Talk:1948 Airborne Transport DC-3 disappearance

Why the cleanup tag?
It appears to either be pointless, since it has references given, or yet another attempt by pseudo-skeptics to act like there aren't unexplainable things in the world. --Chr.K. 01:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a skeptic, I love this article! It is rich in detail and well-referenced. It does, however, due to the author's habit, which he repeats many time, of wrapping his sentences in subordinate clauses, need a cleanup.


 * For example: A widespread search quickly undertaken, including even the Everglades due to the flight's approach being over shallow, transparent water, failed to turn up any trace of wreckage, and, with no reports received of any explosions within or near the search radius, was finally discontinued.


 * Could be re-written as: A widespread search was quickly undertaken, (which included even the Florida Everglades) but this failed to turn up any trace of wreckage. With no reports received of any explosions within or near the search radius, the search was finally discontinued.


 * Maybe if I get a minute, I'll do it.--Oscar Bravo 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There aren't unexplainable things in the world, just things that haven't been unexplained. If this article suggests or claims the events are unexplainable then it would clearly violate NPOV. However fortunately it does not. It simple reports the events including the fact we don't currently (and may never) know the whole explaination for what happened and the fact that some strange people think the events are unexplainable which is what it should do Nil Einne 12:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the only way it would be impossible for things to not be unexplainable, and literally happening for no reason at all, would be if chaos theory to be incorrect. That said, I agree: it's not unexplainable; just unexplainable, so far as I at least can tell, by current understanding of science. --Chr.K. 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article needs a cleanup, and a better title. The contents block indicates...nothing.  And it sits below the main block of information.  The batteries are written on the page as being low, but in the official report it is stated that Linquist refused to get them recharged.  Carajou 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quasar's piece is the source for saying that he would recharge them in flight. --Chr.K. 23:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Positional fix by Linquist
The position he reported himself at took into account the amount of time it would take to arrive at Miami after the wind change, not before. The evidence shows Linquist as having received the transmission from Miami. Also, even if he WAS blown too far off course to the east (wind going northeast after the change, per the report), the incident is already slightly surreal for the control tower much further away, and not the closer one, picking up the final transmission. --Chr.K. 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if your speculation were correct, it remains speculation. But it is incorrect anyway. The evidence does not show that Linquist received a transmission, by any stretch of the imagination. The official accident report specifically states "it is not known whether the flight received it". As nothing was heard from the aircraft after reporting its position, no-one can ex post facto claim Linquist heard anything. Also, a northeast wind blows from the northeast, not towards the northeast. Linquist would have been closer to New Orleans, not further away. Moriori 20:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake on the implication of the direction of the wind; New Orleans still remained a h/ll of a lot further away than Miami from NC16002, and the evidence STILL shows that he transmitted an ETA that took into account the calculation of being blown off course. If a general adjusts to an opposing army doing something that was not known at the time the army set out, he would've had to have learned about it at some point, rationality would demand...else he would not have changed in mid-motion. If you disagree, you are simply trying to be obstinate. --Chr.K. 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, I hate to say this but it seems to be that your the one being obstinate. As Moriori remarked, and looking at the evidence, there's nothing to show that the captain was aware of the change in direction of the wind. If he had known of the wind, then yes of course he would have taken into account the wind in his ETA. But as there is no evidence he knew of the wind, then there is no reason to assume he took it into account. There is no evidence he changed anything in midflight AFAIK, the plane was not ever found and this was before GPS and even radar, so no one really knew where the plane was at any stage. Nil Einne 12:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently Greg Little recently found the remains of this aircraft in the sea off Andros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The DC-3 found by Little was a local plane/history known at https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/765891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.70.161 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Article name adjustment
Mistake made when I first wrote it: it might be better written, by wikipedian standards, as NC16002 disappearance, second word not capitalized. Other opinions invited in this matter. --Chr.K. 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed the structure
Yes, I changed the structure of the page, including a minor tweaking of the body of the work, as it was informative and no substantial change there was necessary. It did need the inclusion of info from the official investigation. Carajou 00:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)