Jump to content

Talk:June 1962 Alcatraz escape attempt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge

[edit]

Per the {{merge}} tags, I propose that the Allen West (prisoner), Clarence Anglin, John Anglin, and Frank Morris articles be merged into this article. 58.8.1.199 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Together they're notable... there's no need for four separate article saying essentially the same thing. Cheers, CP 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the suggestsion to merge. The only reason that the Anglins and Morris are truly notable (and therefore the only reason people would be looking for them) is the escape, they don't need their own separate articles. Merge! FilmFemme (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Please merge. Location (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No one cares about these people for anything other than their escape attempt. Vidor (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge

[edit]

I don't think they should because they pulled off the most gutsy and smartest way to escape the prison with the biggest prison security. They should get their own wiki page. NO MERGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkatron (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. They should not be merged because they are a part of history, and quite possibly (I personally think most probably) pulled off the greatest escape in American history. Do NOT merge!!!! Vyselink (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not merge the pages. I was interested in Frank Morris and found this page as a link, but sometimes research only calls for a specific name and one needs to move on. It would be hampering to me (and I suspect others) to have to comb through an entire related story to find one piece of information. Thank you, Lois Armstrong Shuck- frequent user of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.187.226 (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think the pages should NOT be merged. This prisoner had a sad but substantial life, and as he was a part of the Alcatraz escape he warrants his own page. I also find this page educational, as it shows how sad some prisoners' lives still are in this supposedly enlightened society. Martianpackets (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they might say the same thing. It could be in a different perspective. No Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyxxxTV (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Do not merge these pages! Of course these pages are realated but we must separate them, besause June 1962 Alcatraz escape is only a little part of the whole biography of Frank Moris, whom we must consider as a personality.

Don't merge! They each have separate stories, they are both well-known and notable people that have their own biographies.--HugoRain (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Acroterion

[edit]

Actually, you Wrong, the stolen car and Vanished from Alcatraz are socured or whatever you call it.

http://edgewest.com/films/alcatraz/

and on list of Alcatraz escape attempts

Frank Morris and the 1962 escape were examined in a 2011 National Geographic Channel program entitled "Vanished from Alcatraz". According to the newly uncovered official records discussed on the program, a raft was discovered on Angel Island with footprints leading away. Furthermore, there was also a report of a stolen car in the area that night, which could have been used by Morris and the other escapees.

Now can it be put on here? My wife and I for years been debating on whetever Morris and the Anglins made it or not and hopefully this be put on again like what other users tired to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.23.173 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've added so much poorly sourced material to Alcatraz-related articles (as well as Kennedy-related topics), speculation, original research, misspellings and opinion that your credibility as an editor was exhausted long ago. If by "others" you mean one of your other IP addresses, the answer is no. Other editors may wish to do so, but I won't since I don't have access to the material; I have no objection in principle to the material if it's appropriate attributed and placed in context: the issue is with your editing history. In any case, it must be clearly noted as speculation. Please note that you're blocked from editing Wikipedia: just because your IP changes doesn't mean that you may start editing again. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bascially, in the past two decades some major substantiated evidence has come to light.

When the case was transferred from the FBI to the US Marshals (which I believe is standard protocol after a certain amount of time) all the files were examined in detail.

While the FBI never made it public, there’s 2 records stating that a RAFT WAS FOUND on Angel Island the next day, along with footprints leading away from the raft.

The general reports of no stolen cars in the area that night (it was stated by Allan West, the prisoner in on the escape attempt but couldn’t make it out of his cell on the night, that the three had planned to steal a car) are wrong. a 1955 blue Chevrolet was reported stolen, and it another possible piece of evidence, a motorist in Stockton, California (80 miles East of San Francisco) reported being forced off the road by three men in a blue Chevrolet driving at high speed)

Lede

[edit]

