Pilot Flies Through Bermuda Triangle Wormhole

[zoser]

Thousands of views on YouTube. Interviews for television shows. Appearances at paranormal conventions. Book deals. Movie deals. Millions of people talking about the person and incident on Internet forums for decades.

And Zoser has to ask what their motivation is?

Not convincing enough. Some did and some didn't.

If they all went for book deals then fine I would be convinced. Most didn't. Some never even survived to have the choice. Think about it.

Edited December 2, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

Thousands of views on YouTube. Interviews for television shows. Appearances at paranormal conventions. Book deals. Movie deals. Millions of people talking about the person and incident on Internet forums for decades.

And Zoser has to ask what their motivation is?

Not convincing enough. Some did and some didn't.

If they all went for book deals then fine I would be convinced. Most didn't. Some never even survived to have the choice. Think about it.

Edited December 2, 2013 by zoser

[The Exorcist]

Statistically, no more ship or plane accidents have occured in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other location on Earth. Statistically, the Bermuda Triangle is unremarkable.

Re Occam's Razor, stereologist is right - if you invoke the Razor, then whatever the pilot experienced can best be explained simply - i.e. conventionally.

I like the Bermuda Triangle - it's intriguing - but this case really doesn't prove anything. Even Flight 19 doesn't prove anything.

Edit: I also want to add my thanks to you, zoser, as although I don't tend to believe things as readily as you, I commend your attempts at finding genuinely interesting paranormal stories to share.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Exorcist

[zoser]

Statistically, no more ship or plane accidents have occured in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other location on Earth. Statistically, the Bermuda Triangle is unremarkable.

In one way you are correct. The Devil's triangle is another area of water that has experienced many unexplained events.

That's the key to it. The number of unexplained events not mere accidents or losses due to bad weather.

Re Occam's Razor, stereologist is right - if you invoke the Razor, then whatever the pilot experienced can best be explained simply - i.e. conventionally.

The Bermuda cannot be explained conventionally. The hypothesis with the least complications is favoured according to Occam's Razor. In this case it is the hypothesis that says something is unexplainable.

I like the Bermuda Triangle - it's intriguing - but this case really doesn't prove anything. Even Flight 19 doesn't prove anything.

Neither can it be proved that these events are explainable.

Edit: I also want to add my thanks to you, zoser, as although I don't tend to believe things as readily as you, I commend your attempts at finding genuinely interesting paranormal stories to share.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't know how to explain the triangle. I don't like to see people dismiss mysteries on the basis of zero evidence. That's all.

Like the Dyatlov pass. I don't know what happened. I wasn't there. It's a mystery and I love that.

[stereologist]

Nope. The fact that the accounts have been made and so far no proof of hoaxes, or ulterior motive means that they stand.

There is no default position for people to hang their coats on and walk away in arrogance.

Expect the mystery to keep re-surfacing; trust me it will.

Wrong again. The complexities involved in trying to explain away all the accounts from different people from different ages under different circumstances (planes, ships), means that the simplest solution is that there is some unexplained phenomena. It's Occam's Razor. Always remember that there are two ends to every bar.

Hoaxes? There are so many Bermuda Triangle hoaxes. The best known is the one where Berlitz claims that the P-38 pilots made odd comments about up and down and stars in the ocean or whatever gibberish was claimed. Not true. Interviews with the radio towers show that the story is a hoax. Coast guard records show that stories of calm seas and disappearances are hoaxes.

I believe that the BT baloney will resurface. Heck you are pushing this hoax agenda. You are proof that these hoaxes will continue to re-surface.

You're clueless about Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that noting extraordinary happened. It simply takes a few moments to strip away the lies perpetrated by BT authors such as Berlitz.

[stereologist]

Not convincing enough. Some did and some didn't.

If they all went for book deals then fine I would be convinced. Most didn't. Some never even survived to have the choice. Think about it.

Of course you're latching onto the baloney so you can only be convinced if lies are employed. We aren't doing that. We are dealing with the truth, not funny and obvious falsehoods.

[stereologist]

The Bermuda cannot be explained conventionally. The hypothesis with the least complications is favoured according to Occam's Razor. In this case it is the hypothesis that says something is unexplainable.

Laughable. Simply, utterly laughable. The simplest explanation is the truth and one of the things that becomes readily apparent is that the Bermuda Triangle stories are mainly lies.

Neither can it be proved that these events are explainable.

When a small boat is in what records show to be 15 foot seas we are not surprised that it disappeared. The books say calm seas, but that is the lie that had to be added to make it a mystery. If the author told the truth then the story would be boring.

[Gaden]

Prove that the witnesses on this thread did that.

Find a convincing motive. Convince us all and put the mystery to bed.

Most of us know that if you met one of these people and they admited to you they lied, you would still be repeating your mantra;

" I'm not convinced"

Think about it.

On the page you linked to, I see three items for sale, an audio tape, t-shirts, and a book.

Think about it...

