Is Bermuda really that strange?

Von Daniken's statement that aliens have visited the earth is a contempt for early human intelligence. Similarly, blindly believing in the "super-science" theory is also a contempt for the "normal" sensory ability developed by human beings. I can't find anything that believes in super-science, that is, something beyond the scope of scientific knowledge, which will be worse than believing in Bermuda Triangle. Bermuda Triangle is the most typical example of super science, pseudoscience, scientific fantasy and propaganda.

The most common misunderstanding about the Bermuda Triangle is that the reported disappearance is a description of what is happening "in the distance" to confirm the mystery of imagination: although the explanation of the reason may be different, and there may be a debate about whether it is necessary to make a super-scientific and knowable explanation, we "do know" that something unusual has happened in the distance: the only problem is how to explain it fundamentally. This reasoning method is completely wrong. The Bermuda Triangle, where strange disappearances often occur, only exists in paper and movies, and is only proved and supported by some poor survey data and rumors, which is absurd and illogical.

To understand how the fantasy about Bermuda Triangle came into being, it is best to take a closer look at two mysteries I studied when I wrote The Mystery of Bermuda Triangle-Solved (1975). This book is praised as the most authoritative work in this field by prestigious organizations and scientists such as Lloyd's Shipping Association and the US Coast Guard. There are about sixty-five examples in the book, you can also have a look.

From 65438 to 0972, before I started writing a book about Bermuda Triangle, I had collected many articles and chapters in magazines and newspapers, which described Bermuda Triangle as a very important underground secret topic. According to these articles, sailors have been talking about the Bermuda Triangle since Columbus' time and how ships disappeared without a trace in clear weather. The author says this may be a coincidence, but the data proves too many strange situations. It is said that all common explanations, such as storms, mechanical failures and human errors, are not enough to explain this mystery. It is also said that the navy, coast guard, Lloyd's Shipping Association of London and first-class scientists are also puzzled.

The evidence supporting this phenomenon is "beyond the scope of current science" and mainly consists of a fictional list of the mysterious disappearance of ships, planes and crew members. When I started writing a book, I didn't expect what I would find or what my findings would be. I don't want to try to solve this mystery, I just want to report everything I can find about it.

1972, two articles written by Vincent Gaddis, a freelance writer, provide the most information about Bermuda Triangle. His article "The Deadly Bermuda Triangle" was published in the February issue 1964 of Human Adventure magazine. The following year, this article was slightly revised and supplemented, which became the thirteenth chapter of his book Invisible Horizon, The Triangle of Death. What Gaddis talked about became the core of the mystery.

The first incident I studied was the Sadafko case. According to Gaddis, "Sadafoko" is a cargo ship. It sailed south from Newark Port (New Jersey) on 1926, and its 29 crew members never came back. The whole mystery involves only one ship. However, the brevity of the case statement makes me wonder how much investigation Gaddis has actually done. I want to know whether this event is really mysterious or just because of lack of information. Some people can't distinguish the two. I have noticed that some authors' materials are equally short. They obviously use Gaddis's works as the source of materials, and they are impatient for further verification. The desire to investigate new things seems surprisingly low.

It is not difficult to get information about this ship. The New York Times has a wonderful report on this shipwreck. It has published five articles about this cargo ship. According to the first article, the shipping company has been unable to invite the navy to search for the trace of Sadafoko for three and a half weeks after the cargo ship disappeared. The last sentence of the article reads: When the Sadako was sailing along the coast, a big storm was blowing on the coast. "Gaddis and other authors never mentioned the storm. The rest of the articles said that the search failed to make progress, and it was finally determined that the ship had lost contact in early May. I also found an article about the ocean-going ship "Akitani". When the ship arrived in new york, Sadafoko was leaving the port. Captain Akitania reported that the ship was sailing in the worst weather he had ever seen. "Strong winds like tropical cyclones" forced the ship to return.

2[ Turn] Bermuda Triangle Scam

My conclusion is that the mystery of Bermuda Triangle "Sadafoko" is the result of hasty research.

At the beginning of my research, I found a paperback book, the title of which was gone forever, which was unknown at that time. The author is john Wallace Spencer. When I read this book carefully, I found that most of it was rewritten and abridged by The New York Times (in the paragraph where Spencer described the ship "Sadafoko", there was a 22-word sentence, which was exactly the same as that reported in The New York Times's article except for changing the tense of a verb). However, Spencer's book did not read the most crucial sentence in the newspaper: "When the Sadafoot sailed along the coast, there was a big storm blowing on the coast." He also made the same abridgement when reporting several other mysterious events.