Current consensus is that this may have been a successful escape. Please discuss here. - Location (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't even necessary; the only "evidence" that the Anglins are alive is one 40-year-old photo that one purported expert says might be authentic, as broadcast on a documentary channel that is notorious for playing fast and loose with hearsay and innuendo. We will need something way more credible than that to move off of "may have been". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree. Doesn't matter the history or your assessment of the History Channel. What matters is that three individuals in law enforcement have stated the photo is likely authentic. They further stated that it is a new and substantial lead in a cold case that deserves further investigation. None of them would have put their professional reputations on the line to help the History Channel with ratings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit states that you do agree that this "may have been" a successful escape. - Location (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And your point? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said you "can't agree" with the statement that this may have been a successful escape, but your edit indicates that you do agree that it may have been a successful escape. My point is that your statement contradicts your edit. - Location (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Photo is real. just look at it! A high res copy should be uploaded on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.249.191 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Photo is real, just look at it" hardly qualifies as WP:RS. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SFGate August 13, 2015

[edit]

I don't know how you are missing it, DoctorJoeE, but the new source I provided most certainly does mention the farm as well as show the photo of the two men alleged to be the Anglin brothers on that farm. The text in the article states, "This image shared on the History Channel claims to shows Clarence (left) and John Anglin (right), two bank robbers who infamously escaped from Alcatraz in 1962, standing on a farm where they allegedly lived in Brazil in 1975." Please see this link for the photo and the text you claim isn't there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, thanks for discussing this civilly rather than edit warring. The sentence you added said, in part, "he offered photos of the farm where the brothers had purportedly been living, and a photograph of two men resembling John and Clarence Anglin..." (Bolding is mine.) The source you cited -- and every other one that I've found so far -- mentions only the photo of the brothers; none of them mention any additional photos of the farm. That's why I removed "photos of a farm where they had purportedly been living". Yes, the photo of the brothers was supposed to have been taken on a farm. I didn't think it was particularly important to include that, since nothing in the photo suggests that it really is a farm -- but we can certainly add that the photo in question is supposed to have been taken on a farm. Okay? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a photo of the alleged farm, and why it isn't in this series of photos I don't know. It was part of the History Channel program. But, what you've suggested will work fine. My objection was to the complete removal of content regarding the photo of them on the farm -- which was referenced accurately before you removed it the second time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left the reference, and added additional material from that reference. But again, none of the cited sources support the presence of any photos other than the one of the brothers. And let's face it, that's the relevant one. But I've added that they were supposedly pictured on a farm. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I see that someone has added it back again! (The YouTube clip is a primary source, and technically not proper WP:RS anyway.) The point I was trying to make is that none of the secondary sources mentions photos of the farm. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the question of whether the brothers are alive. The only photo that matters is the one that purports to show the brothers in Brazil in 1975, and that's the only one that anyone is paying any attention to. I guess we're going to have to leave it in, since people will continue to add it anyway, for some reason -- although I'm going to fix the awkward language -- but in the long term, it's probably going to get taken out. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

There was recently a very brief discussion in Talk:John Anglin#Proposed merge with Clarence Anglin that concluded that Clarence Anglin, John Anglin, and Frank Morris (prisoner) be merged to June 1962 Alcatraz escape. Unfortunately, this article and the article on Morris were not tagged. As a formality, I'm going to tag those articles and request further feedback on this page. Thanks! - Location (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that discussion - but I agree, none of the three have notability outside of this one event, and there is an adequate biographical summary of each of them within this article. If it is ever proved convincingly that the Anglin brothers did in fact make it to Brazil and lived out there lives there, an argument could be made for spinning off an article on them; but unless/until that happens, this article is quite sufficient IMHO. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Location: Since nearly a month has passed with no further discussion, can we safely conclude that there is no strenuous objection to the proposal, and proceed with the merger? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One question, DoctorJoeE: how do you merge all the sourced content into here? --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the nuts & bolts of merges — but in this case, simple cut/paste and deletion, yes? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the "laughing stock" nonsense, for obvious reasons -- but what, pray tell, is so critical about " this kind of decision"? We're not pondering a change in Earth's orbit -- just moving some content, unaltered, from one place to another; and we've already established (above) that these guys are not notable for anything other than the Alcatraz escape attempt. So unless User:166.175.186.172 would care to explain why he or she is so strenuously opposed to this routine merger, let's get on with it, already. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Checchi

[edit]

I think that Robert Checchi does seem to deserve a place on here. Although he is rarely mentioned when it comes to the escape, Cheechi did testify to the FBI that he saw a boat in the bay that night, and that the boat should not have been there (as Alcatraz was a no-go zone for civilian or non-prison boats). The boat theory has had many alternative "suspects" for it over the years, including Bumpy Johnson (which Clarence Carnes suggested), the man who made a deathbed confession about the escape (which the daily mail talks article talks about) and recently, Fred Brizzi (as the Wideners believe). Even if the Daily Mail is an unreliable source, in my honest opinion Cheechi's exact quoted & sourced words could be added within the events' timeline of the article along with attribution, in the second paragraph of the "Investigation" section: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.100.91 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the man's name is Robert Checchi. Let's at least get that straight. His story has been around for a long time, and the FBI was skeptical because of the gaping holes in it. Examples: (1) He never explained what he was doing in the Marina District at midnight -- or why he didn't call the police or Coast Guard immediately if he really thought something was amiss. (2) Alcatraz Island is about 2 miles due north of Marina Green, and Angel Island is two or three miles further north of Alcatraz. If you've ever been there (I used to live there), you know how far away Alcatraz is from the Marina area. Since the escapees left from the north shore of Alcatraz, headed for Angel Island, any pickup would have occurred 2-3 miles away from Checchi's vantage point, on the other side of Alcatraz Island. His view would have been blocked - in broad daylight, let alone at midnight. (3) There would have been nothing unusual about a boat in the Bay, and no place it "wasn't supposed to be", as long as it didn't try to dock at Alcatraz itself; and why in heck would the accomplices have painted it "pristine white"? You would want to camouflage a "getaway boat" as much as possible, not make it stand out like a sore thumb.
Those are just the most obvious problems with Checchi's story; and it has come back to light only because of this "deathbed confession", which has a lot of problems of its own. First, who is the confessor? Why hasn't he been identified? And why would you go to all that trouble to get these three guys out, transport them to Washington, and then kill them?? The whole story is unconvincing and, more importantly, not useful: We have no more information than we had before. We have no way to verify any of the information claimed. At best, we have another person claiming that the escape succeeded, and while that may eventually be proven true, this "confession" contributes absolutely nothing toward proving it. So until some hard evidence is published in WP:RS - or at very very least, the identity of the confessor - it has no place in the article, IMHO.
By the way, I found some updated info on Brizzi's story, which I will add when I get another spare minute, since I just used up the present spare minute writing this! DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the article does say he claimed. Not proof he saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.134.75 (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you re-read the above, you'll see that what he claimed made no sense, and was not useful to the investigation. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 03:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am reverting the section that says that the Eastwood film implies that the escapees made it. Do we need this? I argue that it is unnecessary as it cannot be counted as evidence. I am also adding in other films the escape was shown in, such as the two-part 1980 TV movie: Alcatraz: The Whole Shocking Story and the 1987 horror comedy Terror on Alcatraz (1987) starring Aldo Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.251.212 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

We say that the film implies the escape was successful because that's what sources say. There has never been any implication that it "counted as evidence". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources only say that the escapees got out of the prison. There is no reliable evidence that they survived beyond that. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote any particular point of view. Unless reliable sources can be provided, there is no evidence to support the claim of a successful escape beyond the prison walls themselves. Flanker235 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on June 1962 Alcatraz escape. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on June 1962 Alcatraz escape. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

government information

[edit]

this article is under construction to mention the revelations that were uncovered in a national Geographic Channel program entitled "Vanished from Alcatraz", revealed newly uncovered official records discussed on the program, a raft was discovered on Angel Island with footprints leading away. Furthermore, there was also a report of a stolen car in the area that night, which could have been used by Morris and the other escapees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.100.50 (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"attempt"

[edit]

