For example, airliners have encountered unexplained forces over the Triangle in the last decade that have jolted the planes severely, causing a number of injuries and forcing the airliners to divert course and land at Bermuda, Miami, or New York. The cause is unknown. But unknown is not supernatural. Was wind shear supernatural before it was discovered? When a plane flew into the ground around a mountain in perfect weather, was it the mountain gods taking revenge? No. Did we just dismiss it and blame it on “nothing important?” No. Wind shear around mountains was discovered. I can give any number of analogies, but I don’t think they are necessary.
The unexplained points us to where we must look, not from where we must flee. It is illogical and non-science to dismiss anything out- of-hand because there is no familiar cross reference for it in our catalog of phenomena. Nor should we allow people to worship the unexplained and let them go unchallenged when they use a mere thread of evidence to construct a whole cloth to justify their crackpot agendas and theories.
Unexplained electromagnetic anomalies and atmospheric aberrations in the Triangle have been known since the earliest writers of credibility in the 1960s, such as John Godwin, Vincent Gaddis, and Robert Burgess. Some of these can probably account for some of the missing planes. But no one still knows what causes these unexplained “turbulence,” “chops” and “pulses.” However, this theory cannot account for missing boats. Documentation is so poor for missing boats it is even difficult to get a ballpark figure on how many went missing and where. Perhaps rogue waves did them in, pirates, their skipper’s own mistakes, perhaps something else we know nothing about.
This is why the Triangle is so popular— and for a healthy reason. Most people are sincerely curious about the unknown and to what new discovery it may lead us.
The Bermuda Triangle was born amidst this healthy curiosity. Even Vincent Gaddis, who coined the moniker “Bermuda Triangle” in 1964, called the theories on Atlantis being responsible “wild theories.” Robert Burgess was a marine historian and archeological buff. In his Sinkings, Salvages & Shipwrecks (1970) he asked questions about the possibility of as yet “unknown forces” as work. Premier sailor Alan Villiers, considered one of the greatest sailors of his time and who was the last man to command a square rigger, the Joseph Conrad, to round the Horn, published a book Posted Missing in 1956 detailing the disappearance of ships everywhere in the world. He revised it for a 1974 audience and included in his introduction information on the Bermuda Triangle, giving his own summation of its actual shape.
Interest in the “Triangle” came from the seafaring, the aviation buffs, and journalists of factual events in their time. Each knew what was normal and expected for an accident at sea, and each expressed his consternation over the seemingly inexplicable events in the Bermuda Triangle. People shared these views. After Gaddis wrote his groundbreaking article, he admitted to receiving thousands of letters from curious readers.
This healthy curiosity became obscured in the 1970s with all sorts of bizarre theories and more “wild ideas.” But the hype also ushered in something else just as damaging to a serious consideration of the phenomenon: the “skeptic” or debunker who could “solve” it all. Because of the extreme ideas offered from both camps, it became impossible for anybody to express a curiosity in the subject of “The Bermuda Triangle” without being misinterpreted. The old “sea dogs” and sober journalists who first wrote about these oddities would find themselves labeled as occultists or New Age freaks, and naturally desisted from writing anymore about it. Even today this persists. A BBC reporter recently told me of a reaction from one man when she asked, ‘do you believe in the Bermuda Triangle?’ He said “No, and I don’t believe in little green men either.” The reporter was rather disappointed he assumed there was a connection between the two.
Those who think that the Triangle is on a par with these other topics know nothing of the Triangle. I have found that they are just complete “landlubbers” who have read some old book in which the author said the same thing. Although these same “skeptics” are quick to blame the media’s thirst for a sensational angle for creating the concept of the Bermuda Triangle, they don’t seem to realize that the concept that there is no mystery at all found its way into the press only because it was an “angle” as well. Without the very great hype over the Bermuda Triangle, those who claim to have solved it would not have been marketable and would not have found any forum for their points of view.
My point of view is that which was held by the early writers and journalists: a curiosity about the phenomenon of disappearances and what they may tell us about our world. In the long run, I don’t know how one can dogmatically assert any theory since, without doubt, nothing is left from a disappearance upon which to build any unassailable evidence. This isn’t a “cop-out.” It is the only honest standpoint. The Bermuda Triangle of disappearing planes and ships is quite real. But what many have built up on top of this foundation is make-believe.
When one discusses theories, it must be based on evidence, and any analysis must be dependent upon an evaluation of this evidence, not on claims. That’s what I try to do here at Bermuda-Triangle.org. If I have been slack in paying attention to the theories section, it is only because I want as much of the evidence— the incidents— up first. It is upon this that any theory must be based. I have said before and I will say again, even if we found every ship and plane that vanished we would not have solved the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, for the mystery is not where they went but why and how. In the end, a tattered hulk on the ocean floor, will not necessarily tell us what it saw so long ago when it vanished in the Triangle. But perhaps all together they can tell us more, and their collective voice speaking from all the evidence is more important than ours.