Talk:Bermuda Triangle/Archive 4

North versus South

"The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a region of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean..." The Bermuda Triangle is a huge mystery in what happened with the ships and airplanes. ^ Shouldn't that be SOUTHWESTERN? I'd change it, but this page seems to be uneditable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubru (talk • contribs) 07:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

North of the equator, which the Atlantic spans. It's only "South" in relation to some funny little country called the USA. If there's a Falklands Triangle, then that would be in the SW Atlantic. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's "south" in relation to about a third of the Earth's surface, but your point still stands.  ;-) Rdfox 76 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Urban Legend"?

I was wondering if teddy is awesome.it's fair to call the bermuda triangle an urban legend in the infobox at the top, seems biased to me --Xombi p (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC) yes it is fair wut else could it be classified--66.244.202.66 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

1% Methane Makes pistons stall? Seems quite unlikely... Methane is a hydrocarbon, somewhat similiar to avation fuel, while I'm no mechanic, I'd think that variation in the amount of hydrocarbon mix would be considered in safety specs. The only halfway germane reference I was able to come up with on Google for keywords like: piston 1% methane stall was: http://deepalivinchurkar.blogspot.com/2007/03/bermuda-triangle-mystery-of-nature.html, a rather nontechincal blog, with no links to this "phenomena". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coexist (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think it is very commendable that you at least try to reatain objectiveness. Though my views might be a little different (I think there's is more to this than meets the eye, to say the least.) it would be nice if you could fix at least the verbage of this article. Although you stuck to 'documented facts' (though the source itself my be tainted or biased, one way or the other) the article reads a bit too matter-of-factly. Like mentioned above, it would be great if you could mention all sources and theories and all the evidence for both, while also admitting what is true, such as what the Coast Guard says, or what scientists say, or what the Triangle Authors say etc. If you know what I'm trying to say. In this way, I think, you will nave the most information and an appearent objectivenss that will speak of itself in the future. 70.135.56.219 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Theodore from California.

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)

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)i do not agree with the freak waves being under Natural Explanations do to there is very little evidence of the waves being a contributer due to people's storys they could be lieing just to not be afriad

I saw a documentary on the history channel around a year ago (when the Poseidon movie came out) detailing the facts about rogue waves. It talked about the Bermuda triangle. It also showed data collected from a satellite that tracks rogue waves and their frequency. The Bermuda Triangle area was one of the biggest rogue wave hot spots on the Earth! A massive wave would be a good explanation for ships disappearing. They would take them down quickly and wouldn't leave much behind, and since this would happen quickly, it would reduce the likelihood of the ship's crew getting out a distress call (though the planes is another thing).Why is this theory simply refuted in this wiki article?? The two reasons above are a very plausible explanation. (4/13/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.76.196 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

A good source is one that can be checked by others, so they don't have to rely on your say-so. Plazak 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not expecting others to rely on my say-so. That's why I didn't cite it in the article. I could not find an online reference for this assertion. But it seems that the original author may have got the information from the same show. imdb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408692/ I will continue to look for a cite. MDfoo 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to jump on you. I intended "your" in the more generic sense. I should have written more precisely: "so they don't have to rely on the author's say-so." Plazak 13:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I assume that the writers of the show got their information from somewhere, but I cannot find it on the web anywhere. It's probably in some science journal offline. I'm going to leave this as it is. MDfoo 11:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a television special on the Discovery Channel. I remember watching them pump methane into an airplane engine. The special had to do with a recent discovery of some airplanes that went missing off the coast of Florida. 155.33.109.198 20:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Total numbers of ships?

There are a couple places where the article mentions how heavily trafficked the triangle area is, and that the number of incidents is small relative to the number of ships/planes/etc passing through. Does anyone have hard numbers on these? How about a brief note to the effect of:

An average amount of daily traffic for the rough triangle area is:

• XXX commercial ships (freighters, tankers, cruises, etc)
• YYY pleasure/private ships (yachts, sailboats, columbian drug runners, etc)
• ZZZ aircraft

Thanks! Jeffadams78 18:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quicksand

Hasn't it ever come to anybody's attention that the sand on the seabed of the area in the Bermuda Triangle may be quicksand, so any planes or ships which disappear may be sucked underneath the seabed

Quicksand does not suck anything down. Please see the Wikipedia article on the subject. Plazak 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I read in a book, although i cant remember which book, that in the Bermuda triangle, scientists have measured the ocean floor there and they said that at times, the floor would sink to a depth they never thought was possible. I don't think its quicksand, because quicksand never sinks, only the people that walk into it do. I also read something about the methane gases.--71.253.97.210 03:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The possibility of extremely murky material at the oceanfloor has been studied, and often rejected. Either way, it does not explain the instances of disappearance right off radar screens at altitudes in excess of 25,000 ft., among other things. --Chr.K. 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

citation / references

• we really need to cite a lot of things in this article, i cant tell if people made some of the "facts" up or if its just personal opinion or what not (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

i agree and theres no way that it could be supernatral. that is under sientiffic thery. there has to be a sientiffic explanation of the events. They say that Know-one has figured out the reasining of these events, but where this is located there are high rated tropical storms that range over this spicific aria there for there may have ben somthing of this sort that happoned to the plains... Not to mention that the radios most probabbly went out be cause of this. I mean thank about it a radio is like a CD a CD gets to close to a magnent and the magnent erases the data ,right, and in in this spacific aera if there is a numerious amount of iron , copper, or outher matallic metal it wil static out the radio.. there for the piolots or captans could not notify for help during there emergency, plain/ship went down, sunk thousands of feet down, father than any researcheers are ecwept to go. there for said to of vanished. Maby there would be some way of decteting this under the water, such as in a submarine, this way you will not sink, or have the possibality of above H2O curents forming tropical storms that will interfere withe the study. Now with all the superstitions now one capable of figering this out is willing to give it a try.... What do you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.118 (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sign your comments and use grammar, please. There is no reason to believe that it isn't supernatural. And no one has proven or disproven any of this. I am a strong believer in the theory that it is over or near Atlantis, but seriously, there was a man who made it through the Triangle. He says he flew through a strange cloud with purple lightning surging through it. It was tough at first, but it became calm, like the eye of a hurricane. He flew straight through it, but when he got out, he was in the exact same spot as he was when he entered. Try to explain that with your scientific mumbo-jumbo. The Matyr ^{(converse with the Matyr)} 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"a man who made it through the triangle" ??? Many make it through "the triangle" everyday, many times a day. Its a heavily traveled route, so stating that a man made it through it, sounds very uninformed. Secondly, where did you find this info? airplanes have a ration of fuel per trip, so if this incident were to happen, the plane would run out of fuel if it had to travel the same part of a route twice. therefore, this "incident" doesn't seem valid. I'm not saying that SOME strange events don't happen in the Bermuda Triangle, but then again, where don't strange events happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.66.190 (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

skepdic.com/bermuda.html

shouldn't this, or something to that effect be included in the article? as it stands now, this article only reinforces the erronous assumptions people have about the triangle.

If you're referring to the eroneous assumptions people make about several of the more extremely bizarre events being explainable by normal scientific rationales, I concur. Also, please identify, if you will. --Chr.K. 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

USS Scorpion

The sub went down about 400 miles SW of the Azores... 2200 miles from the Bermuda Triangle. See this Google map. Anynobody 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quorum Sensing

I'd like to propose a theroy based on the current research into "Quorum Sensing"[1] demonstrating the properties inherent in certain waterborn algeas found in area of Bermuda[2][3][4]. see also:[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Along the same lines as other mysterious vanishings such as Amelia Earhart and the like [6] but, I think it possible the vanishing are both explainable and preventable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.155.8 (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed stylistic correction

In the section "The Spray" there stands: "While a mystery, there is no known evidence for, or against, paranormal activity."

What would be "evidence against paranormal activity", exactly? (...If not evidence for some rational course events, which has been ruled out earlier in the paragraph, anyway.)

Someone please explain, otherwise I will go on considering it a careless (though minor) slip of bogus writing style in an otherwise very readable and well-rewritten article - thanks for all the hard-working editors. I think the word "against" should be left out and I will return to the issue if no counter-arguments occur.

Jaakko Kortesharju, Helsinki, Finland 128.214.157.168 20:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jaakko. I agree and go ahead and make the edit, be bold. MDfoo 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

its very intresting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.194.202 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When it was the last accident occured ?

--Max Mayr 10:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The most recent disappearance reported by Quasar, apparently still under investigation, involved a Berry Piper PA-46-310P, call letters N444JH, on April 10, 2007, near the Berry Islands. The most recent disappearance to be found via investigation to have "no known cause" was a Piper PA-32-300, call letters N8224C, on November 12, 2003 over the Exumas, Bahamas region ("What's New" section). --Chr.K. (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My short Theory on Bermuda Triangle.

--Yourprerak1 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)pjshah 11/07/07

one question is left to all of us, humans, does the bermuda triangle really exist? or is it just a mith? but what of all the incidents? were they just a coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.6.107.93 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wherever there are planes and ships, there will be plane crashes and shipwrecks. Wherever there are more planes and ships, let's say between Bermuda, Miami, and San Juan, there will be more plane crashes and shipwrecks. It's that simple. Deltabeignet (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is curious, given that in many of the cases, finding wrecks would be a welcome alternative to vanishing without trace. Literally, off of radarscopes, sometimes. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Omnisaur (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)omnisaur The 'vedas' according to the Aryan Culture in India, has it about chakras, the power points, bssically seven, known as the the 'Sapt-Rishi', 'sapt' meaning seven and 'rishi' meaning pilgrim, which implies the 'Seven Pilgrims'. The seventh chakra, or power point on the end of backbone of a human, near the tail, to basically a vertebrate is the 'Sudarshana Chakra' also known as the 'sex-chakra', which can manipulate the vibrations inside a human body and can be used for destructive purposes, an example would be the power dome to kinetic arts, jinx, ki balls, etc. The 'sudarshana chakra' have many depictions, pictorial representations out of which one is a circle with a concentric triangle which have a whirlpool shaped diagram which is similar to the 'power of universe' symbol. If the bermuda triangle is depicted to be a power point, it manipulates gigantically strong power fields which blocks metals from working because of the magnetic field created due to the power field. I have viewed it that way, and for the 'permoda box' is another which is situated at the antipode of 'bermuda triangle', collapse the two diagrams together, we would get the shape of a concentric 'hexacle' as in witch-craft inside a circle. Even in religion, the planets are believed to be dieties, and in guwahati, old 'Pragjyotishpura', there are temples for all of the nine planets. Milan KB.

I think its the government. because in the middle of the triangle there is a 1 mile by 1 mile island. So I think that the government has extraterrestral (however you spell it)life on the island. and when planes get too close or ships get too close they are shot down and the people who survive that are killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.39.15 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Query

"there is no doubt that many ships and airplanes have been lost in the area."

The rest of the article seems to be in contradiction to this statement, shouldn’t it say something on the lines of "there is no doubt that many ships and airplanes have been lost in the area but statistically no more than any other area of sea ...." or some such —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It should, if that were verifiable by anything other than Official Governmental assertion. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic Section

Is the discussion of magnetic north and the geography behind it really relevent to the artice? Benjy17 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Hauntings" subsection

Hi all, the "Hauntings" subsection under Popular Theories reads more like a dramatization or story. There's alot of "absolute" and loaded words, and things such as "mercilessly" and "heartlessly". It doesn't sound very objective, nor does its cited source. 18.238.6.18 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of us who harbor not a shred of doubt as to the authenticity of some very weird reported events in the region share your distaste for the extremely non-scientific, unsourced phrasings. However, articles like this one have quite a problem with BOTH extremes, of fantasticism on the one hand ("They're HERE!!" "Who??!" "THEM!!!"), and pseudoskepticism on the other ("Don't confuse me with 'factual reports'; I know such things do not exist!"). Here's encouraging anyone to weed out the fantasticism at leisure, so long as the factual material remains. --Chr.K. (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ocean Ranger

The reference to the Ocean Ranger is not accurate enough. Indeed, there was a wave that broke a porthole on one of the legs, that flooded a control room that controlled the ballasting system. The ballasting system became faulty, and several hours later the rig did list and sank. As written, however, the current text suggests a rogue wave sank the rig. It did not. The rig sank because of the failure of the ballasting system. Whether that was caused by a wave breaking the porthole or by human error was never entirely proven.

Also, the article should make it clear that the Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland (nowhere near the Bermuda Triangle). I know the author is merely trying to suggest that some vessels in the Triangle sank because of rogue waves, but the reference to the Ocean Ranger, as currently written, could leave some readers thinking that it sank in the Triangle.

