Talk:Flight 19

Call letters

what did they do when the first people dissapeared.

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

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

They had the wrong call letters...which begs the question of what other group of five planes has ever been recorded as going down completely, that close together. More mystery rather than less, from it. Btw, please sign comments, it would help in possibly inviting you to join WP Paranormal, if you'd like to help. --Chr.K. 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur...I recall there was some minor hype about having found 5 planes all together (or very close, under the circumstances), but they were not the Flight 19 planes. But, the article went on to mention that there were numerous Avengers lost off Florida, as well as other plane types. It had to do with it being a major training area before, during, and after WW2.

Let's face it, Florida is all about coastline. And coastline means ocean. And that leads into transportation (recreational, commercial, or whatever), which means losses you can't see or find, back then... Add to it the early stages of air transport - over water in this case - and you get the real explanantion for the "Bermuda Triangle"...Engr105th 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a viewer of youtube videos and a guy there named DERR115 has placed an analysis of 2 NASA images from past space shuttle flights and he says one of the navy planes is floating past the shuttle and NASA has a photo of it ! He has 79 videos but these are the most recent he posted there. He seems to be very excited about it... I saw it myself, Derr's video. Its very odd but see it yourself...Is it a huge story never told to the American People? omg its so unreal.--Blonde IgnoreBlondeignore (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Verification and sourcing

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

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

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

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

Also worth noting - the reference for the Mariner being a flying gas tank does not refer to an independant source (the source is arguing against any other explanation). Can anyone provide a site that substantiates this claim that is not related to Flight 19 ? I was unable to find one (that does not refer to the site quoted in this article) using Google. One would assume that if this is a common or widely known description for this type of aircraft that there would be a non-domain specific reference to it. shaneg70

There are quite a few regulations in place in the Navy regarding smoking: when, where, for how long, etc. Onboard ships the phrase "the smoking lamp is lit in the starboard break" means one can smoke there and only there. Smoking is forbidden whenever fuel or fumes from fuel are present. The construction of the Mariner was such that the plane had weak points which allowed just enough fumes to enter the fuselage; not enough to jeopardize life, but enough to warrant a posted order forbidding anyone from lighting up inside the aircraft. As to the plane's "flying gas tank" nickname, well, nicks are just not written down. There are plenty of unofficial nicknames, past and present, for military ships, aircraft. One of my ships was called the "Tough-Tender", but you'll never find it by using that name online; you will find it by entering USS Shenandoah AD-44. Carajou 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if I remember the name of the documentary, but it showed that the bermuda triangle is one giant magnetic field that messes with compasses. This might have been the case with [Flight 19], in the same documentary they used a working Avenger to find out if it was the case. It (the test Avenger) was not outfitted with any new technology, only the compasses used by Flight 19. To repeat, I forget the name (of the documentation) but it exists, it may give us a clue to Flight 19's fate. Recent idiot

I too have seen these "documentaries". But I'd point out that most of these (Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc) are geared toward entertainment. They blend fact with heresay evidence, and the subtle intention is to increase the controversy, not make a definitive statement. Let's face it - theres a limit to how in-depth one can go in an hour long (or half hour long) TV program....My belief is 1) there is limited, if any, solid evidence for 'compass failure' and 2) in an open ocean area without landmark references, the tendency is for pilots or navigators to declare "instrument malfunction" when they think they're headed in a direction contrary to what the instruments say....I've heard similar disclaimers in the Army on the rifle range during Weapons Qualification - the first excuse a soldiers makes when he's firing badly is that "the rifle isn't shooting straight" (meaning 'theres something wrong with my rifle'). But- the rifle doesn't know how not to shoot straight! In other words, its the the human element that comes into play. Its the same with reading a compass - its pretty rare that a compass 'malfunctions' especially over long distance travel. Just my 2 cents worth...Engr105th 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

adding names

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

"Myth"

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

Upon reading this material, I am struck by how naive it seems to be on the nature of the flight, and the strangeness of the activity of what transpired within it; regardless of the eventual likelihood of the planes crashing into the sea, the original causes for disorientation of the flight was quite assuredly not a "prosaic" one. --Chr.K. 08:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A myth is a myth if there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate it is not a myth. The myth is that the Bermuda Triangle has been the location of a disproportionally higher number of aircraft or ship disappearances/disasters than anywhere else. There is no evidence to support that myth when actual facts are applied. To use your words, "I am struck by how naive" someone can be to need to try to invent mysterious reasons why four aircraft got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. It happens. Moriori 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect on every front; not only are there more incidents in the "Bermuda Triangle" region than elsewhere, the Coast Guard is notoriously tight-lipped on the subject of how to deal with the matters. "Overdue" is a reason given on planes that have vanished off the radar screen in single passes of the scope. Planes have been founded ditched, but with the doors locked and the keyes still in the ignition. I don't recall anyone ever jumping from a plane and locking the door tightly behind them. In any case, do you wish me to give the litany of the events here, or on the Bermuda Triangle page, one after another? My concern is that the page will become somewhat difficult to load after the 150th section. --Chr.K. 08:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I here offer a "compromise" of sorts; "legendarium" is a word now present that means 'developed mythos'. Whether or not anyone agrees to the validity of such mythos, the flight WAS a foundational point for its development. That at least, is verifiably NPOV and objective. --Chr.K. 10:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Legendarium is a bit twee, but I'll go for legend if it makes you happy. This article is about Flight 19, NOT the Bermuda triangle. We obviously mention it, because that's where the aircraft ditched, but in the intro we should certainly NOT link to a book and says in its second sentence that the author was "the first person to really investigate this phenomenal disappearance with an eye to putting in order what really happened." That's bollocks. The navy board of enquiry thoroughly investigated the incident, and determined what actually happened - they got lost, ran out of gas, and ditched. I've noted your remarks about the Coast Guard, and other comments. Please provide irrefutable evidence. Moriori 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. I can refute the claim that everyone in the world has to die someday, and claim that it need be only a matter of time before science finds a way to make humans immortal. There is no way to refute either claim, in such case; likewise, no other claim is beyond refutation. Providing substantial evidence, on the other hand? That I will do. Be warned, however: putting the direct litany of events as they transpired into the page may make it seem to contradict itself, claiming that it is both easy to explain and an intractable mystery of why, for instance, all their compasses pointed west while sending them far north, to a position tracked by Fort Lauderdale as roughly 200 miles due east of Jacksonville. --Chr.K. 07:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel I need to chip in, here. You are correct, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence - that is one of the foundations of science, but where is the burden of proof, here? If you make a claim which contradicts all accepted theories of reality, such as your claim of "no death", then the burden is on you to provide evidence to support your claim; it is not up to me to prove you wrong. I could claim that there are blue Giraffes in Africa which turn invisible when humans approach, and you could not prove than wrong. That does not make my claim reality, though.

Likewise, there is not reason to believe any claim of paranormal activity in the triangle. From all accounts I have read, only one compass went awry, not all of them. It was the instructor who got lost - the students seemed to have a fair idea of where they were, but he did not listen to them. If he did, they would have survided.