Lets see 3 people did escape, they had a perfectly viable raft and their bodies where never found. Even if you claim all where drowned and their bodies disappeared! Even if they did die they did escape Alcatraz Prison is the island only, not being on the island = escaped! Can the article be renamed accordingly? --Apemonkey1 (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Attempt" implies that the mission of the escapees failed when authorities universally allow at least the possibility that it succeeded; so long as the question of their fate remains unsettled, none can say that their project was rather attempted than completed. Theroyalrambler (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. "Attempt" can be successful or not, but applies in both cases. Changing the name draws conclusions that don't stand up to evidence. --KNHaw (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The word "attempt" typically means unsuccessful when used retrospect. Ex: He attempted a joke, but no one laughed. You're thinking of when the word is used before the outcome is known. Ex: His first high jump attempt. In this context, speaking about it afterwards, it does imply failure. They did not "attempt" to escape. They did escape. DJ Iron Arm (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"an act of trying to do something, especially something difficult, often with no success", Oxford
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/attempt_1?q=attempt DJ Iron Arm (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ignoring the word often in that definition? Or the very next line, the first example given: I passed my driving test at the first attempt? Besides which, I find it laughable to suggest a successful escape ends in death. -- Pemilligan (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why use a word that "often" means unsuccessful when they succeeded? That is what's laughable. It's not only a poor choice of words, it's misleading. Also, whether they died or not is irrelevant. They escaped the Alcatraz prison. DJ Iron Arm (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in your example you qualify that the attempt succeeded. That's why it works, otherwise it's ambiguous. This title implies failure, or an ambiguous result at best. But why describe it that way? It's not ambiguous. We know they succeeded. It's like saying, Usain Bolt's London 2012 100m attempt. We know he won, so you don't use English like that. This title is exactly the same. DJ Iron Arm (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion, not fact, that they succeeded and it's not ambiguous. I disagree with your opinions. If they lived, they succeeded; if they died, they failed. We don't know which. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, considering that a cursory search will reveal that it is nothing more than standard practice for articles on the present subject to be titled Alcatraz Escape. For example, one need look no further than the FBI's webpage (https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/alcatraz-escape). Why would the FBI, of all, use a name that "draws conclusions that don't stand up to evidence" on their own public webpage for the world to see? I dare to say the name the FBI used did no such thing. What then, is it because this Wikipedia article has gone by "Alcatraz Escape Attempt" so long that the action of changing it would draw attention to itself and itself seem to imply some shift in interpretation taken? With all due respect, other than this last possibility, I cannot see the problem with what is evidently a near-universal appellation for the present topic. For what it might be worth.Theroyalrambler (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've pretty much hit it right on the head with your 'last possibility.' That seems reason enough. 2601:87:4400:AF2:B8E0:46B8:177A:DAC7 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: Escape successfully carried out

Paragraph 5, Sentence 1: No evidence for success vs. failure

Benica11 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current facts

[edit]

Bascially, in the past two decades some major substantiated evidence has come to light. When the case was transferred from the FBI to the US Marshals (which I believe is standard protocol after a certain amount of time) all the files were examined in detail. While the FBI never made it public, there’s 2 records stating that contrary to the official FBI report of the escapees' raft never being recovered, a RAFT WAS FOUND on Angel Island the day after the escape, along with footprints leading away from the raft. The general reports of no stolen cars in the area that night (it was stated by Allan West, the prisoner in on the escape attempt but couldn’t make it out of his cell on the night, that the three had planned to steal a car) are wrong. a 1955 blue Chevrolet was reported stolen, and it another possible piece of evidence, a motorist in Stockton, California (80 miles East of San Francisco) reported being forced off the road by three men in a blue Chevrolet driving at high speed)

The body that was seen floating in the bay by the Norwegian ship was believed to have came ashore at Point Reyes a week or so later. They examined the bones at this time and the proposed height of the person was an exact match to Frank Morris. (5′-7″) This body was exhumed and DNA evidence was obtained. The US Marshals were able to find a living relative of Frank Morris and compared the DNA. It was not a match. They did the same for a relative of the Anglins and it was not a match.