/kloc-in the autumn of 0/974, six months after my manuscript was completed, that is, six months before this book was published, two other books on this subject were published. The Devil's Triangle written by Richard Weiner and Bermuda Triangle written by Charles Berlitz both say that the Sadafoko incident is an unsolved mystery. In terms of words, Weiner's writing materials are taken from The New York Times, while Belizean's are taken from Gaddis's articles. None of them mentioned the big storm. It should be said that Gaddis, Spencer, Weiner, Berlitz and other authors all missed this key plot, or at least ignored it in their research. When I was studying other events, I found that all the authors who wrote this question as a mysterious event followed this lame research method.

Perhaps Allen Austin, one of the main stories of the Bermuda Triangle, is the best example. This example shows how different authors deal with a given unreliable "raw" material. For most authors, whether they already know it or not, the origin of this story is a book called The Astrologer's Talk, which was published in 19 14 by Rupert Gould. The following is his complete account:

"The last and strangest thing is to abandon the ship in a navigable environment. The British ship "Allen Austin" encountered this situation in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and the time was 188 1 year. " Allen Austin sent a team to escort the crew of the capture ship to the deck of the strange abandoned ship and instructed them to sail to St. John's, Newfoundland, which is also the destination of Allen Austin. The two ships separated in the thick fog and met again a few days later. The strange ship was abandoned again, and the crew who escorted the capture ship, like their predecessors, disappeared forever.

Unfortunately, Gould didn't let his readers know where he got the information. In order to compare with later articles, the basic materials of Gould's articles are listed as follows:

Words: 86

Location: Mid-Atlantic

Time: 188 1

Abandonment environment: suitable for navigation.

The reason for the separation of the two ships: foggy weather.

Second discovery: A few days later, the two ships met again, and this strange abandoned ship was abandoned again.

The ultimate fate of abandoning ship: not to mention.

This story later appeared in Vincent Gaddis's articles and books. He admitted that Gould's articles were the source of information in his books. Gaddis's article 1964 is summarized as follows:

Words: 1 15

Location: west of Azores.

Time: 188 1

Abandonment environment: Everything is normal and there are signs of struggle (in the storm).

The reason for the separation of the two ships: storm

The second discovery: the schooner was abandoned and the new crew was missing

Final fate: After the second batch of rescuers were persuaded to board the abandoned ship, a storm struck again, separating the two ships. The schooner and its crew will never appear again.

In the book published by Gaddis a year later, the description is different from his articles, and it is also different from Gould's articles that he should learn from.

Word count: 188

Location: Mid-Atlantic

Time: 188 1

Abandonment environment: the weather is suitable for navigation, everything is normal, there is no loss, and there is no sign of struggle (in the storm).

The reason for the separation of the two ships: foggy weather.

Second discovery: Two days later, the fog cleared and the captain found the abandoned ship. He was surprised to find that its course was erratic, so he ordered the helmsman to approach it. Send a signal, but there is no response. The boarding crew searched every corner of the strange ship, but found no clue about the fate of the missing person.

In the end, fate could not persuade the rest of the sailors on the Ellen Austin to board the abandoned ship again. When the Allen Austin left, it was left behind and finally disappeared on the horizon.

Cadiz's two versions of this incident are quite contradictory. His description in the book is more than twice as long as the report Gould got from his source, mainly because he added details to the description. He told us that the captain was surprised that the route of abandoning the ship was erratic. The captain gave orders to the helmsman, gave a signal to abandon the ship and searched every corner of the ship. If this event really happens, all this is of course logical and entirely possible. However, it is unfair for any writer to make such a detailed description, but there is no such description as a source of information in his works.

3[ Turn] Bermuda Triangle Scam

There are several contradictions in the two reports of Cadiz, including the contradiction of location. He wrote in the article: "There are signs of struggle", but in the book he wrote "There are no signs of struggle". This may be because the compositor missed a word "nothing" in the article, so this contradiction is not necessarily Gaddis's fault. However, Gould only mentioned that schooner was in a navigable environment. Gaddis has no basis to say that there are signs of struggle or no signs of struggle. He doesn't have any evidence. Anything about struggle will make readers feel that Gaddis actually has more information.

In the two statements, the contradiction between the environment in which the two ships separated and the contradiction between the number of rescue team members showed that the research work was hasty and rough, and the reliability was very small; However, I don't approve of fictional facts, such as describing the captain's surprise and other plots that are not in Gould's book. If this seems a little picky, let's study the following reports about this incident.

