Talk:Bermuda Triangle

See also: /Archive1,/Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4

Mary Celeste

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

Where is gary at in the Bermuda Triangle located?

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

Wording?

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

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

The comprehensive bibliography at the end of the article

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

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

REMINDER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference from Popular Culture

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

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

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

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

Broken link

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

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

References

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

Raifuku Maru

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

SS V. A. Fogg

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link dump: BBC article

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

Slandering a Veteran

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

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

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

The Triangle area

File:Triangles1.jpg

The area of the Triangle varies by author

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

Something fishy in the "Compass Variations" section

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

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

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

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

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

I like your changes. But since you say that the line moves, how about changing 'currently' to 'as of 2000' (See [[1]]) MDfoo (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Criticism of Kusche

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

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

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

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

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

Ellen Austin

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

Introduction Suggests Superstition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kusche

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

The New Age movement never fails to amaze me.

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

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

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

Thank you

Carroll A. Deering

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

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

David Kusche

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

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

Edit request from Tc06rtw, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

explaining Bermuda Triangle.

After the events of the garden of eden,God placed an engel to garde entry of the garden by Man again,its said by my grandfather that three stones with strong iresistable wind also exist making it difficult for nay object to cross that area.However the african tale does not tell exactly where but an ocean is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.134.82 (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... no. And either way, you shouldn't post this sort of thing here - it's for discussing the article itself, not the topic. 109.78.78.87 (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

i have heared

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

Speculation

The natural explanations are all full of maybes--they're as speculative as the Bermuda Triangle myth itself. Do they belong in an encyclopedia?