Theories Discussion > General Discussion
Hubris and risk taking?
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: Axelrod on September 09, 2024, 08:26:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ziljoe on September 09, 2024, 08:00:34 AM ---If it was the weather , then they would know the shelter of the treeline was only a mile away, so that would be the best option.
--- End quote ---
Russians don't think/talk in miles or Fahrenheits.
Fahrenheit is always a book, a movie, or an incomprehensible temperature. Miles are bonuses for air travel.
--- End quote ---
Sorry axelrod. The tree line was approximately 1 mile or 1.6 Km away from the tent. ( That would be approximately 3,520 cubits to you , if that helps axelrod ).
GlennM:
Based on personal histories of the DP9 we find an outspoken assertive woman very politically inclined. We find a young man bold enough to turn into a stampede and face the rush. We have capricious behavior on the train to dodge the ticket taker. We have enough " personality" to involve the police. I have the idea that the feeling of youthful invincibility was very present.
Gètting to Ortoten in winter and thereby being the first to do so was compelling. The decision to take the ridge route and travel light is all well and good provided every essential piece of equipment works. The stress on the tent was a calculated risk, but the strength of wind and coldness were two variables that could not be compensated for.
Too, I have trouble with the suggestion of murder, always have. For me, it requires many additiinal additional assumptions.
Ziljoe:
A fair summary. For me the biggest risk was having no contingency plan if someone broke a leg for example . Due to the distance it would be difficult for the hikers to split and raise an alarm.
I guess back in 1959 perspectives were different and people took risks that we don't today . I don't see the route or terrain as technically difficult or dangerous but the winter and weather conditions are the biggest threat and everything points to nature and ultimately the cold taking their lives.
GlennM:
I suppose that if the tent were damaged on 1079, there would be little use in trying to remain in it. Further, it strikes me as very strange to think the hikers cut their way out of the tent with large gashes. Why? Well, assuming they survived whatever drove them to butcher their shelter in the first place, then(1) what were they going to use to sleep in while getting off 1079 and back to Vizhay? (2) How are they going to explain away and pay for ruining their tent, once they return home?
If the tent was cut by the rescuers when they discovered it and also torn later when dragged overland to be helicoptered out, could it be that we may be wrong in our assumptions about the tent?
This line of thought suggests they were determined to secure bragging rights on rounding Ororten in winter. They were pushed back a day by the weather. They then made forward progress only to be weighted down by a snow slide at night. They made for the shelter of the forest until the weather cleared. Three opted to return, the rest waited. It ended badly for all for the sake of rounding Ortoten in winter.
Axelrod:
If you assume freezing, then the main problem is that the temperature on February 1 was not so cold at the nearest weather station.
Then the question arises, why did they freeze on that date.
Why didn't they freeze on the previous days of the hike, when the nights were colder.
It would be clear that they froze on the night of February 5-6, their bodies were found on the morning of February 6 and the prosecutor opened a criminal case.
That would be clear.
Of course, we don't have data on the temperature in that place, if there is a significant deviation,
then we can study the deviations in the coming winter and compare them with the data at a distance of 100 km.
The idea of the situation does not match the data and evidence. Almost everything does not match there.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version