Edited December 2, 2013 by Gaden

[stereologist]

We all like mysteries and there are amazing ones all around us. I remember reading Feynmann's book and he recalls an incident in which a he sees chloroplasts circulating in a plant cell. He asks why that happens and he was told no one knows. Those are the real mysteries of life, not made up ones. We are surrounded by great mysteries about the subatomic and the universe itself. When people stop making up foolish stories such as the Bermuda Triangle they remove the trash and it is easier to spot the real mysteries in the world we live in.

[Whisperer]

Yeah...like the Bermuda triangle...Dun dun dun dun...

[psyche101]

In one way you are correct. The Devil's triangle is another area of water that has experienced many unexplained events.

That's the key to it. The number of unexplained events not mere accidents or losses due to bad weather.

Yes they are, they have been investigated, in typical Zoser fashion, you just ignore that which challenges your fantasies and pretend no such thing exists.

The Bermuda cannot be explained conventionally.

Read Lawrence David Kusche's book. - LINK

Hell just read. That'd be a fine start.

The hypothesis with the least complications is favoured according to Occam's Razor. In this case it is the hypothesis that says something is unexplainable.

Nope, In many cases the disappearances had taken place in bad weather, involving craft known to have been experiencing trouble. Wreckage was found in many instances. In others, darkness or delay in starting the search provided ample time for debris to disperse. Many of the cases hadn't even taken place in the Bermuda Triangle, but rather in other sites near Ireland, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Africa or South America, or in one case, in the Pacific Ocean.

The aforementioned book outlines many such cases directly with complete records of events, conditions, those involved etc.

Like the Dyatlov pass. I don't know what happened. I wasn't there. It's a mystery and I love that.

That you were not there does not mean it is a mystery. And there is a perfectly viable conventional explanation, but in typical Zoser nonsense fashion, you just make crap up and call it fact, and blinker anything that explains anything.

Again, your understanding of a fact is not required for it exist. That you do not understand something does not negate it.

You're clueless about Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that noting extraordinary happened. It simply takes a few moments to strip away the lies perpetrated by BT authors such as Berlitz.

[markprice]

Here is how it always plays out online:

A: I saw a bear yesterday!

B: That's a useless anecdote; prove it!

A: It's true. Are you calling me a liar?

B: I have no reason to believe you...

And the fact remains that a bear was seen even though no pictures were taken.

Let's say that happens a thousand times with various people and bears and each one is dismissed as an anecdote, then it becomes "just a bunch of useless anecdotes", not an overwhelming display of evidence that bears were actually seen. That amounts to a faulty result based on pseudo-skepticism; a stark failure of the ignorant masses to process information.

[stereologist]

Here is how it always plays out online:

A: I saw a bear yesterday!

B: That's a useless anecdote; prove it!

A: It's true. Are you calling me a liar?

B: I have no reason to believe you...

And the fact remains that a bear was seen even though no pictures were taken.

Let's say that happens a thousand times with various people and bears and each one is dismissed as an anecdote, then it becomes "just a bunch of useless anecdotes", not an overwhelming display of evidence that bears were actually seen. That amounts to a faulty result based on pseudo-skepticism; a stark failure of the ignorant masses to process information.

Actually, that is typical of people with no evidence to support their case. Here you discuss a bear and that would not be abnormal unless you were claiming it was a wild bear in the middle of Manhattan or downtown Chicago or Tokyo or Sao Paolo. But let's continue with this bear scenario.

The problem is more like this:

A. Bears can fly airplanes

B. What is your evidence? (Many people incorrectly ask for proof).

A. The cockpit door was open when I boarded my flight over the Atlantic. It was an Asian sun bear in the pilot's seat.

B. Do you have anything to back up this extraordinary claim such as other witnesses, or photos?

A. No. You'll just have to believe me.

B. That's just you saying it without corroboration. That's an anecdote.

A: It's true. Are you calling me a liar?

B: I have no reason to believe you...

To dismiss this extraordinary claim is not being a pseudo-skeptic. It is being a skeptic. It is not dismissing the idea although it does sound rather fantastic. It is not accepting the bear pilot claim due to the lack of supporting evidence. All we have a witness that is making a rather odd and improbable claim.

[zoser]

The simplest explanation is the truth...................

Which obviously is that some unexplained phenomena is at play. Otherwise one has to stitch together some half baked theory to account for why people spin a load of lies whenever they pass through the BT. As I said the least complex theory is favoured by Occam's razor.

When a small boat is in what records show to be 15 foot seas we are not surprised that it disappeared. The books say calm seas, but that is the lie that had to be added to make it a mystery. If the author told the truth then the story would be boring.

Big ships have disappeared too. Kind of blows your theory a little. Oh and planes; a whole squadron of them on one occasion.

Edited December 3, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

On the page you linked to, I see three items for sale, an audio tape, t-shirts, and a book.

Think about it...

............and the other dozens of reports on the BT? Or are you just choosing to ignore those? Skeptics tend to do that; I was just wondering.

Edited December 3, 2013 by zoser

[stereologist]

Which obviously is that some unexplained phenomena is at play. Otherwise one has to stitch together some half baked theory to account for why people spin a load of lies whenever they pass through the BT. As I said the least complex theory is favoured by Occam's razor.

Big ships have disappeared too. Kind of blows your theory a little. Oh and planes; a whole squadron of them on one occasion.