In the book Invisible Residents published in 1970s, Ivan Sanderson explained that he used the books of Gaddis and Gould as the source of information for his narrative of Allen Austin. I summarize as follows:

Words: event description -242, analysis-187, totaling 429.

Location: North Atlantic

Time: 188 1

Abandon ship: there is no one on board, and other conditions are completely normal. The ship was found intact, with plenty of food and water, and no signs of violence or accidents. The rudder was hit by the waves, and the ship was at a disadvantage, drifting with the wind. Let go of the mast rope. The captain asked the schooner, but he didn't get an answer, so he sent people to search the ship and decided to escort the captured ship to try to rescue it.

The reason for the separation of the two ships: it was foggy when sailing for Newfoundland.

The second discovery: After about two days and two nights, the fog cleared and the schooner was erratic at sea. It was abandoned again. But everything is fine on board. The rigging has been repaired and the sail has been raised.

Final fate: The rest of the crew refused to board the schooner, and the ship was left behind.

When analyzing this incident, Sanderson reported that this incident may be related to robbery at sea, deception (usually lying about the shipwreck accident in order to get insurance money) or the crew of "Ellen Austin"; After the schooner was first discovered, the ship certificate was not found; The temporary log written by the rescue team was either lost or not found, and no further mention was made. The word "further" means that this matter has been mentioned, but he didn't say where it was mentioned. Sanderson suggested that this incident may be a myth, maybe there was no escort for the crew of the capture ship at all, or maybe they had been murdered. On the other hand, he wrote: "Their names have been recorded" (without saying where the records are). It is also said that it is not impossible for other crew members to commit atrocities as if nothing had happened, and everyone resists questioning. He did not explain the details of the trial they should accept, nor did he explain where the record of the incident could be obtained according to speculation. Please read Gould's works again here, which will remind us that this is the direct source of information used by Sanderson and the indirect source of information he obtained through Gaddis's works. Then, please think about where other "materials" Sanderson told readers come from!

The Bermuda Triangle written by Charles Berlitz in 1974 also tells the story of "Allen Austin". He listed the titles of Gaddis and Sanderson in the bibliography, but did not explicitly talk about where the information about "Ellen Austen" came from. Although the source was obviously Gaddis's article, he didn't list it. Nor did he list Gould's works. Obviously, he doesn't know that this book is actually the "most original" information.

Word count: 172

Location: west of Azores

Time: 188 1

Abandon the ship: the ship was abandoned, everything was in good order, the sails were rolled up and the rigging was complete.

The reason for the separation of the two ships: the storm suddenly began.

Second discovery: Two days later, the abandoned ship was rediscovered and people were sent on board. The previous crew members have disappeared, and there is no indication of why they left or where they went. Berlitz also told us that the captain insisted on finding out the situation and the attitude of the crew was reserved, but he finally persuaded the second crew member to board the abandoned ship.

Final fate: Another storm hit, lost contact, schooner and the second crew were gone. Berlitz didn't tell the reader the destination of the ship.

So we can see how the story develops and how the author creates vivid examples of pseudoscience. The detailed description of the captain's actions, the slack stay of the mast, the repaired rigging and the rendering of the log book in Sanderson's report make people look as if the author has really done in-depth research. After listening to these perfect details, how many readers will eventually ask the question: Did it really happen? How much does the author know and how much is fiction?

4 [Turn] Bermuda Triangle Fraud

Now, there is an absurd saying. I believe that some authors are pioneers, thinking about problems beyond the scope of scientific knowledge, going deep into areas that scientists seem afraid to set foot in, and exploring the "edge of science." They are pioneers who bravely illuminate the rugged road with brilliance, and one day the scientific research institutions that stick to the rules will also go their way. I totally disagree with this statement. I find that some people have the opposite view of their roles to such authors. These authors often confuse the scientific community with illogical wrong information and the wrong will of the public, which hinders the progress of science, or at least hinders the public's understanding of scientific progress. I don't have any curiosity and thorough spirit of inquiry in them, only see complete credulity and negligence. They are out-and-out pseudoscience peddlers.

I don't know. I was curious about events like "Allen Austin", so I did some useful research to try to find out where the author who reported what actually happened at that time is now. I don't know, where is the author who told the masses the actual situation because he respected their wisdom very much? I hope to know the "truth" and start to find out the "truth" myself.

