Wormhole In The Bermuda Triangle?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure, but my understanding of the dominant bermuda triangle claims is that allegedly an extaordinary number of planes are dropping out of the sky within the perimeter, rather than an ordinary number of planes are crashing, and they mystery is that we can't locate the wreckage.

Temporarily suspending disbelief about the very plausibility of submarine wormholes for the sake of discussion, a submarine wormhole might explain absence of some wreckage, but it's hard to picture how it could down the plane in the first place.

I disagree.

We don't usually find the wreckage after it's sunk. At that point it has already "disappeared".

(And this of course is ignoring the point that there aren't an extraordinary number of planes crashing within that area and that we often do find wreckage but the Berlitz types simply lie and say no trace was found. And as you say, we're temporarily pretending such an underwater wormhole is possible.)

An underwater wormhole would only make the wreckage that has already "disappeared" disappear more thoroughly.

The people claiming these "disappearances" are mysterious aren't claiming that we search underwater for wreckage. The story is usually based on a misunderstanding of where the plane went down. When the area where the plane was supposed to be shows no floating wreckage, they claim it's a mystery. The fact is, the plane probably went down somewhere else, and by the time anyone looked there, everything had sunk.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not trying to stir things up here, but that's harder than you think. When people addressed your specific words, you want them to ignore the phrasing and get to what you consider to be the real point. When they then try to guess what your real point is, you don't seem to like that either:

Exactly. Eyeron chewed me out for doing both.

However, he did apologize (more or less), so I think we should move on.

My first answer to Eyeron's question in this thread is almost identical to the answer I gave some time ago when someone submitted the possibility of methane bubbles as a cause of capsized/sunk ships in the Bermuda Triangle. Even though that explanation doesn't require high-energy physics phenomena or supernatural forces, I still said that it is not an explanation for the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon because there is no phenomenon in need of explanation. If the question were, "Is it possible for methane bubbles to sink or capsize a ship?" I would reply by saying the more important question is, "Is there any evidence that methane bubbles have capsized or sunk a ship?"

The methane bubble idea also assumes that the ships don't "disappear" but simply sink before we find the wreckage.

 

[Rodney]

I cited the U.S. Navy, The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Yes, but none of them document that Lloyd's of London did a study of risk in the Bermuda Triangle. Even if it did, as Gian Quasar notes:

"Lloyd’s does not insure the smaller stuff, so all yachts go unreported and uncataloged in statistics. Lloyd’s seldom insures the smaller charter and private aircraft, so likewise for them. Lloyd’s is not the ultimate source. It is not a marine investigation bureau. It reports on sailing news relevant to insurance."

You cited "bermuda-triangle.org". . . By the way, who is Gian Quasar and why should I care what he thinks? What was the nature of his extensive investigations?

Check out his website for yourself -- http://www.bermuda-triangle.org. Unlike the widely-praised Larry Kusche -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kusche -- Quasar has spent countless hours tracking down the facts about the Bermuda Triangle without an agenda.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, but none of them document that Lloyd's of London did a study of risk in the Bermuda Triangle.

You're wrong. Please re-read.

Check out his website for yourself -- http://www.bermuda-triangle.org. Unlike the widely-praised Larry Kusche -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kusche -- Quasar has spent countless hours tracking down the facts about the Bermuda Triangle without an agenda.

From what I read, he sounds like a believer in the Bermuda Triangle myth. I reject Gian Quasar as an authority. So, failing your argument from authority, do you have any evidence?

Also, are you claiming that the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey do have an agenda? If so what is that agenda? (This is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory. Everyone has an agenda except for the guy with the bermuda-triangle.org website.)

 

[SusanB-M1]

There was another thread recently about the Bermuda Triangle, as a result of a series of BBC Radio 4 programmes, but I am not good at finding links, I'm afraid.

 

[Rodney]

You're wrong. Please re-read.

Wrong about what? I'm looking for documentation that the Bermuda Triangle is no more dangerous than any other part of the ocean. All I can find is this:
"A check of Lloyd's of London's accident records by the editor of Fate in 1975 showed that the Triangle was no more dangerous than any other part of the ocean. U.S. Coast Guard records confirmed this and since that time no good arguments have ever been made to refute those statistics." See http://www.unmuseum.org/triangle.htm What's missing here are the statistics.

From what I read, he sounds like a believer in the Bermuda Triangle myth. I reject Gian Quasar as an authority. So, failing your argument from authority, do you have any evidence?

