Talk:Vesna Vulović/Archive 1

Archive 1

The plane crashed after the detonation of a bomb in the forward cargo hold

according to planecrashinfo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.130.201 (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent changes I made are following the official report of the Civil Czechoslovak investigation commission which was handed over to ICAO in Montreal in an English version in May 1974. Other sources are the Belgrade newspaper "Politika" of 27 and 18 January 1972. 88.100.237.83 (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the text that confuse me

If Croatian organization Ustase wasn't responsible for the fall of the plane, how come somebody phoned authorities when the plane was already in the air and claimed that Croats planted the bomb? If they weren't, does that mean that the Checz government was lying when they presented remains of the clock of the bomb? And how come somebody called to warn if Checz airforce shot the plane by accident? Too much of a coincidence, practically impossible imo. Can a plane acctually be shot on that height? And what with do you have to shoot it if it were possible? A nuclear super intelligent bomb maybe? I think this article offends common sense and human logic. It should be rewritten with better sources and references (preferably to some official police report!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigelm (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The phone call was made after the accident. And yes, a plane can be shot at that height. Czechoslovak Army had planes that could shoot other planes ;) You dont need super intelligent nuclear bomb to do that.--Jakas1 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Forged story?

German media carried the news today that the bomb explosion was revealed to be a cover story produced by Yugoslavia's secret service. According to tagesschau.de, available information suggests that an unknown incident occurred aboard that caused the pilots to rapidly decrease altitude and changing course, a standard procedure to avoid collisions. It is suggested that the plane, crossing into sensitive military territory, was likely shot down by the Czechoslowakian air force. Witnesses report seeing the airplane whole below the low clouds (i.e. it was still whole when it came below ~ 1 km), and an expert who saw the debris field says the size of the debris field suggests it broke up no higher than 2000-3000 feet. Whatever the exact events were, it was said the plane cannot possibly have been broken up at 10,000 meters, and that the Czechoslowakain and Yugoslawian secret services collaborated to cover something up. Ms. Vulovic herself reportedly has no memories of the event, having said the last thing she remembers was boarding the plane on that day. 87.164.188.41 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarajevo article seems to back up that story as well http://www.sarajevo-x.com/clanak/090109136 Custovic (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You also have an article in the Guardian regarding the Czechoslovakian airforce shooting the plane down. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/flight-attendant-record-fall-hoax 88.6.253.46 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the cause of the explosion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAT_Flight_364 says the explosion was caused by a surface-to-air missile and not by a terrorist bomb.

Has anyone read the actual "news" report for the "Veracity of the official report" section? It is very poorly written at best, and provides no reference to the statistics claimed in this section. Unless I (or someone else) can find a better reference, I will rewrite.Tubbyty (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article

This article seems to be more about the investigation and the plane bombing than the woman herself... --121.72.161.155 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an article about a woman who survived an aviation incident. It is not about the incident itself, even though the incident consumes a healthy portion of the article. Also, why does this article link to "Free Fall?" The article says she was still inside the aircraft for the duration of the fall, so she was "falling inside a vehicle," not free falling by herself. I also would like to know why she is considered to have fallen from the plane, when she never exited the aircraft. 204.193.202.77 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Was she strapped into her seat for the fall?

Could a knowledgeable editor add to the article whether she was found strapped into a seat? Or did she do a skydiving-style free fall? Tempshill (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says she was found in a section of the plane's fuselage. Sounds like she was in a seat but the impact ripped her out of it. --50.137.171.62 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

UTTER CONSPIRACY HOGWASH

This conspiracy theory is lunacy. A recent Czech article debunks it, showing that it opposes physical laws and requires fantastical coincidences as well as an unlikely international conspiracy (Czech and East German together with the black sheep Yugoslavs, possibly enemy U.S. and Dutch too since their experts examined the black boxes) of massive proportion that somehow no one in 30 years is willing to reveal.

The article is at http://technet.idnes.cz/nehoda-letu-367-u-srbske-kamenice-v-roce-1972-fdl-/tec_technika.aspx?c=A120210_143320_tec_technika_sit; someone with the time and desire to debunk crank conspiracy theories please summarize this article in this Wikipedia page.

Shores of bohemia (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

2009 report

I have removed this section as it is pure conjecture and the sources quoted are not reliable or verifiable. If anyone can addreferences to published material (not just speculative news reporting) then please add them and re-instate the paragraph.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 June 2012

Reports by investigative journalists published in reputable media (which ARD and The Guardian most certainly are) surely can be cited in such an article. You appear to be confused about the meaning of "verifiable" on Wikipedia: It means that we can verify that the given source made the cited statement - not that we can verify all their conclusions based on the evidence available to them; this (or concluding that they are wrong/unfounded based on other evidence) would amount to original research. If you disagree with ARD, you should try to have your personal opinion published in a reputable publication yourself, after which we will be able to cite it in the article to balance the reports that you are objecting to. (Or give more information establishing the reputation of Technet.cz, the only source currently cited in objection to the ARD report.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Record still stand?

The article quotes Guinness as having apparently been fooled (though apparently not deliberately, at least not by Vulovic herself). Has her record been revoked? --50.137.171.62 (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone look into the current status of her achievement? The article makes the statement that Guinness grants her status, then later also says their representative publicly states they were duped. Reconcil this please if she is still given the first place status by Guinness it should remain, but if not it should be re-written to say something like "Guinness originally awarded her this status but has since withdrawn it due to (whatever reason Guinness gives)". As it stands the article both grants and denies the achievement which should not be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.82 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vesna Vulović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ScpC2jtb?url=http://www.nacr.cz/Z-files/znasichfondu_II_1.pdf to http://www.nacr.cz/Z-files/znasichfondu_II_1.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Sco6K3lE?url=http://www.nacr.cz/Z-files/znasichfondu_II_2.pdf to http://www.nacr.cz/Z-files/znasichfondu_II_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fall time duration

How long does it take someone to fall 10,000+ metres? Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Circa 3 minutes.--Fidelxxx (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Approximately 46 seconds (on Earth), but that is a free fall straight down starting at zero speed, and excludes wind resistance and gravitational differences based on location. Her time for falling would likely be different due to the velocity and flight direction of the plane at the time of the incident, atmosphere and wind impact, and the like. The 46 seconds ignores reaching terminal velocity (approx. 120 mph) due to air friction and drag. As such, the 3 minute value, noted by the contributor above, is more likely for the specific incident referenced in this article. Tesseract501 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sentence location

As I was reading this article, the sentence under the Illness and death section In 2005, Vulović's fall was recreated by the American television program MythBusters seemed to come out of nowhere. Although I understand that it was written in chronological order, this sentence would seem to be more applicable to the previous section titled Fame. The next paragraph, starting with In 2009, Peter Hornung-Andersen and Pavel Theiner... also doesn't really apply to the section title of Illness and death.

All that said, I didn't want to be bold and rearrange the article while on the main page. But what I would propose would be moving the Mythbusters sentence to the Fame section and then retitling the the Illness and death section to Later life and death, or something similar. 23 editor, do you have any thoughts or an opinion on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Gonzo_fan2007. Could you copy-paste your proposed paragraph to the talk page so I could get a sense of what it would look like in the article? 23 editor (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

23 editor, after thinking it through again, I think at the very least I think the section header should be more inclusive of what the section is about. See this example here (changing the section header to Later life and death). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of this ? 23 editor (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That works! Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)