Let me anticipate one: . . .

Q. What a weird name. What does it mean?

A. Nothing much– Gian is Italian for Jan, from Latin Janus, the god of beginnings. “January” the first month. Quasar is a name from the Levant, Q’sr (kaysar). I think it means fort. I had an ancestor who liked the name, so he adopted it and added the vowels himself. Being French born he spelled it Quasar. Over time, it has come to be pronounced close to quasar in astronomy (Kwasar), yet without any stellar connection. Geeyawn Kwuhzahr.

Added May 14, 2003

There has been a little interest raised over yet another comment made by a detractor of mine on the web.

On the message board hosted by the web site of Bubba, the Salty Dog— your friend and mine, T. Gibson— there is a message left by a disgruntled surfer to his site. This surfer calls attention to the fact that my site exposes several errors on his site. Gibson saw fit to respond. In doing so, he makes a completely erroneous claim (among so many on his site.) Although this message was left around last October 2002, I only recently learned of it, and even when typing my name into search engines some will pick up the thread.

Here is the message and his unaltered response.

“Ok, first off let me tell you my opinion. I believe you have no clue what you are talking about. It's my opinion that you know nothing at all about the Bermuda Triangle whatsoever. You have too many contradicting remarks on your page, alot of information you give is wrong and you have no documentation or pictures (other than borrowed from other sites) to back up anything you say. Furthermore, I visited sites that show REAL information, not BS like yours. I also think that someone by the name of Gian Quasar has told you FACTS about the Bermuda Triangle that you know nothing about. I think maybe you should just give up on this subject and move onto something you do know about...like maybe bullshit?”

REPLY

First off, this was the first web site to ever even discuss the Bermuda Triangle, either pro or con. If you see pictures here that appear on other sites, then they stole them from here.

Second off, I've visted Gian Quasar site on many occasions. I think his site is very good. I've emailed him on several occasions but I guess he is just too busy to answer his email. That is fine.

He very much wants to prove the Bermuda Triangle is more than just nature being nature.

Who knows, some day he might and I'll have to eat crow. So far he is a long way from convincing the Scientific community that it is real.

Millions of people live in the Triangle and 10s of millions visit it annually and nothing happens.

In the mean time you insult me and don't even give your real name.

Well, there it is. Although it wasn’t necessary to insult Gibson, his dogmatic and often illogical assertions seem to provoke a number of people on his message board. One, let me say I have never received any email from him at any time. I would find it hard to believe that his several emails have been destroyed or lost before reaching me. I have had no one complain that I was not responding to their emails. Therefore, I find such a comment to be strange and suspect it might not be true.

Now, he claims I “very much want to prove it is not just nature being nature.” Well, I can’t even follow that. It is natural for nature to make things disappear? Is this common place? Of course not, not even at sea. The Bermuda Triangle is not just an occasional disappearance: there are hundreds of them. I believe it is nature being nature. But what kind? Just storms that didn’t exist wiping everybody off the map? Hardly. For many, nature is something mundane. For those who have experienced a little more of the sea, and understand how untapped and mysterious is the energy of matter (see vortex kinesis), these disappearances may indicate far more—more from which we can learn and lead us to knowledge in the future. Nothing has been nor will be gained by dismissing them as pointless deaths on a big ocean. This is a bigger assumption than the one that there may be something out there to discover, something to which these disappearances have been pointing for decades.

As for the scientific community, it has already been made clear in Myth & Facts how Gibson regrettably exaggerates his contacts. The scientific community may be, for Gibson, his local college science teacher. There have been many scientific discoveries, and certainly the accumulation of facts about the disappearances are leading to some very new theories, all of which are discussed in my upcoming book. Frankly, I have not been trying to convince anybody. I’ve been beating no drum, carrying no torch. I speak from experience. Gibson speaks from his experience, which seems to be reading a few old books and watching a couple of PBS videos. Experience is key.

In the field of unexplained phenomena, one cannot even gain experience unless they approach the subject objectively. It is the mindset of such an assertion “I stated an opinion based on research. You're in college. you do know what research is, don't you?”
. . .and the logic of  “So far intergallactic travel is science fiction and not fact. Until some shows me solid evidence to the contrary, I'm going to rule out alien visitors.”

While I don’t endorse alien visitors personally, I can’t base that opinion on the fact we can’t travel in intergalactic space as yet. I would never have my arguments hinge on that.

June 18, 2002

Question: Another site mentions that the Sylvia L. Ossa disappeared in heavy seas. Why don’t you mention that on your site?

Answer. I mention gale-force winds. This equates to 8 to 16 foot seas. Not exactly tumultuous for a 590-foot vessel. Some even suspected that the Ossa was a victim of her owner’s plot to collect insurance and that they scuttled her, sacrificing the crew in the process. I consider this a bit far fetched. In any case, in any strict sense the Ossa did not disappear in heavy seas. She probably suddenly exploded, for reasons unknown.

Question: Again, another site mentions that a Cessna 210 vanished on June 11, 1999. I would like some details on this, but I can’t find anything on your site. Why?

Answer. No plane disappeared on June 11, 1999. A Cessna 210 dropped from radar in the Bahamas because its engine suddenly gave out. But both occupants were later rescued. The site you got your initial information from lists its source as Lloyd’s List. This has unfortunately been regarded as a “sacrosanct source” of shipping news. But I have found them no better than hasty newspaper articles. Those who are members of their site  are aware that they are past their best days both in customer service and information provided.

An example of their lack of logical progression in handling some affairs is their recent hogwash about no longer referring to a ship by the feminine “she.” Perhaps this pleases some “not-so-grand grandees” in London but in the process they have offended almost every other language on Earth, since most all of them divide nouns according to feminine, masculine, and neuter. It does not imply the ship has a gender. Speakers of Romance and Germanic languages don’t even understand what the change is about. They will continue to refer to a ship as Elle, sie, Ella, etc. because “ship” is a feminine noun.

Question: Why is there so much debunking on the web about the Triangle and just nautical mysteries in general?

Answer: It’s pretty safe to do so. The Triangle is not yet hyped up, though it might be soon. As such, there is no worry about a landslide of rebuttals after one has published an unqualified opinion. Let me give you an example of what is not cheaply debunked on the Web. UFOs are such a big market that you don’t see the same type of low caliber debunking because, frankly, it looks out-of-place. You can’t rely on a 30 old book or an old Coast Guard statement (as Triangle debunkers do) and concentrate on 30 year old incidents to make your case. Such selectivity is obvious, and it is out of date for a phenomenon that changes yearly as more works are published, as more sightings are made. The whole method of approach looks like what it is: a very mediocre personal opinion based on selective published works. When you have numerous Ph.Ds, professors, scientists, aeronautical engineers and former military personnel writing about them, it is very hard for a college student, librarian, or relative with a web site to look authoritative in such a field.