Everything about these sources seemed quite credible. The US Marshal in charge of the ongoing investigation is Michael Dyke, who I doubt would be involved in this research if the facts were sensationalized.

It’s interesting that the FBI didn’t admit that they had found the raft and footprints. But it’s not surprising. Alcatraz was held with great respect and I’m sure the FBI didn’t want to tarnish it’s image. Also, the FBI didn’t want to admit that the 3 could have gotten away. So they (very quickly) declared them drowned. Perhaps they also did this hoping the three would relax a bit and then become easier targets to find.

In addition, Christof Putzel, award-winning journalist and correspondent for Al Jazeera America. Paddling the same route in a replica of the makeshift raft used by the Anglins and Morris, they determined that due to the shifting tide, it is plausible that the trio could have paddled to Angel Island without a great degree of difficulty. Noting the documents mentioning a raft being found on Angel Island, and the 1955 blue cheroot being stolen, Putzel combed though hundreds of documents and discovered another report two weeks after the escape, mentioning a chevy of the same description making its way across the country over a couple months was spotted in Oklahoma with men who met the description of the escapees, a Chevy discovered in Indian, a Chevy spotted in Ohio, in South Carolina, three months after the initial escape, three men matching the description of the Anglin brothers and Frank Morris trying to acquire a hideout in the woods. Widner had to say about Morris; "in letters and conversations I've had with certain people, there's a very good indication that he left; I did kind of hear where I thought he went". Putzel went taubate brazil, where he discovered that there was a farm, called "The Farm of the Americans", and learned that residents recalled of seeing two American men rented the farm and living there from 1965 to the 1970's and discovered the nearby site of the 1975 photograph, called El Dutra, discovering similar large termite mounds similar to the one in the photo.

This convincingly give much support there were two American men living in Brazil, but it does not prove that the two men were the Anglin brothers; but regardless, this evidence is quite sufficient IMHO and needs to lend to the article being rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.202.63 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of Wikipedia to support any particular point of view. Nor is it the job of wikipedia to publish unsubstantiated claims. Without references, these claims are hearsay and not appropriate for conclusion in a reference-grade article. Until such information is provided, there is no need for a rewrite. Flanker235 (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current consensus ?

[edit]

Current consensus seems to be is that this may have been a successful escape. Please discuss here.

Bascially, in the past two decades some major substantiated evidence has come to light.

When the case was transferred from the FBI to the US Marshals (which I believe is standard protocol after a certain amount of time) all the files were examined in detail.

While the FBI never made it public, there’s 2 records stating that a RAFT WAS FOUND on Angel Island the next day, along with footprints leading away from the raft.

The general reports of no stolen cars in the area that night (it was stated by Allan West, the prisoner in on the escape attempt but couldn’t make it out of his cell on the night, that the three had planned to steal a car) are wrong. a 1955 blue Chevrolet was reported stolen, and it another possible piece of evidence, a motorist in Stockton, California (80 miles East of San Francisco) reported being forced off the road by three men in a blue Chevrolet driving at high speed)

Could it be the REAL question about the Alcatraz Escape is not whether the men survived, but what happened to them in later life? Anyone?

