The Philadelphia Experiment and The Bermunda Triangle - Page 3

NEOWatcher · #61 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

...A lot of the people who want you to believe in the "mysterious" Bermuda Triangle will tell you that it is, but they are either lying or mistaken...

I also think that people are looking for a single answer to cover all the situations. There are just too many different causes of the wrecks to do that. Therefore the only single explaination is ET.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

Just for a comparison, I found this map of shipwrecks in the western half of Lake Erie.

Good thing you showed the Western half. We don't want to draw any attention to the Lake Erie Quadrangle

captain swoop · #62 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 01:40 PM

Ships sink all over the world all the time, some without trace. If a big OBO breaks in two it goes down real fast.

BenderBendingRodriguez · #63 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Because, Lord knows, the storms of legendary strength sweeping down the length of the largest and deepest body of freshwater in the entire world,

Lake Baikal drained?

Kelfazin · #64 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

My understanding of the Fitzgerald is that it was hit by a wave very specific to the geology of the area, a "Three Sisters Wave" IIRC. The last of which would have literally deposited it upon a bare lake bed (after dropping it at least 70 feat from the wave crest).

I think I had read about that at some point too. Something like the wave was so big that the Fitzgerald ended up with it's bow buried in one wave, it's stern in the wave behind it, and nothing but empty air underneath which caused it to snap in half, crash onto the sea floor, then the wave settled over the top of it?

NEOWatcher · #65 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 04:08 PM

That is only one of the possible causes of the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking. As of now there are still only theories.

The storm was bad enough that it didn't necessarily need to be a rogue wave.

Swift · #66 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

The Great Lakes are world-renowned for their wrecks even in sheer numbers. Five hundred or so, and at least as many not discovered yet. People come from all corners of the Earth to dive. (I personally have dove 9 wrecks in one weekend (four on the same dive), all within a boatride's distance).

Lake Erie is very shallow and rife with shoals that are barely awash. The shallowness causes what are known as square waves, which are hard on ships.

Which was one of my points - there are good reasons for a large concentration of shipwrecks - lots of ship traffic, local weather conditions, etc. All of that explains shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, without the need for supernatural or similar forces.

I was also interested in the relative concentration of shipwrecks per square kilometer of the Bermuda Triangle versus other parts of the world. I kind of suspect that it the Triangle might not be all that remarkable.

captain swoop · #67 (**permalink**) 11-October-2006, 06:08 PM

It doesn't need a freak wave, Ships have broken up in relative calm. I am looking for a link to the sinking of a British OBO, AFAIK 2 of them broke up due to hidden faults in the hull. Also some of the early Liberty Ships had hull failures due to stress points caused by the design of the cargo hatches (sharp corners)

PhantomWolf · #68 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 12:17 AM

Just for a comparison, I found this map of shipwrecks in the western half of Lake Erie.

Should check out Sable Island

Atraveller · #69 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 12:39 PM

It is my understanding that the 'Philadelphia Experiment' was supposed to make ships invisable to RADAR (layman's misunderstanding changed this to 'invisable' - who knew anything about RADAR back then?) I don't know if this experiment was successful, but I do know that US Navy Vessels are very hard to spot on modern RADAR.

A common 24 mile Raytheon RADAR will pick up most ships between 24 and 16 miles away. Smaller boats (ie sail boats - small FGC boats) will show up on the RADAR screen between 12 and 8 miles away. A tinnie (aussie speak for an aluminum row boat) gives a pretty good return as much as 4 miles away.

On four different occassions I've been as close as 1/2 mile to a US Navy vessel, and it has not shown up on RADAR. Absorbtive paint and interesting angles might explain some of this, but it might also be the result of a 'cloaking device' (I love trekie terms) which was developed from Philadelphia Experiment type technology...

So maybe the Philadelphia Experiment worked, and the fictional stories were to cover up the sucess?

mattweather · #70 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 01:33 PM

Well i see that. The movie of about Philly Expt was successful, so i not sure it wasn't?

Eta C · #71 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 01:59 PM

So was Oliver Stone's movie JFK, and I don't need to comment on its accuracy.

Matt, I suggest you read through the Naval Historical Center's FAQ on the "experiment." I provided the link in my first post and it now works. The records show that the two ships in question (The DE Eldridge and the SS Andrew Furseth) were never in port at the same time. Also, the Eldridge was never used for any experiments. A quick peek at her operational history shows she spent the last two years of WWII on convoy escort duty.

Now she may have had some degaussing gear on board, but that was standard equipment for many ships by this time of the war, nothing exotic. As to proto-stealth tests, Eldridge was too busy trooping back & forth across the Atlantic to be involved in any.

mattweather · #72 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 02:07 PM

Wow you see that on the link? The times changed after someone in different locations. From apart 40 years. Well maybe a time machine event. George W Bush...tell me it real?

DaveC426913 · #73 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelfazin

Something like the wave was so big that the Fitzgerald ended up with it's bow buried in one wave, it's stern in the wave behind it, and nothing but empty air underneath which caused it to snap in half, crash onto the sea floor, then the wave settled over the top of it?

