Recent Posts

1

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on Today at 10:00:46 PM »

My diffuculty with the descent to the woods theory is Otorten. If they could spend one cold night and then get to Ortoten, they would be in a better condition for the return trip.

 Sending someone on 1079 out in lousy conditions in snow and ice for a couple of miles, half of which was uphill speaks of remarkably poor planning and unnecessary risk taking for the comfort of those in the tent. After all, they did eat and they had their clothes. Nobody was going to die in that tent, all things considered. For me, what changed was a snow slide which impacted the tent and resulted in sufficient doubt of their safety.

There are parts of your theory that do fit nicely with the facts.

Traversing difficult terrain is what they were in for, and on that particular day the would have had the time and energy due to having set up camp early.
As for incentive - Though I haven't yet found an official statement of just how much wood was in the tent, I remember reading they had one log, that they had carried with them from their previous camp. If they had to carry wood it means they couldn't rely on it being readily available. They didn't just need wood for that night but possibly for their next camp as well. With the extra time available to them, and the nearby woods, a 3 km hike seems worth the effort. And yes half of it is uphill, but half of it is downhill.

2

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 08:00:35 PM »

It was not necessary to climb to a height of 4-5 m to get firewood.

And yet... They did climb that tree, to a height of 4-5m, and broke branches off it. That is part of the evidence.

It makes sense to get fire wood from the ceder tree. The branches that are broken were probably the easiest to break, they would be the driest on the tree as they faced the wind which would have caused windburn etc.. . The ceder branches were reported to have been burned and the bodies were found on an insulation layer of gree branches . There would also be sap in the branches which would aid with starting a fire. 5 meters is not that high and it's especially not high if wood is needed .

3

Maps and charts / Re: Brand spanking new Google map not.

« Last post by Ziljoe on Today at 07:53:09 PM »

Someone must have noticed this or am I missing something.

As we (me) can clearly see the location of the bodies are back to front , as in Zina, Slobodin and Igor were going "up" the hill to the tent.

This hand drawn picture is from somewhere around the location of the tent . It looks down towards the ceder. Zina is the closest to the tent . The hill to  1079 is out of view and two the right of the picture . On the far right of the drawing we can see boot rock in the little formation . Hope that helps.

4

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by GlennM on Today at 07:14:51 PM »

My diffuculty with the descent to the woods theory is Otorten. If they could spend one cold night and then get to Ortoten, they would be in a better condition for the return trip.

 Sending someone on 1079 out in lousy conditions in snow and ice for a couple of miles, half of which was uphill speaks of remarkably poor planning and unnecessary risk taking for the comfort of those in the tent. After all, they did eat and they had their clothes. Nobody was going to die in that tent, all things considered. For me, what changed was a snow slide which impacted the tent and resulted in sufficient doubt of their safety.

There are parts of your theory that do fit nicely with the facts.

5

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by OLD JEDI 72 on Today at 06:59:41 PM »

Maybe they wanted live branches to use as clubs or they were clearing away branches to be able to observe the tent area uphill. Kinda hard to burn live wood. Which makes me wonder how the heck they even started a fire with only matches.

6

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on Today at 06:16:23 PM »

It was not necessary to climb to a height of 4-5 m to get firewood.

And yet... They did climb that tree, to a height of 4-5m, and broke branches off it. That is part of the evidence.

7

Maps and charts / Re: Brand spanking new Google map not.

« Last post by ahabmyth on Today at 05:26:50 PM »

Someone must have noticed this or am I missing something.

As we (me) can clearly see the location of the bodies are back to front , as in Zina, Slobodin and Igor were going "up" the hill to the tent.

8

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by SURI on Today at 02:32:02 PM »

It was not necessary to climb to a height of 4-5 m to get firewood.

9

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by ZuriDog on Today at 10:40:42 AM »

Except those nearby woods were 1 1/2klm away and over an area strewn with jagged rocks and I think a ravine. Igor would have been aware of this as he had been there before and even had his alternative route which I think they took.
As for climbing up the tree, well someone had to collect wood but looking around at the available pics we have, there seems to me to be quite a reasonable amount of it around the tree, and a lot safer than climbing a tree which must have had one side covered in snow and also the chance of having the snow laden tree itself shaking off of its load , which is probably the cause of someone falling off. And these were experienced hikers.

You noticed that correctly. The tree was not climbed for firewood.

The group diary says - what can be found on the ground is too damp to be of use.

Also looking at pictures of the cedar scene, none of the trees appear to have any significant amount of snow on them

10

General Discussion / Re: Wood Expedition Theory

« Last post by SURI on Today at 09:11:03 AM »

Except those nearby woods were 1 1/2klm away and over an area strewn with jagged rocks and I think a ravine. Igor would have been aware of this as he had been there before and even had his alternative route which I think they took.
As for climbing up the tree, well someone had to collect wood but looking around at the available pics we have, there seems to me to be quite a reasonable amount of it around the tree, and a lot safer than climbing a tree which must have had one side covered in snow and also the chance of having the snow laden tree itself shaking off of its load , which is probably the cause of someone falling off. And these were experienced hikers.

You noticed that correctly. The tree was not climbed for firewood.