Inside the Bermuda Triangle

[Rodney]

I really don't understand the intent of these types of posts. They seem to be some sort of attempt to ridicule, deride or scorn. But if that is the case, then such posters obviously have no legitimate, rational or logical argument or other contribution to make to the debate.

Moreover, it is true in other threads in this forum that when a "believer" ridicules" a "debunker" in the precisely same manner, the tone is then suddenly all serious and approbation is applied and some even refuse to take part in the thread any more. This is a HUGE double standard!

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. This forum has proved the exception to the rule. Shame really when JREF supposedly promotes critical thought and the rational application of logic. (shrugs)

Especially when Beerina claimed in post #14 on this thread that Lawrence Kusche's book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved was the "Best. Skeptic. Book. Ever" and Gord seconded the opinion by arguing that the book "is an excellent example about how to analyze Woo beliefs -- GO BACK TO THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS and do not depend on tellers of tall tales." In fact, for 35 years, self-proclaimed skeptics have pointed to Kusche's book as the quintessential example of critical thinking that completely laid to rest the notion that anything mysterious is going on in the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Where is the evidence that anything mysterious has actually happened in the so-called Bermuda Triangle? Many of the incidents the believers trot out either never happened, happened on the other side of the globe, or are rationally explained.

These discussions are largely pointless anyhow. No matter what rational explanation the evidence points to, the believers will dismiss it, because they love the mystery of it. I'll change my mind, if the evidence warrants it. I can't imagine many of the "believers" changing their opinion to fit the evidence.

 

[Rodney]

Where is the evidence that anything mysterious has actually happened in the so-called Bermuda Triangle?

Let's start with the Cyclops. Are you still clinging to Kusche's explanation of its disappearance, or do you have your own version of events?

 

[Darat]

Lets keep to the topic of this thread - not your views on the labels you attach to people. And as reminder the topic of this thread is the Bermuda Triangle and/or the radio programme referenced in the opening post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[dogjones]

Speaking as a citizen of the eponymous vertex, I have never seen an ominous vortex.

 

[MG1962]

Rodney your deconstruction of the Cyclops incident is interesting. However you have missed one exceptionally important fact. Regardless of the vessel's final port, and it's ultimate fate. It was no where near the Bermuda Triangle when whatever event led to it's loss occured.

Which unfortunately was the point Kusche was making

 

[Rodney]

Rodney your deconstruction of the Cyclops incident is interesting. However you have missed one exceptionally important fact. Regardless of the vessel's final port, and it's ultimate fate. It was no where near the Bermuda Triangle when whatever event led to it's loss occured.

As noted at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/c/cyclops.htm --

"She put to sea from Rio de Janiero 16 February 1918 and after touching at Barbados on 3 and 4 March, was never heard from again."

As previously noted, the ship's destination was Baltimore, MD, and so -- sailing from Barbados to Baltimore -- she would have sailed right through the "Bermuda Triangle" -- even if that term is very narrowly defined. Kusche does not dispute that.

Which unfortunately was the point Kusche was making

No, the point Kusche was making is that he had solved the mystery of the Cyclops' disappearance by discovering that stormy weather had occurred off the Norfolk coast on March 10, 1918. However, the subsequent naval investigation (which Kusche's research failed to uncover) found that the ship was not due in Baltimore until March 13, and therefore would have been well south of Norfolk on March 10: "Weather can also be ruled out. The only rough weather were high winds off Cape Hatteras on the 10th of March, but they dissipated the next day. Cyclops should not have been around there yet, being due on the 13th." See http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/cyclops_pg3.html

 

[Skeptic Guy]

From the Wikipedia entry on the Cyclops, it doesn't sound so mysterious. Overloaded ship. Engine trouble. Storm. Ships have gone down because of a lot less.