That would be pretty hard to do - in 500 feet of water - which is the depth where the The E.F. is.

DaveC426913 · #74 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenderBendingRodriguez

Lake Baikal drained?

I stand corrected.

Kelfazin · #75 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

That would be pretty hard to do - in 500 feet of water - which is the depth where the The E.F. is.

I didn't mean that the wave was so big that it opened the lake all the way to the floor like a parting of the Red Sea, just that it suspended the EF between two waves, which made it crack in half, and then sink to the bottom, which is one of the many theories about what happened.

Edit to add: Reading back to my own post above I can see why it seems like that's what I meant, but I really didn't heh. I post at work and when I was finishing that post above somebody had come up to my desk with a question so I just finished typing quickly...

from this link

Quote:

This page lists the most common theories; S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald Online does not endorse or support any one particular theory.

Bottoming out/grounding. This could have very well happened near Six Fathom Shoal.
Faulty hatch covers
Another theory, which is very disliked by many Fitz enthusiasts, is that the men may not have properly fastened the series of clamps that were used to hold down all of the the hatches, and therefore water seeped in.
Previous structural damage may have caused the sinking.
Huge waves swamped the ship and it sank. Many people call these huge waves (so big they are detected by radar) the Three Sisters.

Lack of proper repair from previous damage may have played a role
A huge wave rode up between two swells and the ship snapped in half.
Human error
A wave engulfed the ship, pushing the front of the ship underwater. The ship then hit ground, and broke in two...this may be why the two portions of the ship are so close.
Waves lifted both ends of the ship (bow and stern), but the center of the ship containing the cargo was not held by a wave, so the overload forced the center downward, sinking and/or breaking the ship in two.

Eta C · #76 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattweather

Wow you see that on the link? The times changed after someone in different locations. From apart 40 years. Well maybe a time machine event. George W Bush...tell me it real?

This is a somewhat incoherent post, but I'll assume he's referring to the NHC FAQ page. Yes, on that page I see evidence that Eldridge and Furuseth were never in the same port together, in particular in Norfolk, where the Eldridge supposedly materialized.

From the FAQ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldridge movements

The ship involved in the experiment was supposedly the USS Eldridge. Operational Archives has reviewed the deck log and war diary from Eldridge's commissioning on 27 August 1943 at the New York Navy Yard through December 1943. The following description of Eldridge's activities are summarized from the ship's war diary. After commissioning, Eldridge remained in New York and in the Long Island Sound until 16 September when it sailed to Bermuda. From 18 September, the ship was in the vicinity of Bermuda undergoing training and sea trials until 15 October when Eldridge left in a convoy for New York where the convoy entered on 18 October. Eldridge remained in New York harbor until 1 November when it was part of the escort for Convoy UGS-23 (New York Section). On 2 November the convoy entered Naval Operating Base, Norfolk. On 3 November, Eldridge and Convoy UGS-23 left for Casablanca where it arrived on 22 November. On 29 November, Eldridge left as one of escorts for Convoy GUS-22 and arrived with the convoy on 17 December at New York harbor. Eldridge remained in New York on availability training and in Block Island Sound until 31 December when it steamed to Norfolk with four other ships. During this time frame, Eldridge was never in Philadelphia. (emphasis added)

Also from the FAQ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furuseth's movements

Supposedly, the crew of the civilian merchant ship SS Andrew Furuseth observed the arrival via teleportation of the Eldridge into the Norfolk area. Andrew Furuseth's movement report cards are in the Tenth Fleet records in the custody of the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Admnistration, (8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001), which also has custody of the action reports, war diaries and deck logs of all World War II Navy ships, including Eldridge. The movement report cards list the merchant ship's ports of call, the dates of the visit, and convoy designation, if any. The movement report card shows that Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-15 on 16 August 1943 and arrived at Casablanca on 2 September. The ship left Casablanca on 19 September and arrived off Cape Henry on 4 October. Andrew Furuseth left Norfolk with Convoy UGS-22 on 25 October and arrived at Oran on 12 November. The ship remained in the Mediterranean until it returned with Convoy GUS-25 to Hampton Roads on 17 January 1944. The Archives has a letter from Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, USNR, (Ret.), the Master of Andrew Furuseth in 1943, categorically denying that he or his crew observed any unusual event while in Norfolk. Eldridge and Andrew Furuseth were not even in Norfolk at the same time. emphasis added

Matt seems to be suggesting that the historical record may have been altered to hide the "truth." Standard accusation if that's the case. How about some proof that the records were altered, Matt, or are you just going to rely on the usual distrust of government canard?

Kelfazin · #77 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 06:05 PM

At this point shouldn't this thread be moved to Conspiracy Theories rather than General Science? It doesn't appear the OP has much interest/belief in the general science of these two subjects.

BigDon · #78 (**permalink**) 12-October-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

View Poll Results: Is Philadelphia Experiment and Bermunda Triangle are real?
Both yes	1	2.00%
Both no	46	92.00%
Philadelphia Experiment is real	1	2.00%
Bermunda Triangle is real	2	4.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll