media; mangling of scientific principles; and the often deliberate deception of a trusting public.” For example, ships that are said to have vanished under mysterious and unexplainable circumstances turn out upon investigation to have sunk during hurricanes. Other reported disappearances never happened at all. In some cases ships said to have disappeared never existed in the first place. Other sinkings and disappearances attributed to the triangle took place thousands of miles away.
As was the case for von Daniken’s claims, there is not enough space in the present volume to detail what really happened to each of the ships and planes that, according to the mythmakers, vanished mysteriously in the triangle. I will describe several representative cases found in the sensational literature and contrast these fantasies with the results of careful investigations of the actual occurrences. These investigations were carried out by Kusche and are reported in his book The Bermuda Triangle Mystery Solved (1975), to which the reader is referred for further details. Other critical discussions of the Bermuda Triangle can be found in Kusche (1977–78a) and Dennett (1981–82).
Berlitz’s (1974) best-selling The Bermuda Triangle Mystery describes the strange case of the Marine Sulphur Queen. She carried a cargo of fifteen thousand tons of molten sulphur and sailed from Beaumont, Texas, on February 2 1963. According to Berlitz, “the weather was good” and “the large vessel disappeared in good weather” (p. 56, caption on fourth page of plates). Berlitz further states that two life jackets were the only remains of the ship ever found and that the Coast Guard investigation offered “neither solution nor theory concerning this disaster” (p. 57).
These statements are simply false. The weather may have been good on February 2, 1963, when the ship left harbor, but it certainly wasn’t good when she sank. A routine radio message from the ship was sent at about 1:30 A.M. on February 4. This was the last radio contact. About twelve hours previously, according to the Coast Guard Board of Investigation report that Kusche (1975) has examined, another ship in the area reported that there were “very rough seas and her decks were awash” (p. 186). Winds gusted to just below hurricane strength, and the waves were more than thirty-five feet high. This is hardly the calm, peaceful ocean scene painted by Berlitz.
The claim that only two life jackets were ever found adds to the picture of a ship simply vanishing without a trace. The Coast Guard Board of Investigation report shows that the true story is quite different. A foghorn from the ship was found, and over the second phase of the search “additional debris were recovered and identified as coming from the Marine Sulphur Queen” (Kusche 1975, p. 188).
Contrary to Berlitz’s claim, the Coast Guard did propose several theories and possible solutions for the sinking. Among these was the suggestion that the ship may have broken in two. During its conversion to a molten sulphur carrier, bulkheads that strengthened the hull had been removed. Another possible solution mentioned by the Coast Guard is that the ship capsized in the rough seas known to be running at the time. Also mentioned was the possibility of an explosion, either from steam or from the fumes of the sulphur. The latter theory is given credence by the fact that tons of molten sulphur were known to have leaked into the ship’s bilges during previous voyages.
The loss of the Marine Sulphur Queen was certainly tragic, and the exact cause of the sinking will probably never be known. However, it is far from a mysterious occurrence. The weather was very bad and the ship suffered from at least two serious structural flaws (the removal of the bulkheads and the leaking of molten sulphur) that could have been responsible. The promoters of the triangle mystery, in their eagerness to sell sensational books, have failed to mention these facts.
Gaddis (1965), another triangle mystery proponent, described the loss of the Sandra, a freighter “350 feet in length,” in June 1950: “She disappeared as completely as if she had never existed—in the tropic dusk, in peaceful weather—just off the Florida coast” (p. 202). In fact, the length given is nearly double the ship’s actual size. The weather was not peaceful. The ship left harbor on April 5, 1950, and the Miami Herald reported on April 8, 1950 that “a storm growing from the low pressure areas which caused thundershowers and strong winds in Florida during the past three days approached hurricane force and buffeted Atlantic shipping lanes Friday…. [Winds] reached a speed of 73 miles an hour off the Virginia Capes” (Kusche 1975, p. 163). The “Friday” mentioned was April 7, two days after the Sandra left port in Savannah, Georgia. Once again, the “calm sea” picture is false—there is no mystery about this disappearance.
Berlitz (1974) even manages to place one ship in the wrong ocean. He reports the case of the Freya, which he says was found abandoned “in the Triangle area… sailing from Manzanillo, Cuba, to ports in Chile” (p. 50). In fact, the Freya was found partially dismasted and floating on her side in the Pacific Ocean off the western coast of Mexico. In reporting the incident, the British science magazine Nature reported that severe earthquakes had occurred in western Mexico for two or three days after the ship’s departure from a western Mexican port. Such quakes can cause tidal waves that “probably caused the damage to the Freya which led to its abandonment” (Nature, April 25, 1907, p. 610; cited in Kusche 1975, p. 48).
Kusche (1981) has analyzed in detail the alleged mystery of the Ellen Austin. This is an excellent example of an incident that almost certainly never occurred. Kusche’s analysis shows how reports of triangle mysteries grow as they are copied and embellished by one careless writer after another. The end product is a tale full of such specific detail that most readers will accept it as fact.
The basic story of the Ellen Austin is best given in the first version of the story that Kusche (1981) could find. The following passage is from that version, which appeared in Gould (1944).
Last, and queerest of all, comes the case of the abandoned derelict, in seaworthy condition, which the British ship Ellen Austin encountered, in mid-Atlantic, in the year 1881. She put a small prize-crew aboard the stranger, with instructions to make for St. John’s, Newfoundland, where she was bound herself. The two ships parted company in foggy weather but a few days later they met again. And the strange derelict was once more deserted. Like their predecessors, the prize crew had vanished forever.
Even after extensive research, Kusche (1975, 1981) was never able to find any evidence that the alleged incident had ever occurred. Gould—as is typical of “mysterious events” writers—gave no source for his information on the Ellen Austin. Kusche checked the indexes of the New York Times and the London Times. They contained no references to stories describing such an occurrence. The Boston Globe, the Boston Herald American and the Boston Evening Transcript were also devoid of stories on the incident. The ship was said to be bound for St. John’s, Newfoundland. The public library there could find no references to such an event in its files. The two St. John’s newspapers of the day, the Evening Telegram and The Newfoundlander, were also empty of any reports relevant to either the incident or the ship Ellen Austin. If such a strikingly unusual occurrence had taken place, it is inconceivable that it would not have been reported in at least one of the papers Kusche searched. That no such story even appeared strongly suggests that Gould made up the whole thing in the first place.
Gould’s original report contained eighty-six words. The word count grows over the years as the story is copied from one Bermuda Triangle author to another, none ever bothering to check whether the event really occurred as described. Vincent Gaddis’s (1965, p. 131) version of the story contains 188 words and is marked by much detail that was not present in Gould’s (1944) original report. Thus, for example, when the Ellen Austin’s captain saw the derelict for the second time, it was “pursuing an erratic course. He ordered the helmsman to approach the derelict. When there was no response a boarding party was sent over. To a man the frightened remaining sailors refused to join another prize crew.”
Where did these additional details come from? Gaddis references only Gould’s original (1944) report, but since these details are not in Gould, Gaddis must simply have made them up to make the story sound better.
Sanderson (1970) reports the incident in 429 words and much new detail emerges. He mentions a temporary log kept by the prize crew, for example. Sanderson’s version is an embellishment of Gaddis’s version, which in turn is an embellishment of Gould’s version.
In his 1974 The Bermuda Triangle Mystery, Berlitz described the Ellen Austin mystery in a spare 172 words. But an amazing thing happened between 1970 (Sanderson’s version) and 1974. In Berlitz’s version, a second prize crew is persuaded to go aboard, and they vanish along with the derelict. Berlitz cites as sources both Sanderson (1970) and Gaddis (1965). Obviously, the story of the second