  It comes down to one thing: debunkers are bottom feeders. They cannot be set in motion until someone else has advanced ideas or theories or evidence. They are not proactive, they are reactive. They then debunk the ideas based on their understanding of science and what is possible or based on their own personal life experiences which, sadly, in most cases, amounts to no more than sitting on their hands and doing the Braille check on their hemorrhoids. Why don’t they debunk me? They do not try and debunk me or over 100 incidents I mention as occurring since 1975 because that requires original research, time, money, analysis— this last item I think is what they lack so much of. The end result would be only to confrm it vanished.

  I am not criticizing other sites. But one must take any publicly disseminated information seriously. One can not just brush it off as “Well, it’s only on the Web” and not be faithful to try and represent a subject faithfully. I don’t think relying on 30 year old news is doing so. If their sites began with ‘This is my opinion based on 30 year old material and one librarian’s claims’ they would have placed their content in context.

   I am also not complaining. The interest my site has generated, the compliments sent my way by surfers, its presentation on several TV shows, and the media’s treatment of me, has been and continues to be very favorable.

  There was, of course,  a minor attempt on the web to debunk my site, a rather bizarre attempt by one librarian who is positive the purpose of my web site is to trash his, though I never mention his site and was frankly not even aware of it at the time. This webmaster’s claims about so many things associated with the Triangle are so inaccurate and absurd that he probably deserves a clear exposé written about his site. This, however, would only give a measure of publicity to a webmaster who has earned it because of inaccuracy. His claim at being an “expert” reminds one of the maxim “What is the difference between pride and arrogance?—accomplishment.”

Added January 13, 2002

Have you heard about a National Airlines 727 that disappeared from radar for 10 minutes while on approach to Miami airport? I believe it was in 1969. Everything seemed fine, but when the plane landed all watches on board were 10 minutes slow. Do you think when they disappeared they traveled through time briefly, or just didn’t exist. Were they one of the lucky ones to escape?

Answer. I believe this first appeared in a Saga magazine article by Ivan Sanderson. He mentions it in his 1970 book Invisible Residents, but offers no source, flight number, witness, or precise date. Sanderson often credited stories that had no source. I’m afraid this is one of them—there is nothing to it.

Added August 24, 2001

I was watching a Triangle show on TBS the other night. Was the “Queen of Scots” a real incident or was it all fiction?

Answer: All Fiction.

Added July 2, 2001

Why is it that Cuban and Haitian refugees who disappear while
attempting to cross to Florida are not counted as Triangle victims? In
“Without a Trace”, Berlitz mentions a Haitian refugee ship that vanished in
the Old Bahama Channel in 1973, but doesn't discuss the case further. Nor
do other writers on the Triangle take up this issue?

Answer: For an incident to apply as a "Bermuda Triangle" disappearance, it must not have any immediate, acceptable answer. For example, an aircraft disappears while on approach to an airport, in clear weather, but it leaves no trace despite a thorough search. Such an incident piques most everybody's curiosity. A combination of these types of disappearances in the so-called Triangle is what gave it its reputation over time. In other words: an unexplainable type of disappearance qualifies as a "Bermuda Triangle" case. While Bermuda Triangle refers to the actual geographic area in the first instance, in the connotation of the Bermuda Triangle of missing planes and ships it becomes specific to mean unexplained events in the area. A delapidated Cuban or Haitian boat, overcrowded with dozens of people, suggests some very prosaic causes,  such as sudden foundering,  plunging or capsizing. This may not have happened, but the suspicion is justified. Something fantastic may not have happened in all those "unusual disappearances" that together make up the quilt of the Triangle. However, considering some of the circumstances, the suspicion is there that it might have.
   That is why disapperances in hurricanes and storms do not apear in the litany, as they provide ample explanation for disappearances at sea. If one is discovered to have happened in such circumstances, it is removed from the list. Again, it may not have caused the disappearance but the suspicion is justified.
   The above mentioned curiosity is what the Triangle is all about. It is not about explanations per se; it is about possibilities, about what it may tell us about our own world, about potential in a realm with which we as a land bound species are still very ignorant of: the seas about us. It wasn't until the 20th century that man journeyed en mass into this domain. It reminds us we may have a lot to encounter and explore in this world all around us. If some wish to go into the supernatural and hold seances and the like, they'll never discover the answer. This can only be explored the good old fashioned way. It is unfortunate that we are losing our taste for good old fashioned exploration. We rather glibly sit back and think all has been discovered and a ready answer must exist already . . .somewhere. Too bad.

July 2, 2001

  Michael Preissinger has taken exception to something I wrote in Q&A regarding his claim about the Bimini Road and about his overall examination of the Bahamas during an alleged 6 month stay there. I noted that he claims that some of the stones were left by Confederate raiders (or union blockade runners). He claims he never made that comment “anywhere.”
   The comment was made in an article he wrote called “Bermuda Triangle Stargate?” and can be found on Atlantisrising.com.”
   The exact quote: .
“My conclusions regarding the so-called Bimini Wall, thought by many to be a remnant of Atlantis, were not nearly so "New Age." I believe that some of the stones making up the wall appear to be man-made, not because they came from Atlantis, but because they were left there during the American Civil War.
In those days, a great many ships ran the Union blockade to bring trade to Confederate harbors. Pursued by Union ships, these vessels often escaped into the shallow Bahamas waters where the big man-o-wars couldn’t follow. To navigate over the reefs that filled these waters, they frequently had to jettison weight so as to ride higher in the water. What easier way to do this than by dumping granite stones from the ship’s ballast? That, I think, may account for a good many of the granite stones now found at such places as Bimini.”

   The Bimini Wall is a very specific feature of the many stones at Bimini. It is made of flint hard micrite, not granite. These colossal stones could not have been carried by vessels nor jettisoned at will. These stones also appear on an island on the 1513 Piri Reis.
   He still insists that I cannot say that leprechauns do not exist merely because I have not seen them.
   I questioned him on his doctoral thesis and asked him what was the name of the “big newspaper” in Germany he was now working on. I received no replies after that.

