Is there any update on this case?

Is there any update on this case?

Could you please provide a concise description of that case?

Could you please provide a concise description of that case?

The Casie Nicole is the name of a boat Nathan Neesmith and some friends were on when they got seperated at sea. Neesmith eventually made it back to shore and the others vanished. Then several months later some of the Neesmith family received phone calls from a mysteries source saying something like "We'll bring them home".

I don't think there is any further updates but I could be wrong?

I often wondered about this case, unfortunately in all my searches I have never been able to find any updated info on it.

I often wondered about this case, unfortunately in all my searches I have never been able to find any updated info on it.

Yes I haven't had any luck either. I've hoped that eventually a family member will find this board and give us an update.

I just wonder if Neesmith's story checks out? Why would the mysterious caller call the owner of the boat? Neesmith appeared to be pretty sincere on camera but (to me) I don't think he'd have the endurance to swim for a whole day as he claims he did. But having said that; suppose he did have a hand in the dissapearances of his friends, he sure risked his own life out at sea. Makes for a classic UM doesn't it :)

I just wonder if Neesmith's story checks out? Why would the mysterious caller call the owner of the boat? Neesmith appeared to be pretty sincere on camera but (to me) I don't think he'd have the endurance to swim for a whole day as he claims he did. But having said that; suppose he did have a hand in the dissapearances of his friends, he sure risked his own life out at sea. Makes for a classic UM doesn't it :)

Whoa!! That puts a whole new spin on that case. In all actuality, Nathan Neesmith was the only person that witnessed the supposed "disappearance" of his friends. So who knows what really happened out there. Hmmm.

You'd be surprised how a person reacts when they are faced with a life or death situation. I can't really picture Nathan having anything to do with their disppearances. I mean if he really wanted to kill them all he sure chose an elaborate way to go about it by risking his own life as well. Not to mention he would've had to rig the Cassie Nicole to break down and start taking on water and put a whole in the life raft.

You'd be surprised how a person reacts when they are faced with a life or death situation. I can't really picture Nathan having anything to do with their disppearances. I mean if he really wanted to kill them all he sure chose an elaborate way to go about it by risking his own life as well. Not to mention he would've had to rig the Cassie Nicole to break down and start taking on water and put a whole in the life raft.

Where is the prosecutor from the Larry Race case when you need him?

I'm assuming the missing men have been declared legally dead. I couldn't find a profile for them on the missing persons websites I checked.

I wanted to bump this thread because the segment re-aired on Thurs, however, I know that this mystery is very likely to remain unsolved.

While I don't suspect Nathan Neesmith of foul-play, his story always troubled me. Seeing it again I noticed that at one point in the narrative, he looks down and to the left, a characteristic that is oftentime exhibited by someone being deceptive. The precise moment is when he talks about leaving the life rafts and swimming toward the submerged boat. He says something to the effect of "I saw the boat about 2 miles away [looks down and to the left] and I just decide to swim for it." His account makes me question what really happened. The progression is: We abandoned the boat for the raft . . . I see the hull of the boat about 2 miles away, and decide to leave everyone to swim to it. . . It takes me from 9am to about 4 pm to reach it and I drink alot of seawater . . . I get on the hull and see the freighter . . . I see a large rectangular container floating nearby (which conveniently has a panel missing) and I swim over to it where I'm found 2-3 days later.

Really? Would someone actually abandon a liferaft (leaking but stilll floating w/ another flotation device) where your companions are and strike out on your own to a boat floating in the distance? You consume a significant amt. of seawater, but nevertheless are able to survive for another 2 days? You happen upon another large floatation device that happens to have a panel cut out perfectly for you to sit in it? Plus, if your companions were altogether when you left them, why would the freighter stop circle the area several times? If the freighter was looking for Nathan, it's fair to say that it could easily spot him w/ a bright orange life vest sitting atop a red hull about 2 miles away.

I suspect what might have happened is that the guys may have been up to no good (e.g., getting a drug shipment). Something went wrong, the companions were killed, their boat sunk, and Nathan was forced or voluntarily was placed in the large rectangular floating object w/ the thinking he would be found in a day or two given he was 10 miles off the coast.

I wanted to bump this thread because the segment re-aired on Thurs, however, I know that this mystery is very likely to remain unsolved.

While I don't suspect Nathan Neesmith of foul-play, his story always troubled me. Seeing it again I noticed that at one point in the narrative, he looks down and to the left, a characteristic that is oftentime exhibited by someone being deceptive. The precise moment is when he talks about leaving the life rafts and swimming toward the submerged boat. He says something to the effect of "I saw the boat about 2 miles away [looks down and to the left] and I just decide to swim for it." His account makes me question what really happened. The progression is: We abandoned the boat for the raft . . . I see the hull of the boat about 2 miles away, and decide to leave everyone to swim to it. . . It takes me from 9am to about 4 pm to reach it and I drink alot of seawater . . . I get on the hull and see the freighter . . . I see a large rectangular container floating nearby (which conveniently has a panel missing) and I swim over to it where I'm found 2-3 days later.

Really? Would someone actually abandon a liferaft (leaking but stilll floating w/ another flotation device) where your companions are and strike out on your own to a boat floating in the distance? You consume a significant amt. of seawater, but nevertheless are able to survive for another 2 days? You happen upon another large floatation device that happens to have a panel cut out perfectly for you to sit in it? Plus, if your companions were altogether when you left them, why would the freighter stop circle the area several times? If the freighter was looking for Nathan, it's fair to say that it could easily spot him w/ a bright orange life vest sitting atop a red hull about 2 miles away.

I suspect what might have happened is that the guys may have been up to no good (e.g., getting a drug shipment). Something went wrong, the companions were killed, their boat sunk, and Nathan was forced or voluntarily was placed in the large rectangular floating object w/ the thinking he would be found in a day or two given he was 10 miles off the coast.

Thats one thing that struck me odd too. Why would only 1 of them go and try to find the boat? They could have stayed in the deflated raft and with their hands tried to get themselves closer to the sinking boat. Only 1 of them going to see what was in the water is what struck me odd.

But not once did I think that Nathan was guilty or anything. But who knows, the views here have made some sense. Like the guys doing something they shouldn't have and something happened and so he concocted this whole story.

I'm not sure. But to risk his own life being out there... I don't think he did anything to his friends.

They should check the incoming phone records to see where the "mysterious spanish speaking" calls were coming from.

They should check the incoming phone records to see where the "mysterious spanish speaking" calls were coming from.

That would be a good idea, but I'm not sure phone companies keep phone records that long, we're talking at least 15 years ago. :confused:

im nathan's daughter, oldest daughter to be exact....he's not my blood father but he raised me from the time i was 1 year old....im bout to be 20 years old...he's my dad! i understand how some of you could suspect something sounding fishy about his situation, but i & my mother have seen the horror in his face when he tells this story, which is not a story that is told often, i have seen this man cry thinking about the fact that his brother ,nephew & friend are still missing....my dad is a wonderful man, he has raised 5 kids in which neither of the 5 are his by blood...if only you could hear the misery in his voice & the look on his face everytime something gets brought up about the casie nicole...you would then believe in your heart & soul that he was very sincere & could not even think about having something to do with the disapearance of these 3 men, keep in mind, one is his brother, one his nephew, and the other being a friend that he had since they were kids....it breaks my heart to think that people could think he had something to do with it.....i know that people hurt their family everyday in this world but i would put this on my life, that my dad NATHAN NEESMITH would do anything even give his own life just to have his brother, nephew, & friend back on this earth....hopefully you people who have doubts will reconsider your opinion & realize that there really are unsolved mysteries out there...& my dad is just unfortunate to be in one but he was fortunate by being a survivor.....for the people that believe in my dad, my heart & soul goes out to you...god bless

im nathan's daughter, oldest daughter to be exact....he's not my blood father but he raised me from the time i was 1 year old....im bout to be 20 years old...he's my dad! i understand how some of you could suspect something sounding fishy about his situation, but i & my mother have seen the horror in his face when he tells this story, which is not a story that is told often, i have seen this man cry thinking about the fact that his brother ,nephew & friend are still missing....my dad is a wonderful man, he has raised 5 kids in which neither of the 5 are his by blood...if only you could hear the misery in his voice & the look on his face everytime something gets brought up about the casie nicole...you would then believe in your heart & soul that he was very sincere & could not even think about having something to do with the disapearance of these 3 men, keep in mind, one is his brother, one his nephew, and the other being a friend that he had since they were kids....it breaks my heart to think that people could think he had something to do with it.....i know that people hurt their family everyday in this world but i would put this on my life, that my dad NATHAN NEESMITH would do anything even give his own life just to have his brother, nephew, & friend back on this earth....hopefully you people who have doubts will reconsider your opinion & realize that there really are unsolved mysteries out there...& my dad is just unfortunate to be in one but he was fortunate by being a survivor.....for the people that believe in my dad, my heart & soul goes out to you...god bless





I always hoped and still hope that this case will be solved. I hope that someday your family will have some peace about this.

im nathan's daughter, oldest daughter to be exact....he's not my blood father but he raised me from the time i was 1 year old....im bout to be 20 years old...he's my dad! i understand how some of you could suspect something sounding fishy about his situation, but i & my mother have seen the horror in his face when he tells this story, which is not a story that is told often, i have seen this man cry thinking about the fact that his brother ,nephew & friend are still missing....my dad is a wonderful man, he has raised 5 kids in which neither of the 5 are his by blood...if only you could hear the misery in his voice & the look on his face everytime something gets brought up about the casie nicole...you would then believe in your heart & soul that he was very sincere & could not even think about having something to do with the disapearance of these 3 men, keep in mind, one is his brother, one his nephew, and the other being a friend that he had since they were kids....it breaks my heart to think that people could think he had something to do with it.....i know that people hurt their family everyday in this world but i would put this on my life, that my dad NATHAN NEESMITH would do anything even give his own life just to have his brother, nephew, & friend back on this earth....hopefully you people who have doubts will reconsider your opinion & realize that there really are unsolved mysteries out there...& my dad is just unfortunate to be in one but he was fortunate by being a survivor.....for the people that believe in my dad, my heart & soul goes out to you...god bless

Thank you so much for choosing to respond to this thread. I know that it is little consolation to your father, but I believe his narrative has made this UM segment one of the most baffling of unsolved mysteries. Since seeing it first back in the early 90's, I have thought about it from time to time and wondered whatever became of the lost men. In paticipating in the UM segment, I believe your father helped get the story out.

If you have time to answer 2 questions, it would be much appreciated. First, have there been any developments? Second, what do you think happened, i.e., do you think the men were picked up by a freighter?

im nathan's daughter, oldest daughter to be exact....he's not my blood father but he raised me from the time i was 1 year old....im bout to be 20 years old...he's my dad! i understand how some of you could suspect something sounding fishy about his situation, but i & my mother have seen the horror in his face when he tells this story, which is not a story that is told often, i have seen this man cry thinking about the fact that his brother ,nephew & friend are still missing....my dad is a wonderful man, he has raised 5 kids in which neither of the 5 are his by blood...if only you could hear the misery in his voice & the look on his face everytime something gets brought up about the casie nicole...you would then believe in your heart & soul that he was very sincere & could not even think about having something to do with the disapearance of these 3 men, keep in mind, one is his brother, one his nephew, and the other being a friend that he had since they were kids....it breaks my heart to think that people could think he had something to do with it.....i know that people hurt their family everyday in this world but i would put this on my life, that my dad NATHAN NEESMITH would do anything even give his own life just to have his brother, nephew, & friend back on this earth....hopefully you people who have doubts will reconsider your opinion & realize that there really are unsolved mysteries out there...& my dad is just unfortunate to be in one but he was fortunate by being a survivor.....for the people that believe in my dad, my heart & soul goes out to you...god bless
lilred, thanks for providing the perspective of someone close to the case.

My theory? The freighter Nathan saw passing near his crewmates was the mother ship for a drug-smuggling operation, or a similarly clandestine enterprise. This ship's crew rescued the other three men out of a simple humane impulse, but realized they could never send them back home where they might blab about whatever illegal or secret doings they witnessed aboard the ship. So they're in some sort of captivity, probably in Latin America, and one of their captors sent the phone messages as a subtle way of letting the relatives know they're still alive.

This ship's crew rescued the other three men out of a simple humane impulse, but realized they could never send them back home where they might blab about whatever illegal or secret doings they witnessed aboard the ship. So they're in some sort of captivity, probably in Latin America, and one of their captors sent the phone messages as a subtle way of letting the relatives know they're still alive.

1. While the ship's crew might be humane, I can't imagine the drug lords would be. I can't imagine they were happy at having three witnesses to their criminal activity. That type of mercy can get the ship's crew and captain killed.

2. There is no benefit for the drug organization to keep them alive. There's much more to risk and time to waste in holding them indefinitely in captivity. Considering their control in their home country, the drug dealers could execute them without anybody knowing it.

im nathan's daughter, oldest daughter to be exact....he's not my blood father but he raised me from the time i was 1 year old....im bout to be 20 years old...he's my dad! i understand how some of you could suspect something sounding fishy about his situation, but i & my mother have seen the horror in his face when he tells this story, which is not a story that is told often, i have seen this man cry thinking about the fact that his brother ,nephew & friend are still missing....my dad is a wonderful man, he has raised 5 kids in which neither of the 5 are his by blood...if only you could hear the misery in his voice & the look on his face everytime something gets brought up about the casie nicole...you would then believe in your heart & soul that he was very sincere & could not even think about having something to do with the disapearance of these 3 men, keep in mind, one is his brother, one his nephew, and the other being a friend that he had since they were kids....it breaks my heart to think that people could think he had something to do with it.....i know that people hurt their family everyday in this world but i would put this on my life, that my dad NATHAN NEESMITH would do anything even give his own life just to have his brother, nephew, & friend back on this earth....hopefully you people who have doubts will reconsider your opinion & realize that there really are unsolved mysteries out there...& my dad is just unfortunate to be in one but he was fortunate by being a survivor.....for the people that believe in my dad, my heart & soul goes out to you...god bless

I only just stumbled across this reply, I was the first one up there to question Nathan's actions, sorry about that, it's just a thought that I had in my mind. It's just something that is done around here. Without trying to sound sick, this whole case and all the events is one of my favourites of this show and one day I hope that the mystery can be solved.

I wanted to bump this thread because the segment re-aired on Thurs, however, I know that this mystery is very likely to remain unsolved.

While I don't suspect Nathan Neesmith of foul-play, his story always troubled me. Seeing it again I noticed that at one point in the narrative, he looks down and to the left, a characteristic that is oftentime exhibited by someone being deceptive. The precise moment is when he talks about leaving the life rafts and swimming toward the submerged boat. He says something to the effect of "I saw the boat about 2 miles away [looks down and to the left] and I just decide to swim for it." His account makes me question what really happened. The progression is: We abandoned the boat for the raft . . . I see the hull of the boat about 2 miles away, and decide to leave everyone to swim to it. . . It takes me from 9am to about 4 pm to reach it and I drink alot of seawater . . . I get on the hull and see the freighter . . . I see a large rectangular container floating nearby (which conveniently has a panel missing) and I swim over to it where I'm found 2-3 days later.

Really? Would someone actually abandon a liferaft (leaking but stilll floating w/ another flotation device) where your companions are and strike out on your own to a boat floating in the distance? You consume a significant amt. of seawater, but nevertheless are able to survive for another 2 days? You happen upon another large floatation device that happens to have a panel cut out perfectly for you to sit in it? Plus, if your companions were altogether when you left them, why would the freighter stop circle the area several times? If the freighter was looking for Nathan, it's fair to say that it could easily spot him w/ a bright orange life vest sitting atop a red hull about 2 miles away.

