who are already in visual range flying in formation in order to get better reception with the people he was asking to help him. That's not a disaster, since the ground controllers could talk him home and the students would just follow. We also know he pretty much ignored the students and others he spoke with on the radio, because he'd roger a transmission and then not do what he was agreeing to.
In response to your Furthermore assertions; Taylor thought he was in the Florida Keys, he was really over the Bahamas. This shows confusion over his position. What would you call it? What would you call a fear of losing contact with planes in visual range? Besides it's not merely my POV, more specific discussions of Taylor's irrational fears and confusion are included in: Naked Science a National Geographic series, in the episode Bermuda Triangle. I just forgot to include it before. Anynobody 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous lead

The previous version was hardly admirable; WP:LEAD says: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any.

  • It did not mention Navigation Problem No. 1
  • It did not mention that the OIC led the students off course
    • Instead it just said flight 19 was disoriented implying that all of them were, when at least two wanted to fly west because they knew their real position. Anynobody 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A well written article, much effort and thought has gone into it
2. Factually accurate?: Backed up by verifiable references
3. Broad in coverage?: The article contains all the relevant details associated with the topic
4. Neutral point of view?: This article has a NPOV
5. Article stability? No Edit wars or noticeable conflicts involved with this content
6. Images?: The images compliment the article well and contain a useful amount of information on their own

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Jdrewitt 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I guess we'll have to find a way to make it an A class or dare I say, WP:FA someday. Anynobody 05:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The missing planes................

What if the crew for flight 19 flew the wrong planes? I mean, if they found 5 planes about 1/2 mile of each other, then surely it has to be them, because how else did they get there?--71.116.25.134 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There are, as hard to believe as it might be, a couple of ways Avengers could end up in the drink off the Florida coast. During the war NAS Ft. Lauderdale was a huge training base for Avengers, more than a few were lost over the course of WWII due to various accidents and student errors. Then, in what seems like a minor historical tragedy to me, the Navy disposed of dozens of old Avengers (and other types) after the war by simply dumping them offshore of their bases. Anynobody 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14?

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