Added April 11, 2001

Question: Is there proof the Cyclops was lost off New Jersey?

Answer:  Huh? New Jersey? What!? . . .I see some geographic wizard must be at it again. No. New Jersey was north of its destination. There would be no reason that the Cyclops would even be near there. Its destination was Baltimore. It had last been at Barbados, British West Indies. There was a rumor that the Amolco saw a large vessel battling heavy seas off the Carolinas. However, Captain Charles Hillyer, the Amolco’s captain, denied this entirely.

Added March 31, 2001

Question: Would you care to comment on what another site has said about you?

Answer: My thanks goes out to Nikki, though I wish you would have told me what site. It would have saved me some time.

Six days after a plane wrecked off St. Augustine, Florida, on January 5, 2000, I wrote a short blurb about it for the site for the “Recent Events” link. The information therein was copied exactly from the NTSB “Brief” as it stood at that moment. This contained the dialogue  “Ah, JAX I don’t see anything” which was a pondersome statement for a clear night under 3,500 feet (there were scattered clouds at 3,500). Visibility was 10 miles. The plane was only at 1,200 feet altitude when last observed on radar and therefore the pilot’s visibility was unaffected by the scattered clouds. It was 4 miles off St. Augustine’s airport. The lighted shoreline would be easy to see at this distance. The plane then disappeared from radar and the next day the body was found along with some debris, as I noted. I asked the question when closing: “There is no explanation yet by what he [the pilot] meant. How can a pilot suddenly not see the lighted shoreline?”
   Such a scenario invites a lot of talk around the local dinner tables: clear night, pilot was vectored for landing but then can see nothing and vanishes.
   The question— as information stood at the time— was valid. The entire Florida coastline at St. Augustine, including the lights of St. Augustine’s airport,  would have been visible outside the pilot’s window. The question is still valid.
   Since I make it clear in my Statement that I do not believe in the supernatural, by asking the above question I am hardly invoking ghosts or anything sensational.
   According to current NTSB investigation, the pilot was grossly unqualified for the flight which probably accounts for his ensuing panic when he suddenly couldn’t see any horizon (I assume).  In such a state he no doubt lost control of the plane. This seemed evident the day after when his body and plane wreckage was found, attesting thereby to an impact.  While the NTSB poorly blamed this on spatial disorientation, this is unlikely. This usually happens over snow or water during the day in which the pilot visually cannot distinguish the horizon between the sky and surface and therefore loses his sense of orientation (vertigo).  Spatial disorientation is usually preceded by radar tracking the aircraft doing all sorts of bizarre maneuvers as the pilot is suffering vertigo. Banking, as detected by radar, or a sudden drop from radar indicates he panicked. He was probably trying to concentrate (which is hard when you’re panicking) to read his intsruments to decide what to do when he hit the ocean.
   I have gone on to more historical incidents and have been working on other pages in my spare time plus 2 major TV productions and now on hold for a third. I did not wait for the NTSB Factual update nor peruse it when it finally was finished months later. The little blurb, though in some ways buried, remained unaltered on my site.
   Well, some 14 months later a webmaster has labeled me as a mythmaker and paid my site the dubious honor of being “by far the best and most comprehensive site that purports the myths around the Bermuda Triangle.”
   He also reproduces my little blurb virtually extant and then writes:  “So begins the latest in a long string of myths attributed to the Bermuda Triangle.” He then introduces the NTSB web final (which is different than a Factual Report) , and notes the differences in my account.  The completed NTSB Brief and Final Report are slightly hastily done since they mix both Zulu and Roger time. But it now lists the plane as disappearing about a minute after the pilot spoke his last line instead of one second. The dialogue is slightly different. Although I am used to changing data as an investigation is underway (that is why I kept the piece on my site brief), I was not aware that early NTSB Web Briefs paraphrase the dialogue but still place it in quotes. I am used to hardcopy Briefs and Factuals after the investigation is closed in which instance this never occurs.
   But, of course, the implication is that my account is intentionally misleading, to lead people off into a quagmire of sensationalism and myth.
   My first instinct is to ignore what has been said of me, but I have never had to ignore something like this before because no one has ever accused me of sewing myth. I don’t think I should ignore it now that it has happened.
   This webmaster has given me a position that I do not hold and then proceeds to argue against it.  I must answer the inaccuracies.
   First, to debunk this myth that I “created” (though nothing is invented in my account as it stood on January 11, 2000,) this webmaster lists certain irrelevant points such as the weather (scattered clouds at 3,500 feet) and the lack of moonlight. Both are irrelevant since the plane was considerably below the clouds and therefore they could not interfere with the pilot’s view of the shoreline lights below.  St. Augustine was well within the projected visibility of that night which was 10 miles. (He was only 4 miles off the airport.) I also supposedly implied the pilot was coming into Jacksonville International instead of Craig Municipal airport.  I don’t know how he deduces that. I said he was 4 miles from St. Augustine’s airport (that is Craig Municipal Airport.)
   I did not list the pilot’s qualifications. That is correct. They were unknown at the time. I never listed this as a disappearance in the Triangle since it was not. My little 120 word article dealt with it as a “recent event”. If I am not quick to elaborate on such sideline stories, it is because I have recommended the NTSB on my site and anybody can go there for more.
   There can be little debunking of any myth since none had been created by me asking how the pilot could not see the entire lighted shoreline of Florida in this area, nor by relying on NTSB’s Brief as it stood 6 days after the incident.

     Nevertheless, this webmaster reproduces my article almost verbatim (though does not mention me by name) as if it is yet another established myth.

On January 5, 2000, the pilot of a Cessna 172 requested a VFR following for landing. At 9:41 and 51 seconds he was identified at 2,500 feet. At 9:45 and 24 seconds radar watched him at 2,000 feet. He was coming closer to the airport. And at 9:45 and 51 seconds he was at 1,200 feet. He was only 4 miles east of St. Augustine Airport. The weather was clear. Nine seconds later he said: "Ah, JAX I do not see anything." One second later he vanished. Pieces of the plane were, in this case, found the next day along with the body of the pilot. There is no explanation yet by what he meant. How can a pilot suddenly not see the lighted shoreline?

 So begins the latest in a long string of myths attributed to the Bermuda Triangle.  

   I find a certain piquancy in his ending line considering this webmaster is the originator of the nonsense that the Sargasso Sea is not near the Triangle— “If you take a peek at any globe you'll see the Sargasso Sea marked in the middle Atlantic, east of Bermuda, north of the Equator and south of the Gulf Stream.” It is hard to imagine this type of cross-referencing having as its provenance a Masters in Research, as this webmaster claims to possess. Because he read the Q&A here, he has now corrected his  geography slightly by admitting that a portion of the Triangle does overlap the “the extreme northwestern edge of Sargasso [sic]”. His continuing mistake is apparently due to his inability to understand latitude and longitude, though he claims to have been researching the Bermuda Triangle for 20 years.  To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica the Sargasso Sea  “. . . lies between the parallels of 20^o -35^o N and the meridians 30^o - 70^o W inside a clockwise-setting ocean current system. . . .” Its western section is the entire center of the Triangle! The map on my Sargasso Sea page is courtesy of the National Geographic. My Sea of Expanding Shapes page shows the varied shapes and sizes researchers thought the “Triangle” was. I may be partially to blame for this webmaster’s confusion as to where Bermuda is in the Sargasso Sea since I hastily wrote it in Q&A as between 20 to 30 degrees N latitude.
   He lists me now as one of his sources.

     While I don't agree with many of the conclusions drawn, this is by far the best and most comprehensive site that purports the myths around the Bermuda Triangle. The journalist who does the page claims to do it as a hobby but seems to have connections with many cable channels that continue to purport the myth. The author also likes to trash this site on Larry Kusche's book. Still a very useful site. He has sections devoted to all the major theories. unfortunately, the theory that weather and nature are the culprits is the one section he has yet to develop (as of March 27, 2001).

  He has a low opinion of this site because it is on tripod and I don't pay for it to be on the web. He also claims it is easier to just debunk a myth rather than support or sreate one. The site has lots of pretty pictures and is quite well informed. Definitely worth a look, despite the difference in opinions. 

This is hardly bibliographical; and any compliments must be weeded out of pure innuendoes.

Suffice it to say, those who are familiar with my site know I have never mentioned any other site. I have never knowingly communicated with this webmaster. Nor will I attempt to decipher the meanings of his innuendoes about me and my TV connections nor about my Theories Section. Any devotee of this web site knows that my Philadelphia Experiment pages and my Atlantis pages expose the sensationalism. I am not avoiding natural catastrophes.
   Should the surfer come across his web site and read it, the general uptake  should be rebuttal enough to this webmaster’s  modus operandi  . . .In truth I have paid little attention to other web sites and have not singled him out in any way in Q&A here. (I was only made aware recently that there was a web site in which the webmaster had made a gaff on the Sargasso Sea’s location and said that ELTs sink with an aircraft.)
   Most web sites base their ultimate facts on an old Larry Kusche book or Charles Berlitz. I have hit Kusche hard twice and Berlitz hard twice where they were inaccurate, but I do not believe that I implied they did it intentionally except where it is obvious. By debunking some of Kusche’s 27 year old mistakes,  this webmaster implies I am personally going after his site.  He should check the odometers of many other sites. He would see there are many more popular sites than his and this should cure him of thinking there is someone trying to “trash” his site by disagreeing with Larry Kusche.  He would realize he has received a pathetic amount of the web’s attention.
   The patron spirit of those who glorify the status quo is acrimony.
   I will not amend my little article. I will leave it as an example of how information unfurls during investigation. I will link from it to the NTSB Web Brief. I have also done the same thing with the Aero-Commander on May 12, 1999, since the Final Brief and Report differs greatly from the original that I copied soon thereafter.

Added March 28, 2001

Question: Is it true that most disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle actually did not happen in the Triangle at all? Why do you continue to set the area apart?

Answer: Well, the truth of the matter is that the disappearances that I am interested in do occur in the “Triangle.” Authors 30 years ago entered into their books a selective number of cases to make their point and introduce their theories. Some of them were wrong, listing some ships and planes incorrectly. Often one author would point that out to another author. John Spencer took a lot of ribbing from Dick Winer for originating the V.A. Fogg mistake. Many of the cases have subsequently been corrected in the popular press or magazine articles.
   Unfortunately, debunkers hark back on 30 year old books and attempt to promote those as the final word, then ad nauseum rehash and “expose” those mistakes and never go on to anything else. They always make those mistakes look intentional. Fallibility in an author cannot be interpreted as intentional sensationalism, as debunkers so often enjoy doing. (I have had official bureaus tell me things which turned out to be patently inaccurate with later investigation.)
   Much of the information for Triangle books prior to mine are based on newspaper accounts of missing vessels or planes. Newspaper articles are, to put it mildly, only the tip of the iceberg to what goes on at sea.
   For every inaccurately listed plane or ship in the Triangle there are probably 10 that disappeared therein that were not reported and that neither the sensationalists nor debunkers know about. It is very possible that one author may have quantitative mistakes insofar as select examples are concerned but it does not effect the underlying thesis. Take for instance my pages on missing aircraft 1964-1977.  How many of these did you ever read about in an old book? Most were never heard of until I asked NTSB to do a search of their database for missing aircraft.  Can you imagine the quantity that have disappeared prior to record keeping? That a few cases in 30 year old books should be exposed like Rubicon’s inaccurately listed dereliction in 1944 or that one author listed Freya as being abandoned in the Triangle when it was in the Pacific Ocean doesn’t seem like much compared.
   Remember, legends predated the Bermuda Triangle about a “Sea of Doom,” “Sargasso Graveyard,” and “Graveyard of the Atlantic,”   all of them referring to areas where ships came to grief more often, either by disappearance or sinking. These did not come from journalists or sensationalists spreading lies and sensationalism. Seaman were aware of such areas. Like the Triangle, they are areas hard to define with precision.
   Debunkers seem to be the only ones who believe in the “Triangle” as a strict shape. Vincent Gaddis introduced the the Triangle with “many disappearances occur in and about this area.” Richard Winer thought it was a trapezium which extended further out into the Atlantic; John Spencer thought it a “limbo” that extended into the Gulf of Mexico and went along the continental shelves. . . .etc, etc. There are a few other shapes, so forth and so on. This is to be expected in research. Differences are commonplace. I am a firm believer that “expert” only means someone who is qualified to disagree with somebody else.
   If some debunker is still touting the “Triangle” as a strict triangle and therefore excluding anything because it happened 100 miles outside of an imaginary line that one journalist coined for the sake of literary license, his entire argument is specious because he is giving someone a position and then arguing against it. His arguments are  irrelevant because the imaginary position he gives his “opposition” does not exist.

Added March 18, 2001

Question: Is it true that there was a scientific evaluation done and the Bermuda Triangle did not have any more disappearances than other places in the world?

Answer. I’ve heard some tout that, but to date I have never been able to substantiate it. The claim raises my suspicions, especially about whatever its criterion might have been. In any true sense, both the  Coast Guard and Lloyd’s of London keep no statistics for smaller missing boats. The Coast Guard keeps a district by district statistic and then break it down by cause. There is also no other place in the world with the kind of traffic like the area of the Bermuda Triangle. The closest would be New England and the Mediterranean. These areas are not high in disappearances.

Added March 2, 2001

I have to address a few issues. Due to the new program of major search engines to pay for review,  some sites (including this one) were dropped temporarily and a couple of previously obscured sites achieved higher rankings and consequently have been getting many more hits. This has even placed a couple of  them in the top 10, giving a high profile to what is, in a couple of cases, a dissemination of patently false and inaccurate information and opinions guised as facts.
   I wondered why some questions I received seemed basic. In fact, I was irritated by some of the questions. Now I understand why they were being asked! Questions like “Where is the Bermuda Triangle located or the Sargasso Sea?” are good examples. Please see the maps to help in these answers.

Question.  Where is the Sargasso Sea? Is it close to the Triangle?

Answer. Close? Most definitely!  The island of Bermuda is itself in the Sargasso Sea! Please see the map on the Sargasso Sea on this web site. It is a complete and utter fabrication for anyone to say that the Sargasso Sea is not a part of the Triangle! The whole western section of the Sargasso Sea is the very center of the Triangle! Any encyclopedia will give you the latitudes and longitudes of the Sea; any academic website will do the same. It lies roughly between 25^o to 35^o North Latitude and 35^o to 75^o West Longitude.

I have revised my Sargasso Sea page accordingly.

I promise in future to pay more attention to what is being disseminated on the web. I actually never browse for the subject “Bermuda Triangle”. I did when I first bought my web space. I did just recently out of curiosity when I saw the rankings drop without reason.

Added February 12, 2001

Question. People always seem to blame or credit Charles Berlitz with creating the Bermuda Triangle sensationalism. Why is his name synonymous with the Bermuda Triangle?

Answer.  He was not by any means the man who discovered the Bermuda Triangle. He was not even the 4th or 5th author on the subject. Much had been published on the Triangle before his 1974 book.  Charles Berlitz was, however,  the most successful writer on the subject. His book was the first to deal with theories and, frankly, even couch some ludicrous theories in very well written language. His book did capture the mythos of the area very well, and therefore sold briskly until about 5 million copies were sold. Nothing has equaled it since and it is still in reprint though now 27 years obsolete. 
   Although I have hit him hard where I felt he deserved it, it is clear to me Charles Berlitz truly believed what he was writing about in his first book. His sources were respectable enough (newspaper clippings, magazine articles) when he spoke about missing planes and ships, though they were highly inaccurate.
   To dissolve some of the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle events, debunkers have actually tried to claim Berlitz is the man solely responsible and in this way make it look like the invention of one man— an easy foundation to undermine. In reality, Berlitz did very little research: magazine and newspaper clippings were most of his sources for the incidents and J. Manson Valentine was the source for most of the theories.
   Berlitz did not make up the bogus lines attributed to Flight 19. These came from the very respectable American Legion Magazine, in an article by Allan W. Eckhart in 1961. Vincent Gaddis was an honest journalist, but many of his sources were very brief in retelling the particulars of an incident and left out pertinent details. Berlitz was extremely dependent on Gaddis’ very popular 1965 book Invisible Horizons which dealt with many mysteries around the world including a chapter on the “Deadly Bermuda Triangle.”
   Berlitz, in fact, did what any respectable author of popular subjects did: he skimmed through the popular press, through magazines and articles, journals and scientific papers, then tried to account for the data by use of several popular theories like UFOs, time warps, etc.
   Berlitz was a believer in the seance and the occult.  He was one of the rich but not profligate kids of his generation. These turned out to be the inquisitive and educated travelers instead of the playboys. They turned to probing into popular mysteries, many times using pseudo scientific methods. They were explorers and discoverers desperately trying to find something to discover and explore, and unsolved mysteries of our planet and its history was still an untried frontier.  The anti-establishment years of the late 60s and 70s gave them a forum for their alternative experiences.
   Believing in this stuff, when Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis readings spoke of the Bahamas being a part of Atlantis and that it was a supercivilization with nifty rays and gravity machines, it seemed logical to explore the possibility that planes and ships were disappearing from these ancient submerged power complexes in the Bahamas.
   In later books, I feel he fudged extensively. But he had a sincere interest in the unsolved of our world. I think this is laudable.

Question. Are you a professional researcher?

Answer. No, I do not make a living at this. If anybody does, I feel that would constitute a conflict of interest. This is one of my many past-times, and the web site is my hobby.

Question. Is it true that most of these were never considered mysteries until years later when some writers misrepresented them as being unusual?

Answer. Absolutely not. The dereliction of the Rosalie in 1840, on a course from Marseilles to New Orleans, was considered quite an oddity and rated an interesting entry in the London Times no less. (Some have tried to confuse her with the Rossini. She was in fact a real ship launched in October of 1838 built of 222 tons wood. She was brought into Havana derelict and confused in dispatches with Rossini, another vessel brought into Nassau). The disappearance of  the USS Cyclops in 1918 was frequently in the press and even rehashed frequently for the next decade as the “Greatest Mystery of the Sea.” The disappearance of Flight 19 was in the press for months as one of “the greatest mysteries of our time.”

Question. Can Static Electricity explain the disappearances?

Answer. No. Aircraft are designed to absorb electrical charges, so are boats. The little item used is called a Zinc. . . .and I’ll add one of my own: I’ve never heard of a pilot going unconscious because of static electricity.

Added February 10, 2001

Question. You don’t seem to declare what you believe personally. And your site is scant on the theories section so far. Do you have any personal views or are you afraid to mention them?

Answer.  Not at all. I can speak with great dogma about missing planes and ships. Their records are publicly accessible. We know they vanished. When it comes to theories, however, how can one speak with certainty? Theory itself implies it is not fact.

Question. Are you going to avoid discussing any theories whatsoever?

Answer. Certainly not! My theories page already has a few links operational. But when one discusses the theories, they must discuss them as theories and not as facts. One cannot equate their favorite guess about an incident with fact and then say “that’s the way it is!” In order to propose theories one must have evidence. I want all the cases uploaded first else the evidence is incomplete upon which to base a theory.

Question. But aren’t many facts indisputable in each incident? Can’t these infer a reasonable solution to each incident? There is another web site where facts are listed after each case is mentioned that contradict the mystery about it.

Answer.  Such “facts”  often stem from one man, Larry Kusche. In a 1975 book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved he made the claim there was no mystery to solve. Although you might think this would all be completely passé by now,  debunkers really don’t have any other source to turn to than this 25 year old book.

   I have addressed this before, but I see I’m going to have to be specific. I have refrained from doing so in the past because I thought it would be irrelevant considering the age of his book. However, it has been in reprint, so a few things have to be pointed out.

   First, Kusche’s book was an exposé that skewed toward the simplistic instead of the sensational. Such a thesis is often never challenged. It was promoted as a qualified attempt, though he admitted he had never been to the Triangle and did not stir from his reference library at the University of Arizona at Tempe where he was the librarian. By gleaning through newspapers and making some phone calls he gathered his information.  In all this he obtained only about 6 accident reports and some Lloyd’s List bulletins (which are not often detailed). His book contained only a selective number of cases, about 57, and then he “solved” them by offering a different chain of events than the “sensationalists” had provided.

   These accident reports did not solve one incident. In fact, Kusche admitted that Star Tiger was a true mystery. For Star Ariel he implied the search started a day after it vanished. Actually it was a couple of hours. The report into Marine Sulphur Queen is noted for not being able to solve the incident, nor did the Board of Inquiry solve Flight 19. They merely blamed Taylor. Likewise Kusche blamed him. Affixing blame is not solving.

   Often Kusche resorted to some obscure newspapers to find a solution. The case of the KB-50 is typical. The Virginia Pilot ran an article that an oil slick was found near where the plane sent its last message. Kusche relied on this to imply the plane merely crashed, though he could not offer why it would have crashed. The accident report sets it straight that the plane was heard hundreds of miles beyond this spot by another plane.

  Kusche knew of the repository where these Air Force reports are maintained, but did not bother to obtain any official report or chose to ignore their facts if he did.

   For some incidents he found no newspaper accounts at all, implying they didn’t happen. He said he could find no proof  the Ellen Austin existed, although Lloyd’s had no problem finding it for me, as did the New York Historical Library . . .even telling me what type of oak it was built of! He chose some incredibly obscure incidents that no one really cared about and then found no sources for them. He wrote he wanted to see if disappearances were still occurring, so he checked some newspapers and found two incidents which turned out to be bogus, crowing over this fact. However, public documents from the FAA or CAB for 1973-1974, the time period he was working in, show 9 aircraft disappeared, and 200 boats went missing according to Coast Guard statistics, though most were blamed on criminal causes.
 
   For his next book, The Disappearance of Flight 19, he seems to have done little more than ingratiate himself to Taylor’s bereaved sister, Georgia, and her husband, Whitney, to obtain information and family memorabilia on Charles Taylor, whom he would make into the central figure of his book. All the time he seems to have kept from them the fact that he was going to blame her brother for the incident  . . .after dredging up patently false evidence about sloppy navigation and carelessness. Despite his statements of friendship in his book, after the book came out, they would never speak to him again. (Whitney drove to a halfway point to retrieve all that they had lent him about C.C. Taylor.) He called the other pilots rookies and ignored their training. He seems to have contacted the families to only get a picture. He mentioned several names in his Acknowledgments. More than one of which has told me they did not speak to him or help him.

Question.  Is it true that Taylor didn’t take his watch or his plotting board? Isn’t this careless?

Answer. Avengers had clocks despite what some have said. They didn’t work often, but Avengers did have clocks. Taylor probably did not take a watch. The time was merely a contact away with another pilot who had one. Plotting boards are already on Avengers, so no one knows if he had one or not. It was an easy hop. It was common practice for many instructors not to take one or use it if they did. More than one has admitted this to me while clearing his throat with embarrassment.  Taylor hardly stands out as careless.

Question. Another web site says that ELTs sink with the plane so there is no great mystery to no ELT signal being received from planes lost over water. Why do you imply there is?

Answer. Easy, many ELTs are designed to be jettisoned upon impact. It does not sink with the plane. It floats on the ocean. They can also be affixed within the rear fuselage, where they can be triggered by impact or, if the fuselage breaks open, as it often does in this hollow area of the plane, the ELT can be liberated. The tail section of any plane usually survives in some form. Therefore the reason why the ELT is placed here if not in a jettison position. Even a short burst of ELT transmission is enough to alert base that something has happened. This should happen even in impact over the ocean before any ELT would sink with the plane. What’s the point of an automatic alarm if it is designed to be destroyed with the plane? In fact, heavy turbulence has sometimes jettisoned ELTs (in military craft) though the plane proceeded unharmed to its destination. Military jets have auto alarms in their seats that are activated when they eject.

Question: Was Taylor the only experienced pilot in Flight 19?

Answer. No.  All pilots were experienced. They were undergoing advanced overwater navigation, something army pilots did not even have to do since they would never be stationed on carriers. Among the crews there were several veterans of the Pacific theater of the war that switched to naval aviation. Burt Baluk was the only newbie. He had been in only a couple of months.

Question. I live along the Florida Gold Coast, I have read an article by a man who was there at the time and he blamed Taylor for being confused and careless, and also blamed Don Poole for not letting a ready plane takeoff with Lt. Cox in it to find the flight. There really doesn’t seem to be any mystery to me, just a lot of incompetence and slack rules.

Answer. You’re talking about John Evans, who claims to have been a TBM gunner at Fort Lauderdale and at the time was a crash photographer at NAS Fort Lauderdale. John Evans is rather entertaining for his evolving account of that day, as can be seen by following what he has said in newspaper interviews and in the article you refer to in Florida’s Gold Coast magazine in 1998. This last article, written by him, is noteworthy for being melodramatic,  contradictory to earlier statements he made in newspapers, and, sadly, for being full of his liberal idea of what is a quote, and patently inaccurate information. Evans claims to have been there but remembers bad weather that day, something that was not true until that evening long after the flight was lost. He also says such utter nonsense as that Taylor’s mother, Katherine, periodically visited Fort Lauderdale until her death in 1973, asking charter boat captains if they had seen her son.

  Evans was much less informed about Flight 19 in 1991.  He appears not to have had much publicity until those 5 Avengers were found off Fort Lauderdale that year, at which time the press tried to dig up anyone with a connection. His 1998 article seems to be the last hurrah at trying to get his fluid views published. He wrote a novella called The Fifteen Man, a fiction work following the life of the 15th man who didn’t go (whoever that was). However, it was never published. According to my sources, it was never published because of its profanity. This claim may have originated from Evans himself, since the real answer might be that his style of writing is so poor, as seen in his 1998 article, the work was not salvagable.

   John Evans is one of a number of men who have grandstanded after this 1991 discovery by claiming some form of connection with Flight 19, even if it was just being on the same base at the time along with thousands of other servicemen.

   Calvin Shoemaker’s claims are some of the most bizarre. He claims to have even been one of the pilots. But at the last minute he let Ensign Bossi take his place because Bossi could not get his plane started. Bossi ran across the field, and Shoemaker, on the runway no less, braked his Avenger and got out, letting Bossi take his place in FT-3 that day.
   His account is obscure before the hooplah of the 1991 discovery of 5 bogus planes. After this it found its way into the Los Angeles Daily Breeze. He has even sent letters to Bossi’s family, including a 3 page letter detailing his claim, a copy of which I have. In it he also declares he is writing a book. That letter was dated in 1994. Still no book. I assume the claim was bogus or, very likely, publishers were aware his claims were a complete fabrication.
   Even the daily flight inspection sheet exists for FT-3 with Bossi’s own signature on it, checking that plane out. There was no plane switching like Shoemaker claims.
   Like Evans, he too presents photos to the press— the usual type: a group of guys standing in front of a plane. The claim then follows that members of Flight 19 are in there when they are not. John Evans even claimed to have all 14 aviators in one photo and this photo appeared in a major magazine in 1991. Not one was in there.
   It is really quite laughable to see these old guys pictured in magazines and newspapers playing with a plastic Avenger and showing photos of a dozen John Does before an Avenger until one remembers that a lot of writers indiscriminately digest a newspaper and then use it to build their point of view on an incident in the “Bermuda Triangle.”

Question. You say you are the only one to search for Flight 19 since the original search ended. How can you say that? I saw on TV an hour long show in which they went out to retrieve an Avenger from the bottom of the Atlantic.

Answer. You might be referring to the John Myhre episode. Although John Myhre is not in jail over that, as I understand it, I believe his lawyer is. Those who backed it, as I have been told, were not too happy about that Avenger not being a part of Flight 19, nor were they too happy to discover that Myhre knew it wasn’t to begin with. At least that’s how I hear it. One thing is certain: his lawyer went to jail.

Questions. Do you know the email addresses of  Larry Kusche, Charles Berlitz and Richard Winer?

Answer. Richard Winer is not on the web. I believe Charles Berlitz is not well. When I used to communicate with him, it was before the days of email. He would refer one to J. Manson Valentine who is now passed away.  I don’t think Larry Kusche is on the web, but I really don’t know.

Question. If you don’t believe in some of the wilder theories, as you call them, why do you write about them or have them listed as “coming soon” on your site?

Answer. As an investigative journalist, my roll is that of a detective who writes about his cases. I am not here to indoctrinate. These theories, whether I agree with them or not, are a part of the “mythos” of the Triangle. As a biographer of this area, I am obliged to include them. A biographer cannot just write about the good characters of a person, but must take all into consideration.

Question. I keep hearing about Gas Hydrates as being one of the more rational theories, those that “serious scientists” propose. Is this true? Is this an example of your non conventional but natural explanation?

Answer. No! It is more or less of a joke. No “serious scientist” has propose that. In fact for my last TLC program the Producer even tracked down some experts in the field and they said it was more or less improbable. The gas has to go through who knows how much strata then miles of ocean to rise to the surface. By this time it’s unlikely that it could do anything. You keep hearing about these “methane funnels” being promoted as a logical, scientific theory, but it is really not thought to have happened for 15,000 years.

Question. Would anything be left at all from the 5 Avengers if they went into the Okefenokee Swamp?

Answer. Yes, most certainly. Rhonda Kimbrough assures me that even if you put aluminum is straight vinegar for 100 years something would be left. The engine is cast iron, and the plexiglass would still remain.

Question. Why do a lot of the other sites constantly debunk the Triangle but never list anything new?

Answer. Well, for one none are journalists or “sea dogs” and none have done any research whatsoever.  I carefully wrote the introduction to my home page when saying that this site is “not based on relating hearsay or repeating stories from 30 year old books.”
   Also, no one but me has done research in the last 20 years, so the debunkers have no new catalog of mysteries to debunk. This limits them to aping Larry Kusche’s 1975 book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery--Solved. If I recall correctly none of the other sites are self owned, but are under the umbrella of a host, judging by their web site addresses which are not their own domain names but pages under other indexes. The cost of research is far in excess of maintaining of web site. These are more or less “opinion sites.”
   Not being able to do any firsthand research, they have no choice but to debunk. To debunk is merely to stew in one’s own ideas based on the amount of information you have been exposed to.
   The BBC Magazine will be coming out with an article asking “Why don’t we care?” I think this pretty much says why: we are pelted by people telling us nothing is going on and there is nothing to wonder about. This strange cynicism is at the opposite extreme of the pendulum’s swing in the 1970s when we wondered about everything!
   I think it is fair to say that people do care. Not to praise my site and sound immodest, but my site has surpassed in hits in one year alone any other sites including those that show copyright dates in advance of 2 years prior to my site.
   But I agree. It is strange that they think it is credible to simply repeat Kusche’s 25 year old book and stop with incidents in 1975. None seem to consider that something might have gone on after that. One newer site has clearly liberated pictures from my site but still defers to a narrow rehash of incidents. But then again, debunkers don’t seek . . .they quibble.

May 2000

Q. Where do most of the ships and planes disappear?       

A. Around the Bahamas and Caribbean, southern Florida.

Q. Do you recommend any books?

A. I recommend all the books. That doesn’t mean you have to believe them. I certainly don’t. But if you want a well rounded knowledge of the subject, that’s your only way. Remember: to be allowed all points of view on a subject is education; to be allowed only one is indoctrination.

Q. In light of The Bermuda Triangle Mystery– Solved by Lawrence Kusche, why do you feel there is still reason to investigate the Bermuda Triangle?

