I’ve heard “experts” say that:
a) there have been ZERO verified dissapearances in this so-called triangle and there is nothing strange going on there, nor has there ever been
b) there have been hundreds of strange occurances proven and no one can explain them!
ANyone know the real deal? This just a myth? Or is there actually something strange here?
:eek:
I know that you’re new here, and I suggest that you read the Moderator’s Notes: On General Questions, before making any more posts.
Let me draw your attention to this part of the very first post:
The Bermuda triangle has been discussed countless times, and the Master wrote a piece on it , available here: Has anyone vanished in the Bermuda Triangle lately?
The result has always been:
Now, if you think that the subject hasn’t been properly discussed, or if you have new data to add, please start a new thread, (or better still - add to the old thread(s)).
I’m sorry if this might sound harsh, but there’s been a recent growth in questions that need never have been asked, and this is one of them.
Besides, there have been more hard-to-explain losses in Lake Superior than the Bermuda area.
Some more info on Triangle lore:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-1.htm
A good website to look at is www.bermuda-triangle.org
Summary: there have been a ton of disappearances in the Bermuda area, but most of them aren’t particularely mysterious.
I read a good explanation for this recently, in which trapped natural gas on the sea bed bubbles up all in one go, and the bubbles lower the density of the water, causing the ship to sink. The theory is that the Bermuda Triangle is an area with a lot of this activity.
What I just can’t understand is why people feel compelled to explain non-existing “mysteries” by inventing some far-fetched BS that is equally hard to swallow for the thinking part of population.
Why do you think this so called ‘far-fetched BS’ is so far fetched. The physics of it seem to work fine to me, even if the Bermuda Triangle is a myth.
So how is a giant gas cloud erupting from the bottom of the sea able to down and aeroplane? As for sinking a ship they claim that a myriad of tiny bubbles will suddenly remove the lifting powers of the water but I can’t remember the proponents of the idea having been able to prove it.
The well-written stake through the heart of the Bermuda Triangle idiocy is Lawrence David Kusche’s book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery – Solved!, which came out back around 1976. Get it and read it. Meticulously researched and documented, which is way more than you can say about the pro-BT books.
Floater, water does not have ‘lifting powers’. This theory is obvious if you think about it - the gas bubbles lower the density of the water, so the ship sinks. Obviously it does not explain aeroplane losses, but from what I read, this wasn’t restricted by the theorist to the bermuda triangle. For instance, the north sea has oil fields under it, and these are often accompanied by gas, which could escape quite easily. I actually looked this up on the net - most bermuda triangle losses actually occurred outside it, and can be explained scientifically. However, that does not change that the physics of the theory works, and could still occur, if only in theory.
Which would mean that they’re not Bermuda Triangle losses at all.
There are three main problems with the bubble explanation: First, it’s never been observed. Second, if it did occur, you’d expect to see a larger than expected number of ships disappear in the Bermuda area, which you do not. And third, the physics doesn’t even work: The bubbles are rising because of their own buoyancy, and those hitting the bottom of the ship would provide exactly the same upward force that is lost due to the decreased water density.
I have done no research at all regarding the incidence of shipwrecks or ship disappearances in the Caribbean. So, I will offer NO opinion as to whether the area (or, actually “areas”; no two definitions of the “Bermuda Triangle” seem to be the same) is particularly dangerous for ships. If the data indicate that there are NOT many shipwrecks or disappearances in that region, I’ll abide by the statistics.
But I have to ask… even if it IS true that a large number of ships disappear there, why must there be any supernatural explanation? Doesn’t it stand to reason that certain oceanic regions are bound to be more dangerous than others? Aren’t there bound to be certain patches of the sea where natural conditions (reefs, rough weather, whatever) are going to cause a lot of wrecks?
That is, even if one doesn’t take the supernatural seriously, MIGHTN’T the area called the Bermuda Triangle (like countless other areas on the globe) be hazardous to ships for any number of perfectly natural reasons?
Do ships and planes still travel through the triangle or do they take a let sleeping dogs lie approach and just avoid it as much as they can?
[quote]
If the data indicate that there are NOT many shipwrecks or disappearances in that region, I’ll abide by the statistics.
[/quotes]
Remember what Mark Twain said, “There are three types of un-truths: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” 
When you strip away all of the bullshit, I think that the truth is that the Bermuda Triangle is “cursed” because it is a high-traffic area. There are tons of boats and small planes traveling in the region, so there’s bound to be alot of trouble. It’s like that one intersection in your town that seems to be especially accident-prone.
Chronos this is the 1st counter to the bubble sinking ships theory that counters it on a physics level. I will have to work through your explaination but meanwhile do you have a cite - I would like more info on that?
Yes, that is exactly my point. I mean losses that were originally claimed to be caused by the bermuda triangle did not occur inside it. Look at This map.
The article I read about the phenomenon did not restrict it to the Bermuda Triangle, just that it could explain unexplained ship losses where there are no survivors, in places such as the Bermuda Triangle.
I think the physics of it are arguable. I do not see why the bubbles would apply the same upward force as the reactionary force of the water. For a start, very small bubbles do not move very fast, and wouldn’t hold much kinetic energy. Consider also that the bubbles are hitting the slanted side of the ship and so would not transfer much of their energy to the ship.
I would just like to say again that I am not offering this up as a solution to the Bermuda Triangle ‘mystery’. It was offered as a solution by the article I read, I simply put it forward as an interesting phenomenon, if it exists/works.