|
|
Post by Gian on Sept 13, 2009 20:18:49 GMT -5
I have been wondering when this was going to come out. I had found the interviewer, Tom Mangold, to be quite rude and ill-informed when he interviewed me in my home. He kept confusing my book and Berlitz's and often went into elaborate behavioral clichés when I said something, such as over-reacting or using exaggerated inflection. I could tell he had merely read some reviews on Amazon.com and tried to use this as a reflection of popular opinion. He seemed upset when I confessed I made no money on the subject. A British production company contacted him after he interviewed me to make sure they weren't doing a similar production and according to the producer he tried to sell them his contact information, much of which came from me and was given freely because of the BBC's reputation. They were not impressed and bought nothing. I suspect this will be a highly edited and over-produced show. Most everything raised in this article has been talked about before. There is nothing new here. I will be placing up all reports when I can, but I will try and scan both Star Tiger's and Star Ariel's reports ASAP and provide links. Gian news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8248334.stm |
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Sept 13, 2009 20:28:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Sept 16, 2009 17:08:20 GMT -5
I should clarify here that the Tudor IV was designed and manufactured as a passenger carrying airliner. It was not a converted WWII aircraft. That would have been the Lancaster bomber, some of which BSAAC also operated. The famous Star Dust was one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobcouttie on Oct 3, 2009 6:41:18 GMT -5
My own opinion is that the series - which I enjoyed - was at its best talking to those who created the Bermuda Triangle myth but contributed little new. I was surprised that he didn't mention the discovery of Flight 19 pretty much where sceptics said it would be.
On the other hand, given the suppression of information and opinion that sceptics are subject to,the series is still welcome. Kusch's book is still quoted because it's the only sceptical book allowed to be published on the Bermuda Triangle.
|
|
|
|
Post by rodney on Oct 3, 2009 18:24:47 GMT -5
My own opinion is that the series - which I enjoyed - was at its best talking to those who created the Bermuda Triangle myth but contributed little new. I was surprised that he didn't mention the discovery of Flight 19 pretty much where sceptics said it would be. Where and when was Flight 19 found? On the other hand, given the suppression of information and opinion that sceptics are subject to,the series is still welcome. Kusch's book is still quoted because it's the only sceptical book allowed to be published on the Bermuda Triangle. Do you have any evidence that the views of sceptics have been suppressed regarding the Bermuda Triangle? |
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Oct 3, 2009 22:09:46 GMT -5
These questions speak for me as well. I was a bit curious about skeptics being suppressed. There was nothing but debunkery until my site went up in 1999. My book was the first book since the late 1970s.
Flight 19 has never been found. I'm the only one espousing a definite theory that they went down in the Okefenokee Swamp. A TV producer, Bob Wise, recently told me that a military historian has gone public that he agrees. I suppose this will be on a Discovery Channel special in December.
|
|
|
|
Post by crypto118 on Oct 7, 2009 8:57:46 GMT -5
If memory serves, 5 Avengers were found in circa 1991 off the coast of Florida. However, the engine block numbers did not match, so the location of Flight 19 is still very much a mystery.
As for the BBC series, I thought it was fairly poorly done. My main problem with the presenter is that he repeatedly criticizes Gian Quasar (and Winer & Berlitz as well) for including some speculation in their books. He seems to be saying that if an author includes any speculation or theory that the author doesn't 100% believe in, then the book cannot be called non-fiction! That just doesn't make sense - any book written about a mystery will naturally include some speculative theories. And God forbid the author makes any money for his work (He really drills Winer on this) - that completely destroys any credibility he may have! I'm sure Mr. Mangold works for the BBC for free.
DL Wood
|
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Oct 8, 2009 10:50:49 GMT -5
My impression of Tom Mangold was that he was the British equivelant of Peter Arnett. He employed the most insulting and obvious inflection as soon as the mike was turned on, it was clear he had a predetermined agenda.
When he found out I hadn't made any money at this (almost reproached my for making squat), he got in about theories. I didn't believe UFOs and Time warps were the most probable reasons to explain all the disappearances. Thus by his beliefs I should not have mentioned them. He had a condescending way of inferring his audience should look upon that negatively. In his next question he asked about theories and inserted "even though you don't believe in them" with such childish inflection, he msut have truly believed his forewarning to me that his auidience had the collective mind of a 10 year old. I made it clear that indoctrination and education are not the same thing, but I doubt my comments made it into the final cut.
