The Unites States Navy has a page on their history website (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-1.htm) in which the author sees fit to give the official opinion, supposedly, of the US Navy. My experience with the Navy History Center is that no naval officers have anything to do with it. It is maintained by librarians.
To some extent the “Navy” opinion is in line with the Coast Guard’s opinion, except somebody incredibly illogical decided to add their own ludicrous codicil. To wit:
“To see how common accidents are at sea, you can examine some of the recent accident reports of the National Transportation Safety Board for ships and aircraft. One of the aircraft accident reports concerns an in-flight engine failure and subsequent ditching of a Cessna aircraft near Great Abaco Island in the Bahamas on 13 July 2003. This is the type of accident that would likely have been attributed to mysterious causes in the Bermuda Triangle if there had been no survivors or other eyewitnesses of the crash.”
Yes, it would.
One almost has to restrain laughing at such an excuse. It so violates the principles of natural logic— that is, that our conclusions must be supported by the reasons we give— that it makes one’s eyes spin like the Burgermeister, Meister Burger.
Naturally, all aircraft that do not leave wreckage or have witnesses to the accident are disappearances. The same principle applies to boats. Frankly, it would apply to cars as well. The author of the piece does not seem to know what divides a disappearance from an accident.
Actually, if people follow his advice they will see how common such engine failures are. They would also see how oil leaks have precipitated panicked maydays and ditching. They would read reports of engines quitting on takeoff and the plane crashing into a tree. They would read about a myriad of ditchings and accidents in the Bahamas, some tragic, some comical, most fortunately not leading to loss of life. In fact, it is so common that utter and complete disappearance without Maydays immediately strikes one as odd.
It is not simply the number of the disappearances in the Triangle that makes it stand out, but the circumstances surrounding the losses. How about when a plane vanishes on approach to an airport and the pilots of the plane right behind it didn’t even see it happen? How about when an aircraft suddenly slows on radar and then plunges, but no one sees a crash except 35 miles away from the spot; the water is only 18 feet deep, but there is no trace of the aircraft? How about when a pilot panics over a weird object harassing his plane and then the aircraft vanishes off radar? How about a large DC-3 suddenly disappearing off radar and an immediate search in the exact area uncovers no trace? How about the absence of Maydays from these incidents, unlike in the other cases where oil leaks and engine failures allow the pilot to signal his intentions? How about no ELT signals, those electronic alarms that automatically send a distress message upon impact?
To say that we are to not categorize these odd happenings separately from the common and definable accident is like saying we should ignore clever serial killers like Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler merely because statistically murders in London and Boston are the same as in other cities or, worse, following the Navy History author’s reasoning, because murders are too commonplace. Would a smart serial killer therefore merely be an expected and acceptable mathematical probability so that no special attention is given to unraveling the cases? Because accidents in the Triangle are common, as they are elsewhere, are we to consider the bizarre circumstances and total lack of trace from some as being mathematically probable and acceptable?
In short, is it wrong for scientists to probe deeper, because of this present author’s work at uncovering many of these cases, to find a solution, to unravel the reality of “electronic fog,” and to collate these disappearances with other observed phenomena? The Navy, with its august history, should be more careful about whom they pick to represent their opinion on a topic outside their province of investigation. The author who wrote the opinion violates the first 4 skills of Scientific Inquiry— Observe, Classify, Infer, Interpret. These are the mandatory steps of science only because they are the natural steps of a thinking and inquiring mind. Once data is classified, the truth of it must be pursued with the entire spectrum of science: Observe, Classify, Infer, Interpret, Measure, Predict, Questions, Hypotheses, Experiment, Model Building.