I suspect what might have happened is that the guys may have been up to no good (e.g., getting a drug shipment). Something went wrong, the companions were killed, their boat sunk, and Nathan was forced or voluntarily was placed in the large rectangular floating object w/ the thinking he would be found in a day or two given he was 10 miles off the coast.

I would agree with you totally until the last paragraph.

As the segment went on, I got more and more suspicious, and at the end, I said to myself, "What is the most logical explanation here? His story? Or that something went on out there and he was covering up for something that either he did or that he did not want anyone to know?" I opted for the latter. The story is far-fetched, and the "evidence" for these men being "taken" are derived solely from the account of the only man left to survive.

This reminds me of the Korzilius case. Unfortunately, it seems we are far too willing to believe the stories given by people like Mrs. Korzilius and Nathan Neesmith, when the stories seem a bit far-fetched, there are more reasonable and likely explanations, and when, conveniently, there are no other witnesses to corroborate anything they say. It is like we can't possibly believe Mrs. Korzilius or Nathan Neesmith would say anything but the truth, nor that they would lie about anything.

My theory? The freighter Nathan saw passing near his crewmates was the mother ship for a drug-smuggling operation, or a similarly clandestine enterprise. This ship's crew rescued the other three men out of a simple humane impulse, but realized they could never send them back home where they might blab about whatever illegal or secret doings they witnessed aboard the ship. So they're in some sort of captivity, probably in Latin America, and one of their captors sent the phone messages as a subtle way of letting the relatives know they're still alive.

Is it normal for those in the drug trade to contact the relatives of those captured to let them know their loved ones are alive and well, all out of a sense of concern and human kindness? And to do so by phoning on four occasions and informing them in Spanish when they knew after the first call that the people on the other end of the line only spoke English, but on the fifth call finally telling them they will be returned (but then not returning them)? I am not being sarcastic, I am just wondering. Sounds a bit out of character to me.

I only just stumbled across this reply, I was the first one up there to question Nathan's actions, sorry about that, it's just a thought that I had in my mind. It's just something that is done around here. Without trying to sound sick, this whole case and all the events is one of my favourites of this show and one day I hope that the mystery can be solved.

Don't be so quick to apologize and rescind your challenge, just because a family member said you were wrong. I understand you are trying to be sensitive, and that is laudable, but do not let it get in the way of seeking the truth. I just posted on the Breckenridge case (this thread was unique in that at least four people who personally knew the main suspect posted) and spoke about how family members are the least reliable when it comes to one's guilt or innocence, due to the (understandably) emotional attachment.

With all due respect to Nathan's daughter, I am not going to apologize, nor rescind my comments. I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, unfortunately. Feel free to PM me if you wish to disagree with me, or feel free to post here about your disagreements, although out of respect to the spirit of the forum and to you and your family, I will respond to such comments only privately.

I'm willing to believe Nathan's story. Here's why. No doubt the man was taken to a hospital afterwards and he would have had tests taken on how dehydrated and malnourished that he was. Who would risk their life for that? Imagine not drinking for 4 days and then the only thing you drink is saltwater, something that makes you MORE thirsty! You'd be barely able to talk.

Here is my thought. For starters I think when you are faced with a crisis you should stick together. Nathan took a huge gamble in leaving his friends. And at the time it wouldn't seem very smart. In the end it was the right choice. The only thing fishy was WHY he would leave a floating raft for another floating device 3-4 miles away. That I will admit is weird, but maybe I'd think differently in that scenario. It isn't unusual to think that out of sheer crap luck the one boat that drove by the other men was filled with some unsavoury characters that thought nothing less than to exterminate the men. Drug dealers? Could be.

Also, unless the person who rescued Nathan knew him (and it doesn't seem like they did) he took a huge risk in gambling on the fact that someone could save him. Even if someone had previously agreed to come rescue him after Nathan "disposed" of his friends why take 4 days and risk him dying of thirst?

The story Nathan told makes sense. What else does?

I'm willing to believe Nathan's story. Here's why. No doubt the man was taken to a hospital afterwards and he would have had tests taken on how dehydrated and malnourished that he was. Who would risk their life for that? Imagine not drinking for 4 days and then the only thing you drink is saltwater, something that makes you MORE thirsty! You'd be barely able to talk.

Here is my thought. For starters I think when you are faced with a crisis you should stick together. Nathan took a huge gamble in leaving his friends. And at the time it wouldn't seem very smart. In the end it was the right choice. The only thing fishy was WHY he would leave a floating raft for another floating device 3-4 miles away. That I will admit is weird, but maybe I'd think differently in that scenario. It isn't unusual to think that out of sheer crap luck the one boat that drove by the other men was filled with some unsavoury characters that thought nothing less than to exterminate the men. Drug dealers? Could be.

Also, unless the person who rescued Nathan knew him (and it doesn't seem like they did) he took a huge risk in gambling on the fact that someone could save him. Even if someone had previously agreed to come rescue him after Nathan "disposed" of his friends why take 4 days and risk him dying of thirst?

The story Nathan told makes sense. What else does?

Leaving the raft isn't as fishy when you remember that Nathan stated there was a hole in it about the size of a quarter and it was losing air.

Thank you so much for choosing to respond to this thread. I know that it is little consolation to your father, but I believe his narrative has made this UM segment one of the most baffling of unsolved mysteries. Since seeing it first back in the early 90's, I have thought about it from time to time and wondered whatever became of the lost men. In paticipating in the UM segment, I believe your father helped get the story out.

If you have time to answer 2 questions, it would be much appreciated. First, have there been any developments? Second, what do you think happened, i.e., do you think the men were picked up by a freighter?


I know that looking to the left, looking down, biting one's lip, etc CAN be a sign of deception. However, many people on this thread are NEVER willing to give people the benefit of a doubt. If, during the course of an hour interview (of which maybe 10 minutes will actually make the air), a perosn dare sto look a certain way or do a certain action, people immediately jump all over them for being deceptive. If I ever have a face to face conversation with you, remind me to give you the Danny Wheeler face so I never so much as blink. That way you will not suspect me in any way of being deceptive ;)

On another thread, somebody said they believe Antoinette Cayedito's mother was guilty of the kidnapping because she bit he rlip part way through it. Are you kidding me?!?!?

Leaving the raft isn't as fishy when you remember that Nathan stated there was a hole in it about the size of a quarter and it was losing air.
Also, being out on the water can really mess with your depth perception in my experience. He probably didn't realize that the object was miles away when he swam for it.

I understand you are trying to be sensitive, and that is laudable, but do not let it get in the way of seeking the truth...

With all due respect to Nathan's daughter, I am not going to apologize, nor rescind my comments.
Say what you want, but let's not get carried away trying to turn pure speculation into some kind of heroic act.

He was so lucky to find that bait box to sleep in, once he got that I think he had a good chance of being rescued because it would have been visable for miles. Him leaving his mates sadly is what saved his own life.

watching on vHS

poor family

I just rewatched this case and while the calls from the Spanish speaking person seems odd, I feel there could be another explanation for it. UM doesn't always give us all the information so I wonder if this person was a migrant worker that could have been looking for work and had Nathan's number and Tyson's number. Or this person could have worked with them at one time and was trying to make contact. I know this happened in 1990, but I'm sure the phone bill would indicate where the call was coming from, but I assume this option was already explored.

I feel the most logical explanation for the other men was that they drowned or starved and were eventually lost at sea. Afterall, I believe the segment said they were 40 miles off the coast of Georgia. Would a drug smuggler freighter come that close to the coast?

Nathan was found only 10 miles off the coast and yes Id be wondering what drug runners would be doing in that close. I just watched this again and it all makes sense until Nathan leaves his freinds who are floating on the cargo door. He stated that he told the others that he had seen the ships hull and was gonna try to get back to it to get some kind of help.

This makes no sense. You just left the boat beacuse it was sinking so what is going back to it going to accomplish?? How are you going to get help by going back to a sinking boat? And if you thought going back to the boat would somehow help your situation then why not have everyone paddle over there on the door they where floating on?? I just dont get it.

And Im wondering if the boat was ever found and what exactly made it sink in the first place? Anyone know?

I believe Nathan's story. But my concern is the part where he leaves his friends. There is power in numbers. I believe they were captured by some drug smugglers or that even Nathan and his friends may have been involved doing something illegal out there. Nathan somehow gets away and it is just assumed he would be lost at sea. But this is why I might think the whole "lost at sea" is far fetched for his friends. You just don't leave your friends under any circumstance and it makes me wonder if Nathan knew something they didn't.

I believe Nathan's story. But my concern is the part where he leaves his friends. There is power in numbers. I believe they were captured by some drug smugglers or that even Nathan and his friends may have been involved doing something illegal out there. Nathan somehow gets away and it is just assumed he would be lost at sea. But this is why I might think the whole "lost at sea" is far fetched for his friends. You just don't leave your friends under any circumstance and it makes me wonder if Nathan knew something they didn't.
Leaving his friends was a little unusual. I'm not sure what going back to the ship would have accomplished. Perhaps Nathan thought he would take his chances by swimming for help? It's also possible he felt that his friends had a better chance of surviving without him in the raft that was damaged. In any case, there really isn't a basis to investigate those details in my opinion. Even if one wanted to be suspicious there is nothing that could really be said or speculated based on the available information.

While I'm sure that the families would like to believe that their loved ones are alive, that's probably not the case in this situation. Drug dealers would simply have no reason to keep the men alive after all of this time.

Also, I think that the phone calls were a cruel hoax. There would no reason that a caller would have risked his life multiple times to call the family member and then not leave a message of any significance.

While I'm sure that the families would like to believe that their loved ones are alive, that's probably not the case in this situation. Drug dealers would simply have no reason to keep the men alive after all of this time.

Also, I think that the phone calls were a cruel hoax. There would no reason that a caller would have risked his life multiple times to call the family member and then not leave a message of any significance.
I agree with that. Sick people do this crap all the time in these missing person cases. They seem to like the attention.

I just saw this segment today. I've seen it before too a number of times.

My question is this: The owner of the boat and the family were getting phone calls from someone speaking Spanish. The caller called on a number of occasions. After the second time the caller called, did the family or the boat's owner make any effort to learn Spanish?

I just saw this segment today. I've seen it before too a number of times.

My question is this: The owner of the boat and the family were getting phone calls from someone speaking Spanish. The caller called on a number of occasions. After the second time the caller called, did the family or the boat's owner make any effort to learn Spanish?
Apparntley not

It would not surprise me they were involved in or witnessed illegal activity and the one guy that survived isn't talking.

Some of u guys are ruthless! lol .......

I definitely don't think Nathan was directly involved in any way. Its hard for me to believe Nathan would risk his own life in such a torturous way, to be out at sea with no food or water or proper floating device in the burning sun for four days, to cover up the murders of his family members and close friend. Its too far fetched. The fact that he lived to tell the tale is miraculous in itself.

There is a possibility that Nathan and his friends were involved in some kind of illegal activity and met with foul play. To which Nathan was the only one who got away. Without more facts, its hard to prove this. Nathan might not want to implicate himself and left this part out of the story. If this were the case, then mystery solved, case closed. It was a drug deal or whatever deal gone bad.

The mysterious phone calls are a whole other story. I have nothing on those. The only plausible assumption i can make is prank calls. However Nathan did say he saw a boat stop around the area where he last saw his friends. So its a possibility they were captured and the calls were somehow linked to there whereabouts. Its a long shot, but i can't rule that out entirely.

Interesting story.

Finally, thanks to Nathan's daughter for sharing her story. I'm sorry for the pain and suffering that this tragic event has caused your family. God Bless.

Some of u guys are ruthless! lol .......

I agree. After seeing people question Jeremy's story in the Tom Johnson thread and then this one I've come to realize some people on this board will question and/or see a lie in EVERYTHING. While I suppose thats a healthy outlook in investigating it scares me that some of you people might serve on juries. I never once imagined Nathan making up his story and 10 miles off coast is not like 10 miles on the freeway, its a considerable distance on the open sea. And if it doesn't make sense dor drug runners to be there I would counter by saying they don't have to be drug runners to be bad guys.

Does anyone know if the Casie Nicole was recovered? if it wasn't then one theory could be that Nathan's brother needed to disappear possibly to get insurance money, he takes his son with him to live a new life somewhere the friend who disappeared possibly had similar reasons to disappear but they need a witness to claim they've died so they ask Nathan to arrange a boat trip, they shelter for three days then go out at night to the alleged sinking site nathan climbs in to the bait box they then chuck the hatch cover overboard and damage the life raft and sail to a port some miles away rename the boat and get a replacment hatch cover.

Also did anyone hear the mayday calls? I know that if I was on a boat and it started to sink I wouldn't leave it until it disappeared under the waves even if I was in a liferaft.

Another point is if what he says is true the freighter that Nathan saw may have just been checking the debris for survivors and the crew by then might already be dead.

I agree. After seeing people question Jeremy's story in the Tom Johnson thread and then this one I've come to realize some people on this board will question and/or see a lie in EVERYTHING. While I suppose thats a healthy outlook in investigating it scares me that some of you people might serve on juries. I never once imagined Nathan making up his story and 10 miles off coast is not like 10 miles on the freeway, its a considerable distance on the open sea. And if it doesn't make sense dor drug runners to be there I would counter by saying they don't have to be drug runners to be bad guys.

You put into words some thoughts that I have been having recently but didn't quite know how to express in writing. I agree wholeheartedly. It appears that there is a disturbing trend these days in which people would rather "short circuit" a story and come up with a simple explanation that "the whole story is a lie/hoax" rather than look closely at the available evidence and use that to form a sound conclusion.

Maybe our attention spans just aren't what they used to be. I don't know the exact cause, but this thread, the Wacker thread, the "Tom Johnson" thread and the Angela Hammond thread are rife with this "revisionist" thinking.

The sad/stupid part about about such thinking is that the majority of those theories were probably put to rest by law enforcement within days of beginning the investigation twenty plus years ago. Since UM/LE never had to "prove" the stories were true back then, people use this as a springboard for all kinds of wild and unprovable assumptions.

Two things from me.

1. I kind of doubt drug smugglers would be that close to the coast of the United States. Which brings me to something that was never brought up: Why didn't they look into finding out what that ship Nathan saw was doing there and where it was going? I mean there has to be records of ships in the area for that day. Unless of course it was some really daring smugglers, which I doubt given how big of a ship it was.

2. I wonder why Nathan's daughter never bothered to give us an update on the case after all these years. Maybe she was so mad by the accusations that were being made about her father that she only felt like clearing his name....so good going on that one guys with all your theories :mad: :lol:

The only people that truly know what really happened are Nathan, his friends and family that dissappeared, and God. (Not that I'm trying to start a debate on religion.)

On paper you have to admit it could go either way with Nathan's guilt or innocence with the events that happened. since there isn't any concrete answer for either one. I'm really not sure what to believe.

If these calls came frequently, I'm sort of sorry that no one learned enough basic Spanish to talk to the man. Maybe they couldn't understand everything, but a couple of weeks of spanish might have helped them to say, "Quien es Usted?" Who are you? or "Que Paso?" What happened? I guess you can live with a tape recorder, but given the circumstances, it's really sad that the information wasn't able to be retrieved because of a language barrier.

Perhaps these were guys who found the bodies and were able to tell where they came from from their identification. Maybe they were afraid to come forward in the end because of foul play. I hope this episode ran in Spanish so that perhaps someone who knows about it or the caller himself could understand .

Leaving his friends was a little unusual. I'm not sure what going back to the ship would have accomplished. Perhaps Nathan thought he would take his chances by swimming for help? It's also possible he felt that his friends had a better chance of surviving without him in the raft that was damaged. In any case, there really isn't a basis to investigate those details in my opinion. Even if one wanted to be suspicious there is nothing that could really be said or speculated based on the available information.


Heres something maybe people havent thought about, which struck me as very strange:


Nathan did mention in the segment that his companions had a better chance of survival than he had. He said that he could not go on living not knowing that companions had not survived.

But doesnt that contradict his own actions of abandoning his friends in the first place? Why dont stick with your friends when you know you have a better chance of survival?


Plus, doesnt it seem odd to you that Nathan was the first one to find a problem with the Casie Nicole?



And about the freighter Nathan claimed he saw.

Did anybody consider that perhaps due to lack of food & water, Nathan could be hallucinating? There might have not been a freighter at all.


Even if the freighter did exist, then one thing strucks me as very odd. If Nathan spotted the freighter, then obviously he knew his friends were being rescued.


So why didnt he try to signal the freighter to get himself rescued too?


At the time in the middle of the vast sea, his best rate / possible only chance of survival would be to have been rescued by the freighter too, wouldn't it?

Yet he just sits idly by and watch as the freighter to make several rounds (very possibly looking for him) and disappear into the midst of the ocean?


Wheres the rationale in that? Unless you got a death wish.


I dont know but something in Nathan's story just doesnt check out.

"So why didnt he try to signal the freighter to get himself rescued too?"


His story isn't the best but it would be hard for someone on a freighter miles away to spot him and he didn't have anything to signal with.

Leaving his friends was weird, but if he hadn't he'd probably be wherever they are now. This reminds me of the I-70 killer segment, where someone does the "wrong" thing and it turns out to be the one time that was actually the right choice. Usually, you live if you follow the gunman's instructions. That time it was best to argue. Usually, sticking with your friends in the ocean leaves you a better chance of surviving. This time, being alone was the best option. What are the chances?

I believe Nathan. It's a good thing he saw the boat and went on the hunch and was able to make it back.

I think I read somewhere that the others who were on the Cassie Nicole have been declared legally dead.

I've never doubted Nathan's story for a second. When you're out there floating in the water on a sinking raft/boat, you're not going to think rationally. Plus he gave a very sound reason for swimming to the hull of the Casie Nicole, " I said I don’t know what kind of chance we got, but at least maybe one of us can make it to the boat and get some kind of help. Well that’s what I struck out to do." Makes sense. Splitting up actually increases the odds of being found, IMO. I honestly don't think the other three were kidnapped by drug smugglers and held as prisoners. I think they died after the hatch cover of the boat or their raft sank.

Has there been any searches to possibly find the missing boat ? Technology is a lot better these days.

Who would risk their own life to kill someone ? What could he possibly get out if killing them ? There's also a chance he could've been arrested and be put away for life. Nobody would risk that.

Sadly, I think this is one of those cases that will always be an unsolved mystery.

Survivor of Capsized Fishing Boat Says 'Voices' Kept Him Going
AP , Associated Press
Apr. 18, 1990 6:55 PM ET

SAVANNAH, GA. SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) _ A commerical fisherman whose boat capsized said Wednesday he frequently heard voices and prayed a lot during the five days he spent floating in a wooden box without food.

Nathan Neesmith, 32, of Darien, told reporters he didn't know why the 34- foot boat Casie Nicole sank early Thursday.

''All I know is water came in, and it came in fast,'' said Neesmith, still appearing fatigued on his third day of hospitalization.

Neesmith said that as he drifted in the Atlantic, he splashed water on his face and tried to avoid drinking the salt water. He felt at times he would not survive.

''I heard people talking to me,'' Neesmith said. ''I drifted along. I heard people yelling out, 'Nathan 3/8' I'd jump up and look around. I thought it was somebody. Here I am looking around, and it was only the good Lord keeping me awake.''

Earlier Wednesday, the Coast Guard said it suspended its search for three missing crew members, including Neesmith's brother and nephew.

Neesmith was rescued Monday about 20 miles east of Hilton Head Island, S.C.

He was in fair condition Wednesday at Memorial Medical Center in Savannah, where he was being treated for hypothermia and dehydration. Dr. Carl Boyd, director of the trauma center, said he expected Neesmith to make a full recovery and to be released this weekend.

The boat was found Monday night by a Coast Guard plane about 45 miles off the coast, said Petty Officer 2nd Class Brett Farrell.

A subsequent search turned up only a life vest and a sleeping bag, about five miles from where Neesmith was rescued, said Petty Officer 2nd Class Anthony Brown of the Coast Guard rescue station on Tybee Island.

Neesmith said he and his companions were about 65 miles offshore when the boat began taking on water. He left the others with food and a raft, and set out to get help.

He said he was confident the others will be found.

''People are praying for us all over the world, and if they can be found we're gonna find them ... we're sure gonna try anyway,'' Neesmith said.

The Coast Guard said the search was suspended pending any new developments.

Missing were Neesmith's brother, Billy Joe Neesmith, 23; his nephew, Keith Wilkes, 18; and Franklin Brantley, 23, all of Darien.

A little piece of info I found.

"Life vest, sleeping bag found in ocean search"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2506&dat=19900418&id=VYRJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1wsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=1182,480376

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1980&dat=19900417&id=nJE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=uKkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2918,4491159

I never realized the missing men were so young. I'd like to believe that they were picked up by the missing freighter rather than that they were just lost at sea. It sounds incredible, but I don't think it's THAT hard to believe for a number of reasons. 1) Nathan saw the freighter in the same area his buddies were in. 2) I think three young men would probably be able to push each other to hold on and motivate each other more than a lone person- Nathan probably only was able to survive from dehydration and exhaustion do to be able to rest without treading water. 3) Right after he was rescued, a HUGE search of the sea was done. What are the odds that three men wearing life vests all sunk without a trace of them being found. 4) The found life vest could have been a spare on the boat. 5) "I'm bringing them home" coupled with knowing the telephone numbers.

On the flip side:
The men did not have a place to lie on and simply had to cling- which would be a hard feat. Perhaps they perished of dehydration or were attacked by a shark. After all, Nathan swam for HOURS (he estimated around 7 or 8) away from them. And we've heard nothing from them since. This is very similar to the Gordon Collins case. You would think two bodies would have been found wearing life vests (as the other two were), but it's possible that they can be lost anyhow.

So they did find that boat, a fact never mentioned in the episode.

If the cause of the sinking was found to be natural (corrosion, material defect, etc), Nathan's possible involvement would be definitively ruled out. If it was a gunshot, or a drill, then Nathan is almost certainly responsible. I'm sure investigators already have found the former to be the case.

If the phone calls after the 3 men disappeared are legit, why did they never come home as the caller said? Are they in a foreign country with some kind of immigration problem? If a freighter did pick up the men did they get deposited in a foreign country, if so; why? When they were found by the freighter they could have radioed the coast guard letting them know they found the men and had the coast guard come and retrieve them. Why was that not done? Nothing in this case makes sense and we have more questions than answers, I hope one day it can be solved.

I just don't understand why they left the boat then as Nathan stated had to get back to it to get some kind of help

Maybe this is a controversial POV, but I think this is one of those instances where UM did their best to make things seem mysterious. For what its worth, this was one of my favorite stories as a kid, and I believed that the men survived.

As an adult though, I think the men probably drowned. The only evidence they survived were the phone calls which could easily be explained as a hoax or even a wrong number. The calls were in Spanish as I recall and no significant information was relayed.

IMO Nathan is 100% lucky to survive and he did the right thing by going to the wreckage. It kept him alive. As far as the freighter I believe he saw what he saw but there is no proof or remote certainty that his mates could have successfully signaled the freighter. As far as Nathan signaling the freighter I wondered about that too but I don't think he had the ability to. I don't see any motive for Nathan to purposefully lie about anything. It's quite possible that his details are sketchy given the traumatic circumstances. I don't know if it's possible to be 100% accurate in reinacting an event that traumatic. I think the phone calls are interesting and without them the story would lose it's edge. Not to say the details were false. I'd just be interested to know more about the calls and if they could have ever been traced.

The reenactments of those phone calls still scare the hell out of me.

Maybe this is a controversial POV, but I think this is one of those instances where UM did their best to make things seem mysterious. For what its worth, this was one of my favorite stories as a kid, and I believed that the men survived.

As an adult though, I think the men probably drowned. The only evidence they survived were the phone calls which could easily be explained as a hoax or even a wrong number. The calls were in Spanish as I recall and no significant information was relayed.

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

The reenactments of those phone calls still scare the hell out of me.
Yeah if I recall there was Creepy music on those too. All in all this was a creepy segment for me. I wonder how legit the phone calls were. If they were just random calls in Spanish then maybe there was some exaggeration. But if they said what was said in the segment that is a rude prank or creepy as hell.

I Went deep sea fishing off SC a couple of Weeks ago and saw a freighter out there. I thought about this segment because I just don't know how a freighter would spot people in the water unless they were bearing down on them. The maneuvering if true would be strange as well for a ship like that. All in all it would be very traumatic to be lost at sea like that.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010261508940
Is this Nathan Neesmith?

As new developments are happening with this case (new production company) looking into this cold case. I did a search not realizing how active this case still is after 26 years. I was 15 when my mom got the call. She is the sister to Nathan and Billy Joe. Billy Joe was like my brother instead of my uncle as he had lived with us for years while attending high school. This case broke my grandparents. Yes, there are a lot of questions you have and I assure you not all details were released during the filming or included. Why did he leave the raft? because they were not in the raft as it had holes, they were floating on a hatch lid and Nathan was a big man and everytime he would go to get on the lid (to keep the sharks away from them) he would sink it. It simply could not bare the weight of all of them. Franklin could not swim so he had to be on the hatch lid. Keith had leg cramps from kicking so hard(again because of the sharks). that left Nathan and Billy Joe to be in the water and take turns. they had tied themselves together with rope. Nathan left them thinking he would die to save them. And for the one who said they were only 10 miles off shore. They were about 90 miles off shore in international waters. After he clung to the bow of the boat that was bobbing in the water for over a day, the boat began to break apart, pieces began to float up and that is how he got in the bait box. he then drifted for days until he was found 20 miles off shore by another boat. To this day, he has medical problems caused from the salt water. Again, there are many details that were not allowed to be included but I can assure you most of you are wrong. This has been a tormenting 26 years for all of the family. we buried my grandparents with broken hearts that they never got to see them come home. Billy Joe had 3 sons, one he never got to see born. They are now in there 20's and never knew their father. My mom went to Cuba in search of them in the prisons. I assure you there are many Americans being held and our government knows this and does nothing. so many of you automatically assume the worst in everyone and that is your human nature, but we forgive those who think the worst and live our life daily with the holes that this has caused in our large close family. (72 just in the immediate family). Should something transpire I will try to update, but as of today, after the phone calls years ago from someone we think was trying to help them, we have nothing. please keep us in your prayers as we hold hope in God above to bring our boys home.

As new developments are happening with this case (new production company) looking into this cold case. I did a search not realizing how active this case still is after 26 years. I was 15 when my mom got the call. She is the sister to Nathan and Billy Joe. Billy Joe was like my brother instead of my uncle as he had lived with us for years while attending high school. This case broke my grandparents. Yes, there are a lot of questions you have and I assure you not all details were released during the filming or included. Why did he leave the raft? because they were not in the raft as it had holes, they were floating on a hatch lid and Nathan was a big man and everytime he would go to get on the lid (to keep the sharks away from them) he would sink it. It simply could not bare the weight of all of them. Franklin could not swim so he had to be on the hatch lid. Keith had leg cramps from kicking so hard(again because of the sharks). that left Nathan and Billy Joe to be in the water and take turns. they had tied themselves together with rope. Nathan left them thinking he would die to save them. And for the one who said they were only 10 miles off shore. They were about 90 miles off shore in international waters. After he clung to the bow of the boat that was bobbing in the water for over a day, the boat began to break apart, pieces began to float up and that is how he got in the bait box. he then drifted for days until he was found 20 miles off shore by another boat. To this day, he has medical problems caused from the salt water. Again, there are many details that were not allowed to be included but I can assure you most of you are wrong. This has been a tormenting 26 years for all of the family. we buried my grandparents with broken hearts that they never got to see them come home. Billy Joe had 3 sons, one he never got to see born. They are now in there 20's and never knew their father. My mom went to Cuba in search of them in the prisons. I assure you there are many Americans being held and our government knows this and does nothing. so many of you automatically assume the worst in everyone and that is your human nature, but we forgive those who think the worst and live our life daily with the holes that this has caused in our large close family. (72 just in the immediate family). Should something transpire I will try to update, but as of today, after the phone calls years ago from someone we think was trying to help them, we have nothing. please keep us in your prayers as we hold hope in God above to bring our boys home.

Thanks for posting.

I never doubted Nathan's story for a minute. I cannot imagine what it would've been like to have endured something like that.

I second Meg's post. Thoughts and prayers are with you and cannot fathom the torment that the men endured at sea and for your family afterward. This is one of the most memorable cases for me and not in a fond way.

If another tv show does an episode on this case, please let us know. I'd like to watch it!

If another tv show does an episode on this case, please let us know. I'd like to watch it!

The Thinking Sideways podcast recently covered this case.

http://thinkingsidewayspodcast.com

Nathan should be rotting in prison. Either he murdered them on purpose, or he's responsible for killing them, and lied to avoid prosecution.

His story doesn't make sense. Those phone calls don't make sense, the boat's owner? Seriously? Not Nathan's wife? Not one of their parents? Weird.

Nathan stutters, and looks around so much he can't even keep his lie straight. That is the most unbelievable story I've ever heard. What a huge coincidence to leave the group despite their "warning", and you happen to find a nice spot to lay in.

Either he killed them on purpose, or on accident, but he's too much of a coward to tell the truth.

Nathan stutters, and looks around so much he can't even keep his lie straight. That is the most unbelievable story I've ever heard. What a huge coincidence to leave the group despite their "warning", and you happen to find a nice spot to lay in.

Okay. I'll bite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

You may wanna check that out.

Nathan should be rotting in prison. Either he murdered them on purpose, or he's responsible for killing them, and lied to avoid prosecution.

His story doesn't make sense. Those phone calls don't make sense, the boat's owner? Seriously? Not Nathan's wife? Not one of their parents? Weird.

Nathan stutters, and looks around so much he can't even keep his lie straight. That is the most unbelievable story I've ever heard. What a huge coincidence to leave the group despite their "warning", and you happen to find a nice spot to lay in.

Either he killed them on purpose, or on accident, but he's too much of a coward to tell the truth.

You are aware that there was a huge risk that Nathan wouldn't be discovered out at sea, right?

Okay. I'll bite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder

You may wanna check that out.

What he displayed wasn't PTSD, it was lying. When talking about certain parts of his story such as a ship stopping every 2, or 3 seconds to pick-up his possible shipmates he starts stuttering, and looking around. He does this when he talks about questionable parts of his story, he was pulling the story out of his ass as he was going along. That must mean Larry Gibson, and Gabriel Carillo have PTSD then.


You are aware that there was a huge risk that Nathan wouldn't be discovered out at sea, right?

Yes. That doesn't mean that he sunk the ship, and killed them on accident. His story doesn't make sense, and neither do the phone calls. I don't have a motive why he'd kill them on purpose, but I'm positive it was an accident, but he didn't want to get convicted. I'm not swayed by his tears, and nonsensical story.

I think the ship was going down, and in an act of cowardice, he jumped off to save his own skin, but didn't bother to check or save the others. Fight, or flight, I guess.

Him leaving the others to go to the hull to get help makes zero sense. You'd risk leaving your brother, and nephew in the middle of the ocean instead of having them paddle with you? No. Then on top of that, how would swimming miles to a destroyed ship by yourself would get help?

The only truth to his story was the fact that he left the others to save himself, but not in the way he said. He didn't veer that far off from the boat, he probably didn't leave at all. He didn't look like he was in the best of shape to have swam that long without passing out.

I think the boat was going down (foul play, or accident), he didn't bother saving anyone else, he jumped to save his own neck, and got in the hull.

I think the ship was going down, and in an act of cowardice, he jumped off to save his own skin, but didn't bother to check or save the others. Fight, or flight, I guess.

Him leaving the others to go to the hull to get help makes zero sense. You'd risk leaving your brother, and nephew in the middle of the ocean instead of having them paddle with you? No. Then on top of that, how would swimming miles to a destroyed ship by yourself would get help?

The only truth to his story was the fact that he left the others to save himself, but not in the way he said. He didn't veer that far off from the boat, he probably didn't leave at all. He didn't look like he was in the best of shape to have swam that long without passing out.

I think the boat was going down (foul play, or accident), he didn't bother saving anyone else, he jumped to save his own neck, and got in the hull.

I'll bite the hook as well. why not.


yes he saved his own skin and the poor guy has survival guilt. that was my take. does it really matter if his account is not 100% to your liking? I don't think it does. whether he was swimming 50 meters or 50 NMs what's the difference? the guy suffered a terrible tragedy and lost his mates. Nothing suggests that he is a murderer and should rot in prison as you started with.

so unless you are just dropping 2euce in the pot to stir it ;) I don't see where you are going with this at all. saving your own skin is a big jump from murder and accident prison time etc.

I think the ship was going down, and in an act of cowardice, he jumped off to save his own skin, but didn't bother to check or save the others. Fight, or flight, I guess.

I'm assuming you hold Henry Rollins responsible for the murder of Joe Cole as well? Or the parishioners in the Harold & Thelma Swain segment? Or Shirley, the cleaning products lady in the Dana Satterfield segment? Or the neighbors in the Crystal Spencer segment?

I'm assuming you hold Henry Rollins responsible for the murder of Joe Cole as well? Or the parishioners in the Harold & Thelma Swain segment? Or Shirley, the cleaning products lady in the Dana Satterfield segment? Or the neighbors in the Crystal Spencer segment?

I don't agree with you much, but this is the dumbest thing you've ever typed (maybe not).

Did Henry Rollins lie about what happened? No. But Nathan did, that's my point. I'm not saying he's at fault for saving himself, but he lied about it. You'd have a point if he told the truth (he saved himself, and not the others), but as usual, you're grasping at straws for your flawed logic. I'm sorry I'm not as gullible as you.

I'll bite the hook as well. why not.


yes he saved his own skin and the poor guy has survival guilt. that was my take. does it really matter if his account is not 100% to your liking? I don't think it does. whether he was swimming 50 meters or 50 NMs what's the difference? the guy suffered a terrible tragedy and lost his mates. Nothing suggests that he is a murderer and should rot in prison as you started with.

so unless you are just dropping 2euce in the pot to stir it ;) I don't see where you are going with this at all. saving your own skin is a big jump from murder and accident prison time etc.

"does it really matter if his account is not 100% to your liking? I don't think it does." - Here we go with this emotional outburst when someone disagrees with you logic. By that logic then no one should post here period, because if someone's story isn't 100% to our liking, then it's not worth talking about? Is that what you're saying? Because you make 0 sense. I said he was guilty of foul play, or it being an accident, and he saved himself and lied about the rest, you're not that dense are you?

It's apparent that you didn't read, nor comprehend with that I said, you just skimmed it, seen I disagreed with your point of view, and got emotional as your posts doesn't make any sense.

You don't see where I'm going with this? You don't see that I'm saying he's lying? You didn't read where I said this was most likely an accident? If you can't take someone disagreeing with your logic, then sign off.

I'm assuming you hold Henry Rollins responsible for the murder of Joe Cole as well? Or the parishioners in the Harold & Thelma Swain segment? Or Shirley, the cleaning products lady in the Dana Satterfield segment? Or the neighbors in the Crystal Spencer segment?
yeah Shirley was in no shape to run away from a psychopath with her you know just her mere life on the line. she must of been in on Dana's murder :rolleyes:

yeah Shirley was in no shape to run away from a psychopath with her you know just her mere life on the line. she must of been in on Dana's murder :rolleyes:

I said nothing about any of those people, so to use his dumb quote as a means to downplay what I said is absolute foolishness.


EDIT:: Since the gloves are off here we go. This forum has a bad case of hive mind. Meaning if someone goes against popular opinion, then 10 members will all emotionally jump in, as if they were children and throw fits that a 5-year old would when you tell them Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I enjoy posting here, but some of you really need to chill out. I disagreed, too bad, get over it. And stop jumping on the bandwagon with someone else flies off the handle. We're all grown, we don't need to roam in packs to attack one person for disagreeing.

I don't agree with you much, but this is the dumbest thing you've ever typed (maybe not).

Yes, dignifying your drivel with a response was probably the dumbest thing I've ever typed.

I don't agree with you much, but this is the dumbest thing you've ever typed (maybe not).

Did Henry Rollins lie about what happened? No. But Nathan did, that's my point. I'm not saying he's at fault for saving himself, but he lied about it. You'd have a point if he told the truth (he saved himself, and not the others), but as usual, you're grasping as straws for your flawed logic. I'm sorry I'm not as gullible as you.



"does it really matter if his account is not 100% to your liking? I don't think it does." - Here we go with this emotional outburst when someone disagrees with you tatic. By that logic then no one should post here period, because if someone's story isn't 100% to our liking, then it's not worth talking about? Is that what you're saying? Because you make 0 sense.

It's apparent that you didn't read, nor comprehend with that I said, you just skimmed it, seen I disagreed with your point of view, and got emotional as your posts doesn't make any sense.

You don't see where I'm going with this? You don't see that I'm saying he's lying? You didn't read where I said this was most likely an accident? If you can't take someone disagreeing with your logic, then sign off.

:D yes I did read your post lol. I did not get emotional.

I replied to your post that I disagree with because I honestly suspect that you are/were trolling. but if I took it wrong and you were being honest(first off I apologize for that). But I am pointing out that you have a big disparity in your own opinion of the case. you went from starting out with him needing to rot in prison(I assume for murder) to he may have just saved his own skin. I did not post that.

as far as me needing to sign off from posting because I do not agree with your opinion or vice versa... in a message board that says enough there....

Yes, dignifying your drivel with a response was probably the dumbest thing I've ever typed.

My drivel? Okay, champ. Go take a nap, and have your mother read you a story. You're getting cranky.

:D yes I did read your post lol. I did not get emotional.

I replied to your post that I disagree with because I honestly suspect that you are/were trolling. but if I took it wrong and you were being honest(first off I apologize for that). But I am pointing out that you have a big disparity in your own opinion of the case. you went from starting out with him needing to rot in prison(I assume for murder) to he may have just saved his own skin. I did not post that.

as far as me needing to sign off from posting because I do not agree with your opinion or vice versa... in a message board that says enough there....

No, you didn't think I was trolling because me saying he was lying isn't trolling, it's my opinion. You were emotional, as your response didn't have any rationale and you lowered yourself into attacking me and saying "what does it matter if I don't agree 100% with his story". It's cute you're trying to backtrack.

My point of him needing to rot in prison was because he obviously lied about the deaths of his family members. It could've also been foul play which is what I said. I think he lied. Get over it. This is the real world, son. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Grow thicker skin.

emotionally jump in

as if they were children and throw fits that a 5-year old would when you tell them Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Go take a nap, and have your mother read you a story. You're getting cranky.

as your response didn't have any rationale and you lowered yourself into attacking me

Get over it. This is the real world, son. Not everyone is going to agree with you. Grow thicker skin.

Wowza (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony)

Wowza (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony)

Ironic indeed. I did come off as emotional, and aggressive, but it was necessary. I had one person completely try to compare his oranges to my apples, then I had his little buddy emotionally charge-in to agree without fully comprehending what I said.

That said, this has been derailed enough. I think he was lying, you don't. The end.

im just going to get back on topic. I really did not know if you were being serious about him being involved with foul play or murder. I will take you at your word that you think he is a liar. I don't agree. I see him as a victim of a tragedy nothing more or less. And for many victims of a tragedy it is difficult for them recount their story accurately. And I am quick to defend victims and do not apologize for it. We simply have no evidence that suggests a fraud here. Are there some questions to the phone calls and other things that happened later? You bet...that is what makes the segment a little more mysterious. At the same time does that mean the family is making it up? I don't believe that. It may just be their last bit of hope that they have to hang on to and it appears they feel it is worth believing. We had a family member post here recently and that is always humbling. while we debate about these stories there are real victims that lived through it.

im just going to get back on topic. I really did not know if you were being serious about him being involved with foul play or murder. I will take you at your word that you think he is a liar. I don't agree. I see him as a victim of a tragedy nothing more or less. And for many victims of a tragedy it is difficult for them recount their story accurately. And I am quick to defend victims and do not apologize for it. We simply have no evidence that suggests a fraud here. Are there some questions to the phone calls and other things that happened later? You bet...that is what makes the segment a little more mysterious. At the same time does that mean the family is making it up? I don't believe that. It may just be their last bit of hope that they have to hang on to and it appears they feel it is worth believing. We had a family member post here recently and that is always humbling. while we debate about these stories there are real victims that lived through it.

I'll try to explain, because it seemed you got confused about my post earlier. I had two scenarios:

1.) Accident, but he lied about the details
2.) Foul play

In my earlier post, I said that I didn't have a motive for foul play, so I stuck with the accident scenario, but I do believe foul play could've been a possibility. Now to clear the confusion. Thecars1986 has tried to compared what I said to the likes of Henry Rollins, etc which is completely different. Henry Rollins, and the other cases, I believe, have told the truth. Something went wrong, and they had a fight or flight moment. That is completely opposite of what I'm accusing Nathan of.

I believe that Nathan lied about a lot of keys things to not be held responsible. Yes, I know he was stranded, and faced severe hunger, and could've been/hearing seeing things, but I'm firm that he lied. For one, to believe a man of his stature to have swam for hours is hard to believe. Another is the fact that he would swim from his group after they're all screaming for him to stay. Swimming to a wrecked boat for help doesn't make any sense.

Like I said, his testimony is filled with holes. I don't believe they ventured out that far, and he swam back to a wrecked ship to "get help". I don't know what happened out there, I don't even know why they were out there. But I do believe the ship had trouble and he saved himself. Again, nothing is wrong with that, but he obviously lied. Henry admitted to being scared and just taking off, he didn't lie. That's the difference.

Now to address these phone calls. They were either prank calls, or were made up to give credence to his story. I don't believe a ship belonging to Cuban drug overlords, would pick up some stranded at sea people when they were dealing in illegal contraband. What sense would it have made for them to have picked up some barely alive (if even alive) people, hold them hostage, and keep them? If what you're doing is illegal, why stop your ship and pick them up period?

The ship is another lie he made to give credence to his story. "Oh yeah, this huge ship stopped and picked all my buddies up one by one, then as opposed to dropping them back off on land, they held them hostage in Cuba, where they made a friend who called the boat owner, and Nathan's sister" C'mon.

Thecars1986 has tried to compared what I said to the likes of Henry Rollins, etc which is completely different. Henry Rollins, and the other cases, I believe, have told the truth. Something went wrong, and they had a fight or flight moment. That is completely opposite of what I'm accusing Nathan of.

Your entire premise is that something happened on the boat, Nathan panicked, and saved himself at the alleged expense of others. Why would he feel the need to lie about any of that, if it were truly a case where fight or flight kicked in?

It's on like Donkey Kong again lol. Never mind me I'm just keeping my post quota alive because I heard someone tracks it around here :D

Ps. Cassie Nicole still one of the best segments UM did.

It wouldn't be that unusual for a someone to attempt to get back to the boat - in those circumstances, an overturned hull might have been a safer bet than a life raft that was sinking. Maybe he swam there to check out the boat's condition as he said, or possibly he thought it was safer to stay with the boat, rather than the life raft and disagreed with his shipmates. A combination of dehydration, hypothermia and imbibing seawater could have caused him to hallucinate the freighter in the distance, or he imagined the freighter performing actions that it didn't do - the article posted on page 4 mentions that Neesmith heard voices. *If* there had been some disagreement with his shipmates, it's not surprising that he later felt guilt over being the only survivor.

Two bigger mysteries for me are what caused the power failure/sinking of the boat, since the vessel had recently been in drydock, and what caused the individual to make the (imo, hoax) calls - possibly this person found wreckage from the ship, or just read newspaper accounts.

Everyone is entitled his or her respective opinion.

I don't believe I got emotional when I stated to you that I believed Nathan suffered from PTSD. I still think that. I also think DallasTexan made a fair point about survivor's guilt. That's another form of PTSD and also a recognized condition.

I've never understood folks who insist that people who have suffered trauma remember every exact detail. In sex abuse/rape/assault cases, we actually spend time trying to educate the jurors about how our memories work when we've experienced trauma. Luckily, most jurors have common sense and realize that when someone is being beaten by an assailant, they're not going to take the time to count how many times they were hit. They're not going to take out a watch and time exactly how long the assault occurred. They don't do that because they're trying to survive and that is their sole focus. I'm sure you have heard about rape victims who have made statements to the effect of, "as it was happening, I slipped out of my body. I don't remember a lot." The rape victim isn't lying-- she's experienced disassociation, which is a well-recognized defense mechanism to trauma.

This is why I don't discount Nathan's story. He went through a traumatic event. He doesn't remember every little detail. It happens. It's expected. It's what the brain does in order to survive. It doesn't mean a crime occurred.

I know The Cars pointed them out as "innocent folks," but can I just comment on how annoyed I was at Crystal Spencer's neighbors? Not to hijack this thread into a different conversation, but dang! Pick up the phone and call 911! You didn't have to leave your name!

Your entire premise is that something happened on the boat, Nathan panicked, and saved himself at the alleged expense of others. Why would he feel the need to lie about any of that, if it were truly a case where fight or flight kicked in?


Because then people would see him as a coward, and blame him for their deaths. Even if it wasn't his fault, people would still need something/one to blame.

Think about it like this. If your neighbor was in a burning house with their child, but they ran out without checking on, or attempting to save their child, and when asked why not they said "I saw flames, and ran. Didn't even think about saving little Timmy" and the child burned to death, what would people say about your neighbor? How would they be looked at by the community? Cowards.

This is why I don't discount Nathan's story. He went through a traumatic event. He doesn't remember every little detail. It happens. It's expected. It's what the brain does in order to survive. It doesn't mean a crime occurred.

And the parts where he seems to be stumbling over his story are more likely things he's trying to fill in based on fuzzy memory rather than outright untruths. He was in the unenviable position of being the only person to come back from a tragic scenario which means there was enormous pressure on him to tell the tale of what happened. He had to try to give all of the info he had.

If he was lying, IMO, his story would have sounded more rehearsed by the time he was on UM. We have to remember, that when people are interviewed for UM, it's not the first time they're telling that story.

I know The Cars pointed them out as "innocent folks," but can I just comment on how annoyed I was at Crystal Spencer's neighbors? Not to hijack this thread into a different conversation, but dang! Pick up the phone and call 911! You didn't have to leave your name!

Right!

Everyone is entitled his or her respective opinion.

I don't believe I got emotional when I stated to you that I believed Nathan suffered from PTSD. I still think that. I also think DallasTexan made a fair point about survivor's guilt. That's another form of PTSD and also a recognized condition.

I've never understood folks who insist that people who have suffered trauma remember every exact detail. In sex abuse/rape/assault cases, we actually spend time trying to educate the jurors about how our memories work when we've experienced trauma. Luckily, most jurors have common sense and realize that when someone is being beaten by an assailant, they're not going to take the time to count how many times they were hit. They're not going to take out a watch and time exactly how long the assault occurred. They don't do that because they're trying to survive and that is their sole focus. I'm sure you have heard about rape victims who have made statements to the effect of, "as it was happening, I slipped out of my body. I don't remember a lot." The rape victim isn't lying-- she's experienced disassociation, which is a well-recognized defense mechanism to trauma.

This is why I don't discount Nathan's story. He went through a traumatic event. He doesn't remember every little detail. It happens. It's expected. It's what the brain does in order to survive. It doesn't mean a crime occurred.

I wasn't talking about you. Just TheCars1986, and DallasTexan

Now, I'm sure he doesn't remember every single detail, and is trying to connect the dots to give a cohesive story, but it still doesn't make sense. I get he was disillusioned, and stranded in a terrible situation, but his story still doesn't stick.

The distance he swam, the drug ship, none of it sticks. I'm not saying he was a nasty murderer, but he definitely lied about the events that occurred.

Think about it like this. If your neighbor was in a burning house with their child, but they ran out without checking on, or attempting to save their child, and when asked why not they said "I saw flames, and ran. Didn't even think about saving little Timmy" and the child burned to death, what would people say about your neighbor? How would they be looked at by the community? Cowards.

What exactly did you want Nathan Nesmith to do?

The Casie Nicole sank. The 4 man crew then got into a 2 person life raft, which also had a hole the size of a quarter in it and after a period of time, it too started sinking. They tied the recently resurfaced hatch cover to the raft, began to float/paddle. This is when the stern from the boat is seen in the distance. I'm having a hard time seeing how Nathan, who broke away from the others, swimming back towards a sinking boat without any knowledge or guarantee that he would be rescued, would somehow be perceived as a coward under any circumstances. The best chance they had at being rescued was going back to the upturned boat at that point, since in all probability the life raft eventually would've sunken completely. And I cannot come up with a rational scenario where he would feel the need to lie about any of the events.

And Nathan has nothing to do with the phone calls. Unless you think his family is making them up to lie for him so people in the community wouldn't take him to be a coward, it makes no sense. Oh and the owner of the Casie Nicole would have to be lying too, since he received phone calls too.

It's on like Donkey Kong again lol. Never mind me I'm just keeping my post quota alive because I heard someone tracks it around here :D

Ps. Cassie Nicole still one of the best segments UM did.

That reminds me. Your post count is an embarrassment. Now either get it up or go sit in the corner!

What exactly did you want Nathan Nesmith to do?

The Casie Nicole sank. The 4 man crew then got into a 2 person life raft, which also had a hole the size of a quarter in it and after a period of time, it too started sinking. They tied the recently resurfaced hatch cover to the raft, began to float/paddle. This is when the stern from the boat is seen in the distance. I'm having a hard time seeing how Nathan, who broke away from the others, swimming back towards a sinking boat without any knowledge or guarantee that he would be rescued, would somehow be perceived as a coward under any circumstances. And I cannot come up with a rational scenario where he would feel the need to lie about any of the events.

Lol jesus christ. Do people here not read? Do you just comprehend what you want?

What did I want him to do? I just said the man lied. I guess it's fun to read over posts, and try to make points that aren't there like bringing up the Henry Rollins case to try to prove something.

I don't understand where you're going with this. If Nathan had said he saved himself, and didn't attempt to rescue the others, did he would've been blamed. Angry girlfriend, parents, whoever, would've blamed him. Why you can't comprehend this is beyond me.

And Nathan has nothing to do with the phone calls. Unless you think his family is making them up to lie for him so people in the community wouldn't take him to be a coward, it makes no sense. Oh and the owner of the Casie Nicole would have to be lying too, since he received phone calls too.

Where's your proof that he didn't? Also, it's funny skipping my number one point "It was a prank call" :lol: I can't with you man.

I don't understand where you're going with this. If Nathan had said he saved himself, and didn't attempt to rescue the others, did they would've been blamed. Angry girlfriend, parents, whoever, he would've been blamed. Why you can't comprehend this is beyond me.

This is literally what he says happened.

I guess it's fun to read over posts, and try to make points that aren't there like bringing up the Henry Rollins case to try to prove something.

That's because Henry Rollins lied. Don't believe me? I know he did. Prove it otherwise.

This is literally what he says happened.

Nein. He said they all made it out from the ship, but he swam back to it. If that's the case he didn't attempt to save anyone but himself. How would leaving the group to go back to a destroyed ship would be getting help?

You know what I mean, but you're playing dumb, maybe you're not playing. I'm saying they didn't get that far. He didn't attempt to save anyone. I'm saying he's the only one who made it off the sinking ship.

That's because Henry Rollins lied. Don't believe me? I know he did. Prove it otherwise.

Prove to me that Nathan had nothing to do with the phone calls first.

I'm saying he's the only one who made it off the sinking ship.

The ship was recovered, FWIW.

A commerical fisherman whose boat capsized said Wednesday he frequently heard voices and prayed a lot during the five days he spent floating in a wooden box without food.

Nathan Neesmith, 32, of Darien, told reporters he didn't know why the 34- foot boat Casie Nicole sank early Thursday.

''All I know is water came in, and it came in fast,'' said Neesmith, still appearing fatigued on his third day of hospitalization.

Neesmith said that as he drifted in the Atlantic, he splashed water on his face and tried to avoid drinking the salt water. He felt at times he would not survive.

''I heard people talking to me,'' Neesmith said. ''I drifted along. I heard people yelling out, 'Nathan 3/8' I'd jump up and look around. I thought it was somebody. Here I am looking around, and it was only the good Lord keeping me awake.''

Earlier Wednesday, the Coast Guard said it suspended its search for three missing crew members, including Neesmith's brother and nephew.

Neesmith was rescued Monday about 20 miles east of Hilton Head Island, S.C.

He was in fair condition Wednesday at Memorial Medical Center in Savannah, where he was being treated for hypothermia and dehydration. Dr. Carl Boyd, director of the trauma center, said he expected Neesmith to make a full recovery and to be released this weekend.

The boat was found Monday night by a Coast Guard plane about 45 miles off the coast, said Petty Officer 2nd Class Brett Farrell.

A subsequent search turned up only a life vest and a sleeping bag, about five miles from where Neesmith was rescued, said Petty Officer 2nd Class Anthony Brown of the Coast Guard rescue station on Tybee Island.

Neesmith said he and his companions were about 65 miles offshore when the boat began taking on water. He left the others with food and a raft, and set out to get help.

He said he was confident the others will be found.

''People are praying for us all over the world, and if they can be found we're gonna find them ... we're sure gonna try anyway,'' Neesmith said.

The Coast Guard said the search was suspended pending any new developments.

Missing were Neesmith's brother, Billy Joe Neesmith, 23; his nephew, Keith Wilkes, 18; and Franklin Brantley, 23, all of Darien.

The life vest found 5 miles from where Nathan was rescued is evidence that someone other than Nathan made it off of the ship with a life vest. Where were the others if he was the only one who made it off of the ship? Did they just remain on the boat as it sank?

I totally think Henry Rollins had nothing to do with Joe's death, but man, I could see where he'd be a viable suspect if law enforcement had dropped the ball on the matter...

The ship was recovered, FWIW.



The life vest found 5 miles from where Nathan was rescued is evidence that someone other than Nathan made it off of the ship with a life vest. Where were the others if he was the only one who made it off of the ship? Did they just remain on the boat as it sank?

There was only one life vest, and only one man alive. He could've had the life vest and took it off. No one could've used and it could've just floated away. One life vest isn't evident that the remaining made it out alive.

As for the bodies, I don't know. It was days since he was discovered, could've been eaten. I really don't know. I have a hard time believing a drug smuggler picked them up.

I totally think Henry Rollins had nothing to do with Joe's death, but man, I could see where he'd be a viable suspect if law enforcement had dropped the ball on the matter...

Haha, why do you think so? I grew up being a huge Black Flag fan. Can't stand him now though.

Never mind me I'm just keeping my post quota alive because I heard someone tracks it around here :D

.

Yes you need to make sure you meet that monthly quota! :D

As for me I'm close to 4000 posts and it only took 14 years...:lol:

Yes you need to make sure you meet that monthly quota! :D

As for me I'm close to 4000 posts and it only took 14 years...:lol:

That's quite the legacy. :p

Haha, why do you think so? I grew up being a huge Black Flag fan. Can't stand him now though.

If I'm remembering correctly, there were no other witnesses other than him. He could be accused of fabricating the story about the holdup in the yard and his subsequent running from the shooters.

Obviously, Rollins didn't have a hand in it. But he's the only one who saw anything, so I could where he may have been a suspect at one point.

That's quite the legacy. :p

Why thank you...I try. :lol:

If I'm remembering correctly, there were no other witnesses other than him. He could be accused of fabricating the story about the holdup in the yard and his subsequent running from the shooters.

Obviously, Rollins didn't have a hand in it. But he's the only one who saw anything, so I could where he may have been a suspect at one point.

Yeah true, I never thought of it like that. Being as I'm from a ghetto area, that kind of thing isn't uncommon. If he, and Joe were living in a 'hood' then it's possible that they were targeted for being white, and having Hollywood connections. That's just what I always thought.

I'm from the same area of D.C. that Henry used to hang around (old punk days, S.O.A.), and whites getting robbed wasn't uncommon, especially if it was thought they had money.

Why thank you...I try. :lol:

It's all about post quotas and legacies :D +1 for me, almost 600 in 13 years, quite an achievement lol

I'll try to explain, because it seemed you got confused about my post earlier. I had two scenarios:

1.) Accident, but he lied about the details
2.) Foul play

In my earlier post, I said that I didn't have a motive for foul play, so I stuck with the accident scenario, but I do believe foul play could've been
My sarcastic response that you did not enjoy was meant for your murder/rot in prison comment in your first post. You have said many other things since then, but have left off that bit which is what I responded to. even if Nathan did cover up and lie about his experience(which I do not believe at all is the case) that does not mean he deserves to rot in prison, but that's just me :)

My sarcastic response that you did not enjoy was meant for your murder/rot in prison comment in your first post. You have said many other things since then, but have left off that bit which is what I responded to. even if Nathan did cover up and lie about his experience(which I do not believe at all is the case) that does not mean he deserves to rot in prison, but that's just me :)

First I was a troll, now you're being sarcastic. Choose one.

You never asked me about him rotting in prison, so I don't know what you're talking about. You may have said something about it, but you never asked me, so yes I have said many things since then because I'm assuming it wasn't relevant to reply to.

You choose random snippets, and half the time I'm confused about what you're trying to say. But I'm tired of talking about this. I think he's lying, you don't. There isn't enough evidence to argue much either way. :wave:

First I was a troll, now you're being sarcastic. Choose one.

You never asked me about him rotting in prison, so I don't know what you're talking about. You may have said something about it, but you never asked me, so yes I have said many things since then because I'm assuming it wasn't relevant to reply to.

You choose random snippets, and half the time I'm confused about what you're trying to say. But I'm tired of talking about this. I think he's guilty, you don't. There isn't enough evidence to argue much either way. :wave:
I could not tell if you were being a troll based off of that prison comment. it is hard to believe that someone would say that other than to get a rise out of people.

It's all about post quotas and legacies :D +1 for me, almost 600 in 13 years, quite an achievement lol
:D

I could not tell if you were being a troll based off of that prison comment. it is hard to believe that someone would say that other than to get a rise out of people.

Ooooh okay. I get it now. My apologizes, I didn't know you were referring to the prison comment when calling me a troll. Well, I thought (not having ruled it out) that it was foul play, but I have since believed that it was an accident. I guess you could say it was 'trollish', because while I do think he was lying, the prison comment was more in touch with "he should be jailed for lying about the deaths of those on the ship", so yeah it wasn't entirely serious, and a bit trollish.

Sorry about all of that, I thought you mean't when I said he was lying you were referring to me trolling, not the prison comment.

ROB SHAFER SANK THE CASIE NICOLE.

I'm assuming you hold Henry Rollins responsible for the murder of Joe Cole as well? Or the parishioners in the Harold & Thelma Swain segment? Or Shirley, the cleaning products lady in the Dana Satterfield segment? Or the neighbors in the Crystal Spencer segment?

I think you left out René Wassing killing Michael Rockefeller, too. I mean... "I think I can make it.I'll go get help" with a gas can raft? Come on.

:rolleyes:

ROB SHAFER SANK THE CASIE NICOLE.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're a real pistol, Meg :p

Or should I say...cocytus! *Pulls off your mask*

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You're a real pistol, Meg :p

Or should I say...cocytus! *Pulls off your mask*

Remember that time cocytus got all up in the grill of one of the family members of the Liebling's crew after her very first post on the board? God that was embarrassing.

Remember that time cocytus got all up in the grill of one of the family members of the Liebling's crew after her very first post on the board? God that was embarrassing.

Yup. Great times. :cool: :rolleyes:

"This forum has a bad case of hive mind. Meaning if someone goes against popular opinion, then 10 members will all emotionally jump in, as if they were children and throw fits that a 5-year old would when you tell them Santa Claus doesn't exist."


Like clockwork. Stay classy SO.

Welp, ban me if ya gotta.

Welp, you're throwing out accusations and theories fairly snarkily. The comment that he should be in prison because he saved his own ass? Calling him a coward if, in fact, he did that? Until you've been in that position, you've got no right to call him a coward. Fact of the matter is there is no evidence that actually proves your theories. At this point, all we do have is his word. But I find "everyone getting into a raft that was already damaged and too small" more likely, based on what we DO know than "he killed them all/he accidentally killed them all/he saved his own ass and should be in prison for lying about it."

Welp, you're throwing out accusations and theories fairly snarkily. The comment that he should be in prison because he saved his own ass? Calling him a coward if, in fact, he did that? Until you've been in that position, you've got no right to call him a coward. Fact of the matter is there is no evidence that actually proves your theories. At this point, all we do have is his word. But I find "everyone getting into a raft that was already damaged and too small" more likely, based on what we DO know than "he killed them all/he accidentally killed them all/he saved his own ass and should be in prison for lying about it."

I'm entitled to my opinions, like you are to yours. I think he lied, so what? Did I hurt your little feelings? Are you hurt personally? Grow up.

"This forum has a bad case of hive mind. Meaning if someone goes against popular opinion, then 10 members will all emotionally jump in, as if they were children and throw fits that a 5-year old would when you tell them Santa Claus doesn't exist."


Like clockwork. Stay classy SO.

Welp, ban me if ya gotta.

Dude.... the last person that challenged me to do that DID get banned. I don't want to ban anyone, unless it's become obvious that they can't get along with everyone else.

I don't care if your opinion differs from everyone else's, just so long as we can all discuss our differences in a respectful manner.... As I said before, a person's tone can be everything on this board. I know I've taken unpopular positions on a lot of cases, but I don't get into arguments with people over them. Nor do I want to. But that's just me.

ROB SHAFER SANK THE CASIE NICOLE.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/85/8d/a6/858da6dabc619c662c4374dcb0d503e5.jpg

Dude.... the last person that challenged me to do that DID get banned. I don't want to ban anyone, unless it's become obvious that they can't get along with everyone else.

I don't care if your opinion differs from everyone else's, just so long as we can all discuss our differences in a respectful manner.... As I said before, a person's tone can be everything on this board. I know I've taken unpopular positions on a lot of cases, but I don't get into arguments with people over them. Nor do I want to. But that's just me.

I said my opinion, and people are going nuts. Was it harsh, yes, but so? It's my opinion.

It's apparent I can't get along with anyone else. Just ban me.

I'm entitled to my opinions, like you are to yours. I think he lied, so what? Did I hurt your little feelings? Are you hurt personally? Grow up.

Really? "Did I hurt your little feelings?" and "Grow up." Are you five? I pointed out the fact that until you provide evidence, your theory holds about as much water as a flour sifter, and that you seem quite comfortable with accusing someone from the comfort of your chair, without ever had that situation occur. Or have you? Maybe you have. Maybe I'm the donkey here. If that is the case, a thousand pardons to you, sir. I hope one day that you will forgive me.

The fact of the matter is that those who tend to post here have spent a great deal of time talking about, reading about, and studying every piece of minutiae about these cases. Due to this fact, they tend to know what they're talking about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to retire to tend to my wounds, lest I bleed out.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/ad/84/dd/ad84dd6e56fdef586f7e0ec093d63a37.jpg

Really? "Did I hurt your little feelings?" and "Grow up." Are you five? I pointed out the fact that until you provide evidence, your theory holds about as much water as a flour sifter, and that you seem quite comfortable with accusing someone from the comfort of your chair, without ever had that situation occur. Or have you? Maybe you have. Maybe I'm the donkey here. If that is the case, a thousand pardons to you, sir. I hope one day that you will forgive me.

The fact of the matter is that those who tend to post here have spent a great deal of time talking about, reading about, and studying every piece of minutiae about these cases. Due to this fact, they tend to know what they're talking about.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to retire to tend to my wounds, lest I bleed out.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/600x315/ad/84/dd/ad84dd6e56fdef586f7e0ec093d63a37.jpg

Fact is, I've explained myself a bunch of times. You never even quoted me, you were being snarky with Meg. At one point, I even said I don't have the evidence to back it up, but it's what I firmly believe. Now who's five? I've explained why I thought his testimony was bunk, and I've admitted that I didn't have the evidence to back it up, but I still have adults acting like children. I guess if I just believed in his testimony 100% despite the holes, and inconsistencies then I could sit at the cool kids table. I will take a jolly rancher, and a hug though.

Ah well.

At one point, I even said I don't have the evidence to back it up, but it's what I firmly believe.

That's probably the main reason you're being criticized. The second is probably your tone.

Civility isn't a crutch for the weak or sensitive. It gets sh*t done--including something as simply as facilitating a discussion among adults on an intriguing topic.

Most of us have held unpopular positions at one point or another here on the board. It's not a big deal. But making some pretty serious allegations while admitting you have no evidence to support them while using some pretty hostile language on top of it is likely to get you some grief around here, as you've seen. To be fair, you've gotten quite a bit of lip back and your reaction to it is pretty human. But I guess my completely unsolicited piece of advice would be to choose which hills you're willing to die on.

And for Pete's sake just stick around, dude. We're getting shirts made next week.

And for Pete's sake just stick around, dude. We're getting shirts made next week.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Alright, I apologize.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Alright, I apologize.

And I, too, apologize to you for my prickishness.:cheers:

You may have a Jolly Rancher. But you'll need to look elsewhere for a hug. I only have one left, and the weekend's coming. :cool:

And I, too, apologize to you for my prickishness.:cheers:

You may have a Jolly Rancher. But you'll need to look elsewhere for a hug. I only have one left, and the weekend's coming. :cool:

I can wait till' Saturday.

I can wait till' Saturday.215630

Yeah Dude. This is not the case to be getting all bent out of shape over.

I apologize if this has been posted, but this was interesting:


http://thinkingsidewayspodcast.com/short-the-casie-nicole/#comments

Remember that time cocytus got all up in the grill of one of the family members of the Liebling's crew after her very first post on the board? God that was embarrassing.
"Hey, poster [insert condescending dribble here]." What was up with that guy?!
I cringed every time I saw that avatar come up because I knew it was going to be a ridiculous and aggressive post.

And for Pete's sake just stick around, dude. We're getting shirts made next week.

I only approve of this as long as I get one. :)

Ooooh okay. I get it now. My apologizes, I didn't know you were referring to the prison comment when calling me a troll. Well, I thought (not having ruled it out) that it was foul play, but I have since believed that it was an accident. I guess you could say it was 'trollish', because while I do think he was lying, the prison comment was more in touch with "he should be jailed for lying about the deaths of those on the ship", so yeah it wasn't entirely serious, and a bit trollish.

Sorry about all of that, I thought you mean't when I said he was lying you were referring to me trolling, not the prison comment.
no worries.

Remember that time cocytus got all up in the grill of one of the family members of the Liebling's crew after her very first post on the board? God that was embarrassing.

Yea, I remember that. Geez. Cocytus had some good insight into some of the cases, but good Lord, if you disagreed with him....

cocytus had two theories:

If you were a man who disappeared or wound up dead, you were cruising for gay sex. If you were a woman who disappeared or wound up dead, you were a prostitute looking to buy drugs.

Don't miss him at all.

cocytus had two theories:

If you were a man who disappeared or wound up dead, you were cruising for gay sex. If you were a woman who disappeared or wound up dead, you were a prostitute looking to buy drugs.

Don't miss him at all.

Hey, be fair, cocytus also allowed the possibility the men could have been looking for drugs too. Or both drugs and gay sex.

Am I the new cocytus?

The gay sex angle isn't bad.

All right. We've all held hands and sang together....

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder805/500x/60710805.jpg

I think anything that spurs more discussion about these unsolved cases is a good thing.

I think anything that spurs more discussion about these unsolved cases is a good thing.

One would think so.

However, this still doesn't make sense. Why would they drift that far out as opposed to staying close to the boat? I feel staying close to the boat would be better, as did Nathan (the hull), as you would have larger pieces to rest on. Apparently Nathan thought so, so why after drifting out that far, he suddenly decided to swim hours back to where he just came from?

The more I think about it, the more I think Nathan never left the remnants of that ship. I'm supposed to believe a man of his size pulled something Michael Phelps would have trouble doing? He's swimming without food, and water for hours he never got tired, cramped, or drowned? Please.

EDIT: Hold up. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Survivor-of-Capsized-Fishing-Boat-Says-Voices-Kept-Him-Going/id-1e238f5f9485e136815a91f4ed02885a

"He left the others with food and a raft, and set out to get help."

Where did he get food from? They had time to grab food as they were abandoning a sinking boat? If they were all holding onto a raft where would they have held the food?

I will conclude that he suffered survivor's guilt, and didn't help the others on the boat. His story is really sketchy, and doesn't make sense. I never heard anything about food. I'm going to assume he lied about certain parts of his story due to survivor's guilt, and wanting people to think he "tried" to save the others, but didn't, he only tried to save himself. This is evident with his phony "food" story. He's trying to not feel guilty with these phony "food" and "boat" stories. I don't think he killed them, but he saved himself, and is trying to get other people, and himself to believe he didn't do anything wrong and was a hero. Sad.

Where did he get food from? They had time to grab food as they were abandoning a sinking boat? If they were all holding onto a raft where would they have held the food?

The boat wouldn't have immediately sunk. It was taking in water at a fairly decent pace before they even noticed anything was wrong. I'm sure they had time to gather their supplies before going on the raft. Their trip was a 7 day fishing excursion, so they had to have brought food with them.

true about the slow sink. it sounds like it was just a terrible tragedy where nothing went right other than Nathan getting extremely lucky that someone found him before he died. Whether or not his mates made it or not like some hope...that obviously was not a good turnout for them if they were picked up and taken against their will. I don't see the reason for him to lie about what he saw. if it did not happen all Nathan would need to say is that he lost complete sight of them and they must have perished.

As far as the whole he's out of shape thing. yeah that is worth noting and is valid. if he knew how to swim well(most people do not), but I have seen people that swim greater than you would think they would because they know how to do it properly. need a source? look at the Alcatraz segment. the guy that swam the bay did not look like Michael phelps and he was drinking champaign afterward. IIRC he had the dad bod going a little bit. but I could be wrong.

(I am not saying Nathan did or did not know how to swim).

You also have to factor the adrenaline aspect. I imagine that he was able to swim a distance required to get to where he needed to go. there is no option to give up unless you want to die. Was it as far as he thought? who knows. the ocean current and weather conditions would have been a major factor with that. we will truly never know how far he did swim and I doubt that we could expect him to know that information 100% from memory as LooksLikeCRicci pointed out before. I imagine that if he was severely out of shape as well as a terrible swimmer...his recall of the distance would seem a lot longer than what it was anyway. I do not find that to be a foul on his part.

As far as the whole he's out of shape thing. yeah that is worth noting and is valid. if he knew how to swim well(most people do not), but I have seen people that swim greater than you would think they would because they know how to do it properly(again I am not saying Nathan did or did not). You also have to factor the adrenaline aspect. I imagine that he was able to swim a distance required to get to where he needed to go. there is no option to give up unless you want to die.

This reminds me of the Tom Green Show when he swam across Lake Washington. He wasn't an experienced swimmer at all, and it took him over two hours to swim 1.3 miles. This (http://www.parktoparkswim.com/Race-Map-and-Course-Info.html) is the swim that he did. Notice how they ask for strong swimmers? They expect people to swim 1.25 miles in less than 45 minutes. If it took Nathan hours to swim 4 or 5 miles, this does nothing but bolster his credibility. If he was out of shape, this makes his story even more believable. No wonder it took him so long to swim that short of a distance.

This reminds me of the Tom Green Show when he swam across Lake Washington. He wasn't an experienced swimmer at all, and it took him over two hours to swim 1.3 miles. This (http://www.parktoparkswim.com/Race-Map-and-Course-Info.html) is the swim that he did. Notice how they ask for strong swimmers? They expect people to swim 1.25 miles in less than 45 minutes. If it took Nathan hours to swim 4 or 5 miles, this does nothing but bolster his credibility. If he was out of shape, this makes his story even more believable. No wonder it took him so long to swim that short of a distance.
nice...i never saw that.

just reading "the tom green show" makes me laugh instantly.

This reminds me of the Tom Green Show when he swam across Lake Washington. He wasn't an experienced swimmer at all, and it took him over two hours to swim 1.3 miles. This (http://www.parktoparkswim.com/Race-Map-and-Course-Info.html) is the swim that he did. Notice how they ask for strong swimmers? They expect people to swim 1.25 miles in less than 45 minutes. If it took Nathan hours to swim 4 or 5 miles, this does nothing but bolster his credibility. If he was out of shape, this makes his story even more believable. No wonder it took him so long to swim that short of a distance.

This is exactly right. If we take Nathan's time and distance estimates as mostly accurate, a strong swimmer like Phelps would have been to the hull be early afternoon at the latest. I'm a moderately strong swimmer meaning I know all the proper techniques. I swam competitively in high school. A few times a year, I get into the pool at my gym and do a distance swim. I'm 6'1" and 230lbs. When I get in the water to swim, I can generally knock out one mile in 45 minutes. The second mile usually takes more like 50-60 minutes.

We also have to consider that the hull of the boat was moving towards him as he swam which would shorten the distance some. He had been on the life raft with his mates according to his story. The life raft had been out drifting with the currents. It stands to reason that the hull of the boat was moving in the same direction as the life raft since it was adrift as well. It was just moving more slowly because of its larger mass.

The boat wouldn't have immediately sunk. It was taking in water at a fairly decent pace before they even noticed anything was wrong. I'm sure they had time to gather their supplies before going on the raft. Their trip was a 7 day fishing excursion, so they had to have brought food with them.

From his story they tried to save the boat by hand, and then when they saw it was futile they immediately grabbed a raft, and jumped ship. I do not believe they grabbed food, as they were all holding onto the raft. In the segment nothing was said about food.

This reminds me of the Tom Green Show when he swam across Lake Washington. He wasn't an experienced swimmer at all, and it took him over two hours to swim 1.3 miles. This (http://www.parktoparkswim.com/Race-Map-and-Course-Info.html) is the swim that he did. Notice how they ask for strong swimmers? They expect people to swim 1.25 miles in less than 45 minutes. If it took Nathan hours to swim 4 or 5 miles, this does nothing but bolster his credibility. If he was out of shape, this makes his story even more believable. No wonder it took him so long to swim that short of a distance.

No. Nice theory, and I get what you're saying, but this isn't credible. You're missing several factors that would've made this impossible. I'm in shape, and there's no way I could've swam hours non-stop without food and water. This is hours of constantly drinking salt water, and having no food (sense he left it with the others, if you believe that). He would've tired out, and started cramping. If he swam an hour or a little more I'd believe it, but not HOURS.

I bring up his size, because he was out of shape. There's no way he would've had the stamina or lung capacity to have continued on swimming nonstop for hours. It's as unbelievable as those phony phone calls.

There's no way he would've had the stamina or lung capacity to have continued on swimming nonstop for hours. It's as unbelievable as those phony phone calls.

Have you considered that the amount of time it took him to swim that distance was because he was out of shape and had to stop over and over again?

Have you considered that the amount of time it took him to swim that distance was because he was out of shape and had to stop over and over again?

I have, and even with him stopping it's not believable. He was in deep water, swimming non-stop with salt water constantly in his face/mouth, and we're talking about someone who probably had nothing to eat for hours. I understand willpower, and the instinct of survival, but not swimming for hours non-stop in deep water.

Swimming that long being out of shape, would cause severe cramps, making it hard to move on. Then take into the fact that even if he had eaten before leaving, then his energy would've been gone. He also most likely would've drowned or passed out from how filled his lungs were with salt water. Even if he stopped for breaks, he was in super deep water so he would've had to have been constantly kicking his legs in place to stay afloat even if he stopped for a break, which would've caused fatigue, and cramps. If he stopped to rest he's still using energy just to stay afloat.

Swimming that long being out of shape, would cause severe cramps, making it hard to move on. Then take into the fact that even if he had eaten before leaving, then his energy would've been gone. He also mostly likely would've drowned or passed out from how filled his lungs were with salt water. Even if he stopped for breaks, he was in super deep water so he would've had to have been constantly kicking his legs in place to stay afloat even if he stopped for a break, which would've caused fatigue.

Treading water in salt water is significantly easier than in fresh water or a pool. The salt content makes the water heavier meaning objects and people float more easily. He wouldn't have had to kick hard and fast constantly to tread water. He could have maintained a slow enough kicking pace to get sufficient rest. Yeah, he probably would have had some cramping, but he could have pushed through that.

Treading water in salt water is significantly easier than in fresh water or a pool. The salt content makes the water heavier meaning objects and people float more easily. He wouldn't have had to kick hard and fast constantly to tread water. He could have maintained a slow enough kicking pace to get sufficient rest. Yeah, he probably would have had some cramping, but he could have pushed through that.

Pushed through terrible cramping, and having no energy from not eating for hours? No. I'm in better shape then he was, I workout daily and swim for exercise. I don't think I could have made that trip.

You do make a good point about him staying afloat through salt water though. Maybe you guys are right, and I'm willingly to admit that I'm wrong, but I still don't believe it.

Seeing as how his friends were most likely eaten, I find it weird that he wasn't attacked by a sea creature being in the water for that long.

Seeing as how his friends were most likely eaten, I find it weird that he wasn't attacked by a sea creature being in the water for that long.

That's obviously because UM never reported on a sea monster in those waters. :lol:

It never ceases to amaze me how badly prepared people are when they go out to sea-often they have no life jackets, no flares, no method of communication etc. In this case they had an inflatable that held two when there was four of them & it had a hole in it. This guy was extremely fortunate & likely was delirious when he saw a vessel that likely wasn't there. The white slave theory as always is farcical-what possible use could anybody have for three US white guys? No ransom was ever demanded. No demand for an exchange of political prisoner etc. The phone calls were no doubt some crank who read about the case & thought it would be fun to occasionally harass the families.

It never ceases to amaze me how badly prepared people are when they go out to sea-often they have no life jackets, no flares, no method of communication etc. In this case they had an inflatable that held two when there was four of them & it had a hole in it. This guy was extremely fortunate & likely was delirious when he saw a vessel that likely wasn't there. The white slave theory as always is farcical-what possible use could anybody have for three US white guys? No ransom was ever demanded. No demand for an exchange of political prisoner etc. The phone calls were no doubt some crank who read about the case & thought it would be fun to occasionally harass the families.

"What about life rafts? I have two." :lol:

"What about life rafts? I have two." :lol:

Pity he slashed one of them to pieces.

The phone calls were no doubt some crank who read about the case & thought it would be fun to occasionally harass the families.

Agreed. They had to have been someone with some knowledge of the case because the owner of the Casie Nicole also received similar phone calls to the one's that Nathan's family was receiving.

Agreed. They had to have been someone with some knowledge of the case because the owner of the Casie Nicole also received similar phone calls to the one's that Nathan's family was receiving.

In that case, I have to wonder how much publicity the lost boat got in Latin American countries because that would somewhat determine whether the callers had actual inside knowledge of the lost crew's fate OR had just heard about the story and played a sick&heartless prank!

In that case, I have to wonder how much publicity the lost boat got in Latin American countries because that would somewhat determine whether the callers had actual inside knowledge of the lost crew's fate OR had just heard about the story and played a sick&heartless prank!

Probably little to none. The show made no mention of the cops putting a trace on any of those receiving the calls. Most likely it was an American Latino doing it from inside the US.

Is this segment available on Amazon Prime? Wasn't able to find it.

Is this segment available on Amazon Prime? Wasn't able to find it.

Season 4, Episode 15.

Just watched it! Thanks!

I have three theories:


They were picked up by a Cuban ship. Most probably taken to the isle and subjected to bad treatment.

The ship wasnt cuban , but from other country like China. Ive read an article about the bad treatment that the crew receive at those chinese ships (mercantile or factory), maybe they were taken as some sort of forced labourers.

The other possibility is the ship was doing illegal activities like drug smugling, etc.

I dont want to put a finger on this guy, but he is the only witness and we only have his testimony so its another possibility that maybe things happened different than he said.

maybe the casie nicole crew was involved in some sort of illegal activity, providing or receveing drugs offshore and something went wrong.¿?

Or they just drowned and everything else about sightings of weird freighters, phone calls in another language, etc. is just a red herring/noise.

Or they just drowned and everything else about sightings of weird freighters, phone calls in another language, etc. is just a red herring/noise.

Correct

Or they just drowned and everything else about sightings of weird freighters, phone calls in another language, etc. is just a red herring/noise.

Yup.

Or they just drowned and everything else about sightings of weird freighters, phone calls in another language, etc. is just a red herring/noise.

False. You're thinking of Communism.

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/mdhpsk12np96mwt8kfns.Png

This Casie Nicole (small boat that sunk) case is very sad, but it seems relatively straight-forward that there was nothing mysterious about what happened here.

The way I see it, the lone survivor of the Casa Nicole sinking was just that, the only survivor. And, the only reason he survived was because he swam away from them & was able to find a part of the boat that was floating & able to bear his weight.

The other 3 drowned.

I don't see any kind of "conspiracy" in which the other 3 were picked up by a ship & were held captive for some reason. Ridiculous.

The phone calls that the families later received (where some unknown person spoke to them in Spanish) were probably just wrong numbers, or someone intentionally screwing with them. I don't put much stock in the calls bearing any legitimate connection(s) to the case. I get strange/unexplained phone calls/messages/wrong numbers on a regular basis, and just ignore them.

This guy was extremely fortunate & likely was delirious when he saw a vessel that likely wasn't there. The white slave theory as always is farcical-what possible use could anybody have for three US white guys? No ransom was ever demanded. No demand for an exchange of political prisoner etc. The phone calls were no doubt some crank who read about the case & thought it would be fun to occasionally harass the families.

Agreed.

Or they just drowned and everything else about sightings of weird freighters, phone calls in another language, etc. is just a red herring/noise.

I'd have to agree in this instance. I'm not sure their ever was a freighter. I'm not a believer in hallucinations or mirages being common things. But for a man who was probably sea sick and in poor health due to hunger an dehydration, I'd have to say it was far more likely.

As for the calls in another language, again this is one of those times where you have to believe them or accuse them of flat out lying. Even red herrings have some basis in reality, I mean when you say red herrings do you think someone was just trolling them in Spanish or do you think the phone calls never happened?

Either way I'd have to say if these guys were alive they would have surfaced by now.

I'd have to agree in this instance. I'm not sure their ever was a freighter. I'm not a believer in hallucinations or mirages being common things. But for a man who was probably sea sick and in poor health due to hunger an dehydration, I'd have to say it was far more likely.

As for the calls in another language, again this is one of those times where you have to believe them or accuse them of flat out lying. Even red herrings have some basis in reality, I mean when you say red herrings do you think someone was just trolling them in Spanish or do you think the phone calls never happened?

Either way I'd have to say if these guys were alive they would have surfaced by now.
Yeah for me it’s almost like two different segments. One is the mystery of what happened to the 3 gentlemen. I think by most accounts they likely drowned or died of exposure. The other mystery are the phone calls, if we indeed take their word that they are true. It could of been a prank caller or a real person looking for someone else and not able to communicate in English. Then that was misinterpreted.

I don't think there's been a case on UM where a "mysterious letter" or "mysterious phone call" has turned out to be anything other than a prank?

I don't think there's been a case on UM where a "mysterious letter" or "mysterious phone call" has turned out to be anything other than a prank?

That's a little to vague, probably have to go over specific cases. And most of the time I don't think its proven one way or another, unless you prove someone was dead at the time of the call or the resolution of the case proves it was a hoax.

The Judith Hymes case comes to mind, but since her body was never found there is no way to know for sure. Although why someone would prank call anyone about a 25 year old case, (which is what it was at the time), is hard to figure.

Another that comes to mind was Dub Wackerhagen. I always had a gut feeling that that supposed phone call from Chance was probably a hoax, but there really is no way to prove it was since their fate remains unknown at this point.

That's a little to vague, probably have to go over specific cases. And most of the time I don't think its proven one way or another, unless you prove someone was dead at the time of the call or the resolution of the case proves it was a hoax.

The Judith Hymes case comes to mind, but since her body was never found there is no way to know for sure. Although why someone would prank call anyone about a 25 year old case, (which is what it was at the time), is hard to figure.

Another that comes to mind was Dub Wackerhagen. I always had a gut feeling that that supposed phone call from Chance was probably a hoax, but there really is no way to prove it was since their fate remains unknown at this point.

Usually the pranks come when there is media coverage of a case-either at the beginning, or when there is an anniversary & the police make a new appeal-often to coincide with a cold case review of the crime, so if it was a 25th anniversary appeal it would make sense somebody watching it on the news or reading it in the newspapers would make a hoax call or send a hoax letter.

I don't think there's been a case on UM where a "mysterious letter" or "mysterious phone call" has turned out to be anything other than a prank?

The Micki Jo West case one was legit. That's the first (of not very many) that come to mind.

EDIT: And now I see that her killer is believed to be the one who sent the letters that incriminated himself...

The Micki Jo West case one was legit. That's the first (of not very many) that come to mind.

EDIT: And now I see that her killer is believed to be the one who sent the letters that incriminated himself...

I wonder if Joseph DeAngelo (Golden State Killer) admitted to making those calls to his victims? We know he admitted to the rapes and murders, but its unclear if he admitted making the calls.

there were several that were all but proven to be hoaxes I think Cathy Hobbs comes to mind. Their was a mysterious call from a supposed witness who said two men abducted her, he even gave a license number which proved to be false. As soon as that happened the police should have dismissed that lead, for all we know maybe they did, Unsolved Mysteries probably just included it to add more to the case. The man who proved to be the killer Michael Lee Lockhart himself may have even made the call to throw the authorities off.

Lets not forget Tracy Kirkpatrick, and the infamous Sean/Don con.

There are more that come to mind too, can't think of the names off the top of my head. But I'd have to say in general mysterious calls that come from anonymous witnesses who give vague details then hang up and don't call back probably 99% of the time are hoaxes and not people who genuinely want to help.

I wonder if Joseph DeAngelo (Golden State Killer) admitted to making those calls to his victims? We know he admitted to the rapes and murders, but its unclear if he admitted making the calls.

there were several that were all but proven to be hoaxes I think Cathy Hobbs comes to mind. Their was a mysterious call from a supposed witness who said two men abducted her, he even gave a license number which proved to be false. As soon as that happened the police should have dismissed that lead, for all we know maybe they did, Unsolved Mysteries probably just included it to add more to the case. The man who proved to be the killer Michael Lee Lockhart himself may have even made the call to throw the authorities off.

Lets not forget Tracy Kirkpatrick, and the infamous Sean/Don con.

There are more that come to mind too, can't think of the names off the top of my head. But I'd have to say in general mysterious calls that come from anonymous witnesses who give vague details then hang up and don't call back probably 99% of the time are hoaxes and not people who genuinely want to help.

The Hobbs one I can give the benefit of the doubt, as far as the plate number being invalid. They could've simply misread the plate, or jumbled the digits in their memory, etc. But obviously, even if the events that were given in the call actually happened, it wasn't what happened to her. And it seems like there's a lot of that kind of thing. The first one I can think of that really jumps out at me is the Lisa Marie Kimmel case.

People were SO CERTAIN they saw her and her car, but with a bunch of different guys that looked nothing alike. They had the one "eyewitness" who saw her with the "swarthy" man who had "the poets would call them aquiline" eyes. All of these were, very sadly, incorrect, as was later discovered...

The Hobbs one I can give the benefit of the doubt, as far as the plate number being invalid. They could've simply misread the plate, or jumbled the digits in their memory, etc. But obviously, even if the events that were given in the call actually happened, it wasn't what happened to her. And it seems like there's a lot of that kind of thing. The first one I can think of that really jumps out at me is the Lisa Marie Kimmel case.

People were SO CERTAIN they saw her and her car, but with a bunch of different guys that looked nothing alike. They had the one "eyewitness" who saw her with the "swarthy" man who had "the poets would call them aquiline" eyes. All of these were, very sadly, incorrect, as was later discovered...

Possible, but obviously the two men abducting her turned out not to be the case.

And yeah Lisa Marie Kimmel was a good one. It really messes up your faith in eyewitness testimony, my best guess either they were straight up lying or they were mistaken the day they saw her. Or maybe there was a similar looking car with similar plates and a different young lady who knows.

Carrie Lynn Nixon comes to mind as well, the lady who swore up and down she saw her in South Carolina with that other girl when she in fact was already dead and buried not fifteen miles from her house. What a terrible thing to get her family's hopes up. And the really bizarre part is when authorities found the girl Carrie was allegedly with, she was suffering from a memory lapse and couldn't recall the incident, which I found really bizarre and was like WTF??? when I heard it. How do you forget something like that?

Its just hard to say what happens in a lot of these situations.

He seems pretty sincere and from what I can tell has never contradicted himself in telling his story. I tend to believe the large ship he saw was an hallucination induced by drinking sea water and exposure. This would explain why he saw the ship making circles in front of him instead of the ship appearing and then disappearing on the horizon. Any hard to believe aspects of his story could simply be a genuine account warped by massive dehydration.

I think holding this guy to a high standard here of explaining what happened to him is unfair.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I believe those phone calls were real and related to the missing men.

I don't think that caller was necessarily someone with firsthand knowledge of the men and/or their ultimate fate. I think he could have been someone with a limited command of English who may have thought he recognized one of the men from a newspaper or TV account, although he was almost certainly mistaken. I actually think that's more likely than someone making an intention to mess with not only the family of at least two of the missing men, but the owner of the boat itself over several months. Had there been a single phone call to say, the Nesmith family that consisted of something of greater substance than Spanish and someone repeating names and phone numbers, I think I'd be more willing to write it off as a prank.

I don't think that caller was necessarily someone with firsthand knowledge of the men and/or their ultimate fate. I think he could have been someone with a limited command of English who may have thought he recognized one of the men from a newspaper or TV account, although he was almost certainly mistaken. I actually think that's more likely than someone making an intention to mess with not only the family of at least two of the missing men, but the owner of the boat itself over several months. Had there been a single phone call to say, the Nesmith family that consisted of something of greater substance than Spanish and someone repeating names and phone numbers, I think I'd be more willing to write it off as a prank.

I forgot that the owner of the boat also received phone calls. The caller would have spoken English (even in a faux broken English accent if he was trying to disguise his voice) and said something more than their phone number and names if this really was a prank. The only issue I have with the calls being legitimate is that they happened over the period of a year. Did this guy continue to see men who resembled the missing crew repeatedly over the course of a year? If so, why did he not contact the authorities?

I forgot that the owner of the boat also received phone calls. The caller would have spoken English (even in a faux broken English accent if he was trying to disguise his voice) and said something more than their phone number and names if this really was a prank. The only issue I have with the calls being legitimate is that they happened over the period of a year. Did this guy continue to see men who resembled the missing crew repeatedly over the course of a year? If so, why did he not contact the authorities?

If the calls were real, I would think the three men would have been kidnapped by the crew of a ship engaging in illegal activity who saw them as an opportunity to get rich, who kept them captive until they figured out how to ransom them, but eventually got rid of them when they figured out it would be too complex or dangerous to pull.

I've read a lot about Abu Sayyaf, which is an Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines that has a history of kidnapping Westerners on islands for ransom, and doing so requires an extremely well organized network of supporters.

It really is common for kidnapping victims to be kept for very extended periods of time until they are eventually killed.

In one story of an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping victim that I saw, after a very long captivity, he was eventually freed by a rogue pirate who was touched by his plight and gave him a raft to escape at night.

The thing that bothers me about the calls being pranks is how would a prank caller have known to call the owner of the boat in the 80s pre-Internet era, when he was never named in the media in relation to this story until the Unsolved Mysteries segment?

If the calls were real, I would think the three men would have been kidnapped by the crew of a ship engaging in illegal activity who saw them as an opportunity to get rich, who kept them captive until they figured out how to ransom them, but eventually got rid of them when they figured out it would be too complex or dangerous to pull.

I've read a lot about Abu Sayyaf, which is an Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines that has a history of kidnapping Westerners on islands for ransom, and doing so requires an extremely well organized network of supporters.

It really is common for kidnapping victims to be kept for very extended periods of time until they are eventually killed.

In one story of an Abu Sayyaf kidnapping victim that I saw, after a very long captivity, he was eventually freed by a rogue pirate who was touched by his plight and gave him a raft to escape at night.

The thing that bothers me about the calls being pranks is how would a prank caller have known to call the owner of the boat in the 80s pre-Internet era, when he was never named in the media in relation to this story until the Unsolved Mysteries segment?

you bring up some good points. Especially with the prank call. I've gone from thinking the calls were real to thinking it was a prank, and now I just don't know. the interesting thing is that the caller was speaking Spanish, which I would find it unusual that someone would make a prank like that speaking a foreign language. It could have been a smuggling type situation of cargo and people.

I am always fascinated by these segments that involve people that were lost or went missing at sea. the odds of corse favor that people drown and are never recovered. the irony of this segment is the person that was most likely to die was recovered. He should have stayed with his buddies and not expended that much energy, but in the end his actions were rewarded because he found a floating device that kept him alive long enough to be rescued.

I am skeptical about the ship on the horizon. If it was a legit freighter picking up the other men they would have made it home sooner rather than later. And if it was some sort of smuggling vessel it wouldn't have stopped at all as drug dealers don't like to attract attention. Neesmith was hallucinating, most likely.

The phone calls are also hard to take seriously - not that they didn't occur, but they were probably pranks.

I'm going with the others drowning and Neesmith got very lucky finding the floating box.

I am skeptical about the ship on the horizon. If it was a legit freighter picking up the other men they would have made it home sooner rather than later. And if it was some sort of smuggling vessel it wouldn't have stopped at all as drug dealers don't like to attract attention. Neesmith was hallucinating, most likely.

The phone calls are also hard to take seriously - not that they didn't occur, but they were probably pranks.

I'm going with the others drowning and Neesmith got very lucky finding the floating box.

Agreed. Not normally a believer in hallucinations or mirages being common things that just happen for no reason, but in Nathan Neesmith's case it was much more plausible given he was sick at the time and likely dehydrated as well as suffering from hunger.

As for the freighter getting them home, I think the argument was that it was from a hostile foreign country. Explaining the Spanish phone calls. But if so what country was it from? If it was, Cuba would seem like the most likely candidate. But this was off the coast of Georgia if I'm not mistaken, would a Cuban freighter have even been that far north? And anything across the ocean from a hostile foreign country would have been unlikely to be that close to the US coast in those days. Most of the islands in that vicinity are US territories and would have been unlikely to take Americans prisoner or anything.

Anything is possible, but you are likely right in that there was no freighter and the calls were probably a prank.

Agreed. Not normally a believer in hallucinations or mirages being common things that just happen for no reason, but in Nathan Neesmith's case it was much more plausible given he was sick at the time and likely dehydrated as well as suffering from hunger.

As for the freighter getting them home, I think the argument was that it was from a hostile foreign country. Explaining the Spanish phone calls. But if so what country was it from? If it was, Cuba would seem like the most likely candidate. But this was off the coast of Georgia if I'm not mistaken, would a Cuban freighter have even been that far north? And anything across the ocean from a hostile foreign country would have been unlikely to be that close to the US coast in those days. Most of the islands in that vicinity are US territories and would have been unlikely to take Americans prisoner or anything.

Anything is possible, but you are likely right in that there was no freighter and the calls were probably a prank.

For the freighter, I think it could of been real, it didn't necessarily have to be a smuggling situation. it could of been several different legitimate scenarios for a ship to be there. of corse the ship may not have ever seen anyone because his mates could have been out of sight or already gone. it's not as if the people on the freighter were aware of people being there, so the idea that they would have picked them up is a hopeful one. but it is also possible that it was a dream. Some people while asleep, have realistic dreams that are basically similar to a (waking) hallucination, especially when stress or sleep deprivation is involved. In those cases, it's hard to distinguish what is actually real because the dream centers around your actual state of being.

I don't know how it can be unsolved to be honest. Either Nathan deliberately killed his own family members for reasons that make no sense and THEN basically risked his own life in the process........................or everything he says is true.

I always lean to the latter side. Things happen in boats, they can sink (Titanic anyone?). This isn't new. Granted they should have been prepared more, but they were young men. Maybe a little risky, although Nathan was a married father of two. But they also may have been a little drunk when all of this happened. That is a good possibility too.

For me it never has been about that ship Nathan saw. No one knows how close it was to the actual 3 other guys. They may not have seen them out at sea. Or who knows, they could have even drowned by then. But I think the explanation is simple. They drowned, got eaten by a shark, or just simply died of thirst. All three of those men no question about it died horrible deaths where they would have been petrified the last day or two of their life. I guess the only question would be if they did die at sea and they were wearing life jackets why weren't they found floating? Like I said, a sea animal taking care of them perhaps even after they died was as good of an explanation as any. I don't buy into them being picked up by a ship and being used as prisoners.

Perhaps Nathan shouldn't have left them, but what he did saved his life, and what he did was awfully risky. But doing nothing was risky too. He had a life jacket, so I am not sure why people think it was impossible for him to swim that far. It isn't as if he couldn't rest. My personal feeling is that they all should have stuck together. But I don't think anything sinister happened to the other men, it was just tragic.

I don't buy into the phone calls. Probably just a bad prank. People can be sick.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I believe those phone calls were real and related to the missing men.

I don't think that caller was necessarily someone with firsthand knowledge of the men and/or their ultimate fate. I think he could have been someone with a limited command of English who may have thought he recognized one of the men from a newspaper or TV account, although he was almost certainly mistaken. I actually think that's more likely than someone making an intention to mess with not only the family of at least two of the missing men, but the owner of the boat itself over several months. Had there been a single phone call to say, the Nesmith family that consisted of something of greater substance than Spanish and someone repeating names and phone numbers, I think I'd be more willing to write it off as a prank.

I agree with you. I believe the others did survive and were taken captive. The phone calls were not coincidental it was someone trying to reach the families of these guys to get them help. I agree with the lady in the segment..someone made a dear friend who put themselves on the line.

I agree with you. I believe the others did survive and were taken captive. The phone calls were not coincidental it was someone trying to reach the families of these guys to get them help. I agree with the lady in the segment..someone made a dear friend who put themselves on the line.

Why did they stop in 1991 then? And why not elaborate more than "I am bringing them home" or however it went?

Why did they stop in 1991 then? And why not elaborate more than "I am bringing them home" or however it went?

I too have wondered this for some time. The calls ended as fast as they began, it seemed

The idea that 4 men fishing roughly in this (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Richmond+Hill/31.7118667,-80.6848167/@31.8024336,-82.0053924,7.08z/data=!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x88fb0f1094ead343:0x94ed3d8d06c85a9!2m2!1d-81.3034433!2d31.9382652!1m0!3e4?entry=ttu) area were abducted by foreigners passing through undetected by the United States is just utterly laughable. People are lost at sea all the time. Three Americans (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/search-suspended-3-missing-american-sailors-mexican-coast-rcna80570) were lost at sea this year. No trace of them or their boat has been found. What doesn't happen is Americans being abducted at sea roughly 90 miles away from American soil.

Additionally, the idea of them being held indefinitely in Cuba starts heading into the wacky world of conspiracy theories about POWs being held in Vietnam well past the end of the conflict.
What to these governments stand to gain by holding these prisoners and never making demands? They're passing up a bargaining chip worth billions (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/americans-freed-iran-prisoner-swap-arrive-back-us-rcna105751) potentially.

That would be a good idea, but I'm not sure phone companies keep phone records that long, we're talking at least 30 years ago. :confused:

Fixed it for ya ;)

I keep coming about to something Kneesmith claims. He seen the hull of the Casie Nicole 3 to 4 miles away and swims back to it. Kneesmith's a big guy, I'm doubt he'd have the stamina to swim that distance. And this part confuses me; why'd he swim BACK to the boat? It's upside down....??

Not forgetting he says he survived 4 days without food or water. I'm happy to be proven wrong, I'm not saying he's responsible for the 3 missing men, just parts of his story doesn't make sence to me.

Watching Nathan speak, he comes off as really stiff to me. He may or may not be lying, but I feel he is not telling everything he knows. Take that however you want.

I also wonder why you guys blindly believe anyone coming on here claiming to be someone's relative. How would you have any way of knowing if they are telling the truth.

Watching Nathan speak, he comes off as really stiff to me. He may or may not be lying, but I feel he is not telling everything he knows. Take that however you want.

I also wonder why you guys blindly believe anyone coming on here claiming to be someone's relative. How would you have any way of knowing if they are telling the truth.

I would imagine Nathan did the best that he could to recall the event. it was traumatic so he may not have been able to recall every detail, especially once he was suffering from hunger and dehydration.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I often give people the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be a relative. you raise a fair point, it could be possible that people are lying, but IDK that the juice is worth the squeeze to counter them in the event that they are indeed telling the truth.

I keep coming about to something Kneesmith claims. He seen the hull of the Casie Nicole 3 to 4 miles away and swims back to it. Kneesmith's a big guy, I'm doubt he'd have the stamina to swim that distance. And this part confuses me; why'd he swim BACK to the boat? It's upside down....??

Not forgetting he says he survived 4 days without food or water. I'm happy to be proven wrong, I'm not saying he's responsible for the 3 missing men, just parts of his story doesn't make sence to me.

There is no way of knowing the exact distance he swam, he was just estimating. My guess is it was probably not that far, it just likely felt that far to him in his situation.

Even if it was, you'd be amazed the stamina people can muster when its a life or death situation. I mean you basically hold nothing back at all in that instance.

As to why he swam back to the boat, I honestly can't remember the reason he gave, I thought it was because they decided they had to split up and would have a better chance of flagging down help or the raft couldn't hold them all, not sure.

I personally don't think he did anything to them, no convincing motive was ever raised and when they found him he was close to death. I doubt he would have put himself that much at risk to do that, its only luck he was found in time.

I think his reasoning for swimming back to the boat was that it would increase their chances of being rescued because someone would notice a floating hull of a boat more than maybe seeing a small life raft floating. The raft had a hole in it and was sinking. I also found this (https://www.royalgazette.com/other/news/article/20110209/familys-search-for-missing-fishermen-extends-to-bermuda/) article which has Nathan giving a perfectly reasonable reason as to why he left the other three men (not mentioned on UM):

They also rounded up two 21 feet by six feet hatch covers made of plywood and covered on one side with styrofoam, plastic polyball markers, a plastic foam cooler and anything else that would float.

Then, using nylon rope they had taken along, the crew strung together a raft, figuring they could survive for a few days. But the raft could not accommodate all four men.

"The other three could sit on it with their legs hanging into the water and they were OK,'' Nathan NeeSmith later told The Macon Telegraph. "But I weigh about 250 pounds, and if I had tried to get on, it would have gone under.'' Their plight was complicated by two other factors -- Wilkes developed an acute case of leg cramps so he needed to stay on the raft and Brantley could not swim.

What I find odd is that Nathan was rescued 3 days after the boat sank on a Sunday morning. The other men had life jackets and a floating raft that could fit the three of them. They also had food. Why was no trace of them or the mockshift raft that they constructed ever found? There was no mention of bad weather either.

I don't think we can conclude from Nathan's account that he was lying. He may have gotten something wrong with his recap, who knows. and he made the right decision considering he was able to rest and was rescued. The question about this case is and will always be what happened to the others. I assume they perished at sea and were never found.

I think his reasoning for swimming back to the boat was that it would increase their chances of being rescued because someone would notice a floating hull of a boat more than maybe seeing a small life raft floating. The raft had a hole in it and was sinking. I also found this (https://www.royalgazette.com/other/news/article/20110209/familys-search-for-missing-fishermen-extends-to-bermuda/) article which has Nathan giving a perfectly reasonable reason as to why he left the other three men (not mentioned on UM):



What I find odd is that Nathan was rescued 3 days after the boat sank on a Sunday morning. The other men had life jackets and a floating raft that could fit the three of them. They also had food. Why was no trace of them or the mockshift raft that they constructed ever found? There was no mention of bad weather either.

I get that too. No trace of the others. That's strange. I don't think Nathan is guilty of anything though. He nearly died himself and that would have been horrible circumstances for the 3 days that he was at sea. You'd have to be praying that the thing he was floating in doesn't go upside down or that bad weather happens or that a shark attack doesn't take place (increases at night). Not to mention literally dying of thirst. It was three days, I'd suggest he had mere hours left to live before getting saved. So I don't think anything sinister was done by him. But where the heck are the others? I believe they were 90 miles off the Atlantic coast. Alright, that's a lot of ground to cover, but they apparently did search and found nothing?

I don't think we can conclude from Nathan's account that he was lying. He may have gotten something wrong with his recap, who knows. and he made the right decision considering he was able to rest and was rescued. The question about this case is and will always be what happened to the others. I assume they perished at sea and were never found.

Right. But no signs of anything? Even a shark attack on them would leave clothes behind or a ripped up lifejacket you would think. Especially since they did a huge search for them afterwards.

I get that too. No trace of the others. That's strange. I don't think Nathan is guilty of anything though. He nearly died himself and that would have been horrible circumstances for the 3 days that he was at sea. You'd have to be praying that the thing he was floating in doesn't go upside down or that bad weather happens or that a shark attack doesn't take place (increases at night). Not to mention literally dying of thirst. It was three days, I'd suggest he had mere hours left to live before getting saved. So I don't think anything sinister was done by him. But where the heck are the others? I believe they were 90 miles off the Atlantic coast. Alright, that's a lot of ground to cover, but they apparently did search and found nothing?



Right. But no signs of anything? Even a shark attack on them would leave clothes behind or a ripped up lifejacket you would think. Especially since they did a huge search for them afterwards.

yeah and I agree it defies logic. a lot of people expect to find a body. but we know in many other segments as well people were lost at sea and never found. Sara Joe, Amy Bradley, Alcatraz, to name just a few. there are probably more. perhaps not the same, but we have had some horrible river floods close to where I live in Texas and many people died. some were never found.

yeah and I agree it defies logic. a lot of people expect to find a body. but we know in many other segments as well people were lost at sea and never found. Sara Joe, Amy Bradley, Alcatraz, to name just a few. there are probably more. perhaps not the same, but we have had some horrible river floods close to where I live in Texas and many people died. some were never found.

Could be something different with Amy Bradley, kidnapped/murder, etc. but I see what you mean. There are tons of bodies of murdered people thrown into the sea/lakes with anchors that sink them to the bottom. Many we have never found, nor will ever. 90 miles when you think of it is a long ways away from the coastline, who knows with currents and weather patterns where they would drift but it does baffle me that of all three that none of them had a trace of them show up. They didn't all die at the same time I assume. Or drown. Anyway, it is a baffling case. I've never suspected Nathan is lying though. It is possible he knows more, but the question would be what would that be? He almost perished himself.

I often wonder if Nathan Neesmith was hallucinating the ship he saw. He had been in the sun, dehydrated, and very tired from swimming.

The calls to the boat owner and to the sister could have been cruel pranks.

I often wonder if Nathan Neesmith was hallucinating the ship he saw. He had been in the sun, dehydrated, and very tired from swimming.

The calls to the boat owner and to the sister could have been cruel pranks.

True. Not to mention that is simply just guessing that the ship would have seen them. I also think that a ship doing illegal activity would not be interested in picking up people lost at sea. To me he may have seen the ship, but it was so far off in the distance and he really didn't know how far his friends would have drifted at that point.