Please, do some research, if only to try to prove me wrong, but consider all the reported facts on equal grounds, then ask yourself, which version is the simplest, makes most sense, and fits our current understanding of reality. Qarnos 11:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

After due consideration of all the facts surrounding the location, it is quite evident to me that attempts to explain what happened to both Flight 19 and a large number of other disappearances in the area (including but not limited to the rather documented disappearances, all without any reasonable trace, of a C-54 in 1947, the on-page loss of the Star Tiger in 1948, two DC-3s, the NC16002 and N407D in 1949, Star Tiger's sister plane Star Ariel under almost exactly the same circumstances in 1949 [the second incident causing the model, perfectly working in nearly all other cases, to be removed from open service], an R7V-1 termedFlight 441 in 1954, a Martin Marlin in 1956, the Stategic Air Command B-52 Pogo 22 in 1961, the KB-50 tanker Tyler 41 in 1962, two KC-135 Stratotankers in 1962 and 1965 respectively, two C-133 Cargomasters, the largest aircraft in the Air Force at that time, in 1962 and 1963, and a C-119 Flying Boxcar in 1965. Be aware, these are all cases of military aircraft vanishing without trace, and pared down to roughly 10% of what's available for note, for readability sake...the civilian 'overdue' list is much, much longer, and the list of derelict vessels, some of which having the key still in the ignition, and both doors locked) by mundane means are in such denial of given facts as to make explanations like Mr. Kusche's, and others', all but ludicrous. In the end, I suggest you research the events in depth, and come up with explanations for air traffic controllers (as I've mentioned elsewhere) losing all radio and radar contact with aircraft more than 30,000 ft. up in a single pass of a radar scope (one of the most documented of cases occuring 1979). --Chr.K. 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On further review, something else of note; would your blue giraffes in Africa that turn invisible be backed up by the claims of more than 1,000 people over the period of a quarter of a century? If so, then I would actually be willing to give credence to your claim, for the sake of scientific study alone. --Chr.K. 01:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to be dragged into this discussion, but I have to ask — what exactly is it that "is quite evident" to you, Chr.K.? After writing 185 words in your opening sentence to the first of your two postings immediately above, you apparently forgot to include the verb clause that identifies what happened to the "attempts to explain what happened to Flight 19, or a large number of other disappearances in the area". Could you complete that thought? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; have attempted to fix it for you. Basically, to say it in vastly simpler words, mundane explanations for the verifiably inexplicable, as well as claims that certain explanations should be marginalized by default, are a disservice to science as a whole. --75.2.22.184 05:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this discussion should only be about Flight 19, and (unfortunately for fans of the paranormal) in this case there is a mundane explanation - it is called pilot disorientation. After the turn to North, the instructor did not see the island formations he expected (because the turn occured later than it should have), and decided that he was looking at the Florida Keys. From this, he concluded that his compass was "out", because it didn't agree with the direction he arbitrarily decided they were now heading in. He didn't say the compass was "spinning", or "wandering", and the evidence indicates that all the compasses were working fine. The instructor is is a classic case of someone sticking to a belief even when presented with evidence proving them wrong. A simple explanation for an unfortunate incident. Logicman1966 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this is way late but the shortest distance from Fort Lauderdale to Key West is 149 miles and the Avenger's top speed is 275 mph. More over much of that time you have to fly over solid land and yet it was only after they completed the first leg of the journey that they thought they were lost. It would have taking a minimum of 30 minutes to get from the base to where Taylor thought he was. What I don't understand is why no one pointed this fact out to him at the time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes and Navy report link

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

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

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

Are you serious?. You deliberately eliminate a single link action to create two distinct actions. I am reverting to the logical link. If you believe there are other link problems, then fix them. I refuse to accept this dumbing down of Wiki. Moriori 05:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Please calm yourself, Moriori. This isn't dumbing down anything. The link is still there. What this is is improving the references of Wikipedia articles. If you hadn't noticed, many WP articles are far below the cornerstone standard of verifiability through reliable sources. Just do a "Random article" walk some time to see how many articles are stubs, and how many of the remainder cite no sources whatsoever. Even the ones with so-called sources are usually links to obscure websites that don't come close to being reliable sources. As I write this, this article claims only three sources, one of which I added (reliable but not easy to access), one which is the Navy report (reliable), and an air-show site (far below usual reliabilty standards). There was no specific source cited for any of the "Bermuda Triangle" information until I added my semi-satisfactory one. We could still use some additional sources, like a citation of a Berlitz book that sets out his claims.

That said, I'm not wedded to the footnoting of the Navy link. I just want to make sure that any non-inline references are adequately documented without confusing the reader with missing numbers or broken links (which is the current state of the article after your last edit). And whether or not the Navy link is a bare one, it should be listed as a source of information. Based on my quick perusal of that URL, I'd say it's a rather critical one, supplying most of the facts cited in the article. It should be properly documented, and is now. All we need to do is agree on how to present the inline link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I've resolved this issue to both our satisfactions. Based on the most current recommendations at Wikipedia:Footnotes, I've replaced the note/ref templates with ref/reference XHTML tags, which now automatically generate proper references. Because it really isn't a footnote per se, I've moved the info on the Navy report to a new "References" section, which provides proper citation while leaving Moriori's bare URL link in place. Hopefully we can all be happy now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

POV inferences removed

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

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

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

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

Please post here your evidence that the USN Board of Enquiry carefully omitted to explain why triangulation was not achieved. Moriori 22:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to redirect to this article

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

Done. Incidentally, when you post an original comment to a talk page, your message goes at the bottom, not the top. Cheers. 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Moriori

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

Neutral wording

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

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

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

Hopefully improved

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

Inquiry problem

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

FT FT

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

Georgia crash site problem

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

Actually while watching the History Channel right now, the episode is: Mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle, (2005). In the last 10-15 minutes of the episode, a man came on claiming to have figured out that the five airplanes had continued flying west, and ditched in a swamp in Georgia, where some planes have been found. Of course, he gave more details about unidentified aircraft being reported all that day by air traffic controllers, but I honestly wasn't paying attention. It's worth a deeper look and possibly being added to the article. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 03:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw this a couple of weeks ago; there was certainly no mention of Flight 19 actually having been found in the Okefenokee Swamp. The bloke's theory sounded plausible enough but as far as I could tell it's just a theory. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gian Quasar postulated that Flight 19 crashed in Okefenokee Swamp on 2 different TV shows, one recently (January, 2014) and one a few years ago. I saved both recordings and hopefully still have both. I read one of Mr. Quasar's books but did not see him mention his Okefenokee theory. I would like to ask if they crashed there, how did they miss the lights of Jacksonville and perhaps Savannah? Much of FLorida at that was minimally populated but Jacksonville was a good sized city with a major port and had a major Navy presence there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjerseymichigan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Navy sources vs others

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

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

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

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

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

You immediately assume the situation is being accused of being supernatural, simply because those like I state it to be unexplained to this day. Both Taylor's compasses were reported out; the likelihood of both failing at the same time is suspect, but acceptable. Why could a consensus not be reached when he asked for a read from others? Did all the compasses fail? Most curious. Why did the directional fix (which is shown in the article) pick them up far to the east of Jacksonville? The compasses, again (or at least those of the leader/leaders), had to have been reading irrationally, as north was never once mentioned as a rational direction to go in the intraflight chatter. This, again, is not "supernatural": it would be a magnetic anomaly of indeterminate origin, and such anomalies have been encountered other times. Later foolish imbellishment by storytellers mucked up the proverbial waters, yes...but the basis of the material remains as some highly curious events, not least of which being why they didn't just follow the setting sun to head west, and instead wound up so bloody northward. --Chr.K. 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem I don't have is with someone who states such and such loss was unexplained; this conclusion acceptable, and it's based on lack of wreakage, witnesses, bodies, etc. For this article to state it explicitly is also acceptable. But the problem I do have are those who wish to invent fantastic or b.s. stories to explain this loss, and the wording they choose to use either ignores the official reports or twists them altogther to make it seem to say something it does not. That is why we as editors here have a duty to collect the facts and post them; we have a duty to find and post the origins of the every story related to it and what they have been saying; and we have a duty to find and post the official records as well. So, if you know of any other stories about Flight 19, post them, cite them...make the article that much more interesting...perhaps expanding the "Bermuda Triangle connection" subheading, which I think is pretty dull anyway. Carajou 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also another reason for getting the Navy reports. The communications between Flight 19, Flight 74, and NAS Lauderdale were recorded and transcribed. The communications between NAS Banana River and Training 49 were also transcribed. The logbook of USS Solomons, the carrier which saw Training 49 disappear off radar, is also available. I've done the logbooks to four ships in my time, and the Navy demands accuracy and attention to detail, as they are legal documents. I don't like what is transcribed as coming from Taylor that is in this article, and I know it comes from the Navy brief supplied by the Naval Historical Center; some of the transcriptions could also have come from any one of the Triangle books, and we all know how accurate they were, which isn't saying much. We can get into a lot of detail for this article. Carajou 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Question re Chain of Command