Before I started my investigation, I analyzed Gould's description of the incident, from which all other statements came. I think his sources and reports are insufficient; Otherwise, the date he reported would be more accurate. The key point that people didn't notice was that the incident he reported happened in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, at least 1000 miles east of Bermuda. Anyone who writes about this event in or near the Bermuda Triangle is either very careless or thinks that his readers are so careless that they won't bother to find this place on the map. However, after investigating other events, I learned that the "boundary" of Bermuda Triangle is extremely flexible and its "edge" is very broad. Some authors describe the Bermuda Triangle as "a small ocean near the Florida coast", but they include mysterious events that actually happened in Newfoundland, Azores and Canary Islands, and even on the edge of the Bermuda Triangle in the Pacific Ocean! In order to explore the range of this error, please look at the globe if conditions permit, otherwise you can look at the map. First, please determine the location of Bermuda-Florida-Puerto Rico triangle; Then look at the other places mentioned above and ask yourself, how can other authors have such a big error?

The first step of my research is to visit Lloyd's Shipping Association in London, which keeps records of such maritime incidents (if Gould had not died for more than 30 years, I would have asked him about it). However, this incident is extremely complicated, because the name of the schooner is unknown, so Lloyd's Shipping Association can't find any information about it. I looked up many authoritative books about sunken ships, but found nothing. I also checked the indexes of The New York Times and The Times. These indexes are very valuable for studying the collision incident, but none of them listed the incident. Because it was reported that the ship was bound for St. John's port in Newfoundland, I contacted the local library to see if they could help. Results No relevant information was found in the archives or in the telecom evening paper of 188 1. I borrowed the microfilm of Newfoundland, another newspaper of St. John. Because I don't know the exact date, I didn't find anything special from 1 881June1October to1882 July1every day. It is a boring job to read carefully the small and fuzzy printed fonts in such articles that usually have no titles. It will take several hours every night for nearly a month. 188 1 year, St. John is not the center of the world view at all, and any interesting local news can make front pages or even headlines. However, in that year and the following six months, there was no mention of similar incidents on board the "Ellen Austin" or any ship. If there was such a sensational event, it would have been published in the newspaper for several days. Some far from satisfactory ship accidents were published in a prominent position.

Just as I finished my investigation of the "Allen Austin" incident, a new statement about this incident appeared in Richard Weiner's The Devil's Triangle published in the second half of 1974. The date proposed by the author is August 20th, 188 1, between Bahamas and Bermuda, and the destination port is Boston. Weiner wrote on page 198 of this book, "Many authors have somewhat distorted the facts in order to better arouse readers' interest. But it is sensational to completely distort the facts. " In this passage, Weiner explicitly forgave the practice of "distorting the facts in order to better interest readers". In addition, an example of this practice is fully reflected in his discussion of "Allen Austin". Most of his expositions read like a novel, which is obviously beyond his actual knowledge. He told how the rigging tightened by the three-eye pulley creaked sadly with the slow drifting rhythm of the hull when the schooner was parked in the waves of the Atlantic Ocean. He described the modern teak deck covered with gravel, neatly rolled sails, main sails at the leading edge of longitudinal sails, rotating ropes and kitchen doors that slammed open and close from time to time as the hull swung. He wrote about how Captain Baker turned his head and looked back from his right shoulder in order to prove that his four crew members were still with him, and how he stepped on a cockroach the size of a thumb while waving a colt revolver to command the four crew members to rush forward with him. Weiner even "told" his readers that when the captain boarded the deck of the abandoned ship, he was still thinking about the Mary celeste. According to Weiner, when the crew escorting the capture ship boarded the abandonment deck, the storm blew the two ships apart. A few days later, the ship was found drifting at sea. People boarded the deck of the abandoned ship and saw that the food of the crew escorting the capture ship was intact, the bed had not been slept, and a new log book could not be found anywhere. The schooner looked like it was discovered for the first time. Weiner described in detail the preventive measures to ensure the safety of the second batch of boarding personnel and how the schooner slowly disappeared into the wet fog on a rainy afternoon, and was never heard from again.

5 [Turn] Bermuda Triangle Fraud

I was suspicious of the long and embellished fictional story in the report, but I started my investigation again, hoping to find the report published at that time according to this new date and place. I didn't find it in Lloyd's Ship Yearbook in London, the new york Times and The Times. Now I have to check the Boston newspaper. I checked the results of 10 and 15 in that year, but I still didn't find any related articles or records. I only learned from the Boston Public Library that there was a ship named "Allen Austin", but I can't prove that the ship was abandoned.