She made an unscheduled stop in Barbados on 3 March and 4 March, where Worley called on the United States consul, Brockholst Livingston, and took on additional supplies. Officials in Barbados reported that the water line was over the Plimsoll line, indicating an overloaded condition. Cyclops then set out for Baltimore, and was sighted on 9 March by the molasses tanker Amalco near Virginia[3], then was never seen or heard from again.[4] Reports indicate that on 10 March, the day after the ship was sighted by the Amalco a violent storm swept through the Virginia Cape area, and suggests that the combination of the overloaded condition, engine trouble, and bad weather may have conspired to do the ship in.[3]

ETA: and the dramatic claim that after she stopped in Barbados, "she was never seen again," is untrue as she was seen by the Amalco on March 10th.

 

[Rodney]

From the Wikipedia entry on the Cyclops, it doesn't sound so mysterious. Overloaded ship. Engine trouble. Storm. Ships have gone down because of a lot less.

ETA: and the dramatic claim that after she stopped in Barbados, "she was never seen again," is untrue as she was seen by the Amalco on March 10th.

I think it's time for me to edit that Wikipedia article. Seriously, the article is way off-base, as it relies heavily on the erroneous June 1929 Popular Science article, "Strangest American Sea Mystery is Solved at Last":

1) The naval inquiry regarding the Cyclops' disappearance (that again, Lawrence Kusche somehow failed to uncover, despite what he claims was meticulous research) was exceedingly thorough and addressed all possibilities:

"Quietly, behind-the-scenes, the Navy continued their methodical investigation of other possibilities, none of which seemed probable. They dismissed the idea that her cargo sank her. It had been proposed that the heavy manganese ore shifted in her holds and capsized her. Manganese was much heavier than coal so the holds, when fully loaded by weight, still had a great amount of free space in which to allow the cargo to shift. However, investigations in Rio proved it had been loaded and secured properly . . . The official Navy statement has not changed in all these years: 'Since her departure [Barbadoes] there has been no trace of the vessel. The disappearance of this ship has been one of the most baffling mysteries in the annals of the Navy, all attempts to locate her having proved unsuccessful. Many theories have been advanced, but none that satisfactorily accounts for her disappearance'." See http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/cyclops_pg3.html

2) The "Amalco" story was featured in the June 1929 Popular Science article. But the article failed to get even the name of the ship right -- it was Amolco. As Gian Quasar explains: "There was a rumor that the Amolco saw a large vessel battling heavy seas off the Carolinas. However, Captain Charles Hillyer, the Amolco’s captain, denied this entirely." See http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/q_a.html

 

[Cleon]

It's a bit difficult to take the "Bermuda Triangle" story seriously. Cruise ships, airplanes, fishing vessels, military craft, and pleasureboats go through the "triangle" daily, and nothing mysterious or odd happens to them.

Occasionally, ships sink and airplanes crash. Some of these will not be explained; it happens. In years past, before modern radio or radar, the number of "unexplained" disappearances were greater, for obvious reasons. Even in the modern era, it still happens occasionally. The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald has never been conclusivelydetermined, even though the wreck has been found and explored. Yet this is never chalked up to anything but natural forces.

There is no good reason to think the disappearances of ships and aircraft over the so-called "Triangle" are due to anything different. Unexplained != unexplainable.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I think it's time for me to edit that Wikipedia article. Seriously, the article is way off-base, as it relies heavily on the erroneous June 1929 Popular Science article, "Strangest American Sea Mystery is Solved at Last":

1) The naval inquiry regarding the Cyclops' disappearance (that again, Lawrence Kusche somehow failed to uncover, despite what he claims was meticulous research) was exceedingly thorough and addressed all possibilities:

"Quietly, behind-the-scenes, the Navy continued their methodical investigation of other possibilities, none of which seemed probable. They dismissed the idea that her cargo sank her. It had been proposed that the heavy manganese ore shifted in her holds and capsized her. Manganese was much heavier than coal so the holds, when fully loaded by weight, still had a great amount of free space in which to allow the cargo to shift. However, investigations in Rio proved it had been loaded and secured properly . . . The official Navy statement has not changed in all these years: 'Since her departure [Barbadoes] there has been no trace of the vessel. The disappearance of this ship has been one of the most baffling mysteries in the annals of the Navy, all attempts to locate her having proved unsuccessful. Many theories have been advanced, but none that satisfactorily accounts for her disappearance'." See http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/cyclops_pg3.html

2) The "Amalco" story was featured in the June 1929 Popular Science article. But the article failed to get even the name of the ship right -- it was Amolco. As Gian Quasar explains: "There was a rumor that the Amolco saw a large vessel battling heavy seas off the Carolinas. However, Captain Charles Hillyer, the Amolco’s captain, denied this entirely." See http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/q_a.html

Well, spelling aside, the Q&A listed in the site you provided does say the captain denied the claim, but does not provide a source for that claim.

There were many reports as the Cyclops set sail from Brazil that it was overloaded and had an engine problem, either of which could spell disaster at sea, storm or no storm.

That being said and as Cleon points out, ships sink all the time, planes go down all the time. A lot of the 'mysterious disapperances' attributed to the Bermuda Triangle actually occurred outside of perimeter of the 'triangle'. The Bermuda Triangle was one of the catalysts that got me into skeptical thinking. After reading about it and weighing the evidence, I realized that it ain't necessarlity so.

 

[Rodney]

It's a bit difficult to take the "Bermuda Triangle" story seriously. Cruise ships, airplanes, fishing vessels, military craft, and pleasureboats go through the "triangle" daily, and nothing mysterious or odd happens to them.

Occasionally, ships sink and airplanes crash. Some of these will not be explained; it happens. In years past, before modern radio or radar, the number of "unexplained" disappearances were greater, for obvious reasons. Even in the modern era, it still happens occasionally. The sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald has never been conclusivelydetermined, even though the wreck has been found and explored. Yet this is never chalked up to anything but natural forces.

There is no good reason to think the disappearances of ships and aircraft over the so-called "Triangle" are due to anything different. Unexplained != unexplainable.

Yes, but Lawrence Kusche claimed to have "solved" the Bermuda Triangle Mystery, when he did no such thing. There are certainly other ship and plane disappearances that are mysterious, but I don't think the Edmund Fitzgerald falls into that category. According to http://www.boatnerd.com/fitz/ --

"Traveling down Lake Superior in company with ARTHUR M. ANDERSON of the United States Steel Corporation's Great Lakes Fleet, she encountered heavy weather and in the early evening of November 10th, [1975] suddenly foundered approximately 17 miles from the entrance to Whitefish Bay (47� North Latitude, 85� 7' West Longitude)

"Captain McSorley of the "FITZ" had indicated he was having difficulty and was taking on water. She was listing to port and had two of three ballast pumps working. She had lost her radar and damage was noted to ballast tank vent pipes and he was overheard on the radio saying, 'don't allow nobody (sic) on deck.' McSorley said it was the worst storm he had ever seen."

 

[Rodney]

Well, spelling aside, the Q&A listed in the site you provided does say the captain denied the claim, but does not provide a source for that claim.

I'll try and pin that down, but the main point here is that the June 1929 Popular Science article claimed that the Amolco sighted the Cyclops in the Norfolk area on March 9, 1918, which was four days before the Cyclops was due in Baltimore -- only about 200 miles to the north of Norfolk. It doesn't make sense that the Cyclops would be that far to the north on March 9 -- if it had been, it could have arrived in Baltimore on March 10, not March 13.

There were many reports as the Cyclops set sail from Brazil that it was overloaded and had an engine problem, either of which could spell disaster at sea, storm or no storm.

Again, the navy investigated all possibilities and came up empty.

That being said and as Cleon points out, ships sink all the time, planes go down all the time. A lot of the 'mysterious disapperances' attributed to the Bermuda Triangle actually occurred outside of perimeter of the 'triangle'. The Bermuda Triangle was one of the catalysts that got me into skeptical thinking. After reading about it and weighing the evidence, I realized that it ain't necessarlity so.