He aproached this from the angle of "real tabloid stuff," as he had called it between cuts. The result was an attempt to debunk an image that was 40 years old.
I'm afraid Mr. Mangold overestimated the popularity of the topic. If he even spent time with Winer, he was trying to re-invent the wheel. Winer wrote a book 35 years ago. Mangold is debunking nothing current. He merely tried to walk in Kusche's footsteps thinking there must be gold in the Triangle. That was in 1975! I think from his ratings he realizes he did a poor research job on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by crypto118 on Oct 8, 2009 21:54:28 GMT -5
I actually sort of enjoyed the Richard Winer segment because I have fond memories of reading "The Devil's Triangle" when I was a kid and the companion "documentary" he made scared the hell out of me (I think it was Vincent Price's voice that did it). Apparently Mangold had a hard time finding him and when he did track him down in Florida, it took a while to talk Winer into the interview. Of course, Charles Berlitz has gone to the great triangle in the sky, so he had to settle for interviewing his daughter. He was very rude and condensending to both in my opinion.
I guess I'm bias because I love the subject, but I do agree that it was a little late to jump on the Triangle bandwagon! I'm surprised he didn't interview Larry Kusche.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobcouttie on Oct 9, 2009 8:28:57 GMT -5
Having now had time to do some digging, yes, I was wrong. Five aircraft, in a configuration suggesting they were the remains of flight 19 were found in 1990. Obviously this cannot be a mere coincidence - or course it can. Another 89 training aircraft went down in roughly the same area in a one year period.
The question Mangold didn't really ask was: "Demonstrably, nothing special happens in the Bermuda Triangle, why do you insist that it's special?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Oct 9, 2009 9:46:51 GMT -5
Here's my rant:
I think the reason why Mangold didn't interview Kusche is that he wanted to be the next Larry Kusche. However, he won't rise to that level. Kusche admitted that Star Tiger and Star Ariel were still mysteries since nothing was ever found. Mangold liked his own theory and then wrote that peice for the BBC in which he declared both were solved . . .although neither have been found.
Some joker has been putting stuff up on wikipedia about how the Triangle is all about money. That usually inspires those who really are after nothing but money—debunkers— to jump onto a subject and try and exploit it. Nickell has tried and now Mangold.
To bring them up to speed again, only I and Bruce Gernon investigate the subject. I did so for 10 years before I got any public attention. Bruce was studying the electronic fog connection since the early 1970s. We didn't get books published until this century-- that sure isn't doing it for money.
Some people really devote themselves to a topic and then enjoy sharing their findings. Getting published in a field of endeavor used to be one of the most respectable things there was. It meant that others thought you had something worth, well, publishing abroad to all. You received kudos from readers far and wide for having added to human knowledge.
It is amazing how debunkers try and dirty something like that. It's a cheap way for them to get publicity and money without having devoted the time and research on any topic.
A write-for-hire hack (like Mangold) does stuff for money and assignment. They surf in and surf out on a topic.
And as to how the Trianglestands out, all one has to do is read my first chapter to appreciate the statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobcouttie on Oct 9, 2009 20:16:29 GMT -5
Had it been my programme - and I have made a series on the paranormal in the past (Forbidden Knowledge) - I'd look at the statistics for areas outside the Bermuda Triangle so that a comparison could be made. Being involved in maritime safety and casualty for many years now I have seen nothing to suggest any greater hazard or loss levels in the Triangle than anywhere else in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gian on Oct 9, 2009 21:19:30 GMT -5
Chapter 1 of my book compares relevant Coast Guard districts. The Triangle stands out quite starkly for disappearances verses others areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by crypto118 on Oct 9, 2009 22:31:57 GMT -5
Keep in mind the difference between "hazards and loss levels" and disappearances. There are lots of regions of the Atlantic that I would consider much more hazardous than the Triangle region (The Grand Banks for example). Also, hundreds of people fly and sail across the Triangle every day without incident, but in terms of disappearances - cases were there is no distress signal, no wreckage, no oil slick, no reasonable explanation, no nothing - the Triangle does indeed stand out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobcouttie on Oct 11, 2009 9:48:40 GMT -5
Please provide stats to demonstrate that the Triangle "stands out"
|
|