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

In the Navy, and the other branches of the military, personnel of all ranks are sworn to obey all lawful orders from their superiors. Very rarely is an unlawful order given, and even then the rank and file is so ingrained with discipline and following orders that unlawful orders are rarely disobeyed. In this case, you have to remember that there was one individual piloting an aircraft with more than 2,500 hours of flying time, and one individual with proven combat experience: Lt Taylor. None of the others, faced with that one obvious fact, dared to peel off on their own. Carajou 05:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Carajou is correct, re: lawful orders, etc. One problem with Flight 19 is the students, far as I can tell, only knew Taylor as an "instructor, with combat experience". It is unlikely they were aware he had a 'habit' (for lack of better term, here) of getting lost and had ditched planes before. If they had known that, its far more likely one of students(who are officers themselves) would have taken initiative and broken formation. Note the names/ranks in the article - there are two USMC Captains (grade O-3). Thats equal to a Navy Lt (Taylor). A young 2Lt or Lt(jg) would be even less likely to question the instructor. And it sounds like there was radio discussion/argument over the options - the Marines at least would know basic map reading and compass use...
But, another problem is the timing: Once you've gone too far astray, the window of opportunity to correct is permanently lost, no matter what you decide, due to fuel. And thats the part the trainees would have no experience in dealing with...My guess is Taylor became disoriented after the practice bombing run. Sad situation, all around...
(PS - notice the map of "Navigation Problem 1". It does not appear to be terribly difficult. Anyone have any info on how new the trainees were? In my experience - Army, using map/compass on land nav - the biggest problem is soldiers not trusting the compass - in the case of a flyer, I'm told that translates to not trusting his instruments. Thats when you start hearing things like "my compass isn't working", things don't "look right", etc). Sorry for the long post.... Engr105th 20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

No, it's not true. It's a later invention by someone wishing to add to the Triangle stories. Navy records accounted for all the aircraft in-flight and on the ground that day, and the only ones missing were the five in Flight 19 from Ft Lauderdale, and the Mariner from Banana River NAS. In fact, the Triangle stories really got off the ground in the early 1970s with a slew of books on the subject, and not one of them mentions Wheeler or Meehan. Carajou 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also a curious little ditty about the one who got sick and decided to stay off the flight. According to Richard Winer in The Devil's Triangle it was Cpl Allan Kosnar; according to Adi-Kent Thomas Jeffrey in The Bermuda Triangle it was a man named Eagle Boloton. Someone's right, or someone's wrong...or both are wrong. The reason both skip the flight is based on premonition, which adds an additional aura of mystery to that aura of mystery that these writers have spun into the subject. Carajou 07:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the Corporal Allan Kosnar claim before but not the "Eagle Boloton" one. Unfortunately what references are available doesn't show that there was supposed to be a Corporal Allan Kosnar to fly on Fight 19 that day.--67.16.87.47 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Added rendering of FT-28

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

"Summer of 2006"?

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

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

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

Thunderbirds

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

diamond formation

tight formation

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

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

Flight 19

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

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

Flew Off to Mars

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

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

What the hell?

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

Issues with articles should really be discussed on that article's talk page. Which is where I'm moving this thread from my talk page.

Would you please read Wikipedia:Lead section and explain how mentioning important aspects of the article in the lead section is unhelpful?

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

Anynobody 08:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you get a grip on reality. The existing intro admirably met requirements. Had all following text somehow been excised, that intro would still have given a fair precis of the story. Your amended intro fell far short of encapsulating the story, and included info that didn't need to be mentioned until later. Also, it was poorly written. Moriori 08:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore -- do not state your POV in the article that the OIC suffered from "confusion" or "irrational fears". The ref makes absolutely no mention of it. Moriori 08:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

also from my talk page,

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

Actually it does,

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

Let's assume that was a rational fear, losing contact with the other members of his flight who are already in visual range flying in formation in order to get better reception with the people he was asking to help him. That's not a disaster, since the ground controllers could talk him home and the students would just follow. We also know he pretty much ignored the students and others he spoke with on the radio, because he'd roger a transmission and then not do what he was agreeing to.

In response to your Furthermore assertions; Taylor thought he was in the Florida Keys, he was really over the Bahamas. This shows confusion over his position. What would you call it? What would you call a fear of losing contact with planes in visual range? Besides it's not merely my POV, more specific discussions of Taylor's irrational fears and confusion are included in: Naked Science a National Geographic series, in the episode Bermuda Triangle. I just forgot to include it before. Anynobody 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous lead

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

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

Successful good article nomination

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

1. Well written?: A well written article, much effort and thought has gone into it

2. Factually accurate?: Backed up by verifiable references

3. Broad in coverage?: The article contains all the relevant details associated with the topic

4. Neutral point of view?: This article has a NPOV

5. Article stability? No Edit wars or noticeable conflicts involved with this content

6. Images?: The images compliment the article well and contain a useful amount of information on their own

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

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

The missing planes................

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

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

Kindly note that PORT EVERGLADES is the name of Ft. Lauderdale's port and was the name of the Navy facility there. PORT EVERGLADES was the name of the N.A.S. that is now Ft. Lauderdale's airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjerseymichigan (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

14?

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

VTB

On a couple of occasions the article mentions "VTB-type aircraft", which is linked to torpedo bomber and referenced with a National Geographic article. However, neither torpedo bomber nor the reference explain what "VTB" means. I assume this is US Navy jargon; it needs explanation. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Found after a quick search this site http://www.history.navy.mil/books/OPNAV20-P1000/index.html which may help. Generally speaking though, military abbreviations are constructed in such a way so that people/places/things are easily identifible in terms of "what it is" and "what it does" to the observer. After looking through the pages I can see that "VTB" is the result of a couple of abbreviations put together. So, from that site: V = Heavier-than-air Aircraft T = First letter in the Navy aircraft designation, indicating a torpedo plane B = First letter in the Navy aircraft designation, indicating a bomber plane ...or more likely VT = Torpedo plane + B = Bomber plane == Torpedo Bomber Plane. Also, just to remind you that you're dealing with a large bureaucratic orginisation that likes talking in double-dutch - "VBT" means (Bombing, torpedo plane) as well as "T" meaning (Trainer Aircraft).Noctris (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle Section / "popular story"

In the section headed "The Bermuda Triangle" that features the news article that sets out the "popular story", is it possible to get some more detail about what the claims in this story were based on, if anything? If the author was basing his claims on even spurious or disputed documents or sources, can this be mentioned? At the moment it's unclear if this article (including the quotes about "white water" etc) is based on some accepted evidence, disputed evidence, or if it's entirely a creation of the author's imagination. (Obviously if there's different viewpoints about this that could also be mentioned.) Just speaking as someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia who came to this article to read it, it's a little confusing. DustFormsWords —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC).

The white water reference supposedly come from Allen W. Eckert (April 1962). "The Lost Patrol". American Legion. In the "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle". NOVA/Horizon. PBS. 1976-06-27 Kusche said he corresponded with Eckert and Eckert could not longer remember where he got the reference and there was no indication where where it might have come from. Unless something has come up in the 33 years since it was filmed Kusche's statement about that being as far back as the traditional story about Flight 19 can be traced still stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Carroll Taylor merger proposal

The Charles Carroll Taylor article contains two sections: "Military Background" and "Flight 19". The latter duplicates what is already here; the former should be merged into this article, per WP:BIO#People notable only for one event. One possibility would be a single new paragraph within the existing "The men of Flight 19 and PBM-5 BuNo 59225" section. Any objections or alternative suggestions? 124.157.250.127 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've created a new Flight 19#Charles Carroll Taylor section, moved a small amount of content to there from the "Authorized overwater navigation training flight" section, ^[4] and then synched it with Charles Carroll Taylor#Military background ^[5]. I don't think Charles Carroll Taylor now has any content that isn't already here. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now merged & redirected. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Location

Has anyone noticed the part on this page where it says the site is off the coast of florida, they can't be talking about the site of the wreck because from what I hear, they have NO idea where '19 ended up

CGI Images accurate?