Again, look at Quasar's website and compare his research to Larry Kusche's research. With respect to the USS Cyclops, for example, Quasar dug up facts unknown to Kusche, who insisted, against all the evidence, that the ship had sunk off the Norfolk coast in a storm. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5144604&postcount=20

Also, are you claiming that the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey do have an agenda? If so what is that agenda? (This is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory. Everyone has an agenda except for the guy with the bermuda-triangle.org website.)

Quasar has a good answer: "To clarify myself, I really don't think much time is spent on the matter at all. Most of the small vessels are not searched for. How can the CG anyway? It's a big ocean. I don’t think there is a cover-up. I really think they don’t know what’s up. It is, once again, a big ocean. Therefore minimizing the whole thing is a safe middle ground. It takes an independent researcher like to me to spend thousands of bucks and time and years in researching to come up with case study after case study. In the end a disappearance remains 'missing.' The collective evidence points to the existence of electronic fog and unusual phenomena. The circumstantial evidence is very impressive. But in the end until a plane or ship is seen to vanish according to one of these phenomena the Coast Guard must sit the fence." See http://bermudatriangle.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=110&page=2

 

[Rodney]

There was another thread recently about the Bermuda Triangle, as a result of a series of BBC Radio 4 programmes, but I am not good at finding links, I'm afraid.

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154146.

 

[Wolrab]

"Lloyd’s does not insure the smaller stuff, so all yachts go unreported and uncataloged in statistics. Lloyd’s seldom insures the smaller charter and private aircraft, so likewise for them. Lloyd’s is not the ultimate source. It is not a marine investigation bureau. It reports on sailing news relevant to insurance."

Are you implying that a higher percentage, than any other given ocean area, of small craft meet an untimely demise in the Bermuda Triangle?
Who keeps those records?

 

[blutoski]

Are you implying that a higher percentage, than any other given ocean area, of small craft meet an untimely demise in the Bermuda Triangle?
Who keeps those records?

I think this is accepted as true, but that it's to be expected because the region has a high volume of traffic.

A meaningful question would be whether the area has a higher percentage of accidents than would be expected for its level of traffic.

My impression is that while no single government agency is responsible for analyzing this, that the information could probably be compiled from various agencies such as national Coast Guards and Caribbean countries' equivalent of FAA.

My understanding is that over the years, this has been attempted, and skeptics believe the results show no evidence that the region has an extraordinary number of accidents.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, another cite with no documentation whatever. Let me know if you ever find any. In the meantime, contemplate this statement by Gian Quasar, who has extensively investigated the Bermuda Triangle: "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."

In the last year there have been several severe traffic accidents on the stretch of Interstate 385 a few miles from my home. Yet there have been none along the 25 mph dead-end road in front of my house. What gives?

 

[dropzone]

I must admit that a name like "Quasar" does not encourage much confidence in his abilities or sanity.

 

[LostAngeles]

I must admit that a name like "Quasar" does not encourage much confidence in his abilities or sanity.

Wasn't Quasar a Kree superhero in the Marvel Universe or am I thinking of Captain Marvel?

Anyway, being as I recall (and Skeptic's Dictionary backs me up on this) that the boundaries of the triangle vary with author depending on what they want to include, I still want to be clear on that as well.

Why?

Because I'm ****ing anal like that.

Or because then we have a well-defined set of data to look at and evaluate how many ships/planes/etc have been lost in that region and can try to find a similar region to compare it to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong about what?

I quoted what you are wrong about. I will do so again:

Yes, but none of them [referring to the statements by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey that I quoted] document that Lloyd's of London did a study of risk in the Bermuda Triangle.

Here's what you apparently failed to read:

Is there a mystery regarding sinking of ships in the Bermuda Triangle?

No. I was involved in a television program called "The Bermuda Triangle" that was shown in Britain in about 1992 on Channel 4, the Equinox Programme and that was produced by John Simmons of Geofilms. At that time the producers checked with Lloyds of London to learn whether an unusually large number of ships had sunk in the triangle. They determined that large numbers of ships had not sunk there.

The mystery of the Bermuda Triangle is a fairy tale. Sorry.

Bill Dillon - Geologist, USGS

I'm looking for documentation that the Bermuda Triangle is no more dangerous than any other part of the ocean. All I can find is this:

Then again please re-read the statements by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey that I cited above.

What's missing here are the statistics.

