Theories Discussion > General Discussion
Book "1079"
Ziljoe:
--- Quote from: ahabmyth on May 22, 2025, 01:41:27 AM ---The theory about a tree causing the injuries can be thrown out of the window I think.
From what I have seen there is'nt any tree around at this elevation. Probably looking at 1klm from the top before any scrub like trees are found.
--- End quote ---
I think you might have miss understood teddy's book and explanation.
Teddy proposes that the hickers followed their original route . They did not pitch their tent on the slope where it was later found.That is ,they went over the pass which is to the east of boot rock. They got to the ceder with skis and their tent and this is where they pitched the tent . The tent is designed to be hung between two trees .
Where the two Yuri's were found, next to the ceder there is another large ceder that had fallen. From checking the growth rings, teddy found that the tree fell in 1958-59 but did not have a full growth ring for 1959 . Plus the tree can be seen on the ground in the 1959 search photos in late February.
Coincidence,perhaps..... but there is more to it and it will take a bit of reading to understand which is worth the investment.
bertie:
Ahabmyth, why on earth are you posting in the book thread, when you have no idea what this book is about?
Go and find something more constructive to do.
GlennM:
Bertie, perhaps you could, in a nutshell explain to our forum friend the two theories regarding the tent ?
GlennM:
Ahabmyth, congratulations on making a brief summary of the 1079 theory. Every one of your numbered questions has been addresses in the forum at sometime or another. The important difference is that in Teddy's 1079 theory, the unknown compelling force is the treefall. Alternately, on the slope where the tent was discovered, the unknown compelling force is unidentified and an open question.
One would expect that a fallen tree would leave evidence upon the tent, and those injured inside would leave evidence upon the tent inside.There is nothing in the case files to suggest a tree fell on the tent, nor blood stains within the tent. The tent was kept for a long time before being discarded. In all that time, no one pursued that line of inquiry and looked form supporting evidence.
There is also a question about crushed material items not being found.
In either situation, slope or woods, there are actions you would expect reasonable people to do. In each case, there is nothing we can point to that says, " because of this one partical truth, be it a person, place or thing, the tragedy had to have happened this certain way". This is why sometimes we take the grand view and other times we pick nits. Do not dispair, the Jack the Ripper mystery is older.
ahabmyth:
Thanks for that GlennM ,I am going to find it hard to find all my numbered questions in the case files.
I have already solved Jack the Ripper case .
Trees fell on all these 6 women and it just happened that the same guy was in the area and tried to help. He was a tree removalist that used to do artwork on tree stumps and was incredibly smart with a chainsaw.
Anyhow back to the tree theory which IMHO was impossible.
"If" the two trees that the tent was anchored to were roughly the same size and I heard somewhere they were 15+ mtrs tall , the tent being 4mtrs long, the (now known fallen tree ) if it indeed was rotten and fell on the tent it wouldnt have fallen in a straight line as branches would force the tree to one side and perhaps hit nobody. Only people who were 2-3 mtrs away from the tent would be injured or crushed. And like you say there were no pine needles (which are hard to find on cedars) on the tent. And by the way if they rolled the tree off the injured they would find the rotten tree was dry enough for fuel.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version