But wasn't your opinion in large part formed by Kusche's book about the Bermuda Triangle? Do you still believe that Kusche did a thorough job of investigating?

 

[Cleon]

Yes, but Lawrence Kusche claimed to have "solved" the Bermuda Triangle Mystery, when he did no such thing.

...And that statement contradicts what I said how, exactly?

There are certainly other ship and plane disappearances that are mysterious, but I don't think the Edmund Fitzgerald falls into that category. According to http://www.boatnerd.com/fitz/ --

"Traveling down Lake Superior in company with ARTHUR M. ANDERSON of the United States Steel Corporation's Great Lakes Fleet, she encountered heavy weather and in the early evening of November 10th, [1975] suddenly foundered approximately 17 miles from the entrance to Whitefish Bay (47� North Latitude, 85� 7' West Longitude)

"Captain McSorley of the "FITZ" had indicated he was having difficulty and was taking on water. She was listing to port and had two of three ballast pumps working. She had lost her radar and damage was noted to ballast tank vent pipes and he was overheard on the radio saying, 'don't allow nobody (sic) on deck.' McSorley said it was the worst storm he had ever seen."

Yes, but they still don't know why she sank, only that she did. It is, by definition, a mystery.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

...And that statement contradicts what I said how, exactly?



Yes, but they still don't know why she sank, only that she did. It is, by definition, a mystery.

And without radio and radar it would be an even bigger mystery.

 

[Rodney]

...And that statement contradicts what I said how, exactly?

Several disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle have never been adequately explained, even after thorough investigations. In his book, Lawrence Kusche explicitly claimed to have solved most of these disappearances, including the two most prominent-- the Cyclops and Flight 19 -- when his research was totally inadequate to solve either.

Yes, but they still don't know why she sank, only that she did. It is, by definition, a mystery.

By your standard, then, even when there is known to have been severe weather in an area where a plane or ship disappeared, there is a mystery. I don't go that far, even though it's true that many planes and ships have encountered severe weather and survived. The point is that, if you can point to the likelihood that severe weather caused a ship or plane to disappear, I'll accept that. If, for example, the evidence indicated that the Cyclops was in the Norfolk area on March 9-10, 1918, I would accept the likelihood that it sank due to the severe weather in that area at that time. However, the evidence indicates that it was well south of Norfolk on those dates, and should have encountered no severe weather during the entirety of its journey from Barbados to Baltimore.

 

[Cleon]

Several disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle have never been adequately explained, even after thorough investigations.

Yes, and as I pointed out, such disappearances have happened everywhere. We still don't know what happened aboard the Mary Celeste*, and it went nowhere near the "Triangle."

In the days before radar or radio communications, it stands to reason there would have been more mysteries, and we may never know exactly what happened. In fact, that's exactly the case; as technology has improved, the number of "unexplained" ship and plane disappearances have gone way, way, way down. Today, countless ships, boats, and planes travel through the "Triangle" every single day, and the number of disappearances - explained or unexplained - is practically zero.

Unexplained != unexplainable.

In his book, Lawrence Kusche explicitly claimed to have solved most of these disappearances, including the two most prominent-- the Cyclops and Flight 19 -- when his research was totally inadequate to solve either.

Once again... That has what to do with what I said? I haven't read the book, nor have I commented on it.

By your standard, then, even when there is known to have been severe weather in an area where a plane or ship disappeared, there is a mystery.

Not necessarily. But yes, often there is.

I don't go that far, even though it's true that many planes and ships have encountered severe weather and survived. The point is that, if you can point to the likelihood that severe weather caused a ship or plane to disappear, I'll accept that. If, for example, the evidence indicated that the Cyclops was in the Norfolk area on March 9-10, 1918, I would accept the likelihood that it sank due to the severe weather in that area at that time. However, the evidence indicates that it was well south of Norfolk on those dates, and should have encountered no severe weather during the entirety of its journey from Barbados to Baltimore.

Severe weather is not the only possible cause of a ship sinking, not by a long shot.

Again... Unexplained != unexplainable. If we don't know how or why a ship disappeared, this does not mean it was aliens, Atlantis, or some other bizarre "Bermuda Triangle" effect.


* Though I think we can all agree that the most likely explanation, as documented by the BBC in 1965, is that Daleks were involved.

 

[Rodney]

Yes, and as I pointed out, such disappearances have happened everywhere. We still don't know what happened aboard the Mary Celeste*, and it went nowhere near the "Triangle."

I'm not questioning that mysterious disappearances have happened in areas other than the Bermuda Triangle. Of course, the Mary Celeste case is in a separate category, in that 10 crew and passengers disappeared, while the ship did not.

In the days before radar or radio communications, it stands to reason there would have been more mysteries, and we may never know exactly what happened. In fact, that's exactly the case; as technology has improved, the number of "unexplained" ship and plane disappearances have gone way, way, way down. Today, countless ships, boats, and planes travel through the "Triangle" every single day, and the number of disappearances - explained or unexplained - is practically zero.

Not according to Gian Quasar's http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/myths___facts.html --

"I have just received a list of vessels from the 7th [Bermuda Triangle] district after 12 years of asking for and being denied missing vessel statistics, always receiving the reply 'nobody tracks such statistics.' For the last 2 fiscal years this includes about 300 vessel names or types. And now I must start my search, to see which reported back to port (if any), what the weather conditions were like, etc.

"The Coast Guard is not even capable of accurately determining the numbers, and therefore could never have conducted a study. What they probably did was comment on the popular notion that 20 aircraft and 50 ships are missing. That number was bandied about incessantly in the 1970s and is still in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This number is not extraordinary for 100 years, though it is more aircraft than elsewhere over seas.

"NTSB database searches reveal that in the last decade only a handful of aircraft disappearances have occurred off New England while over 30 have happened in the Triangle. These are American statistics only, and do not reflect other nationalities.

"Then there are those who claim the disparity is due to the Triangle’s greater amount of traffic. In reality, the 1st Coast Guard district answers about just as many calls for assistance as the 7th, but the number of disappearances is still remarkably different."

Unexplained != unexplainable.

Once again... That has what to do with what I said? I haven't read the book, nor have I commented on it.

Then you're an exception to the innumerable self-proclaimed skeptics who have repeatedly cited Kusche's book as having totally discredited the notion that anything mysterious is happening in the Bermuda Triangle.

Severe weather is not the only possible cause of a ship sinking, not by a long shot.

Again... Unexplained != unexplainable. If we don't know how or why a ship disappeared, this does not mean it was aliens, Atlantis, or some other bizarre "Bermuda Triangle" effect.

I didn't say that bizarre Bermuda Triangle effects have been proven, only that there remain a number of unexplained ship and plane disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle area.

 

[Cleon]

I'm not questioning that mysterious disappearances have happened in areas other than the Bermuda Triangle. Of course, the Mary Celeste case is in a separate category, in that 10 crew and passengers disappeared, while the ship did not.

The point being: Weird **** sometimes when ships are out in the middle of nowhere, far from contact with other people.

Not according to Gian Quasar's http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/myths___facts.html --

"I have just received a list of vessels from the 7th [Bermuda Triangle]
district after 12 years of asking for and being denied missing vessel statistics, always receiving the reply 'nobody tracks such statistics.' For the last 2 fiscal years this includes about 300 vessel names or types. And now I must start my search, to see which reported back to port (if any), what the weather conditions were like, etc.

"The Coast Guard is not even capable of accurately determining the numbers, and therefore could never have conducted a study. What they probably did was comment on the popular notion that 20 aircraft and 50 ships are missing. That number was bandied about incessantly in the 1970s and is still in the Encyclopedia Britannica. This number is not extraordinary for 100 years, though it is more aircraft than elsewhere over seas.