You want me to rely on Quasar's analysis of the statistics, yet you refuse to rely on the analysis given by the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Geological Survey.

We also have a pretty strong historical record of how the Bermuda Triangle story came about. It was invented (with roots in an article back in 1950 and certainly by the time of Berlitz' book in 1974.)

So if your claim is that evidence for the Bermuda Triangle is stuff that was unknown until Quasar came along, how do you explain the story pre-dating this evidence?

ETA: And from the Quasar quote you offered, it sounds like the strongest evidence for the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon is that we don't know about small craft incidents so we can't disprove it. Sorry, but that doesn't work. If you claim there's something going on (proportionately more missing boats and airplanes in a certain area), then it's up to you to provide evidence for it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is accepted as true, but that it's to be expected because the region has a high volume of traffic.

A meaningful question would be whether the area has a higher percentage of accidents than would be expected for its level of traffic.

What exactly do you think "percentage" means?

I (and apparently Wolrab) take it as a measure of how many boats or planes went missing for every 100 units of traffic (boats, planes, miles, hours--whatever the measuring system is).

I think you and Wolrab are miscommunicating with each other and probably agree.

 

[Christian Klippel]

What exactly do you think "percentage" means?

I (and apparently Wolrab) take it as a measure of how many boats or planes went missing for every 100 units of traffic (boats, planes, miles, hours--whatever the measuring system is).

I think you and Wolrab are miscommunicating with each other and probably agree.

I'm not sure, but i would think that the relation is not linear. My guess is that with a higher traffic density you automatically get a higher probability of an accident happen. Like, an area of 100 km² with an air-traffic density of, lets say, 100 planes/hour would have more than twice the number of accidents than the same area with only 50 planes/hour, when counted over a period of 1 year or two.

Does that make sense?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Wolrab]

I understand what he meant.
Being a warm area, I would agree that there should be a higher incident rate, with all the extra recreational and unprofessional traffic. The woos seldom mention piracy and drug related explanations and tend to jump to extremes ( as usual).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure, but i would think that the relation is not linear. My guess is that with a higher traffic density you automatically get a higher probability of an accident happen. Like, an area of 100 km² with an air-traffic density of, lets say, 100 planes/hour would have more than twice the number of accidents than the same area with only 50 planes/hour, when counted over a period of 1 year or two.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. Very good point.

Even if someone found evidence of a disproportion in accidents in a certain area (and wrt the Bermuda Triangle even this hasn't yet been shown), it wouldn't necessarily point to something unusual.

Thinking about it the other way around, if we wanted to reduce accidents in a given area by reducing traffic, the law of diminishing returns would be expected, and maybe a sort of "critical mass" effect. (Critical density would be the better term.)

So if we did have a proportionately higher rate of missing craft in the Bermuda Triangle, Occam's Razor would still suggest that there is nothing in need of an extraordinary explanation.

 

[blutoski]

What exactly do you think "percentage" means?

I interpreted your statement to be about area. Percentage meaning 'per square mile'.

I (and apparently Wolrab) take it as a measure of how many boats or planes went missing for every 100 units of traffic (boats, planes, miles, hours--whatever the measuring system is).

I think you and Wolrab are miscommunicating with each other and probably agree.

For sure. And yeah: it would have to be more than just a linear relationship. Higher density of pleasure boats attracts piracy. The area also has a higher density of people, waterfront mileage. It's a corridor for smugglers of all sorts of contraband...

Per square mile, the region is more risky than an equivalent area of mid-Pacific.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I interpreted your statement to be about area. Percentage meaning 'per square mile'.

Per cent is Latin for "per 100"--no units. But I see your point--if he didn't specify units, it was an ambiguous statement.

Per square mile, the region is more risky than an equivalent area of mid-Pacific.

Yup. As someone said, there are many more accidents on a high-traffic road than a seldom travelled dead-end road.

I wouldn't say, though, that it means per square foot or mile or whatever that the pavement itself is more risky. In fact, interstate highways and well-travelled shipping lanes near ports are probably inherently less risky than the dead-end road or the mid-Atlantic if everything else were equal. That's why I would take "proportionate" or "percentage" to mean something wrt to traffic density.

Again, we're making the same point--just different ways of expressing it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Higher density of pleasure boats attracts piracy. The area also has a higher density of people, waterfront mileage. It's a corridor for smugglers of all sorts of contraband...

Spoken like a true Pastafarian!