I'm no expert, but I don't ever recall seeing a TBM/TBF Avenger with twin machine guns in the rear turret, just curious how accurate that is and if it needs to be corrected? Limitedexpresstrain (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No TBF or TBM Avenger ever had twin guns of any sort in its rear turret, because that Grumman-designed turret was of an unusual sort: the .50-caliber gun was mounted at the left of the turret, and the gunner sat to the right of it, with the main body (the receiver) of the gun next to his left ear. The gunner did not sit "behind" the guns, as was common in all other power-operated turrets during WWII, he sat alongside it. To have added a second gun to the mount would have required eliminating the gunner.173.62.25.244 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Maps

A T.V. Documentary on this incident stated that the pilots had taken the wrong Maps. As an American expert interviewed on the Documentary said; 'It all falls into place when you consider the radio broadcasts. When the pilot was saying; 'everything looks different' 'the Sea looks strange' etc. If you take those comments in the context of a man looking at maps that are the wrong maps for that area everything would look strange'. The 'increasing panic of the training pilot' also falls into place when you consider the 'wrong maps explanation'. He is out at Sea with only his compass to fly by. Even an expert flyer like Amelia Earhart got lost at sea with a skilled navigator on board 8 years before Flight 19. Also Amy Johnson, the British woman Pilot vanished, presumed drowned in the river Thames 3 years before Flight 19 after her Plane crashed into the River.Johnwrd (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

3 Megabytes Image!

OMG, just who decided to put on this page a 3 MB image of a spinning plane without any warning? Please remember that some people still pay $250/GB for the Internet. --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the animated image (File:Ft28animation.gif) is appropriate. Too big, too slow to load, too distracting.

Likewise File:Tbf-19-5.png - when it was a CGI showing five aircraft in formation it was at best redundant and questionable, but it now shows SIX aircraft in formation - it's extremely artificial, and it's misleading, confusing, and completely unnecessary. Sorry, but I think it just looks silly.

I suggest both these images be removed (I already removed the latter 2009-06-12 with an explanation in the edit summary, but it was reinstated without explanation 2009-06-19). 58.8.15.76 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I left the following message on Anyeverybody's talk page -- I have 2.4 ghz intel core with 2gb ram, and I am afraid after several tests of your animation it does not work satisfactorily for me. When it eventually does start, it progresses extremely slowly, often stops for long periods (at different points in the cycle), and on the last occasion I tried it never completed the cycle. Just sitting their, unmoving. At one stage it froze so that I couldn't revert back to the article page to quit the browser. This animation needs to be removed IMMHO. Maybe he will remove it. Moriori (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the animation and replaced it with the image from the TBF Avenger page. The conversation which led me to this action is here. Moriori (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And since we're not talking about avengers in general I have removed the generic image of two random avengers with an illustration of the actual avengers involved. Moriori there's actually a Flight 19 category at the commons.

58.8.15.76 the reasons you cited for removing File:Tbf-19-5.png, which I've numbered... 1.shows SIX aircraft in formation - 2. it's extremely artificial, and 3. it's misleading, 4. confusing, and 5. completely unnecessary can be easily rebutted: 1. There were six aircraft involved, 5 TBMs in the flight (FT-28, FT-36, FT-81, FT-3 AND FT-117) plus the 1 PBM which blew up looking for them. 2. Of course it's artificial, it's an illustration and all illustrations are artificial (compared to a photo or video). 3. It's not misleading, this is what the airplanes looked like - overall FS 15042 aka Glossy Sea Blue with aircraft ID#s on the tails as well as both sides of the wings. 4. I understand why it might be confusing, you didn't seem to know how many aircraft were involved but hopefully my first rebuttal cleared away any confusion. 5. Illustrating the subject involved is most certainly NOT unnecessary and you don't have to take my word for it: WP:IUP#User-created images. Anynobody(?) 01:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(Copy entire relevancies from Anynobody's page to give continuity).

I'm confused, did you actually read my response? It pauses and is slow in rotating on purpose, constant fast spinning seems to irritate most people. The problems you describe, it progresses extremely slowly, often stops for long periods (at different points in the cycle), and on the last occasion I tried it never completed the cycle. sound like a slow internet connection - My computer is slower than yours (2.33), CPU and RAM are actually irrelevant to how fast a gif loads from the internet. Anynobody(?) 01:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your response. I know what you were saying, but the effect you wanted and what I am seeing are two different things. It doesn't take 33 secs to complete the animation cycle, it takes much much longer, and it occasionally freezes so that I cannot return to the article and have to quite the browser. I have not experienced this problem with other animations on the net. Have just tested my internet line speed which is 952 KB/ps. No, not the fastest in the world, but not the slowest either. There would be zillions of people with slower broadband, so we shouldn't be displaying an animation that is useless to them. Why an animation anyway? What's wrong with a general photo? The article is about an event, not how an aircraft looks from all angles. Moriori (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say your connection was too slow, I said it sounds like there was/is some kind of problem with it when the animation stops loading or freezes. There is also a problem with Wikimedia, the animation is now a new version I've uploaded - when I view it in Animation shop or Quicktime it's just over 9 seconds long. Wikimedia says it's that long but takes longer than 9 seconds to play it. (Seriously download the gif and watch it in Quicktime if you don't believe me, the fact that the animation goes longer than it's run time is not a problem I can do anything about.)Why an animation, I don't mean to sound sarcastic but it conveys more than a photo when depicting an aircraft. Why not a photo? There are no good, free photos out there (at least that I've seen). Anynobody(?) 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is the article has an animation which does not work properly for everybody. How you see it in Animation or Quicktime is totally irrelevant. You say "the fact that the animation goes longer than it's run time is not a problem I can do anything about." I can, and that is why I am replacing it in the article with one of those "good free photos" which you claim are not out there. Moriori (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am replacing it in the article with one of those "good free photos" which you claim are not out there. I was talking about free photos of the flight 19 aircraft, not avengers in general duh! The photo you chose was of two circa 1942-43 TBFs in early 2 tone camouflage, which is fine for the avenger article but was not the specific avengers at NAS Ft. Lauderdale in December 1945 which the article discusses. Anynobody(?) 01:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. You have not replaced it with a photo of Flight 19 at all. You have replaced it with an "artist's" drawing. Wonder what gave him the idea that FT-36 was piloted by a midget. Perhaps this would give him an idea of scale.Moriori (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Moriori, like I said on my talk page, there are no good free photos of the Flight 19 aircraft, I'd be happy if we found one. Until one is found the best we can do is an illustration. (I'm sorry you don't like it.) Anynobody(?) 02:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep this on the article's talk page.... Anynobody(?) 02:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll transfer what isn't already there. Moriori (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ALPENGLOW: FLIGHT 19 BORE FIVE OF ITS HAPLESS TBM AVENGER CREWS MISSING

Flight 19 represents five hapless crews of an atmospheric phenomenon called "Alpenglow". Alpenglow is when the western sunset just before and post-the winter solstice from December through January, reflects over cloud covers (broken or solid) horizon-to-horizon west to east.

On January 12, 2008 - I'll never forget it because it happened on my 61st birthday - it was dusk near dark traveling south toward the Mary River just across the Florida-Georgia state line with an unobservable oceanic surf to my left just over the inland dunes. Immediately north of the narrow Mary River Bridge on Route 17, my girlfriend Annie dozed off in the passenger seat on this long coastal drive as we were on our way to visit friends in Vero Beach, Florida.

Me being perfectly aware and crisply alert with my accelerated line of travel, Annie suddenly awoke startled to see the crimson reflection of the western sunset cast across the eastern sky's horizon that even had a vaguely defined orb of light concentrated against it whence she exclaimed, "Babe! Babe! How's come we're going back north!

Smiling to myself I didn't know the word for it then, but what Annie was observing hit me with an impact that curiously brought to mind the disappearance of Flight 19, an easy goof when you think about it that must have run out of gas going far out to sea making the same erroneous observation as my dear Annie, only these poor lads were irretrievably committed to water rather than asphalt. It wasn't like a two-person crew in a Jeep Liberty could easily dismount on the shoulder as one sticks out their thumb with a frustrated look and the other with a jerry can held in their hand. I'm sure these guys who thought they were navigating north to southwest were actually navigating south to north east and out of radio range with Fort Lauderdale where they went down. Bet any money that's where five TBM Avengers with matching serial numbers can be found!