"Successful" escape is an unclear phrase. Similarly the article starts out talking about an attempt to escape. You could say that once the inmates got off Alcatraz and into the ocean, they had successfully escaped from Alcatraz, and such was not just an attempt. The question then is, did they successfully escape from drowning in the ocean? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It does seem the consensus has swung in favor of the idea that the men survived their escape gambit and went on to evade the authorities, however there still needs to be some definitive proof (preferably DNA-related) or even some follow-through on the so-called confession letter sent in recent times to the FBI (claiming to be one of the Anglins and willing to turn himself in), before the tone of the article can reflect this assumption. All of the little bits of information can collectively give that interpretation - and to be frank I get the impression their attempt was successful from just reading this article - that said I think there's a difference between the evidence itself giving this impression and the language and tone of the article reflecting it. At least three recreations of their attempt - as stated in this article - seem to point in the direction that it was actually more do-able than the authorities were willing to admit to survive the frigid waters and get to shore. (Not to mention the later attempt which did just that, with less, and in worse conditions) I think that one day we will be able to definitively say what happened that morning and afterwards, maybe sooner than we think. 2601:87:4400:AF2:B8E0:46B8:177A:DAC7 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to support or promote any particular point of view. Without references, public consensus is irrelevant. In short, it doesn't matter what people think. It matters what the evidence says and the evidence supports no conclusion either way. Secondly, the evidence does not exist merely to support a very remote possibility that suddenly becomes accepted fact. If relevant paperwork can be provided that prove that a raft was found, that the raft was made from materials available to to the prisoners, that the raft got there because the men put it there, rather than it just being washed up with the tides of San Francisco Bay, then maybe something can be added. Everything else is hearsay and not appropriate to a reference grade article. Flanker235 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1955 blue Chevrolet/KPB-076

[edit]

I have been doing some digging and discovered a revelation; the supposed document reveal that suggested a car was stolen, contrary to official claims, is apparently not new at all, not back in 2011, when the documents were revealed. Several newspapers actually reported it, as well as the same license plate. I have yet to find some more of them, so give me time. Or discuss this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.84.86 (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What connection are you making? Is there any police report or FBI report that corroborates a connection with the escapees? There is no point in continuing to push these things without corroborating evidence, like police reports or credible sources. Unsubstantiated reports from a TV documentary are nothing more than claims. They are not evidence that these people survived their escape attempt. And if you are going to continue to post these "questions", please sign your posts. Flanker235 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsubstantiated reports from a TV documentary are nothing more than claims." I don't agree with your assessment. Everything in the program seemed quite credible. The US Marshal in charge of the ongoing investigation is Michael Dyke, who I doubt would be involved in the program if the facts were sensationalized. (I believe the over dramatic music and bad re-enactments are the only flaw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.67.147 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Contradictory on a Possible HOW having been evidenced

[edit]

Article says:

"A 2003 MythBusters episode[65] on the Discovery Channel tested the feasibility of an escape from the island aboard a raft constructed with the same materials and tools available to the inmates, and determined that it was possible.[12]... Using a scale model of the San Francisco Bay area, the tide could have washed the paddle in the direction of Angel Island if released from the Marin Headlands, but as with their theory of the how the escape could have succeeded, no concrete evidence existed to prove or disprove the theory."

First, the article plainly states that Mythbusters demonstrated a HOW that the escape was possible. Then the article states that no concrete evidence existed to prove or disprove the theory of HOW THE ESCAPE COULD HAVE SUCCEEDED. This seems contradictory. The article has said that Mythbuster demonstrated a possible HOW. Should the last sentence in the quote above be changed to say, "No concrete evidence was given to prove that the escape actually was done that way"? (PeacePeace (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It sounds accurate as written to me. There's no concrete evidence to prove or disprove the theory that they escaped that way, and there's no concrete evidence to prove or disprove the paddle thing. I think perhaps you're reading it as there being no evidence that they could have escaped that way, but the intended reading is that there's no evidence that they did. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that these men successfully escaped from the prison. What is in doubt is whether or not they survived. There is ample evidence of the former and no evidence of the latter. Like the man said, absence of evidence is not the came as evidence of absence. Flanker235 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several places

[edit]

Donalsonville, in Seminole County, Colquitt County and Miller County are all given as the place of birth of the two Anglin brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.107 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are all within about 50 miles of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.107 (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Colquitt town is in Miller County, not Colquitt County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.107 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are three counties in America, all called Seminole County. They are in Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.192.107 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alcatraz success escape attempt" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alcatraz success escape attempt. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Car stolen reports

[edit]

I found several newspapers, such as Humboldt Times and San Francisco Examiner, actually reported the theft of a car, matching the story in the documents. https://newspaperarchive.com/eureka-humboldt-times-jun-13-1962-p-1/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/23806783/the-san-francisco-examiner/ 80.47.35.39 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_1962_Alcatraz_escape_attempt&oldid=1256743635"