• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fossett & the Bermuda Triangle

SomeGuy said:
I can't resist:

Can you even draw a triangle on a globe....?
Click to expand...

[warning, sarcastic illogical comment follows]
You assume the world is round; a myth founded by the Masons to keep the true people of this planet in the dark to the true origins of the universe. EVERYONE knows the world is really flat.
[/warning, sarcastic illogical comment follows]
 
Oliver said:
Right now Fox News is reporting they found a plane
wreck - but they don't know if it's Fossett's plane...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it didn't pan out. I didn't see that news story, but CNN said that they had 4 substantial "leads"--plane crash sites that might've been his. They all turned out not to be.

Apparently the dessert just accumulates plane crash debris. I guess they're too remote to make it worthwhile to remove the wreckage.

I do hope they find it, even though his likelihood of surviving this long is about nil by now.
 
Locknar said:
I'm pretty sure it was on Discovery...was just not sure if the MBs were involved. The more I think about it though, I'm thinking it was just one of those "specials" they show in Discovery time to time. As I recall, it was well done and largely debunked the idea.

Of course, if the shows intent was to prove the idea...then I'd say it was poorly done as my memory of it is drastically different *lol*
Click to expand...
No they proved the opposite. I don't remember about the boats but they did prove that a methane release could oddly enough knock a plane out of the sky. In fact Im pretty sure it had to do with a recent wreck of airplanes that they found and had no idea how they got there. Turns out that the methane could have knocked out the engine. Im pretty sure they proved that the bubbles had the same effect for boats.
 
Last edited:
I think this is the Discovery show; I never said they proved methane bubbles could NEVER sink a boat/ship....I did say, though, that a lot of things would have to be "just right" for it to happen. I'd also think you'd have reported "near misses", or reported sightings of a "bubbling ocean"....

I don't recall the airplane aspect on the show (it's been a while since I remember watching it), but seems to be that would be virtually impossible. For that to happen, the methane would have to remain dense (ie. not being dissipated by atmospheric winds) to stall a engine.

Could it happen in controlled conditions, yes. Could it happen in the real world...I think it's the same as the ships, a LOT of things would have to be just right for it to happen, and you'd also have a lot of "near misses" (ie. engine stall but was able to restart kind of stuff).
 
Last edited:
Just to second Locknar:

Yes, they proved it was possible, which we've all agreed with. They also pointed out how very unlikely it was, as we've stated, due to the lack of reporting of near misses. And yes, it could affect a plane, but again, you'd have to have a LOT of methane. You'd expect at least a few plane sightings of boiling seas. Not to mention, they ONLY tested the methane gas on a single type of engine from the Flight 19 type planes. They did not test modern jet engines or propeller engines. Additionally, a momentary engine failure due to a localized external effect is unlikely to bring down a plane, even an older model. Engines can be restarted. As a final nail in the coffin of this one, you can add in the well-documented (but unpublicized, go figure) accounts of the air traffic controllers and others along the eastern coast who repeatedly make the point that Flight 19's leader was confused and keep thinking he was in the Gulf (instead of the Atlantic), and turning west over and over again. There's a MUCH more likely explanation that a once-in-a-lifetime-never-seen-before massive methane release.

The tests on that discovery show smacked of confirmation bias, as opposed to honest research. However, overall, they did point out how unlikely such an explanation was.
 
Last edited:
SomeGuy said:
I can't resist:

Can you even draw a triangle on a globe....?
Click to expand...

:D (ermm actually yes, use a piece of string as a ruler)

I guess that the next thing was that he was on a secret mission to spy on the Japs ... ohh wait. .......


I'm just wondering how long it will take for the first Psycics to pop up and give their version. :hb:

But i hope he is found soon, dead or alive the uncertainty mut be horrible to his family. :(
 
As of yesterday, the NG was checking a area that two women reported seeing a plane matching Fossett's flying around a canyon (didn't say where); they saw it fly in but never come out.
 
And they've now found a half dozen previously uncharted plane wreck sites. One of these may resolve a "mysterious" airplane disappearance from the 1960s.

I reiterate, if it's this hard to find a wreck on dry land in the continental U.S., why do the Bermuda Triangle people think a plane or ship wreck at sea leaving no traces is at all significant or mysterious?

To reinforce Hunstman's recent post, not only is the methane bubble scenario an unlikely explanation for the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon, there is also no phenomenon in need of explanation to begin with.
 
Huntsman said:
Just to calrify something else, as well. The methane gas theory has nothing to do with methane burning, or rotting plants. It has to do with methane hydrates (I think, hydrides, maybe? Chemists? Geologists?), which are solid, unstable methane-containing compunds on the sea floor, Slight disturbance can cause them to release the methane, sometimes in large amounts. This causes bubbles to rise in a big group, and a bubbly ocean produces less bouyant force than calmer water.

Still very unlikely, as a ship would have to be right over a hydrate area, at the exact time that a tectonic rumble set it off. Logically, there'd be numerous sightings of bubble rises (near misses) to every dissappearing ship...and we don't have that. It's highly unlikely, to say the least.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a TV documentary some years ago that did show a bubbling ocean area quite close to a ship, caused by these hydrides. Whether this was a common event I don't know, but at least one ship which filmed the event happened to be there when it took place.
 
Explorer;

Yes, no one is claiming it's never happened, but we have one (or a very few) accounts of near misses compared to dozens of so-called triangle disappearances. You should have many, MANY more accounts of near misses than the number of hits.

So, again, my argument is that while this may explain, at most, a small handful of triangle dissappearnaces, it would not add up to any significant amount. The fact that dissappearances are no more likely in the triangle than elsewhere also supports the fact that the effect of these hydrides is statistically insignificant in accounting for missing ships and/or planes.
 
Huntsman said:
Explorer;

Yes, no one is claiming it's never happened, but we have one (or a very few) accounts of near misses compared to dozens of so-called triangle disappearances. You should have many, MANY more accounts of near misses than the number of hits.

So, again, my argument is that while this may explain, at most, a small handful of triangle dissappearnaces, it would not add up to any significant amount. The fact that dissappearances are no more likely in the triangle than elsewhere also supports the fact that the effect of these hydrides is statistically insignificant in accounting for missing ships and/or planes.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom