Did three men actually survive the escape from Alcatraz? | Hacker News Reader

Did three men actually survive the escape from Alcatraz?

telegraph.co.uk

43 pointsrickdale29 comments

I got nailed in a lower comment for suggesting that Betteridge's law applies here (I know I know.. Betteridge's law isn't hard and fast and it's SO over/passe), but we live in an age where bullshit reigns and I'm willing to double down...

This is from the Telegraph, a paper who at this point basically reprints press releases on science and history with sensational titles (Not that they're the only guilty ones). Other major sources of this specific spin on the article are the Daily Mail and the New York Post (SfGate takes a slightly less sensational approach to the new evidence).

Clearly your crap detector should be tingling when you see these sources as the main sources and then bang! you find it: There's a new History Channel show premiering soon about this very escape - Alcatraz: Search for the Truth.

Gee I wonder why this is making the rounds? Will it end just like any other search for history show in the annals of television: "inconclusive evidence: the mystery is still out there and we'll keep searching we promise"

This is a different form of PG's Submarine PR hit http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html and frankly it makes me mad/sad that its so high up on a site like HN.

Feel free to continue downvoting me into oblivion and I'll continue shouting into the void.

frankly it makes me mad/sad that its so high up on a site like HN

I don't get that mindset. Who cares if it's a "quality" story or not, so long as it sparks an interesting discussion? And the thing about the HN crowd is, even the most banal articles can, and often do, spark a really interesting discussion.

I would argue that upvoting this isn't upvoting this specific link or this specific story...it's just upvoting the general topic.

Actually that History channel show already premiered. That's where the article gets the information. The show was decent for what its worth. It gives some pretty good evidence that those boys survived the escape and has the US Marshals on it and stuff. At least worth fast forwarding through

I think they would have found traces of the bodies had they not survived. Yes, I know there are extenuating circumstances, but they have eventually found bodies such as Scott Peterson's wife and child many months later. Even a femur found on the shore would lead to an investigation, so I just find it hard to believe that body parts weren't found.

I wouldn't say it's "hard to believe" that no bodies were found. The bay currents generally tend outward; and Alcatraz Island sits basically right in the middle of the outward flow, not too far out from the Golden Gate Bridge. It's pretty much a straight shot out the bay, actually.

Meanwhile Scott Peterson seems to have made the mistake of dumping his wife's body somewhere around Richmond, where currents are more stationary. Her body was also dismembered, increasing the chance that parts of it -- such as the fetus -- would eventually be found.

It's evident to me after watching the History channel special that no traces of bodies were found because they in fact did survive. It's at the very least extremely plausible. The family provides a photo and looking at the details the evidence is there for me.

>> Driving home she would often resort to fast food because she was hungry and exhausted after a 15-hour day slaving over a hot grill.

This bit stuck out to me. How is this even legal for her to work 15 hours a day?

I think you meant to post in this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10393477

Hmmmm yes, thank you. I don't understand how this happened though.

In the excellent book: On the Rock: Twenty-Five Years in Alcatraz, Karpis claims they did survive

I like the pointless poll at the end of the article. What?

There's loads of that sort of thing in the Telegraph these days. All those retired Colonels must find it bewildering.

They should have a poll on when the Telegraph is going to close for good. Last legs.

It looks like they made a profit last year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnol...

Yeah but they have utterly alienated their core readership. You can make a profit during a fire sale, but not every year.

my dad is their core readership, has read it for decades - isn't alienated, doesn't use their web site.

well it's pointless dropping anecdota but for what it's worth I know people who are apoplectic at how trashy it's become online and offline.

Here is some actual data showing readership dropping:

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/after-decade-decline-c...

Doesn't look like it's leveling off to me!

Also the Telegraph had a lot of internal conflict recently culminating in their politics head quitting. Read this and tell me it's not in trouble coupled with the above data:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-...

The last article clearly shows you can make money on advertising and trash your reputation in one swoop.

They are trying to rebrand to trashy. The recent stuff on Corbyn every day is simply mental. Clearly they are willing to run it into the ground to curry political favour.

The telegraph was always "trashy" back when it was the "Butlers" Paper they used to publish detailed reports of society divorces where the times used to bowdlerize its reports.

And the DT is to the left of the Kippers (Ukip)

Edit: Interesting I worked on the first version of Open Democracy nice to see its still going.

I'd guess they're looking for data to include in the next article on the subject.

"$X% of respondents to our poll believe that $Y." or something of the like.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines:

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

Except in this case the answer seems to be 'yes' (or at least 'quite possibly').

How many of these stories get written this way? Treasure at Oak Island... The reporter's father killed The Black Dahlia... D.B. Cooper is alive etc... They're written mainly to sell papers. Until the men are uncovered, the answer is most probably: No.

Mr. Betteridge has retired.

1.) No he hasn't: https://twitter.com/ianbetteridge 2.) You seem to be a moderator here(?) and in your comment history you often call out comments that don't advance the discourse on HN but then you go and make a comment like this. What gives?

Sorry, what I meant is that the trope long ago became overused, is often wrong, and people bring it up as a reflex. This comes up so often that I thought I could maybe get away with a cryptic reference to it. What was I thinking!

>What was I thinking!

Don't be that guy. I'm that guy - it's terrible. Don't be me.

Not that dang need anyone to defend him but I think dangs point is thats the Betteridge meme is a bit tiring in the long run.

After all, this isn't reddit - or slashdot.

If this were reddit, there'd be someone here in the comments explaining the other side of this investigation and the ways that it probably isn't true.

If this were Slashdot(Well, the late 90s Slashdot that I knew, loved and dearly miss), there'd be people talking about Petrified Natalie Portman, Hot Grits and a Beowulf cluster of Octogenarian Alcatraz escapees.

I get your point and I don't disagree. Until there is more compelling proof, one way or the other, this story kind of comes across as premature. There is another motivation behind releasing the story now. The word getting out that these guys may have lived could be enough to spark someone's memory. As an example, someone who just assumed that those guys died in the bay might not have paid a second thought to the two hitchhikers s/he encountered around the time it happened.

Fundamentally, it's a mystery story. Just relax and try to enjoy it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com