When we arrived back in Pittsburgh from our visit to Florida, I got online and started pecking out data in my computer's web browser using key words and phrases such as "Sunset reflection on eastern skies", etc., whereas I finally came up with the term "Alpenglow" which fit exactly and explained in precise detail what a startled Annie observed from sleep disorientation but what I was steadily acclimated to, aware of, and crisply alert to with my surroundings and accelerated line of travel. I made several calls and even sent detailed graphics through PDF document emails explaining our experience to the chief curator of the Naval Air Museum at the Fort Lauderdale Naval Air Station, whereas he wound up ignoring me as though I were some kind of nut case telling me to "shut up..."

...Whereas, I rest my nut case here simply saying screw 'em! I know what happened.

72.185.1.17 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)Carlo Rossi

   Haines City, FL72.185.1.17 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Fox or Robert F. Cox?

What is the right name. The numerous sources contradict each other on this issue... 109.66.25.117 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Robert Fox, see point 23 of the findings. Anynobody(?) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Intended Route

Not having done much editing, I'd like to run this up the flagpole before changing the description of the route:

After take off they would fly almost due east for 56 miles (90 km) until reaching Hen and Chickens Shoals where low level bombing practice was planned. The flight was then supposed to continue east another 67 miles (108 km) before turning onto a course of 346 for 73 miles (117 km), in the process over-flying Grand Bahama Island. Flight 19's last scheduled turn was to a course of 241 degrees to fly 120 miles (193 km) back to NAS Ft. Lauderdale.[2]

Based on the Navy report excerptat the Ibiblio site, my ideas are 1) change "almost due east" to "course 091 degrees true", 2) change "back to NAS" to "then returning to NAS", 3) recompute all the km values on the assumption that the mileages in the Navy report are nautical miles, not statute miles.

The subtle rewording in #2 is because I've discovered that the route, as given in the Navy report, does not form a closed figure. It fails to close by 10.6 nautical miles, or 3.4% of the total distance. However, on careful reading the report doesn't actually say the last leg takes you back to the field. I believe the article should should be equally ambiguous.

Why plan a route which intentionally misses the destination? It's an old navigation trick for making landfall. If you aim right at the field, you're not sure which way to turn if it's not in sight upon reaching the Florida coast. But if you aim to definitely miss to the south, all you have to do is hit the coast and follow it north.

Incidentally, it was my attempts to re-fly the route in Microsoft Flight Simulator that revealed the misclosure. No matter what pains I took, such as using the autopilot, and even allowing for the turn radius of the plane, I kept missing the field by miles. At first I thought the sim was inaccurate. Then I did the math, which agreed with the sim! Paul S. Hirose 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. An exercise involving three legs, but a flight involving four. I've tried to explain it better. Moriori (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made further changes to accurately indicate what was planned. I have also removed the miles-to-kilometres conversions because almost certainly these guys were flying nautical miles. Even if we can't be certain of that, we are less certain that navy aviators would use imperial miles. I've changed the caption as well. Will see who the creator was and ask for amendments. Moriori (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see an improvement to the route description. However, it now uses the words "heading" and "course" as if they were interchangeable. The correct word is "course". A "heading" is the direction the plane is pointed. In preflight planning, pilots use the latest wind forecasts to calculate the heading needed to make good the desired course on each leg. The Flight 19 crews may filed these before departure, but as far as I've seen, all we know are the courses. In addition, it should be made clear that the courses are true, not magnetic. I don't think it's necessary to label each course "(T)" as in the Navy report. Simply call the first one "091 true" and let the reader assume the rest are likewise true.

Although I brought up the possibility, I wouldn't be so bold as to say "the actual flight should have flown four" [legs]. I predict some argument on that point!

Last year, in a discussion group, I posted this message noting the route's failure to form a closed figure. It has considerable detail, more than would be appropriate here. And in another message I speculate that the course normally quoted for the first leg, 091 true, is wrong. If the chart image (go there via a link in my message) is genuine, it's obvious the first course can't possibly be 091 true. Paul S. Hirose 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Enduring mysteries?"

There is a real mismatch between the article's lead section and the content of the main body. The main body is a pretty straightforward account of a navigation training flight getting lost, running out of fuel, and crashing -- exact details unsure, but basically just an ordinary tragic mishap. The lede describes "trouble of an unknown nation" "complete confusion and irrational fears," "enduring mysteries," and cites various pulp magazines and paranormal enthusiasts.

Instead of promoting this "enduring mystery" that isn't actually very mysterious, shouldn't the lede say something like, "Flight 19 was a training flight that got lost, ran out of fuel, and crashed. Then the story got roped up into UFO enthusiasm circles?" EvanHarper (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref needs fixing

The NAN73 reference cannot be accessed. A great deal of this article depends heavily on that reference. Moriori (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Green mist, white water?

I remember when I first heard of this incident, that the instructor reported "green mist" or maybe fog, that sea (or maybe land or sky) was "not as it should be" and finally the last thing he transmitted was "we're entering white water!". Well non of this appears here, or is even mention in any of the online reffernces that this article cites. Now my source for this was some Bermuda Triangle show I saw in the 90s and I'm pretty sure given the dress of Host segments that the show could have been nearly 20 years old then. My take is that this story got imbelished sometime in the 70s. Is there any known sources about this incident that have stuff like "green fog" and what not? I might consider writing a section on liberties taken or something.67.190.86.13 (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A section on "liberties taken" is appropriate if you provide reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated some time ago the white water reference supposedly come from Allen W. Eckert's "The Mystery of the Lost Patrol" in the April 1962 issue of American Legion magazine. In the "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle". NOVA/Horizon. PBS. 1976-06-27 Kusche said he corresponded with Eckert and Eckert could not longer remember where he got the reference and there was no indication where where it might have come from. Unless something has come up in the 33 years since it was filmed Kusche's statement about that being as far back as the traditional story about Flight 19 can be traced still stands.

As for the green mist that is relatively new though there are accounts of a green haze in one of Berlitz's books but that was regarding a supposed survivor and not Flight 19.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Illustration needs replacing/amendment

The map image leaves a lot to be desired. I would have taken this up with its creator User:Anyeverybody but he may have left Wiki. If anyone can suggest someone else who is good with creating such images, please tell me and I will contact him/her.

In the mean time, I will make some changes to the existing caption.Moriori (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okeefenoke

I also saw the programme which suggested flight 19 ended up in a swamp. As pointed out there were the usual good vague details.

There could be a simple answer to this suggestion. After the flight took off nobody saw it again. Had the flight actually crossed land again, somebody, somewhere, would have seen something. A flight of aeroplanes, even flying low, is something that can be seen from a great distance.AT Kunene (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That guy Gian Quasar brought that up some years ago on a TV show, and a few days ago (January, 2014) on another show. I would ask how they could miss the lights of Jacksonville (FL), a good sized city even back then with a large Navy yard. I flew a light plane in the West Palm Beach area 1971-72 and from there, at 1,000 feet, granted, in good weather, you could easily see the upper Keys. Fort Lauderdale would be even closer and you should be able to see more. also, if flying over the Keys, you would see the Overseas Highway/what remains of the Overseas Railroad connecting them. Taylor was used to flying out of Key West and, if flying over the Bahamas, should have noticed the lack of such a connection among the islands and hence should not have mistaken them for the Keys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southjerseymichigan (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also been reported that "Taylor's last message was received at 7:04 pm." - History Channel, Decoding the Past - The Bermuda Triangle

I added the following to the article while watching the documentary on H2: (It's also been reported that Taylor's last message was received at 7:04 pm.) ref> History Channel, Decoding the Past - The Bermuda Triangle (SO1 Ep16, 2005) - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Gernon's electronic fog experience is very relevant to Flight 19

Bruce Gernon's electronic fog experience is very relevant to Flight 19 imo. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzeJaGwVykw). The calculated speed of 2000mph is simply the speed of the lunar earth tide at this latitude. A dark matter 'rocking stone' embedded in the crust with a 2g graviton cone of influence could simply have flung the aircraft *and* surrounding pocket of air across the Florida Strait, causing the effects described. 195.59.118.106 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey

Absolute rubbish. Good God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.1.232 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Taylor

I've red , more than once, that Taylor at some point left the command to another pilot. And that the last recieved message was something like "It appears as we are on our way on to that white water". (a "white water" of which hadn't been mentioned before) Boeing720 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And I've read, even more than twice, that people who read or hear something somewhere from someone, without knowing what, where and by whom, are not to be considered trustworthy. I say God Himself has kidnapped the pilots to the moon, and if you read this paragraph again, you can say that you've read this more than once. --146.60.149.33 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Reasons why Citation Needed for 5 aircraft disposed at sea

We are currently told:

They had been declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete and were simply disposed of at sea within 1.5 mi (2.4 km) of each other.[7]

[7]Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004); telecast on The Science Channel, February 17, 2006.