Otherwise, a very interesting article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not well-versed enough in the Ocean Ranger case to make a detailed explanation or source the material. If it in fact took place off Newfoundland, it could well be argued that it should be removed entirely. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bermuda Triangle & its editors

Wikipedia is about to lose out on this because people believe that it is a legend, some think it is true and we as Wikipedians need to find out which one to write about. People are blocking Wikipedia because it can be edited! They think this is fake and untrue. We need to get ourselves together before no one uses Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggymarley01 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on is basically a passionate, low-level edit war over the material, between those who believe the government/agency claim that there's nothing unusual about the region, and those who believe those same agencies' complete stonewalling, when one tries to get facts of the most baffling cases, is indicative of Officialdom not being at all trustworthy (guess which one I am). In the struggle (in which rational discussion is apparently impossible, of late), the search for the facts is usually the first casualty. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, as an aside, if people are blocking Wikipedia because it can be edited, then their tastes will never be satisfied, because that's like saying one doesn't like humans because they breathe, a necessity of being alive. --06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think people don't know excatly about Bermudas triangle it is. Every article just talk about a mysterious, not talk about the excistency of that. The question is : Is there a man that ever came out from there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.2.34 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether "anyone's come out" of the region is somewhat of a misnomer to begin, since the vast majority of people, by far, experience nothing out of the ordinary in their transit through the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. But of those who DO experience surreal events, or those who vanish, do any ever come back? Plenty people have "lived to tell tales," ranging from taking off and, without turning, winding up some minutes or hours down the road heading right for the landing strip they originally took off from, or in turn, getting caught in weird "limbos" for a time before somehow coming free. World famous aviator Martin Cadin, since passed away, wrote a book that included several such tales, entitled Ghosts of the Air, which can be looked up on [[http://www.amazon.com Amazon]]. Has anyone who's completely vanished ever resurfaced? I've never heard of it, so long as the disappearance was or bordered on the truly bizarre. If someone involved in drug smuggling were to vanish, that's a good reason in and of itself right there; they might've gotten mixed up in something, or they wanted to disappear. But, as well mentioned, it's the "vanishing in one pass of a radarscope along with the vessel's emergency GPS locator to boot" type that are in question. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a atlantis

well i have figured that there must be some kind of ancient city in the bermuda due to the Road that was found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.202.66 (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost civilizations are one hypothesized explanation of the Bermuda Triangle disappearances, but to say it bluntly, even acceptance of outright inexplicability in many of the cases does not tie them to such a past event. As such, the question of whether an island or continent then or later termed Atlantis existed is, and should remain, outside the direct scope of this article until (sourced) direct evidence is presented to the contrary. --Chr.K. (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Could be that I have not read the article thoroughly enough, but it doesn't seem to address this crucial question clearly: is there any statistical basis for claiming that the area defined here exhibits extraordinary characteristics that warrants its notority? Yes, ships and planes have disappeared in this area, but these things happen elsewhere as well. Relrel (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends who you ask. The Coast Guard would say no. Authors such as Quasar have had requests for such statistical lists have had their efforts bureaucratically stonewalled once their "agenda" (of researching the phenonemon) have become known to the governing authorities in question. With sufficient evidence compiled on Quasar's site, and his rather impressive DEconstruction of the pseudo-explanations offer by authors such as Larry Kusche (Bermuda Triangle Mystery—Solved, still in print despite being just as wrong on many of its supposed facts as numerous "Pro-Triangle" authors are accused of being)...I would say a definite yes. But given how likely it is that I will likewise be accused by whomever of scewing the facts in my favor merely because I find certain cases to defy mundanity...not sure how much my stance counts for. --Chr.K. (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle

I'm questioning the use of the Marilyn Cochran-Smith citation. Dr. Cochran-Smith is a prominent educational researcher with a focus on teacher education. I don't think her article which is actually titled "Teacher's Education Bermuda Triangle: Dichotomy, Mythology, and Amnesia", is appropriate here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine13 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC) I have a theory. I'm Charlie 1 Alpha. I believe there is a wormhole in the Triangle. Wormholes can result in electrical and magnetic disturbances, and that would explain compass malfunctions. Also, there was a pilot (see Bruce Gernon)and there was a sort of time warp. Also, wormholes transport matter from one place to another, explaining the dissapearances. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.241.95 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Á á Ć ć É é Í

Mary Celeste

Removed terrible entry about Mary Celeste, already noted above as not taking place in the Bermuda Triangle, and also containing no sources and being poorly written and trying to pass off a number of the fictionalized details of the Mary Celeste incident as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.128.56 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Bermuda Triangle located?

The Bermuda Triangle (Devils Triangle) is located at the Atlantic ocean. The Bermuda triangle's tip touches some part of South Florida and it goes across the bahamas and into the Atlantic Ocean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.35.168 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording?

"Another form of pirate operated on dry land." - What is that supposed to mean?? Parkthecar (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it (just previously) described what a pirate was and then states that another form of pirate operated on dry land instead of on the sea. So basically a pillager. Dunno who wrote it though. Mabuska (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The comprehensive bibliography at the end of the article

IT violates the MoS that Wikipedia shouldn't be a comprehensive bibliography. These should be moved to the "Further reading" section in each of the sub-article. Anyone else have thoughts about it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the deletion logs somewhere. There used to be such a separate list of sources, but it was deleted. I'm also curious as to the piece of MoS you cite? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

REMINDER

This article is ABOUT the B.T., not intended to debunk it any more than it is to prove it. Lets keep it informative, yet not discredit the mystery.... which is why the article exists. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the purpose of this article is to be informative, in no way do I see an effort to "not discredit the mystery" as being in any way productive or in line with Wikipedia's goals. ClovisPt (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Discrediting" it, by including ludicrously flimsy explanations, does a disservice to the reality that many of the disappearances remain unexplained to this day and all. If the Pseudoskeptics would like a list right here on this very page, I will be happy to provide it. --Chr.K. (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are "unexplained" disappearances, the disservice would be to claim there is something myserious and special about the Triangle. Any attempt at avoiding a natural, rational explanation is a disservice. If you have allegedly "mysterious" facts, add them to the article; if they are well supported, they will remain there. BTW, there is no such thing as a "pseudoskeptic". 201.216.245.25 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those "allegedly mysterious facts" are in the footnote links right after the opening summary comments attempting to discredit them. As mentioned below, pseudoskepticism is a term that describes the mindset of individuals who refuse to believe in anything but the current limited scientific paradigm despite any evidence to the contrary. And the evidence is that quite simply that a disproportionate number of inexplicable events DO happen in the region, and that organization such as the Coast Guard are either willfully ignorant of it, or outright lying. --Chr.K. (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, it's a label you use to denigrate people who disagree with your paranormal beliefs. That sort of stuff doesn't really fly here. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

ALSO: DON'T FORGET ABOUT THAT GIANT BOOB THAT ATE ALL THOSE PEOPLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.19.146 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong: The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]--72.74.127.148 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) авыаыжвдалждвыаыаыва —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.55.204 (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

The link to the reference 21 "Methane Bubble". Monash Univ. - http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monash-news/2003/bubble.html points to a page that has been removed on Monash University's site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanbrobinson (talk • contribs) 04:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - searched google and found the identical article posted at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3226787/ - please next time consider WP:SOFIXIT. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

References

Article has 41+ references, so this tag is not appropriate. Furthermore, this tag is not needed in every single L3 heading section. Not every comment in WP needs a reference, only those that are controversial. Suggest that if you see something contriversial you tag it as CN and or delete it. Also, suggest you should consider getting a login. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Raifuku Maru

the supposed confusion between 'danger' and 'dagger' seems specious to me. is there any confirmation for this? would the crew not have been communicating in Japanese, in which, presumably, 'danger' and 'dagger' are not similar words? Shabbychef (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SS V. A. Fogg

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the Further responses section, please change ''[[V.A. Fogg]]'' to [[SS V. A. Fogg|SS ''V. A. Fogg'']]

In the Human error section, please change ''V.A. Fogg'' to SS ''V. A. Fogg''

Thanks. 58.8.5.52 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Thank you.—C45207 | Talk 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.8.5.52 (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to add information to the SS. V. A. Fogg incident? I found the 'Citation Neded' flag, googled a bit and found this: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA000819 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artiecoon (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Link dump: BBC article

I'll just leave this here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8248334.stm 82.139.86.242 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Slandering a Veteran

"It is believed that Taylor's mother wanted to save her son's reputation, so she made them write "reasons unknown" when actually Taylor was 50 km NW from where he thought he was"

It says "it is believed" like this is commonly accepted fact when the only source is from some guy I've never heard of trying to sell a book. Say it's claimed by this guy but don't slander a deceased veteran with no proof whatsoever. I'm curious how this made it onto the the pre-locked version of the page. If it's not changed soon I'm going to have to contact an adminastrator. 173.66.234.111 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly, I will remove it. Jcmcc450 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Triangle area

File:Triangles1.jpg

The area of the Triangle varies by author

Where exactly did this image come from? The file page suggests it was created by the USGS, which is plausible for the underlying map, but I'm having a hard time finding any evidence that they superimposed the lines describing the variances of areas for the Bermuda Triangle. The paragraph accompanying the image also lacks any source. It's not difficult to believe there are variances, but this section is not very convincing! Melissa Della (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Something fishy in the "Compass Variations" section

Compass problems are one of the cited phrases in many Triangle incidents. While some have theorized that unusual local magnetic anomalies may exist in the area, such anomalies have not been shown to exist. Compasses have natural magnetic variations in relation to the Magnetic poles. For example, in the United States the only places where magnetic (compass) north and geographic (true) north are exactly the same are on a line running from Wisconsin to the Gulf of Mexico. Navigators have known this for centuries. But the public may not be as informed, and think there is something mysterious about a compass "changing" across an area as large as the Triangle, which it naturally will.

So reads the section headed "Compass variations". This needs quite a rewrite - not only does it make it sounds as if navigators have known about this line between Wisconsin and the Gulf of Mexico for centuries, but that same implication ignores the fact that the magnetic poles are constantly moving, and is currently moving quite rapidly (it may be, for all I know, that the line is currently no longer the one which was written about).

I'd like to propose rewording that section to the following:

Compass problems are one of the cited phrases in many Triangle incidents. While some have theorized that unusual local magnetic anomalies may exist in the area, such anomalies have not been shown to exist. Compasses have natural magnetic variations in relation to the magnetic poles, a fact which navigators have known for centuries. Magnetic (compass) north and geographic (true) north are only exactly the same for a small number of places - for example, currently in the United States only those places on a line running from Wisconsin to the Gulf of Mexico. But the public may not be as informed, and think there is something mysterious about a compass "changing" across an area as large as the Triangle, which it naturally will.

Grutness...wha? 22:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I like your changes. But since you say that the line moves, how about changing 'currently' to 'as of 2000' (See [[7]]) MDfoo (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - OK, I'll make the changes. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument appears to be fallacious in this context. Since the change of magnetic declination is only a few degrees in hundred years and the limited spacial change occurs only gradually over large displacements (see Magnetic Variation Map for year 2000), and given that navigators have already been aware of this effect, it seems improbable that they have reported this well-known phenomenon as "anomalies" in compass readings, especially in the face of an incident. Fred 10:37 PM, September 26 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Kusche

Quasar, Gian J, in "Into the Bermuda Triangle" provides striking evidence that the energy between protons and electrons, not the makeup of the physical atoms, makes interdimensional travel possible...why are scientists scared to examine? Easier to say ghosts exist? Much is based on Teslar's theories, which have been proven long after his death, although he was considered crazy during his lifetime. I recommend the book for anyone not afraid to think ISBN# 978-0-07-145217-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobgreen1005 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I see someone cut out the section I put in regarding Larry Kusche, and Gian Quasar's criticisms of the extremely poor, yet lauded as magnificent by pseudoskeptics, research he conducted on the subject. If the removal was because I failed to obey "Article LVII: subsection 8, paragraph thirteen, line five" on exactly how to place such material in, I apologize, and would like to place it in more properly. If the removal was due to harsh criticism of one of the cornerstones of the pseudoskeptical argument being supposedly "unnotable," then I lean toward questioning the parentage of several site patrons. --Chr.K. (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What's a pseudoskeptic? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A pseudoskeptic is a person who claims to be "skeptical" of purported events based on simple proclivity to doubt, rather than actually studying the matter in depth to make a reasoned decision on the given matter. As an example, Larry King had, roughly a year ago, a live debate on the subject of UFOs, between Stanton Friedman and someone who I frankly fail to remember well because of how outlandish his statements were. Namely, he claimed that there was "no evidence", exact quote, for the notion of non-terrestrial piloted airborne objects...this, despite the fact that the UK Ministry of Defense had recently released thousands of pages relating to cases throughout their jurisdiction that have remained unsolved, and well over a thousand well-documented American military encounters, alone, exist regarding close-proximity encounters with unexplained aerial phenomena. The latter man in question is a 'Pseudoskeptic': he had made up his mind that there was no evidence, and all the evidence in the world wasn't going to disuade him from maintaining that stance...when, in fact, he had completely warped the meaning of skepticism to begin with, into becoming a word for "refusing to believe, period." --Chr.K. (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

hi this is my imagination i'm not having any proofs to prove it . i imagine that there is a huge magnetic power in the sea. this is formed billion years back when the earth is a huge hot boul, when it was cooled to some what then the clouds were formed and due to the thunders and lightening the huge iron ore is converted in to the magnetic ore. and now, this magnetic ore is dragging all the aircrafts and vessels in to it. from ajith.k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.58.102 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ellen Austin

The item on the Ellen Austin seems to have it rather backward: The ship was first christened Ellen Austin and the name subsequently changed to Meta sometime in 1881. My only citation for this, other than the mention by Rupert T. Gould in "The Stargazer Talks," is at www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/ellen_austin.html. Although there are mistakes on this website, the Ellen Austin article has the ring of truth, especially since the incident, if true, probably took place earlier than 1881. (If I've added this comment in the wrong place, I apologize.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarspellchecker (talk • contribs) 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Suggests Superstition