A. He didn’t solve it! . . .I would love to leave it there, but I suppose I should elucidate. You are talking about a 1975 book in which the author claims to have solved the Bermuda Triangle mysteries by examining about 60 incidents. Well, there are several weakness with the book. Only about 6 of the incidents he discussed were based on official accident reports. Of these, not one was solved by those accident reports. Some were based on terse Lloyd’s List news report. The others were based on newspaper accounts, many of them unreliable and sketchy. For some he found no sources whatsoever, implying to him the incident never occurred. He even went so far as to say that there was no investigation of the Cyclops. In reality, the documents on this vessel take up 3 boxes at the National Archives (about 1,500 pages). The great coup of the book was its title, which allowed it to sell well. However, the contents did not solve the mystery. It would have been more accurate to say Bermuda Triangle Examined. Considering all the fanciful stuff being said about the Bermuda Triangle at the time, Kusche’s book was not only inevitable but sorely needed. Don’t get me wrong, the book is something you should have. But its title is sadly  misleading.

Q. What exactly caused the JFK crash? Can pilot inexperience be that sudden? And an off the wall question, what exactly would NTSB investigators look for in autopsies of bodies at sea.

A. Yes, pilot inexperience can be that sudden. It can also be very insidious. The press talked alot about how he couldn’t handle the plane well. That’s really not the case, as I understand it. I believe he had a Saratoga, something akin to a  Cherokee Lance. They are nice planes, but I wouldn’t consider them that beefy. He was inexperienced in over water navigation. You see that line in “Briefs” to disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle as well. In other words, he was not familiar with flying on instruments. That can be dangerous. Without being qualified, you fly by eye. You can get very confused that way, especially at dusk and at night.  Whereaver there is terrain that can confuse depth and perception (like snow and ocean) chances of vertigo greatly incease. Pilots have caught themselves flying upside down without knowing it! If the conditions are IFR and you are not qualified, don’t fly!
   As to the autopsies, they would check for brain tumors, drugs, the location and type of bruises, the lungs to see if death came by drowning (indicating survived inpact), the hands, fingers, wrists, to see how he was holding the stick or if he was at all. (When more than one pilot is aboard, this determines who was pilot at the time of impact.)  There is any number of things they would check the lungs for: smoke inhalation, fumes, etc. they would check for burns, lacerations on the face (if something rammed the windshield) etc.

Q. What do you think about the “ocean flatulence” theory?

A. You are, of course, talking about methane venting from the bottom of the ocean. Methane causes the water to molecularly change, to become less dense. The theory proposes that ships have simply sank because the water was not molecularly dense enough to hold them. Well, the name more or less seems to introduce levity where it does not belong. I remember one disappearance; I think it was the Dr. Fisher disappearance of the early 1970s, in which he and his family (wife and 4 daughters, I believe) vanished. Only one child was not with them. She was waiting for them to land. She lost her whole family in one fell swoop. People who do not know about the individual tragedies make light of the whole subject.
   Another “scientist” claimed that this theory can explain all or most of the ship disappearances. He noted that the Bermuda Triangle has a concentration of methane below the seabed. However, he was completely ignorant of where ships last reported themselves. Not one ship has sunk because of methane. Methane cannot effect aircraft. It did swallow an oil rig that drilled into a deposit. However, news helicopters were circling above taking pictures. They were unaffected.

Q. Does the Bermuda Triangle move?

A. No, although there are disagreements as to its actual shape. “Bermuda Triangle” is merely a popular name applied to the sea between Bermuda, Miami, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is a geographic location which cannot move. Disappearances occur within the vicinity of this area. I personally do not believe it extends close to the Azores nor far into the Gulf of Mexico. None of my research has indicated a large quantities of disappearances in these areas.

Q. You mention some of the older theorists on the Atlantis Theory, but not the more modern ones. Why?

A. Why? Because they haven’t added anything significant. I concentrated on the actual originators of the theory. To undermine the foundation is to bring the house down. More recent claims have included those of a man named De Val or something like it, about finding a pyramid deep down off the Bahama Banks. Several scientists who specialize in deep sea breathing mixtures noted that he didn’t even have access to the equipment to make the dive.
   A German writer calling himself Dr. Michael Preisinger stressed his scientific discipline in his Das Bermuda Rötsel Gelöst in 1997. The article recounted his 6 month stay in the Bahamas and spoke of his personal scientific quest for some of the mysteries of the Bermuda Triangle (circa 1995).  He flip flopped between the fantastic and the mundane. His fantastic claims centered on micro wormholes as the cause for magnetic deviations, though he deduced these from merely diving in shallow waters without any equipment. The mundane included endorsing the very dated idea that the Bimini stones were left by Confederate raiders. Although he claims to have been an avid diver while living in the Bahamas, he seems quite ignorant of its famous underwater ruins. He also seemed impressed enough with psychic tales to repeat them, like leprechauns in the Bahamas.
   Dr. John Sparks’ work on Bimini as a megalithic site, and Dr. David Zink’s expeditions have shown the Bimini stones are man made. My own contribution to this area was to discover that the Bimini Stones appeared on old Spanish maps and can still be seen on the Piri Reis Map of 1513.  They are shown on land, as they probably were when the Spanish discovered them. They remain a tantalizing mystery. . . but they are not an ancient submersion.

Q. I have to do a report on the Bermuda Triangle. What were the weather conditions for the last 10 disappearances?

A.   N7202F: Wind 10 knots, bearing 100 degrees. Visibility 7 miles. 2,100 Ft.
scattered, 30,000 Ft. broken.
2. N8938P. No significant WX reported, Fair.
3. N24WJ Convective thunderstorm. Cloud tops at 27,000 feet. Jet last
observed above weather.
4. N93261 CAVU (Ceiling and Visibility Unlimited)
5. N69118 VMC, (Visual Meteorological Conditions) Wind 5 miles, clouds broken 7,000 feet, visibility 5 miles.
6. N6844Y building showers.
7. N5916V VMC, WX fair. (An unidentified plane was noted sputtering over a
man's house.)
8. N50GV No significant WX. Reported generator trouble.
9. N25626 Unknown
10. CP152 was a mistake in my part. It is not relevant. I plan to take it
down.
11. N6138X missing near Nassau May 12, 1999. No significant WX. You can go to Recent Events and read a short synopsis of this incident.

Common Questions

General Questions