However back in August 2009 (here), the same source was being used to support two different stories:

In 1991, the wreckage of five Avengers was discovered off the coast of Florida, but engine serial numbers revealed they were not Flight 19. They had crashed on five different days "all within a mile and a half [~2.4 km] of each other."[7] Records showed training accidents between 1942 and 1946 accounted for the loss of 94 aviation personnel from NAS Fort Lauderdale (including Flight 19.)[8] In 1992, another expedition located scattered debris on the ocean floor, but nothing could be identified. In the last decade, searchers have been expanding their area to include farther east, into the Atlantic Ocean. It has been determined through Navy records that the various discovered aircraft, including the group of five, were declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete, and simply disposed of at sea.[7]

[7]Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004); telecast on The Science Channel, February 17, 2006.

Under the different title "The Bermuda Triangle: Beneath the Waves", this source has been re-broadcast 7 times on BBC4 since December 28, 2013, most recently yesterday evening (when I viewed it, for the second time) and again early this morning. It was first first broadcast by BBC1 on Sunday March 14, 2004. It makes no mention of any Navy dumping, but describes the crashes in the same tiny area as a truly amazing fluke (incidentally, there would only have been 4 crashes, not 5, as it says one was a mid-air collision of two planes).

It describes the program as: Professor Bruce Denardo attempts to prove whether there is any truth behind the legend of the Bermuda Triangle, where many ships and planes have disappeared in mysterious circumstances. New investigation techniques reveal the truth behind the infamous disappearance of Flight 19. Graham Hawkes is also able to reveal, by using a state-of-the-art submarine, how five wrecks mysteriously wound up 730 feet down in the heart of the Bermuda Triangle.

It also tells us that the producer is Will Aslett. It is clearly the same program as our cited source Dive to Bermuda Triangle (2004), as that is produced by Will Aslett in 2004, and includes Bruce Denardo and Graham Hawkes in the cast as themselves, and no other Bermuda Triangle work is attributed to Denardo, Hawkes, or Aslett.

So clearly a proper citation is needed, and I will next be replacing the current citation with such a request. However I am leaving the existing text about being dumped by the Navy unchanged, due to the superficially plausible nature of the statement. If somebody wishes to re-insert the existing source the text needs to correctly reflect the source, and it needs to be re-phrased to comply with WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which would mean somethng like:

In March 2004 (subsequently repeated in 2013 and 2014), the BBC documentary The Bermuda Triangle: Beneath the Waves concluded that all 5 planes had crashed on 4 different days (including one mid-air collision), ending on the seabed all within a mile and a half [~2.4 km] of each other, in what, according to the documentary, seemed to be an extraordinarily improbable coincidence.

(I should point out that even if the 'navy dumping' claim turns out to be incorrect speculation (as seems quite possible, given the apparent conflict with some of the details of the BBC claims, given the lack of any BBC correction 10 years later, and given their statutory obligation to 'educate,..., and inform'), it might still be the case that the BBC documentary is simply wrong in its claims of astonishing improbability, as there might be factors favouring a concentration of crashes, such as a nearby training target, or whatever, though that is of course just speculation on my part, and if the explanation is that simple it's a bit strange that the documentary never mentions it as a possibility). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Ouch! Things just got even messier. The following extract from Men's Journal suggests that nothing based on the claims of the above program is reliable, including how many planes are down there (on the other hand Hawkes may also have found Flight 19 as he now claims):

---

Soon Hawkes turned his attention to treasure hunting. The Scientific Search Project set out to find the wrecks of ships from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries that had foundered in deep water, aiming to salvage their cargo while preserving their historical value. It marked an abrupt ideological break from Earle, who dreamed of unlocking the secrets of the world's oceans to preserve them for humanity, not to make a fortune. Using statistics suggesting that for 300 years, 10 percent of global shipping had been lost at sea, and a system he'd devised that made it simple to find and survey what remained, Hawkes won Wall Street funding and set out into the Bahama Channel on a boat christened Deep See. The Deep See found up to five wrecks a day, the remains of centuries of doomed vessels sunk in an area infamous for bad weather. "We found everything: planes, submarines, tankers . . . a sailboat lying on the bottom, on its side, with its sails up." They also, he says now, solved one of the most enduring riddles of the Bermuda Triangle. In May 1991, they discovered five Grumman Avenger fighter-bombers lying in a group on the ocean floor. At the time, the discovery caused a media frenzy. Hawkes was questioned by a dockside scrum of cameramen and interviewers who all wanted to know if the planes were those of Flight 19, which took off from Fort Lauderdale on a perfectly clear day in 1945 and vanished without a trace somewhere over the Atlantic – one of the legendary disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. Then, as quickly as it had started, the sensation evaporated when Hawkes announced that further investigation revealed that the planes' tail numbers did not match those of the long-lost flight, implying that he believed the five planes must have crashed separately. Hawkes has since changed his story. Now he says both he (because his investors didn't want to waste valuable time on an investigation) and the Pentagon (because they had more important things to worry about) had an interest in making the story go away. He admits that while he didn't find conclusive evidence that the planes were the same group that went missing in 1945, he consulted a statistician to establish the probability that they were not. "He said, 'You've got Flight 19,' " Hawkes says.

---

A partial transcript of the text of the (now unreliable) BBC documentary is available here. However it's a shortened edited version of the program that takes 57 minutes with ads (the BBC version is an hour without ads), so it omits the mid-air collision (if I am correct that they were claiming one, though I'm now doubting my memory - how would they know there was one?), and the guy describing how improbable the odds are supposed to be.

00:38:36 "Nav 23990-- " on the 9th october, 1943, ft-87, piloted by ensign george swint, was returning to fort lauderdale from a bombing run. 00:38:53 Onboard were airmen second class sam treese and j. lewulis. 00:38:59 , the engine suffered a catastrophic loss of fuel and ditched. 00:39:06 Swint and his crew survived. 00:39:10 Ft-87-- .. 00:39:20 Graham now knows how she got here. 00:39:23 Of the remaining four wrecks, graham could never definitively identify the downed avengers. 00:39:32 Despite the odds, they are just a random collection of accidents that came to rest in the same place 12 miles from home.

Despite the program's unreliability, given that nobody is claiming that the other planes were identified, there is not the slightest reason to believe our current unsourced claim that naval records can show that the 5 planes (if there even were 5 planes) were dumped there (although I guess it's possible that some planes were dumped there).

---

The following extract (taken from here) is of interest:

TBM Avenger FT-87: (top left) Appearance: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCcWpm… This was the first wreck looked at during the show, it was early on during segment where the crew lead by Oceanographer Graham Hawkes was searching for the legendary Flight 19. FT-87 was one of a cluster of 5 Avengers all wrecked in close proximity, naturally it was suspected to be of Flight 19. I don't think I'll ever forget seeing those close up shots of the cockpit underwater with the interior and pilots seat totally covered in algie and corroded, it was very haunting. During the segment they tried to find the bureau number for the plane which is the actual number unique to the plane that could identify it. Oddly enough, even thinking so as a little kid, the show just abruptly gives up after showing that they were having trouble finding the numbers.