The second paragraph of the introduction suggests that there indeed are more accidents in the Bermuda triangle region. Sounds like a vandalized version of a previously written introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havoctheory (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - I restored the earlier version. ClovisPt (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The introduction was changed because there are, indeed, more accidents in the Triangle region than in a normal area of sea. The Coast Guard is, simply, wrong or lying. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead references three bermuda-triangle.org web pages. Perhaps they are not the best source as they do not source any of the statements in the paragraph. More like link spam than anything else. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed those "sources". ClovisPt (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If those sources are no good, then using such a bad researcher as Larry Kusche is pure trash. Likewise, the claims by the Coast Guard that the area of sea is no different than any other is, quite simply, inaccurate. That is to say, they are lying, if not (unlikely) terrifically misinformed. As for bermuda-triangle.org, it is a site run by an actual researcher mentioned in the previous text that has now been vandalized in the name of pseudoskepticism (which is to say, doubting the veracity of claims regardless of the facts). As such, I can see why pseudoskeptics wouldn't like it: it actually backs up its claims with Coast Guard records of the unexplained. --Chr.K. (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your disagreement with the Coast Guard is your own issue. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources; a Coast Guard assessment would hold a lot more weight here than paranormal enthusiasts. ClovisPt (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my disagreement with the Coast Guard is based on the simple fact that there have been well over 500 recorded unexplained disappearances, that is including light vessels and aircraft as well as the heavier variety, since 1980. Given that such does not exist in any other region of the world means that the Coast Guard's statement is tantamount to saying that the sky of Earth displays a black and white checkered pattern, or similar ludicrous statements. That such an organization first makes such a statement, and then it is accepted without question by so many, says much of the intellectual state of our species. Charles Fort was a good compiler of this phenomenon, in fact. --Chr.K. (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an "official" name for someone who when presented who correct infomation from an official source (with no reason to lie) that runs counter to what they believe simply says "They are lieing"? Seriously, people embellished this crap to sell books and make money. Have you noticed that since people lost interrest and stopped buying the books all the "magic" in the triangle has simply stopped? 121.73.246.11 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC) I pity the fool.

Correct information from an official source? Have you ever actually done any research into the sheer amount of times official sources lie so as to maintain "national security"? Likewise, what is the official name for someone who is presented with incorrect information from an official source and simply says "Well, they're official, so why would they lie?" I would nominate the descriptive "dumb sheep" for use, but this might be a bit too Confrontational and Rude for polite taste. Meanwhile, three recent reports from the now purportedly-no-longer "magical" (extremely stupid descriptive, by the way) region:

1. The unexplained disappearance of Piper PA-32-300 N8224C, near the Exumas, Bahamas, November 13, 2003; incident report currently presented on the front page of bermuda-triangle.org.
2. The unexplained disappearance of Piper PA-23 N6886Y, between Between Treasure Cay, BI, and Fort Pierce, FL, June 20, 2005; incident report currently presented on the front page of bermuda-triangle.org.
3. The unexplained disappearance of Piper PA-46-310P N444JH, near the Berry Islands, April 10, 2007; incident report currently presented on the front page of bermuda-triangle.org.

Yeah, a lot of the "magic" is gone, alright: the events are merely happening, and not being extensively written about. Well, except by Gian Quasar, and the other people like him. Best to ignore them, because Officialdom says they don't exist.

Oh wait, that would be counter-intuitive...to Rational Skepticism. "Be water, my friend." --Chr.K. (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact that all of those are small single-engine aircraft, flying VFR without flight plans, not reported as missing until after they were severely overdue, giving the ocean plenty of time to disperse any wreckage or other evidence before the search and rescue missions could be launched? If you look at the insurance industry's reports, you'll find that any other random chunk of ocean of similar size and traffic levels will have roughly the same rate of disappearances. Whether or not you believe that Kusche made mistakes in his research--something I personally am very skeptical of, since he provided cited sources for his information, which few of his critics can provide for their claims of error--his core point remains accurate: there is only a mystery if you try to look at it as a pattern of disappearances. Look at each one as a separate, unique incident, and the mystery vanishes. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I could respond to the sheer inanity of effectively writing off all single-engine personal aircraft disappearances as easily explicable (or even worse, such occurrences supposedly being at "the same rate" as "any other random chunk of ocean of similar size") despite plenty of examples of conflicting evidence (Peter Jensen's disappearance, perhaps: vanishing right off a radarscope at an altitude of +30,000 ft., 11 February 1980), it is your final sentence that deserves the most attention: namely that in actuality, when carefully examining individual cases...including but not limited to the unexplained disappearances of numerous United States Air Force military aircraft such as Pogo 22 (B-52 Stratofortress bomber; 14 October 1961), Tyler 41 (KB-50 aerial tanker; 8 January 1962), not one but two C-133 Cargomasters (27 May 1962 and 22 September 1963), a C-119 "Flying Boxcar" (5 June 1965), Sting 27 (F-4 Phantom II jet fighter; 10 September 1971), and the Fighting Tiger 524 (A-6 Intruder attack bomber; 22 February 1978)...the mystery of the region not only doesn't vanish, but increases, with all seven of those still unsolved cases having occurred within the same overall geographical location of the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. --Chr.K. (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"... well over 500 recorded unexplained disappearances, that is including light vessels and aircraft as well as the heavier variety, since 1980..."

Let's see now: c. 100,000+ trips in the triangle area per year, x 30 (years) = 3 million+ trips, and 500+ (c. 0.016%) are 'unexplained' losses. Jeez... sounds like something for the 'pseudo-believers' to get their teeth into (let's not just refer to the term "pseudo-skeptic" as if all skeptics lack credibility, and believers don't). And when you consider that 'unsolved' and 'unexplained' do NOT mean inexplicable, you gotta wonder just what is keeping this mystery grinding on, in the light of no positive, overwhelming evidence whatsoever. Occam's Razor - try shaving with it some time - highly recommended by those pesky rationalists! Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Rikstar, those "pesky rationalists" (and self-proclaimed 'skeptics') you so triumphantly refer to, are the some biased apes that wrote volumes of books (some of which were nobel laureates) on "why humans will never fly", or "why physicists will be out of a job in the 20th century", or added 'cosmological constants' to fudge equations in order to tell nature what it ought and ought not to be. You think you're enlightened and liberated, when in fact you're the same boring, predictable, ignorant boob like everybody else. You're nothing special, except you're just a little bit noisier and a tad more annoying.

Anyway, show me sources that clearly prove there are 100 thousand or more trips conducted into the triangle every year. Show me the proof. I thought there were specific measures in place to avoid the triangle. I could well be wrong, but I'd like to see some evidence. If this is indeed the case, then obviously it's a significant statistic. Regardless, you should be more humble in the future. You don't come across as particularly wise, especially with all those silly wiki-labels you've amassed on your profile. Like that's impressing anybody. Emperor (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kusche

Why do some criticize Kusche? I'm sure he wasn't perfect, but he entered with an open mind, actually believing the Triangle lore. And I'm supposed to accept the "wisdom" of a New Ager? Someone who believes in psychic phenomena & astrology? They criticize Kusche?!

The New Age movement never fails to amaze me.

dino (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you should accept the information presented showing that numerous unexplained disappearances have indeed occurred inside the region, and that the Coast Guard's testimony on the phenomenon should carry as much wait as the U.S. Air Force's conclusive evidence that there is nothing to the phenomenon of unidentified flying objects (hint: such evidence does not exist). Would The Mammoth Encyclopedia of the Unsolved (actual volume; I personally give it a B-, especially on its completely-out-to-lunch postscript section about the Shroud of Turin) be a viable source for the Pseudoskeptics here, or is that in turn tainted by the fact of its giving the Triangle cases a fair hearing to begin with, rather than dismissing them out of hand (and concluding that there is much to study)?

Anyway: for the record, I criticize Kusche because over 1/3 of what he wrote about the incidents in question is factually wrong...and I completely disagree with Quasar on numerous New Age beliefs he has. Those beliefs do not mean he doesn't have a point on the inexplicable nature of many of the events in question. "Be water, my friend." --Chr.K. (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Carroll A. Deering

There are no references regarding her inclusion in the article. Nor are there any references for the Deering article itself. I will remove this bit unless someone can come up with a compelling reason why I shouldn't. Moriori (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's referenced, but isn't the grounding site rather too far North? If there's a credible route for here voyage that took her into the Triangle, and if it's credible for a ship to become uncrewed in the Triangle and then finally run aground so much further North, then I think it's justifiable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

David Kusche

Is this a typo for Larry Kusche or a coincidence?Autarch (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's only one Kusche relating to this article, and he should be referred to by his first name (Lawrence) and surname, or just his surname. Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 03:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tc06rtw, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The name of the newspaperman who coined the term "Bermuda Triangle" should be stated in full ....

       the full name of   "E.V.W. Jones"   was  "Edward Van Winkle Jones"

Tc06rtw (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done SpigotMap 12:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

The natural explanations are all full of maybes--they're as speculative as the Bermuda Triangle myth itself. Do they belong in an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Star Tiger" and "Star Ariel"

The article alleges "Both planes were operating at the very limits of their range and the slightest error or fault in the equipment could keep them from reaching the small island."

The Wikipedia article on the "Star Tiger", including a quote from the British inquiry, makes no mention of the aircraft being at the "very limits" of their range. The "Star Tiger" had made 11 previous successful transatlantic crossings.

The "Star Ariel", a Tudor Mark IV, was flying only from Bermuda to Jamaica, a flight distance of 1,253 miles. Other Tudor Mark IVs had made transatlantic flights--a much greater distance. How is it possible then that the "Star Ariel" was at the "very limit" of its range?

This attempt to provide a "natural cause" for the incident appears strained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Any inference of a supernatural cause would be strained as well. Unless of course there are reliable sources. Moriori (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference from Popular Culture

What seems to be missing from the article are reference to the pop culture re bermuda triangle. For instance fiction (novels, movies, animations etc) that base their plots on bermuda triangle. Such section exists on a lot of other articles and sure would be an interesting read in this article as well. I am sure there would be a lot of movies etc based on BT. Qadirma (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. There ought to at least be a section mentioning the films that discuss the triangle, even if only with fictional stories, i.e. 1978's "The Bermuda Triangle" with John Huston. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. There used to be one, in fact, years ago, I did contribute to such a section, that since appears to have been removed. I think that such a section is still valid, and as such should be reinstated. Special bob (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember a board game, as well (Google). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep- a 1976 "Bermuda Triangle" board game from Milton Bradley- you can buy it here- http://www.amazon.com/Bermuda-Triangle-Board-Game/dp/B002BUQZYC/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1320065873&sr=8-12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.229.67 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC) i became toooo scared,............ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.240.209 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

i have heared

that a man whose plane which could travel only 320kmph has traveled at the speed of 3200 kmph over the bermuda triangle & he has also saved his fuel. Is their any worm hole present there? How is it possible on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.68.6 (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's probably just a myth. Maybe...I really don't know how worm holes can get involved in unatural disappearences.Especially on earth.When the Earth was formed millions of years ago....wait a sec.Has the Bermuda Triangle been here since the beginning of the earth?If it has, it has something to do with the for mation of the earth.If not, then there must have been something else like...some thing bad happened htere which causes all these disappearences of air and sea vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.97.78.31 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

   this is a true fact and can be described on the basis of space warp.If we are familier with the term,then according to it when the plane went to that amazing speed there may have occured a phenomenon of space warp.The space behind the plane contracted and moved forward.Due to which the plane seemed to travel faster and accelerate at an amazing speed.IT is sam as pressing a plastic filled with water.When one side is pressed it moves inside and some other part of it bulges outside.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.84.7 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 

Triangle (2009 film)

Triangle (2009 film) Someone Add this to the Popular Culture section. I would but whoever blocked the article from being edited clearly doesn't like wikipedia's policies.

The article can be edited by registered editors. Why not start an account? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How does this image possibly help?

The image to the right is meaningless. It purports to show various areas considered by un-named people to be the Bermuda Triangle. It doesn't say who, and doesn't give references. It even includes the entire Gulf of Mexico.

I will remove it unless compelling reasons are given for retaining it. Moriori (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It shows that the boundaries of the Triangle are not fixed or specific,and that many people believe the triangle starts at different places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.108.187 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Who says? Where are the refs? If the boundaries are not fixed or specific, how can we say something happened within them? How can the triangle be a square? How is Bermuda connected to the Mexico Gulf? Etc. So many things are wrong with this image I am removing it from the article. Moriori (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the section it's included in, you'll see that the larger boundaries shown match the description in the article. If memory serves, there used to be greater detail on the range of different areas claimed by different authors, but people trying to push the "mysterious" angle/paranormal POV managed to get that section trimmed down to its current state. The whole point of this is showing the variable boundaries claimed by different authors to make the area seem more mysterious by being able to "claim" more disappearances--and even these are smaller than the boundaries that would be indicated by the actual locations of the claimed incidents in many works. I've restored the image. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And I have again removed it.

Firstly, we have an image at the top of the page which adequately illustrates the triangle area, in the shape of a triangle, recognising the name of this article, Bermuda Triangle.