The results of my long-term research show that the authors who talk about the so-called "Allen Austin" incident are not stable. They are based on imagination and fiction, but they don't want to provide a source of authority. They can't prove that it really happened. They are actually telling readers that there is no doubt that they trust them. After investigating other events written by these authors and finding that they often make mistakes, I can't accept their description of this event. "Allen Austin" incident is a typical example of "beyond the scope of scientific knowledge" report. The public should ask the authors to provide the basis for everything they say, rather than accepting the report itself.

During my in-depth study of the Bermuda Triangle, I investigated nearly 70 "puzzling mysteries". Presumably, these events provide evidence that there are strange forces in Bermuda. The survey results I showed one by one in the book The Mystery of Bermuda Triangle-Solved are very extensive. I don't intend to summarize them here, but I can introduce some conclusions.

▲ There is no comprehensive and unified "theory", which can explain all the ship missing events with appropriate, concise and slogan sentences. These events are unrelated.

▲ There is no evidence that the number of missing planes and ships in Bermuda Triangle is higher than that in other oceans. What is certain, however, is that there are more ships reported as mysteriously missing in the Bermuda Triangle than anywhere else.

▲ It is found that every event has a logical and realistic explanation, and the information at that time can be found.

▲ The only "unresolved" unfortunate events are those that have not found any information. In this case, no one can prove that those events happened as described because the documents could not be provided. The only evidence is the writer's words. However, people find that their descriptions of other events for which information can be obtained are always unreliable. Lack of information cannot be mistaken for mystery.

▲ Many disappearances that are thought to have occurred in the Bermuda Triangle actually occurred in distant places such as Ireland, Newfoundland, Africa and the Pacific Ocean.

▲ Some ships may pass through the Bermuda Triangle, and it is recognized that these ships have not "disappeared" there.

▲ Due to the passage of time or the lack of communication system, I almost don't know where some ships are missing; The search target is a large area of sea, sometimes after the ship disappears for several months.

▲ Most disappearances are "mysteries that trace back to the source". After many years, these events became a "mystery" until writers looked for new events to supplement the legend about Bermuda Triangle. In fact, all the examples have been changed, which makes these events mysterious.

▲ Contrary to the usual story, in many such incidents, the weather is bad, but the author often does not mention this. Perhaps this is intentional, or perhaps the research work is not done carefully.

▲ The research work on the mystery of Bermuda Triangle is mostly bad. Authors and filmmakers rely on second-hand reports that have not been well investigated and are unwilling to spend the necessary time looking for reliable original materials (which often contradict mysterious mysteries).

▲ In many cases, the author will hide information that can obviously answer the mystery of disappearance.

▲ Technical details such as flight, shipping, navigation, forced landing, search and radio skills have been simplified to an inaccurate degree.

I euphemistically call the Bermuda Triangle a "fictional mystery". Other authors call it outright fraud or more straightforward fraud. Some writers and filmmakers have effectively used careless research, all kinds of fantasies, wrong reasoning, technical mistakes and sensational skills to describe this immortal legend.

We can also learn positive lessons from solving the mystery of Bermuda Triangle. We must be very careful about what we read or see. "Freedom of speech" means, on the one hand, the author has the constitutional right to talk to readers about anything he wants, whether it is true or not; On the other hand, others should also have the right to point out these mistakes that are untenable in the face of truth and logic.

Brief introduction of the author

Larry Kush, a native of Tempe, Arizona, flew more than 170 hours, including the rated time of civil aviation flight, teaching flight, instrument teaching flight and development flight. He became interested in the Bermuda Triangle, and made extensive research with reliable raw materials. The Mystery of the Hundred Curtains Triangle-Solved, published in 1875, is his first work, including research results and conclusions, and holds that Bermuda Triangle is a "fictional mystery". This book has been published in many countries, and has been well received by groups and scientists such as Lloyd's Shipping Association in London and the US Coast Guard, and is regarded as the most authoritative work on this issue. 1980, Kush wrote another book entitled "The Missing of Flight TeamNo. 19", in which five naval revenge torpedo bombers and a reconnaissance plane did not return after taking off at 1945 and 12.5, which was the most famous disappearance in Bermuda Triangle. Kush personally conducted research according to the flight route of the missing plane. He appeared on radio and TV programs hundreds of times and gave speeches in many American universities.

(translated by Cai)