Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of my questions is why someone who is bald would be out in the hot sun without a hat. I suppose a hat could have been knocked off in a scuffle. But no one has seen this guy.
I think you are right. There has been no sketch. There has been no further news about the suspect.
Because of this, I have come to believe her story is fishy. Why she would subject herself to this is beyond me.
However, at least some of the story seems likely to be untrue.
One of my questions is why someone who is bald would be out in the hot sun without a hat. I suppose a hat could have been knocked off in a scuffle. But no one has seen this guy.
At first I thought surely this happened as they say. Now I am not so sure.
She described him as very tanned skin.
Sometimes people who tan intentionally or easily don't think they need sun protection.
Could she really have been unable to guesstimate how long she'd been running/escaping, and roughly how much distance that travel time had covered? I guess if you're lost in the wilderness, you have no idea which direction to go in. Like the Maui hiker, who only wandered slightly off the trail, and suddenly had no idea which direction to go in, to get back. Plus, she would have feared that the bad guy could be waiting for her back there. Except, he wouldn't be, because the place, as far as she knew, was crawling with police and searchers (she could see the helicopters). And she said she was no longer worried about him, after the first day.
The Maui case and this one are very different.
The woman in Hawaii was lost in tropical rainforest, essentially jungle, with foliage blocking long-range views and forming a complete canopy. In comparison, the White Mountains are semi-arid. There just isn't enough water to support an actual forest. The area she was in is best described as woodland, but the trees are widely spaced. The canopy is only about 50% complete in the densest areas, and there are many places where it's significantly less than that - including scattered entirely open areas. Also, there's not much underbrush. The woman in Maui wouldn't have been able to see 30 feet, or see the sky. The woman in the Whites should have been able to see hundreds of feet in any direction, and would never have been more than 50 feet or so away from open sky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
I don't get this part. Her hands should be ripped to shreds from cactus spines.
No, of all the problems with this story, that isn't one of them. At 8500' in the Whites, the cacti she found would probably have been prickly pears (sp. Opuntia). We're not talking barrel cacti, or similar fearsomely thorned cacti of the low, hot deserts. This is a prickly pear, with fruit (see below). It is not difficult to carefully pick up one of the cladodes (the large pieces) without getting poked, much less 'ripped to shreds'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy
Part of the problem is the sloppy journalism. I just saw an article which said she "found a spring with stagnant water" lol.
I've seen many such springs. Some springs have a very low flow (they're often called 'seeps' for that very reason) and do not produce surface water at all. In other cases, a small pool might form and be stagnant water. This is especially so when artificial tanks have been created to collect the water. If the flow is very low, it will stagnate. This is not uncommon at all.
I suspect there's some things incorrect about her story (ie, omissions, embellishments, or both) but armchair Colombo's who are unfamiliar with the outdoors should have enough self-awareness to refrain from making pronouncements about things they simply do not understand.
I've seen many such springs. Some springs have a very low flow (they're often called 'seeps' for that very reason) and do not produce surface water at all. In other cases, a small pool might form and be stagnant water. This is especially so when artificial tanks have been created to collect the water. If the flow is very low, it will stagnate. This is not uncommon at all.
I suspect there's some things incorrect about her story (ie, omissions, embellishments, or both) but armchair Colombo's who are unfamiliar with the outdoors should have enough self-awareness to refrain from making pronouncements about things they simply do not understand.
This woman was shown in an interview stating that the water "tasted good." Stagnant water doesn't taste good, unless you really like algae and mosquito larvae.
No, of all the problems with this story, that isn't one of them. At 8500' in the Whites, the cacti she found would probably have been prickly pears (sp. Opuntia). We're not talking barrel cacti, or similar fearsomely thorned cacti of the low, hot deserts. This is a prickly pear, with fruit (see below). It is not difficult to carefully pick up one of the cladodes (the large pieces) without getting poked, much less 'ripped to shreds'.
Thanks for the photo, those are very pretty. Are pp's fruiting in that area now? What I've found online says harvest is in August but I assume that varies a little according to climate.
L
I'm beginning to think the term "avid hiker" when applied to her means that when placed on a trail with companions, she can hike a good long way.
She is from Huntington beach. When I lived in Orange county I knew quite a few "avid hikers," who had rarely if ever been off a paved trail. Many "avid hikers mostly hiked the various beach boardwalks or the short trials at Irvine Park.
Avid can mean you hike a lot, or you really like the idea of hiking. It does not necessarily imply any knowledge or common sense. A lot of wilderness hikers you encounter have no knowledge or common sense, They just go out there and walk around and if they are lucky, they do not die (or someone happens along and helps them get out of whatever mess they got into).
By the way, it is extremely easy to get lost and lose your sense of direction in the scrubby foothills, especially if you get into a canyon where you cannot see the sun.
I have been lost out there (in the scrubby foothills, not necessarily this particular location) a time or two, but eventually found my way back (using a compass). It is crazy dangerous to walk around in the dark, even with moonlight. I was not concerned about rattlesnakes because I wear high leather hiking boots, but it is super easy to turn an ankle or take a tumble down a steep incline. One loose rock and you are toast. turn your ankle and you could die (although I never went an inch off an established trail unless I had at least one person with me. Also very easy to get into a canyon or ravine from which there is no way out (Funny side story, once while lost and stuck in a ravine we could not climb out of in the middle of nowhere, we found a jeep in the ravine. It must have washed down from somewhere else. It looked like it had just come off a street yesterday. It was clean and not buried at all, but the registration tag on the plates was several years old. The jeep had a heavy rope in it that we used to climb out of the ravine. We reported the jeep, but we could not tell them where it was since we had no idea.