It wasn't until a couple days ago when I had a really cool thing happen. I watched a relatively random documentary from the 2000s (<--- watch that part) which itself had a segment on flight 19. To my extreme surprise and boyish glee they made a return to ol' FT-87 in this new show! I know how weird it sounds, but it was almost like seeing an old friend from your childhood, I was even surprised to see the ol' boy looked just about exactly the same as I'd seen him back in 1996.. a real testament to the durability of those old planes. Graham Hawks was even around for it again this time, though funny enough by the sound of it he didn't even seem to remember having seen FT-87 before. XD Turns out the idiots back in the first show weren't even looking in the right place for the numbers! The numbers are on the tail which had snapped off apparently when FT-87 slammed on the ocean floor, but luckily it'd landed right there on FT-87's left wing, FT-87's true name turned out to be: NAV 23990 and from that they were able to dig up the accident report, here's a cliffnote version taken from the document shown on screen:

"LOST AT SEA - Oct 9th 1943 - Returning to Fort Lauderdale after bombing run Crew - George Swint III (pilot) Slc Sam Treese Slc J Lewulis

-Pilot was of the opinion that right main tank had plenty of gas in it for glide bombing maneuvers. When his engine cut, pilot had about 400-500 ft altitude and was traveling at 160 knots. He made new attempt to switch to another tank or to make use of the emergency fuel pump. Trouble Board believes the engine suffered a lack of fuel, and feels that the reaction of the pilot during the emergency was poor. He had time to switch to another tank and to make use of the emergency pump - an act which might have eliminated the loss of the plane.

Pilot's Note: I then gave my aircrewman the order to stand by for a crash landing. I made a belly landing on the water, and te plane stayed afloat a sufficient time to allow my aircrewman and me to escape."

---

The above is also backed up by the following:

US Navy and US Marine Corps BuNos

Third Series (21192 to 30146)

Last revised August 4, 2014 ....

23857/24140 Grumman TBF-1 Avenger ....

23990 ditched at sea on flight from Fort Lauderdale, FL. Date?

---

Both the above suggest the only identified plane (FT 87 NAV 23990, a number clearly visible underwater in the otherwise unreliable BBC documentary) was lost at sea - so it's hard to believe our current claim that the navy dumped it at sea (although I guess that at least conceivably it's not too difficult for somebody to paint NAV 23990 on a piece of metal, drop it from your submersible onto one of the planes as its alleged broken-off tail, and then film it).

The problem is how to go about correcting our current text without violating WP:BLP, etc, and that's something I don't feel competent to do, so I'd prefer to leave it to somebody else. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out it was seemingly easier to fix than I expected. If anybody wants to restore the claim about navy dumping (which was mis-sourced, and seemingly conflicts with much else, as mentioned above), along with a 'citation needed' request, please feel free to do so, and please indicate in Talk how long you feel it should remain unsourced before being deleted. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've decided to re-use the BBC citation as it is a reliable source when it shows Hawkes finding and identifying 23990, which seems relevant to his later claim that he probably found Flight19. I leave out the 'astronomical' odds bit, as it is not from the BBC voice-over but just the opinion of one member of the team with no stated statistical expertise, and it has been omitted from the partial transcript (they probably had to cut something to fit in the ads, so they probably cut that as dodgy stuff). I leave in their conclusion about a random collection of accidents, as once we realize that it's not the BBC saying the odds are astronomical, it ceases to be any kind of clear-cut case of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Indeed we are not allowed claim that we are expert statisticians who know the BBC are wrong, and, though it's not all that relevant, I actually know enough about stats to suspect they just might be right for any number of possible reasons. So I'm including it as it appears to be the conclusion of a normally reliable source - but to be safe I cite it as their conclusion rather than as fact. If other editors are unhappy with this, they are of course free to try to improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In accordance with WP:IAR, and because of the many complex issues raised above, I've decided to include as 2 notes some ways in which those BBC odds might be reduced, mentioning the fact that the dumping theory used to be here, and making the statements self-evidently true (and thus hopefully uncontroversial and thus not requiring supporting citations even if I didn't also have WP:IAR as justification) by preceding them by a qualifier such as 'It is obviously possible to speculate that..'. If other editors are unhappy with this, they are of course free to try to improve it.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is quite easy to identify any aircraft wreck even if its BuNo or Serial Number is not available, as every major piece of equipment, engine(s), guns, etc., will each have a unique serial number that can be traced back to its fitment in that particular aeroplane. In many cases these serial numbers are affixed to the relevant parts by the outside suppliers, e.g., an undercarriage (landing gear) manufacturer will affix a data plate to each individual undercarriage unit made. The same for engines, guns, etc. These serial numbers are usually recorded in the aircraft manufacturer's records for each aircraft built. So if an aircraft wreck is found one only needs to find one serial number from any component to positively identify the aircraft. An interesting 1981 TV programme with details on this, here: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting (though I haven't been able to get your video to run for me). But diving to view and/or recover and closely examine plane parts costs money. In the case of the BBC's Phantom Five, they seemingly only used cameras that seemingly could only pick out rather large serial numbers, and once one plane was identified and found not to be part of Flight 19, I'd guess nobody's been interested in funding any further attempts to identify the others - or if they have, we seemingly haven't got a reliable source for it (so far anyway).Tlhslobus (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

At the bottom of the page, above the categories, are blue bars with all the Bermuda Triangle incidents. I'm viewing in Safari on ipad and the lower bar, and the items with it, is all out of whack, I can't tell if it goes off the side of the page but there do seem to be incidents missing. Also when I click the heading on the bar the incidents there seem different to what I can see listed here. 86.134.83.50 (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Update Reference 2

The link to reference 2 is dead. I suggest http://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Lost-Patrol.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:70:CF4C:DEE3:C890:450F:3F19:60EF (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Replaced dead link with link above provided. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

References 15 and 16

These two references currently read as follows:

15. It is obviously possible to speculate that various currently unknown or ignored factors might help to lower these odds, such as if all the crashes happened near a much frequented bomber training target, and/or the planes suffered from a design fault that tended to get triggered at roughly the same time after some particular bombing maneuver, and so on... It can be speculated that mid-air collisions in a busy airspace, such as near a bomber training target, might reduce the number of crashes needed to 4 or even 3 - the 2004 BBC documentary states that one of the planes may have lost its tail section in a documented mid-air collision in August 1944.

16. It is obviously possible to speculate that odds would be lower if the unidentified planes had been declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete and were simply disposed of at sea in a single operation and/or in a single perhaps recommended location. One might even speculate that the identified plane might also have been dumped there if it originally ditched elsewhere in waters perhaps shallow enough for it to present a shipping or environmental hazard, from where it had eventually been recovered and disposed of in a standard location deemed more suitable for such disposal. Indeed from December 2006 earlier versions of this Wikipedia article simply asserted (using wordings that varied slightly over time) that all the planes "were declared either unfit for maintenance/repair or obsolete, and simply disposed of at sea", although this assertion was initially unsourced and then in August 2008 it was incorrectly sourced in a way that made the source contradict itself in the same paragraph until the contradiction was removed by removing the correctly sourced statement in August 2014); also some parts of the assertion's wordings at least appeared to conflict with other known facts.

"It is obviously possible to speculate..." all sorts of things, but to do so would be original research (well, not really research either). If reliable sources elsewhere are doing that speculation, we should record it and reference it. Otherwise this doesn't belong in a Wiki article. The second half of Note 16 "Indeed from December 2006 earlier versions of this Wikipedia article..." is just crazy. It goes beyond WP:CIRCULAR violations to reference versions of articles that we know to be wrong.

