This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal This redirect falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chr, I try to deal in known facts, not supposition. Fact 1 - the evidence does not indicate Linquist transmitting anything other than his distance from Miami. Fact 2, it is not known if Linquist ever received a transmission about shifting wind direction. Fact 3, the evidence does not show him acknowledging such information even if he heard it. Fact 4, the evidence does not say Linquist had - or had not - adjusted course heading to compensate for any changing wind direction, as you insist, and Wikipedia can not say he did. Your speculation about what an unrelated hypothetical general may do has no place in an encyclopedia. How many times does this need to be addressed? Moriori 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fixed. Moriori 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]