Another interesting thing is that she was only 2.5 miles away after 3 or 4 days. Was she walking in circles? Even in the worst terrain you can make 2.5 miles in half a day.
No, of all the problems with this story, that isn't one of them. At 8500' in the Whites, the cacti she found would probably have been prickly pears (sp. Opuntia). We're not talking barrel cacti, or similar fearsomely thorned cacti of the low, hot deserts. This is a prickly pear, with fruit (see below). It is not difficult to carefully pick up one of the cladodes (the large pieces) without getting poked, much less 'ripped to shreds'.
Have you ever tried this? (clearly not). They are not just laying around waiting to be "picked up." They are firmly attached. You cut them off with a serrated knife by sawing at it. The skin is tough like leather and the spines and hairs are nasty. If you did manage to break one off without getting poked (harder than you would think to accomplish), you cannot just put it in your mouth with the spines still attached. It is not soft and biteable like an apple, you have to cut through the skin to get at the pulp inside. You also have to remove the airs. The hairs cause a condition similar to a rash on your hands. I cannot imagine what it would do to your mouth. Even the insides of the tails are not something you just munch on, They are tough and you have to remove the spine hair and skin to eat them. It is a PIA but not impossible to do with tools, but not with bare hands.
Imagining eating one based on photos is pretty easy. The reality is a bit different.
Maybe she meant she smashed the cactus fruit? Doesn't the fruit also have spines? How would you eat it without getting spines all in your hands?
The fruit does have a seedy center. If you smashed the fruit open you would find a different looking center. You can eat the seeds, but they do not digest (you do not want to know how I know this). You can eat the entire fruit except the skin. I do not think there are spine on the fruit, at least not enough to be a concern.
Not sure if you can eat the unripe fruit. Never tried.
It might make more sense if she said she just ate the fruit, but she said she ate the pads (or tails because they look like beaver tails) as well. Pretty sure she really does not know anything about them and just made up the description. It would be hard to get it that wrong if you had ever eaten one, or even examined one closely.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 07-18-2019 at 02:47 PM..
One of my questions is why someone who is bald would be out in the hot sun without a hat. I suppose a hat could have been knocked off in a scuffle. But no one has seen this guy.
.
Are you bald? How did you think of that?
I used to hike with a bald friend and he never removed his hat for that reason, but I did not think of this before. Everyone wears a hat (if they are smart) but the bald guy would never take his off, not even for a minute. Mostly he was afraid he would lose it.
Of course that does make me realize that maybe the bald assailant lost his hat. They are pretty easy to lose. I have left a number of them out there someplace.
What I also do not get is why he would not be wearing sunglasses. (Maybe he was, I do not remember seeing that int he "description").
Too much of this is hauntingly similar to a bad western or survival in the wilderness movie. Bad guy is big and bald. Eating/drinking from cacti to survive. Waving at the helicopter that is too far away to see you (happens in pretty much every getting lost movie). Also the big 8" knife with a black handle. (not clear how she saw the handle). Who carries that? Hikers normally carry multi tools or at least a close-able pocket knife. A big knife like that gets in the way and serves no purpose. Another than throwing or stabbing people it does nthing a pocket kife will not do. They are for divers or for 14 year old wanna be cowboys in Texas who think it looks BA to carry one. Maybe he was a scuba diver who fell out of one of those firefighting planes the scoops up water out of the ocean and dumps it on the flaming forest. It fits the description of a dive knife.
Possible, but another highly unlikely bit to her story. Where did the knife come from? Was he just out walking around carrying a knife and happened to come across her? If he was carrying it in a sheath while hiking, it would have to be around the side so it does not interfere with leg movement. It would also have to be buckled in place or it would get lost along with his hat.
I do not understand why she was not attacked by a bear, or mountain lion or at least a snake. All of the good movies include an attack by a beast after escaping from the bad guy. Also why didn't she spell out "Help" with rocks or cacti or something. That works in lots of movies. They even did that on Gilligan's island.
It is hard to make up a story these days when you instantly have 10,000 critics. I wrote a short fiction book. I carefully researched everything that I did not already know. How many rounds in a particular type of gun, what is the bullet drop rate, can you do a person to person direct blood transfusion*. . . I had a lot of people read it and look for inconsistencies and incorrect events. Still all kinds of people found all kinds of hole in my story. You just cannot get away with making things up anymore.
* technically, you can if you have the right set up, but no one will do it because it is way too dangerous. I had them do it anyway because i had already written a while series of events based on a person to person transfusion before I asked myself - It that even possible?
This lady should have asked herself that question fifty times over and done some research before coming out with her story.
this entire scenario reminds me very much of the two women who got lost at sea. their story was full of holes and many people called them out on the inconsistencies or obvious falsehoods. Other people defended them claiming their story was possible and you should not be such naysayers. the debate went on for weeks. It turned out they were lying.
Last edited by Coldjensens; 07-18-2019 at 03:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