Again wrong, wrong, wrong. The simplest explanation involves the prosaic. Adding some new far fetched idea complicates the matter. There is no evidence at all that something happened requiring a far fetched idea. The least complex is the one involving only the known that is what is selected using Occam's Razor.

When disappearances are compared, more planes disappear over the continental US than over the BT. That's right. More planes disappear over land than over the BT.

Please learn about complexity. Please learn about Occam's Razor. Please learn.

[stereologist]

............and the other dozens of reports on the BT? Or are you just choosing to ignore those? Skeptics tend to do that; I was just wondering.

It's those that demand that normal situations cannot be explained easily that are wearing blinders. Skeptics evaluate the evidence.

Maybe you need to add learning the meaning of skeptic to learning about complexity and Occam's Razor.

[zoser]

Again wrong, wrong, wrong. The simplest explanation involves the prosaic.

I think that is a common misconception. The prozaic in this case is highly unbelievable. It has to be that the BT is an unexplained phenomena.

Adding some new far fetched idea complicates the matter. There is no evidence at all that something happened requiring a far fetched idea. The least complex is the one involving only the known that is what is selected using Occam's Razor.

The least complex in this case involves some unknown phenomena. Unless you can stitch together a comprehensive solution to the accounts. Feel free to try.

When disappearances are compared, more planes disappear over the continental US than over the BT. That's right. More planes disappear over land than over the BT.

Not squadrons and not under unexplainable circumstances.

Please learn about complexity. Please learn about Occam's Razor. Please learn.

You have misunderstood. Your theory is far too complex to be believable. It involves too many people too many different circumstances. One has to fall back on Occam's Razor. It's a very powerful tool.

[zoser]

It's those that demand that normal situations cannot be explained easily that are wearing blinders. Skeptics evaluate the evidence.

Maybe you need to add learning the meaning of skeptic to learning about complexity and Occam's Razor.

I don't think you have studied the dozens of accounts in detail.

Take a look at the classic cases.

Report back.

[stereologist]

I don't think you have studied the dozens of accounts in detail.

Take a look at the classic cases.

Report back.

I think you are too gullible. When you learn why these classic cases are not what is claimed report back.

[toast]

They are bound to be anecdotal because you and I were not there and no one was there to film the incident.

That´s an interesting statement. Does that mean, filmed = evidence/proof in general?

[stereologist]

I think that is a common misconception. The prozaic in this case is highly unbelievable. It has to be that the BT is an unexplained phenomena.

The least complex in this case involves some unknown phenomena. Unless you can stitch together a comprehensive solution to the accounts. Feel free to try.

Not squadrons and not under unexplainable circumstances.

You have misunderstood. Your theory is far too complex to be believable. It involves too many people too many different circumstances. One has to fall back on Occam's Razor. It's a very powerful tool.

The prosaic is believable. Storms sink ships. If you checked out books on BT you'd quickly learn that the authors all make up what they want to be the BT.

Again you are completely wrong. More planes are lost over the continental US than in the BT.

There is nothing unexplained. It is clear why the authors of the BT books faked the stories. That is to make money off of the gullible.

Again you show that yu do not understand what is meant by complexity. Please get educated before posting again.

[zoser]

That´s an interesting statement. Does that mean, filmed = evidence/proof in general?

You have to look at all available pieces in the complex jigsaw that these events are. No single piece of evidence will ever prove a UFO or a phenomena such as the BT. Which is why I always look at testimony, circumstance, track record, radar returns, comparison testimonies, the position of the authorities etc.

A complete approach is needed. On the other hand that is why |I find it so easy to debunk the skeptics. They get over concerned with say Jpeg compression on an image and disregard other important details.

Edited December 3, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

The prosaic is believable. Storms sink ships. If you checked out books on BT you'd quickly learn that the authors all make up what they want to be the BT.

In how many cases did the witnesses report storms? Have you bothered to check? I suggest you do. Quickly.

Again you are completely wrong. More planes are lost over the continental US than in the BT.

Squadrons? Give me an example please.

There is nothing unexplained. It is clear why the authors of the BT books faked the stories. That is to make money off of the gullible.

The dead don't write books. So many of the survivors didn't either. Your hypothesis fails at that point.

Again you show that yu do not understand what is meant by complexity. Please get educated before posting again.

Yours is the complex hypothesis which is why it gets reaped by Occam's Razor.

[toast]

You have to look at all available pieces in the complex jigsaw that these events are. No single piece of evidence will ever prove a UFO or a phenomena such as the BT. Which is why I always look at testimony, circumstance, track record, radar returns, comparison testimonies, the position of the authorities etc. A complete approach is needed. On the other hand that is why |I find it so easy to debunk the skeptics. They get over concerned with say Jpeg compression on an image and disregard other important details.

Seems that you didn´t detected the irony in my question well. But thanks for yr key given that leads to your understanding of evidence/proof. I have watched a lot of the materials that you have published here on UM and not in one single case your explanations debunked my skeptic and I think I´m, not the only one. Even if I´m not a 100% sceptic one. Your saying that it is so easy for you to debunk the skeptics, seems to be pretty self confident, not to say bigheaded.