no mystery here

[David Harper]

 The camping stove filled the tent with smoke.  They panicked and left in a blizzard. Period. Anyone who doesn't think so is a conspiracy idiot.

[Ziljoe]

The camping stove filled the tent with smoke.  They panicked and left in a blizzard. Period. Anyone who doesn't think so is a conspiracy idiot.

I'm a conspiracy idiot then. Where do I sign?

[Mars]

How was the smoke from the stove, if the stove was not lit at all that night?   

[ElizabethHarris]

I thought one of the mysteries was that they had NOT used the stove. In fact, they didn't even have it in the tent with them. Read more about the evidence as it was found. I think you missed that one.

[Manti]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I think the stove was found in the tent.. but in an unassembled state. This might mean they didn't assemble it yet, but wanted to (there was a log of firewood found next to the tent); or that they used it and disassembled it. Or... that they didn't even want to use it. Why store it in the tent though? I imagine it's very uncomfortable to bump into / step on...

As for

The camping stove filled the tent with smoke.  They panicked and left in a blizzard. Period. Anyone who doesn't think so is a conspiracy idiot.

The thing is that it was very cold. And also windy. If there was smoke, it makes sense to leave the tent in a panic, cut it to air it out, also somehow put out the fire in the stove... but it was found in a disassembled position, so that's one inconsistent detail. If the stove produced smoke, it must have been hot, so they couldn't have disassembled it for quite a while.

Another one is that they went all the way to the forest without putting on their coats.. surely the tent would air out in a minute in that wind, enough to grab a few coats?

Also there is no explanation in this course of events of why they would have died. We know tent didn't burn, so why didn't they return to it after a while?

[GlennM]

...and if a tree fell on them, how interesting that the stove, or vent pipe showed no crushing.

[Tony]

The camping stove filled the tent with smoke.  They panicked and left in a blizzard. Period. Anyone who doesn't think so is a conspiracy idiot.

Ah, the old Lemmino stove theory. The stove was never used that night. This is heavily documented in the case files. When searchers showed up the stove was found disassembled and in it's case. Why they didn't use it is a mystery but it doesn't change the fact that there isn't an ounce of evidence to show that it was used on that particular night. The tent never filled with smoke. Anyone who thinks so has never read the case files. You don't have to be a "conspiracy idiot" to disagree with this one.

Not to mention, you'd have to be some kind of rube to destroy your only shelter and walk a mile in sub zero temperatures in socks and no coat over a bunch of smoke. Just open the entrance.

[ElizabethHarris]

Tony, thank you for the mid-morning chuckle. I just put down a book last night that spends nearly 200 pages explaining how things happened due to the stove smoking them out of the tent. Can you imagine writing an entire book about something without knowing even the basic facts of the case?? I forget the title but it's something about "A New Theory." Yeah, it's never been mentioned as a theory before because everyone knows it is not what happened.

[Manti]

I have not heard of that book but it might be that it was written before the case files made it to the public domain?