Secondly, the image showed two distinctly different triangles covering differing areas (overlapping in part). There is also a very large six-sided area (red border), and an even larger seven-sided area (black border) which even extends left across the Mexican Gulf to Corpus Christi in California (nearly 2000 miles from Bermuda).

Thirdly, contrary to your assertion, the section does not describe the areas with the red and black borders. It doesn't even mention them but even if it did it would need satisfactory references to justify inclusion, as would any information in a caption. As I said earlier, the image is meaningless.

Please don't restore the image unless you explain in the text what each area in the image indicates, and give adequate sources. WP:A says the following -- "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. " Moriori (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor sentence error

the Coast Guard photographed the wreck and recovered several bodies,[16] in contrast with one Triangle author's claim that all the bodies had vanished,

I propose that we add:Which is in contrast with one of the Triangle author's claim that all the bodies had vanished, DarkCorrectioner 21:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Though not certain it needed to be. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

₡¶ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.214.79 (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information was tagged for needing sourcing long-term. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate acts of destruction

===Deliberate acts of destruction=== Deliberate acts of destruction can fall into two categories: acts of war, and acts of piracy. Records in enemy files have been checked for numerous losses. While many sinkings have been attributed to surface raiders or submarines during the World Wars and documented in various command log books, many others suspected as falling in that category have not been proven. It is suspected that the loss of USS Cyclops (AC-4) in 1918, as well as her sister ships USS Proteus (AC-9) and USS Nereus (AC-10) in World War II, were attributed to submarines, but no such link has been found in the German records. Piracy—the illegal capture of a craft on the high seas—continues to this day. While piracy for cargo theft is more common in the western Pacific and Indian oceans, drug smugglers do steal pleasure boats for smuggling operations, and may have been involved in crew and yacht disappearances in the Caribbean. Piracy in the Caribbean was common from about 1560 to the 1760s, and famous pirates included Edward Teach (Blackbeard) and Jean Lafitte.

Edit request on 15 May 2012

To the "Music" section, I would add:

• Roky Erickson wrote and recorded a song called "Bermuda" that is about the Bermuda triangle.

Lyrics can be found, among other places, here: http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=1307

NobodobodoN (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a third party source that establishes the song is in some manner significant? For pop culture references we need an indication of significance, not simply existence, as Wikipedia articles shouldn't include indiscriminate lists of pop culture references. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition of the Bermuda Triangle

The definition of the Bermuda Triangle as being bounded by Miami, San Juan and Bermuda does not seem to be unanimous. Back in the 70's when this became a popular faux-documentary subject, the corners were supposed to be Bermuda, Miami ( or the tip of Florida, however that is defined ), and Cape Hatteras North Carolina. I recollect that my first trip to Cape Hatteras was interesting because it was the corner of the Bermuda Triangle. So who decided, and when, that Cape Hatteras was out and San Juan was in ? Is this "official" ? A cursory check on the Internet indicates that I am not the only person who thinks this. The second section of the article should at least mention that there are differing views on how the triangle should be defined. Eregli bob ([[User talk: Eregli bob|talk]]) 05:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To this I´ll just quickly add that i´ve seen the lower point being shown as Barbados quite a few times. Here on wiki is actually first time i see San Juan used as an endpoint. DW75 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

About aliens

What is the relation between aliens and Bermuda Triangle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.67.97 (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tunguska link?

Tunguska event Tunguska_event#Speculative_conjectures Black hole In 1973, Albert A. Jackson and Michael P. Ryan, physicists at the University of Texas, proposed that the Tunguska event was caused by a small (around 1017 kg to 1019 kg) black hole passing through the Earth.[54][55] This hypothesis is considered flawed, as there was no so-called exit event—a second explosion occurring as the black hole, having tunnelled through the Earth, shot out the other side on its way back into space. Based on the direction of impact, the exit event would have occurred in the North Atlantic, ...

Many people (and websites and such) have suggested the possibility that there is a link between the Tunguska event and the Bermuda triangle. Perhaps this deserves a mention in the article? What if there was no 'exit event' and the Bermuda triangle is the home of the object (possibly a black hole) that caused the Tunguska impact? The theory of two university physicists was discredited as flawed because there was no 'exit event' around the North Atlantic, which happens to be where the Bermuda triangle is. Additionally, there is no mention in ALL HISTORY of the 'bermuda triangle'

Bermuda_Triangle#History

until around the 1950s, that just being the earliest recorded/ known disappearances, post the Tunguska event.

--86.29.173.253 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 March 2013

add to Influence on culture In a Season 6 episode of the TV show The X-Files, the show takes place in a luxury passenger liner which has mysteriously appeared on the edge of the Bermuda Triangle. Leohui (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture references should be accompanied by a secondary source establishing that the pop culture reference is in some manner significant. Please review WP:IPC for more information about this. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What is "of significance"?

In the "Influence on culture"-section, several information is removed due to "no source for significance". Who decides what's of significance? How is the fact that someone made an album inspired by the Bermuda Triangle or that someone made a single called Bermuda Triangle of any sort of significance whatsoever? If no one argues against this post, I will make edits to the section in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LonelyGreyWolf (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess "of significance" would mean... subject matter of album/single drew career-improving attention to artist? Led to a trend of songs about the paranormal or weird? Something like that. But with sources. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In general, notability is established by the musician, artist, or author involved having a Wikipedia article. Plazak (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ideally for lists, inclusion criteria should be agreed on by consensus per WP:LSC. Realistically it tends to boil down to secondary sourcing and sometimes simply the artist being linked. WP:IPC. Doniago (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Methane Hydrate release theory debunked

An October 2012 episode of Curiosity on the Discovery channel showed scientists attempting to sink a real 25 ft sailboat releasing huge quantities of air bubbles beneath it under water. The team were unable to sink the vessel in real world scale no matter how much h as they released under the water.

Kusche on Flight 19

In the June 27, 1976 NOVA/Horizon episode "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle" Kusche states that the furthest he can trace the messages generally associated with Flight 19 is Allan W. Eckert's April 1962 American Legion Magazine article "The Mystery of the Lost Patrol"-- I don`t thing bermuda triangle is as mystrious as it is showing because all the event which are related to this triangle are just accidents and accidents are occure in every part of world 13:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)119.157.146.73 (talk).

Rogue waves irrelevance

I have again reverted the "Rogue waves" section. User:Rdfox 76 said in his edit summary when restoring the information I deleted that "rogue waves can happen anywhere in the world, as stated in the text".

That is totally irrelevant. The text does not say there were/are rogue waves in the triangle. This article is about the triangle, not about the a nebulous statement that "rogue waves can happen anywhere in the world". Without a clear statement that rogue waves have been reported in the triangle, supported by reliable sourcing, the info does not belong in the article. Moriori (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The only source making a link between the triangle and rogue waves was published by Heinemann-Raintree Library, a publisher of educative books for kids. Unfortunately, this sort of books often contains oversimplifications and popular culture "facts" instead of scientifically-verified facts.-Enric Naval (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Rogue waves linked to the triangle are also featured in the 1977 novel Sargasso by Edwin Corley, he uses one at the climax of the book, so the idea must predate 1977.Graham1973 (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Winer on Connemara v

I've managed to get my hands on copies of both of Winers books on the triangle and to my surprise he did modify his opinion between the first and second books. I've quoted from the letter that he included in the second book, but I think that the entry needs a proper rewrite to reflect this.Graham1973 (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne, FL/Bermuda, BDA - Florida's and Bermuda's corners of the triangle

While Hollywood has decided that Miami should be listed as the Florida corner of the Bermuda triangle, many more credible sources list a point near Melbourne, FL as the actual Florida corner. If you choose to keep the Miami reference for pop-culture reasons, then at a minimum a reference to the less glamorous location of Melbourne should also be included for completeness. Using Miami excludes all of the Gold Coast ship wrecks as well. Along with Florida, Bermuda is also a point of the triangle. Many citizens of Bermuda have special abilities due to being the most northern point of the Bermuda triangle. Some people have minor abilities such as photographic memory, and others have more serious abilities such as being able to control inanimate objects, and conversing with animals. Another amazing side affect that the Bermudian people have is that they are able to speak and walk from birth. The Bermudian government has declared all Bermudians, and non-Bermudians who have lived in Bermuda for an unbroken time period of ten years to have been affected by the triangle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.186.109 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Our article currently says "Every writer gives different boundaries and vertices to the triangle (...)", and it's sourced to a FAQ page in the Naval History & Heritage Command. Please present what sources you have for Melbourne. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

The devils triangle is another anomaly besides the bermuda, off the coast of japan, not the bermuda itself Shadowstreak00712946208364 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It already has its own article. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

Please change the Ellen Austin incident, it should be removed. Due to the paucity of evidence regarding this event, rendering it apocryphal. I base this on reference to Lawrence Kusche's research (as mentioned in The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved, pages 56 to 57). The lack of documentation regarding this mystery Kusche discovered in the 1881 newspapers of the destination port of the Ellen Austin (St. John's Newfoundland). Nor did he found mention of this incident in the New York Times Index or the Index to The Times (London). Kusche also notes the story originated in 1944, in The Stargazer Talks by Rupert Gould. 205.206.190.44 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2014 (UTc)

At first face, it seems a keeper, one of the often-repeated classic cases that turns up in many triangle books. The fact that there's precious little original material is, I feel, germane to the entry too - it shows how many of these tales are padded with exaggeration, distortion and sheer invention. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Influence on Culture: Gulliver's Travels

The movie 'Gulliver's Travels' included going into the Bermuda Triangle. Can I add this? Auzcast351 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Can you elaborate a bit? What film do you mean? A link would be good to whatever it is you mean. Sources rule :) Irondome (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence David Kusche

This is a minor thing, but the article refers to Lawrence (Larry) David Kusche. The section name is marked as Larry Kusche but the name is only used in the section name. The rest of the article uses David Kusche. Using a single version of the name might be useful, whichever that is. Tareq.khatib (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blue Tannery

Perhaps include under the 'cultural influences' subtopic the episode of Jimmy Neutron where they visit the Bahama Quadrangle?

Have any reliable sources taken note of this? DonIago (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1492 Christopher Columbus was the first to describe the Bermuda Triangle

From http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/columbus.html:

Thursday 13 September 1492

On this day at the beginning of night the compasses northwested and in the morning they northeasted somewhat.

Monday September 17,

The pilots took the north, marking it [North Star], and found that the compasses northwested a full point [11 and one quarter degrees]; and the sailors were fearful and depressed and did not say why. The Admiral was aware of this and he ordered that the north again be marked when dawn came, and they found that the compasses were correct. The cause was that the North Star appears to move and not the compasses.

Sunday 23 September

Since the sea had been calm and smooth the men complained, saying that since in that region there were no rough seas [Sargasso Sea], it would never blow for a return to Spain. But later the sea rose high and without wind, which astonished them, because of which the Admiral says here that the high sea was very necessary for me, a sign which had not appeared except in the time of the Jews when they left Egypt and complained against Moses, who took them out of captivity.

Sunday, 30 September

Also the Admiral says here when night comes the compasses northwest one quarter, and when dawn comes they coincide with the North Star exactly.

203.4.164.1 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source....

About discovering the Bermuda Triangle, note that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.

About the North Star. Columbus was observing Magnetic declination, a natural phenomena that is very well understood. For more info, maybe google will allow you to read this page. Or search "Columbus" on this page for an explanation of how other navigators discovered the same thing.

About the variable winds being explainable only by the Bermuda Triangle, you need a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Gulf Stream was certainly known to the Spanish. Benjamin Franklin first tracked its path along Florida, past Hatteras, and out into the Atlantic. He knew it was thin ribbon of warmer water, and tracked the core by measuring the surface temps. The GS follows the coast tightly, at about the 300m depth contour. There is a deep southwards flow which follows the 2300m contour. The GS only flows within the Triangle for 100km or so, at the western most point. The article is incorrect insisting that the GS is caused by Thermohaline circulation, or the "Stommel-Arrons Thermohaline Overturning Theory". Overturning is driven by the GS. The GS is driven by the large relative vorticity of the N. Atlantic winds. This drives a stron southwards flow in the middle of the ocean. The GS is narrow western boundary current, unaffected by the wind stress, is driven by the S-N pressure gradient at the coast, and so conserves volume. Its spinup/down time scale is 50yrs or more.220.240.252.16 (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

For under influence on popular culture:

Another theme park who adapted the name for their ride was formerly called Warner Bros. Movie World in Bottrop, Germany. Gaudyhesseostra (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this? DonIago (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Avro Tudor section. Only the Jamaica-bound a/c was inside the Triangle. Both a/c were operating well inside their max range, which was 5800km. They were built to cross the Atlantic with one stopover. TXKF to MKJP is 2100km. Azores to TXKF is 3200km. I'm not an advocate of the Triangle nonsense, but it looks like the skeptics are indulging in humbug as well.220.240.252.16 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

this place is very dangerous ..this ia effected by the high magnetic feirld \

-by ravi ruhela

103.248.120.70 (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as the article already discusses danger and magnetic anomalies - Arjayay (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"El Faro"

would add the lost ship called El Faro in the Bermuda Triangle http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-el-faro-lost-in-the-bermuda-triangle/ --Luckyseven77 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? Is the Bermuda Triangle responsible for the hurricane which sank the ship? Moriori (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)