Pilot Flies Through Bermuda Triangle Wormhole

[stereologist]

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.

So when the BT liars post calm seas when the records show high seas aren't you in any way concerned about that? Yes, zoser you need to get the complete evidence. I believe the others are doing that which is why these BT claims are so laughable.

[stereologist]

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

Squadrons? Give me an example please.

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

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

Did the witnesses report storms? Are you daft? I know you never have checked anything other than hoaxes.

These stories are foolish and only accepted by the extremely gullible.

Have you learned the meaning of complexity, Occam's Razor, the difference between evidence and proof, and all of the other things you need to learn? Will wait for you.

[Gaden]

............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.

You asked for a motive, money is usually a pretty good one.

[Gaden]

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.

The least complex theory would be a methane burst. How long could a big ship stay afloat in methane? It would immediately sink and be covered by silt blown up by the burst, therefore, 'disappearing'. And, yes squadrons of planes would also be affected.

[markprice]

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.

You could replace bear with UFO, demon, Bigfoot or anything else and it would illustrate the same problem.

The problem is more like this:

A. Bears can fly airplanes

nonsense.

To dismiss this extraordinary claim is not being a pseudo-skeptic.

That is exactly not a skeptic. To be skeptical means you don't know the answer. If it's not possible (dismissal) then the burden of proof is on the one claiming impossibility. Skepticism reduced to denial: pseudo-skepticism.

[stereologist]

You could replace bear with UFO, demon, Bigfoot or anything else and it would illustrate the same problem.

nonsense.

That is exactly not a skeptic. To be skeptical means you don't know the answer. If it's not possible (dismissal) then the burden of proof is on the one claiming impossibility. Skepticism reduced to denial: pseudo-skepticism.

No. You cannot replace bear with those other things. Bears are well known and well established as existing. A number of us saw a bear a few evenings ago. There is physical evidence of bears, photos of bears, and hunters have shot bears.

There is no physical evidence of UFOs, demons, or bigfoot. There is no known bigfoot DNA. There are no pieces of metal or whatever from aliens. There are no bigfoot that have been shot by hunters.

Your claims in many threads are as nonsensical as claiming that bears can pilot planes. You have no evidence for your claims just as there is no evidence to support the claim that bears can pilot aircraft. The burden on the claim falls on those making such absurd claims. Just as the burden was on you to support the claim of tunnels hundreds of miles long. That claim was as nonsensical as the notion of bears piloting aircraft.

To be skeptical does not mean you don't know the answer. You need to learn what skeptical means. You are wrong about who bears the onus. The onus is on the person making the claim. The word you seek is scoffer.

Please read up on these words and get them straight.

[psyche101]

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.

In which reality do you think one thousand reports of bears would have absolutely no proof?

Here, on our planet, in this dimension, Bears eat people. Bears poop, Bears die. Of all of this we have evidence. Nobody should believe it is a bear on anecdote, it could be Bigfoot for all you know, if that person has never seen a bear, how does he know what a Bear is to identify it? He might think a Bear might look a bit like a fat horse or something. That's the rub, you cannot just make crap up and call it fact.

[psyche101]

............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.

That would not be anything like the way you refuse to read Lawrence David Kusche's book explaining the events in great detail, more so than you have, which explains the events you want to call a mystery would it?

[psyche101]

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

Unless there is an explanation on a woo woo site with aliens and other dimensions in it, he wont read anything like it.

[psyche101]

Did the witnesses report storms? Are you daft? I know you never have checked anything other than hoaxes.

These stories are foolish and only accepted by the extremely gullible.

Have you learned the meaning of complexity, Occam's Razor, the difference between evidence and proof, and all of the other things you need to learn? Will wait for you.

For some reason he refuses to acknowledge that Flight 19 did not just disappear into a black hole. Commander Charles Taylor had not spent much time in the Bahamas, and for some reason was convinced his route was incorrect, and changed it and headed North. As time went on, snatches of transmissions were picked up on the mainland indicating the other Flight 19 pilots were trying to get Taylor to change course. "If we would just fly west," one student told another, "we would get home." By almost 5PM, the ground crew realised they were hopelessly lost, and spent the next hour triangulating signals to obtain a loose direction, at around 6PM a rescue effort was launched, but it seems, too late. Within the hour, two more planes joined the late search, which was ended by worsening weather conditions.

They knew they were in trouble, the people on the ground knew they were in trouble, being off course, they were near impossible to land, and the day had ended, leaving them literally in the dark looking for a squadron that would by now be out of fuel over the Ocean "somewhere".

The mystical horse hockey from that source is getting a bit old. No mysterious force killed those men, Taylor did.

Edited December 4, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

No. You cannot replace bear with those other things. Bears are well known and well established as existing. A number of us saw a bear a few evenings ago. There is physical evidence of bears, photos of bears, and hunters have shot bears.

Sounds like we are dealing with woo woo bears, recognised as being related to Bigfoot on the family Tree. Neither species poops, eats, dies, and only "special" people can see them.

[psyche101]

You could replace bear with UFO, demon, Bigfoot or anything else and it would illustrate the same problem.

No it would not because we know Bears leave evidence of their existence and not one of the others do. You could replace any woo item with a woo item, but you are trying to put a mix of reality in there with bears so it sounds like it works, It does not, it just illustrates that you refuse to accept that things without evidence just may not exist and consider any claimed item to be as real as the description you hear.

Yeah, I see what you tried to do there.

nonsense.

Are you are saying he did not see an Asian Bear in the Cockpit of a plane flying it? Why not? According to your previous post, you should believe him because he told you so, and he would even know what a Bear looks like. I gather from your post, you are not allowed to call him a liar are you?

That is exactly not a skeptic. To be skeptical means you don't know the answer. If it's not possible (dismissal) then the burden of proof is on the one claiming impossibility. Skepticism reduced to denial: pseudo-skepticism.

So If I tell you I have a Purple Carrot Eating Dragon with Flippers in my Garage that poops coins, you are supposed to believe me at face value. You think there is no such thing as critical thought or logic where skepticism is concerned?

See in the case of the Bermuda Triangle, we do have in depth sources that sought out the mystery that was created by pulp fiction writers. Some so called cases were not even in the said triangle. What about that in formation? Do we dismiss it and run with the kewlers sounding cloud this fellow claims to have flown into? In some cases, it seems the answer is yes there.

Edited December 4, 2013 by psyche101

[zoser]

You asked for a motive, money is usually a pretty good one.

Good to see the UFO skeptics joining the debate. Welcome to the forum.

The answer to your question is that they have not all exploited their experiences for money. In fact very few of them have. Most are actually dead.

[zoser]

You could replace bear with UFO, demon, Bigfoot or anything else and it would illustrate the same problem.

nonsense.

That is exactly not a skeptic. To be skeptical means you don't know the answer. If it's not possible (dismissal) then the burden of proof is on the one claiming impossibility. Skepticism reduced to denial: pseudo-skepticism.

I totally agree. Blanket skepticism is nothing more than a place to hide.

[zoser]

No. You cannot replace bear with those other things. Bears are well known and well established as existing. A number of us saw a bear a few evenings ago. There is physical evidence of bears, photos of bears, and hunters have shot bears.

There is no physical evidence of UFOs, demons, or bigfoot. There is no known bigfoot DNA. There are no pieces of metal or whatever from aliens. There are no bigfoot that have been shot by hunters.

Your claims in many threads are as nonsensical as claiming that bears can pilot planes. You have no evidence for your claims just as there is no evidence to support the claim that bears can pilot aircraft. The burden on the claim falls on those making such absurd claims. Just as the burden was on you to support the claim of tunnels hundreds of miles long. That claim was as nonsensical as the notion of bears piloting aircraft.

To be skeptical does not mean you don't know the answer. You need to learn what skeptical means. You are wrong about who bears the onus. The onus is on the person making the claim. The word you seek is scoffer.

Please read up on these words and get them straight.

Blanket skepticism has absolutely no validity whatsoever and even modern scientist agree that uncommon events are possible such as time travel. Check out this youtube documentary.

Is Time Travel Possible? Science says yes

Nothing says that what those people experienced in the BT was not real. There is so much that we do not understand.

[Mike G]

wow for once on this site a compelling unexplained mystery, well done indeed, this is amazing

Assuming you off-handedly believe verbatim content that some anonymous person posted on to youtube and then another anonymous person posted here.

[zoser]

'Electronic Fog' was the term coined by Bruce Gernon.

This team examine the hypothesis that solar flares entering the earth's atmosphere could account for the malfunctioning of equipment, the disorientation, and apparent time anomalies experiences in these cases.

Well worth a look.

LEXXTEX 256 - BERMUDA TRIANGLE IN DEPTH DOCUMENTARY

Furthermore could it be the case that if that area of the world does receive an abnormal amount of solar interference that the area is alwo attractive to UFO's?

These issues are discussed in the analysis.

Edited December 4, 2013 by zoser

[zoser]

1980.

Jose Torres and his plane disappear after transmitting a 'mayday' message referring to a UFO object.

Similarities with the Frederick Valentich case.

http://www.ghosttheo...f-torres-santos

An object was seen on radar; see 20:30 in the above video.

Edited December 4, 2013 by zoser

[Gaden]

http://www.livescience.com/23435-bermuda-triangle.html

Bermuda Triangle: Where Facts Disappear

Benjamin Radford, LiveScience Contributor

Is there really any mystery to explain?

A journalist named Larry Kusche asked exactly that question, and came to a surprising answer: there is no mystery about strange disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle. Kusche exhaustively re-examined the "mysterious disappearances" and found that the story was basically created by mistakes, mystery mongering, and in some cases outright fabrication — all being passed along as fact-checked truth.

In his definitive book "The Bermuda Triangle Mystery — Solved," Kusche notes that few writers on the topic bothered to do any real investigation — they mostly collected and repeated other, earlier writers who did the same. Unfortunately, Charles Berlitz's facility with language did not carry over into credible research or scholarship. His books on the paranormal — and on the Bermuda Triangle, specifically — were riddled with errors, mistakes, and unscientific crank theories. In a way, the Bermuda Triangle is largely a creation of Charles Berlitz's mistakes. Kusche would later note that Berlitz's research was so sloppy that "If Berlitz were to report that a boat were red, the chance of it being some other color is almost a certainty."

In some cases there's no record of the ships and planes claimed to have been lost in the aquatic triangular graveyard; they never existed outside of a writer's imagination. In other cases, the ships and planes were real enough — but Berlitz and others neglected to mention that they "mysteriously disappeared" during bad storms. Other times the vessels sank far outside the Bermuda Triangle.

It's also important to note that the area within the Bermuda Triangle is heavily traveled with cruise and cargo ships; logically, just by random chance, more ships will sink there than in less-traveled areas such as the South Pacific.

Despite the fact that the Bermuda Triangle has been definitively debunked for decades, it still appears as an "unsolved mystery" in new books — mostly by authors more interested in a sensational story than the facts. In the end, there's no need to invoke time portals, Atlantis, submerged UFO bases, geomagnetic anomalies, tidal waves, or anything else. The Bermuda Triangle mystery has a much simpler explanation: sloppy research and sensational, mystery-mongering books.

[Gaden]

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-developments-in-frederick-valentich.html

[markprice]

No. You cannot replace bear with those other things.

No it would not ...

I said anything not just those.

A: I saw a strawbery 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...

or:

A: I saw a Jinn 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...

As you can see it works with anything. Anyway back on topic now that we established what skepticism and pseudo-skepticism are (it had to be done).

I wouldn't call Bruce Gernon a liar because I prefer to remain skeptical. That yellow fog also seen by Lindbergh is strange. Gernon pulled off a space/time cloud tube and lived to tell, then what is up with the yellow-grey fog?

[stereologist]

I said anything not just those.

A: I saw a strawbery 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...

or:

A: I saw a Jinn 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...

As you can see it works with anything. Anyway back on topic now that we established what skepticism and pseudo-skepticism are (it had to be done).

I wouldn't call Bruce Gernon a liar because I prefer to remain skeptical. That yellow fog also seen by Lindbergh is strange. Gernon pulled off a space/time cloud tube and lived to tell, then what is up with the yellow-grey fog?

It doesn't work with anything. It certainly does not work with strawberry. A strawberry is common. Seeing one is normal. On the other, anecdotes about hundred mile long tunnels require corroborating evidence. There is plenty of corroborating evidence that strawberries exist. There is none that hundred mile long tunnels exist or that wormholes exist, or that anything odd ever happens in the Bermuda Triangle.

[stereologist]

Blanket skepticism has absolutely no validity whatsoever and even modern scientist agree that uncommon events are possible such as time travel. Check out this youtube documentary.

...

Nothing says that what those people experienced in the BT was not real. There is so much that we do not understand.

It is clear that you really need to learn what skepticism means. Learn for a change.

Skepticism is important. It prevents people from latching onto every silly hoax tossed their way. It helps us separate the possible from the asinine.

There is nothing that says that the stories people tell about the BT are factual. When facts are checked these stories fall apart.

[stereologist]

http://badufos.blogs...-valentich.html

Thanks Gaden for that interesting link to the write up that describes how the supposed UFO incident occurred.

[markprice]

It doesn't work with anything. It certainly does not work with strawberry. A strawberry is common. Seeing one is normal. On the other, anecdotes about hundred mile long tunnels require corroborating evidence. There is plenty of corroborating evidence that strawberries exist. There is none that hundred mile long tunnels exist or that wormholes exist, or that anything odd ever happens in the Bermuda Triangle.

I figured you would miss the point. It's not about the item it's about the reaction. And plenty of "odd" things happened there and many other places. You make declarative statements that are absurd lies about things you can't know all the time. Just because something is not "normal" or "common" is no grounds for denial unless you can prove it. So all you are doing is calling the pilot a liar.