I propose removing both of these notes. Chuntuk (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight 19. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090413074152/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq15-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq15-1.htm

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) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The Main Image

Currently the headline image is a crude CGI drawing of the flight. It's technically poor, it looks like the work of a child, and there is a much better image already available. Everything about it is misguided - the little cartoon pilots, the motion blur, the low-resolution textures. Fundamentally the concept is misjudged. It makes the article look bad and would have been inadequate as an illustration in the early 1990s. I understand the user who created the image has a yen for creating CGI images of aeroplane crashes, and he may well have a following here on Wikipedia - but this is awful. How come it has lasted so long? Who is keeping it up? What went wrong here? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This is fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight 19. 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://web.archive.org/web/20000823114007/http://history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-7f.htm

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) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal

This element is completely missing from the article, and as a result it reads like something fit for Wikia. The one and only reason this incident is remembered on such a scale is because of all the UFO claptrap that has surrounded it since the Bermuda Triangle books started coming out. 93.136.205.44 (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So, suggest something. Moriori (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest using the sources from the Skeptoid page listed at the bottom, for a start. 93.136.205.44 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Except that the "Skeptoid page listed at the bottom" does not mention the word "paranormal" anwhere. Moriori (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Filed under History & Pseudohistory, Paranormal" 93.136.205.44 (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere -- nowhere -- does that skeptoid article mention the word paranormal. It could never be used to support paranormal in our article. Rolls eyes indeed.Moriori (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Again: the only reason this incident is worth a Wikipedia page are the conspiracy theories invented by Berlitz & Co. It's pretty obvious from the topics on this talk page too. By reading the article you'd never guess that any controversy ever existed. Maybe you figure I believe in these theories. I don't and I'm not asking to pretend that there is merit to them. But if we don't mention them, what's the point of having this article? 93.136.151.154 (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Got to agree with that assessment. Consider how many planes with military origin are lost in peace times, and it is pretty obvious that Flight 19 is way more prominent a topic than it would usually deserve, and the sole reason for that is the claims about paranormal occurrences during its disappearance. Like the commenter above, I don't believe anything mysterious or paranormal happened to the flight, but there should at least be some mention that this incident got so prominent, due to those claims made by Berlitz and Co.Die-yng (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The incident gained notability due to legends about the Bermuda Triangle, and our high quality sources use the term "supernatural" to discuss these (admittedly pseudoscientific) beliefs [7]. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Transcript From PBM-5 Bu 5995? Does Anyone have a source to the original?

Apparently the last words of the PBM-5 Bu 5995 crew were "They look like they're from outer space!". Would anyone have the links to the original transcript?

I've submitted a FOIA request with the US Navy to acquire the transcript of the conversation which took place over the radio between the Base ATC and Bu 5995. I hope they have it.106.215.127.75 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Don't hold your breath waiting for info. The aircraft which exploded was BuNo. 59225, not Bu 5995. Moriori (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well maybe they'll understand what I was talking about, as I mentioned the PBM-5 which was dispatched to investigate the crash of Flight 19?Chantern15 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

And maybe they wont, especially if they do a search for "They look like they're from outer space!".Moriori (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, but I did not mention that phrase, I merely asked for the transcript of the conversation between base ATC and the PBM-5.Chantern15 (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

And if/when the navy supplies the transcript, you wont search for "They look like they're from outer space" or similar. Moriori (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll search for it, but only to find out the truth. The transcript will also be useful to Wikipedia, as we have the minutes of the Avengers' conversation with the base ATC, but not the one with the PBM-5. I'll go where the sources take me, and nowhere else. Especially not Space.Chantern15 (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Apparently the last words of the PBM-5 Bu 5995 crew were "They look like they're from outer space!". Apparently you didn't understand the context of the WaPo article. It wasn't saying those were the last words of the flight crew. It was saying that kind of hyperbole is typical of Bermuda Triangle stories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

That intent didn't seem clear in the article to me. It might be my fault for not understanding their points. So, I thought that the best way to know would be to get to the bottom of this, and go to the primary source, the Navy, and see what their records tell us. I wonder where the source of this hyperbolic statement is from? Where did Erich Von Daniken get it from?Chantern15 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Happily enough, the FOIA request from the US Navy was answered and yielded the following documents from NARA as they had already been declassified before and articles from history.navy.mil and histroyhub.history.gov they are:

Articles:

1. The Loss of Flight 19.

2. Loss of Flight 19 Accident Reports.

3. Lost Patrol.

4. Exorcising the Devil's Triangle.

5. Records of the Lost: Looking at the Records of Flight 19

Documents:

1. Folder A17: Fort Lauderdale-5 TBM Crash-December 5, 1945 THRU PBM-1946. Pages 127 and 298 of the PDF cover the disappearance of the PBM-5 Mariner BuNo 59225 (search as Buno) and her crew. Unfortunately there are no transcripts of the conversation between the crew of the Mariner and the Base ATC as opposed to the well documented transcript of many conversations with the Base ATC, the Avengers and others. So, it is unclear where Eric Van Daniken got his claim of stating that the last words from the Mariner were "They look like they're from outer space". I hope at some point the transcript between BuNo 59225 and the Base ATC can be found, so that this part of the mystery can be laid to rest as well. In the meantime, these documents can be used to improve the article, perhaps bring it up to "featured status".

2. Flight 19 incident hack sheet.

3. Flight 19 Navigation Problem #1.

4. CNO Request Information on Flight 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

References

In Expedition Unknown Mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle supposedly the Martin Mariner is found

This spans two episodes: E7 and E8 of S8.

In the second one they scan the ocean floor near the position of the last contact and find a 3 blade aluminum hub and a two cylinder row motor. I just saw it translated on Tele5 in Germany where it is in the mediathek at the moment of writing this comment (DEC-13-2021).

Episode descriptions found here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4305162/episodes?season=8

If I not overlooked a link to an extra article about the rescue plane and if one exists please add link to the article. There is a link to the plane model article but the article does not contain any links to the one lost on search for flight 19.

Runeb2 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Your last sentence says it all. nothing here to add to the article. Moriori (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

oxygen masks

Corky Meyers in his book talks about mining safety oxygen masks being a problem. They were not up to standard and most but not all were replaced.Oxygen starvation causes confusion. Could faulty masks have been the problem? Corky Meyer's Flight journal p.70 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:44F8:C9E5:9232:B4D9 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hen and Chickens Shoals

There is something I can't understand. The map shows Hen and Chickens Shoals east of Fort Lauderdale (point B). But, at least in Google Maps, it is located some 4 of 5 miles east of Islamorada... in Florida Keys! Is it an error? Is it only an error from Wikipedia or something earlier and deeper? 84.78.242.150 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I reply to myself: There is a "Hen and Chicken Rocks" (less known) at the point marked in the map. That's all. 90.167.86.238 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

However the right name is "Hen and Chicken Rocks" instead of "Hen and Chickens Shoals" as in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.167.86.238 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Military documents would be the best source for that kind of information. Perhaps [8]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and since every page in Internet I've consulted commits the same mistake (it is a mistake, undoubtedly, it could be checked in Google maps) I presume it is a mistake that comes from an official (very likely military) source. And now I wonder if they just confused the names or something more? 90.167.86.238 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The National Archives map does show a "Hen and Chickens" east of Ft. Lauderdale roughly halfway on the planned route [9]. It is possible that names of places could have been different in the 1940s. However, we'd need a reliable source (see WP:OR and WP:CITE) specifically identifying the destination of Flight 19 as "rocks" (as seen on Mapcarta maps and [10]) and not "shoals" or otherwise differentiating the two places. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This [11] and this: [12] might be acceptable: ETA was 1723 and the TBMs had enough fuel to remain aloft for five to five-and-a-half hours. Hens and Chickens Shoals, commonly called Chicken Rocks, the point at which they would conduct low level bombing, was only 56 miles away. If they cruised at 150 mph, they would arrive at the Rocks in about 20 minutes or so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The citation to Naval Aviation News was already in there, I've added a url to a readable version, and updated the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanx!!! 90.167.86.238 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is possible the pilot confused "Hens and Chickens Shoals" (east F. Lauderdale) with "Hen and Chickens Rocks" (east of Islamorada)?

"and I am trying to find Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I am over land but it's broken. I am sure I'm in the Keys but I don't know how far down and I don't know how to get to Fort Lauderdale." 90.167.86.114 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

General Motors TBM Avenger Torpedo Bomber

This is a Grumman TBM Avenger, or am I incorrect? I could not edit it. Odanny (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the Grumman TBF Avenger article, Grumman developed and initially produced the TBF Avenger. Later, production was shifted to the Eastern Aircraft division of General Motors, with those aircraft being designated as the General Motors TBM Avenger. Indyguy (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)