"NTSB database searches reveal that in the last decade only a handful of aircraft disappearances have occurred off New England while over 30 have happened in the Triangle. These are American statistics only, and do not reflect other nationalities.

"Then there are those who claim the disparity is due to the Triangle’s greater amount of traffic. In reality, the 1st Coast Guard district answers about just as many calls for assistance as the 7th, but the number of disappearances is still remarkably different."

This seems to be a disjointed connection of vague information, allegations, insinuations, and not a whole lot of actual data.

First of all, the 7th District covers a wide area of coastline; South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (except the Panhandle). Only a very tiny part of that is actually in the "Triangle." Yet he still includes them in his list, whether they occurred in the "Triangle" or the Gulf of Mexico.

Second, the comparison of "calls for assistance" to "disappearances" doesn't make a whit of sense; by definition, a disappearance wouldn't involve a call for assistance.

Third, none of that takes into account things like different weather patterns (like, I dunno, hurricanes), geography (reefs, sandbars), and so on, which are all far, far different between New England and the Caribbean.

Color me unconvinced.

Then you're an exception to the innumerable self-proclaimed skeptics who have repeatedly cited Kusche's book as having totally discredited the notion that anything mysterious is happening in the Bermuda Triangle.

What can I say? I'm an exceptional person.

I haven't read the book because, as I said, I find the "mystery" to be not so much of a "mystery." Actual disappearances are pretty rare these days, in the "Triangle" or out of it. I don't see the need to "totally discredit" the "mystery," because I don't see any actual mystery there to discredit.

I didn't say that bizarre Bermuda Triangle effects have been proven, only that there remain a number of unexplained ship and plane disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle area.

And there remain a number of unexplained ship and plane disappearances everywhere. That's the nature of people venturing far away from civilization, whether by land, sea, or air. The Triangle isn't special.

 

[Rodney]

The point being: Weird **** sometimes when ships are out in the middle of nowhere, far from contact with other people.

According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/weird --

"1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of the preternatural or supernatural."

So, I agree with you.

This seems to be a disjointed connection of vague information, allegations, insinuations, and not a whole lot of actual data.

First of all, the 7th District covers a wide area of coastline; South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (except the Panhandle). Only a very tiny part of that is actually in the "Triangle." Yet he still includes them in his list, whether they occurred in the "Triangle" or the Gulf of Mexico.

Second, the comparison of "calls for assistance" to "disappearances" doesn't make a whit of sense; by definition, a disappearance wouldn't involve a call for assistance.

Third, none of that takes into account things like different weather patterns (like, I dunno, hurricanes), geography (reefs, sandbars), and so on, which are all far, far different between New England and the Caribbean.

Color me unconvinced.

If Quasar is correct in his assertion, why do you suppose it is that the "NTSB database searches reveal that in the last decade only a handful of aircraft disappearances have occurred off New England while over 30 have happened in the Triangle"?

What can I say? I'm an exceptional person.

Don't believe everything your mother told you.

I haven't read the book because, as I said, I find the "mystery" to be not so much of a "mystery." Actual disappearances are pretty rare these days, in the "Triangle" or out of it. I don't see the need to "totally discredit" the "mystery," because I don't see any actual mystery there to discredit.

In your last post, you stated: "Today, countless ships, boats, and planes travel through the 'Triangle' every single day, and the number of disappearances - explained or unexplained - is practically zero." So, you've already shifted from "practically zero" to "pretty rare" -- I'm making progress!

And there remain a number of unexplained ship and plane disappearances everywhere. That's the nature of people venturing far away from civilization, whether by land, sea, or air. The Triangle isn't special.

That remains to be seen but, in any event, unexplained ship and plane disappearances shouldn't be dismissed as nothing to get excited about just because they happen elsewhere.