What happened to this California family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the Websleuths video that you're all in an uproar about. Despite your outrage, one common trail element from start to finish is that the majority of the trail is very narrow (single file) with sporadic openings near river and elsewhere.

There are two trails at the start. To support a pp that enlightened us on the possibility of choosing the wrong trail, I posted a map showing where their car was parked relative to the two trail start options. To the left of their parked vehicle is Hites Cove Road, the easier path that loops around to the river with steep inclines at Devil's Gulch Savage-Lundy. OR to the right of their parked vehicle is Hites Cove Trail (not Road) where one would follow the trail and descend Devil's Gulch Savage-Lundy, loop to river and around to exit on Hites Cove Road

Below is a link to the satellite map view. Search terms: Hites Cove Devils Gulch Savage-Lundy. Don't use an apostrophe in the word Devils because it populates a different map on my end, maybe not yours.

When you view link, it will show the default satellite view. Use two fingers to zoom in/out, and move the map left/right. To the left, you'll see Hites Cove Road trail start, surrounding area, Darrah Park, heliport. To the right you'll see Hites Cove Trail (not Road). Zooming as much as GMap allows will show you the terrain of Savage-Lundy/Devil's Gulch.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/KJUNDbrf8Q6CeV837

At no point in this thread have I victim blamed or posted without data. To the screamers of, "that's not the trail they were on" - well they started on one of the two trails mentioned above. Take what you will from that video. My take is a very narrow trail, and a very tempting downward trot for Oski to the water. But, we don't know if he was leashed or not, other than when they were found. I'll repeat what I said in one earlier comment, a series of events led to their demise which likely culminated in heat stroke. None of these events are mutually exclusive and the latter doesn't overpower the former. Regardless 💔

Ummmm yes they did. What they didn't do it hike the trail in the video you posted!! You posted a random trail with a similar name miles away from the car or either of the two trails they hiked. I mean I can post a video of the Queen's Garden trail in Bryce which has switchbacks without shade to show something like where they were found. Why would I?

[Anonymous]

My double counted dog gets very hot when it’s in the 90s here. Doesn’t insulate from the heat like they say. Gets very hot.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday (9/3) the BLM closed a section of the Merced River immediately downstream of Devils Gulch due to "algal blooms." Evidence mounts that we a dealing with something other than heat exhaustion here.

https://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/1942355/blm-temporarily-closes-public-lands-in-mariposa-for-safety-reasons.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM never, ever disappoints. Now taking aim at hikers as some kind of deranged obsessives. Pretty much the most innocuous activity that one can do.
Never change DCUMers!

Yes, 110 degree / 9 mile summer hikes on a mountain with a new born and a dog are totally innocuous activities. They all died.

Newborn? Who had a newborn?

NP, but are you purposely being dense? The baby was 9 months to a year old (have seen conflicting reports) but the point is that she was a baby. It is not a prudent or sensible idea to take a baby that age and a furry dog on a steep, challenging, 8-mile hike on a day where temperatures were supposed to go well above 100F. It’s just not, for a number of reasons. It’s certainly not an “innocuous activity.” You can say that without victim blaming or suggesting that they deserved to die for making a stupid decision.

Baby just turned 1 year old in August. Oski was 8-years-old (Aussie/Akita mix—both double-coated). Double-coated dogs keep cool bc of their natural insulation. [/quote]

Well, but having had 2 such dogs, they avoid strenuous activity when it's hot (like 90s hot) and prefer to lie in shade if outdoors. My current one, a highly energetic husky who is tennis ball obsessive, ignores the ball outside when it's hot. And both would head for water immediately if they saw it outside in warm weather (the current husky will roll in other people's sprinklers and stand with her face to the sprinkler to get watered on walks, and at a lake or river she plunges right in, drinking water at the same time).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM never, ever disappoints. Now taking aim at hikers as some kind of deranged obsessives. Pretty much the most innocuous activity that one can do.
Never change DCUMers!

Yes, 110 degree / 9 mile summer hikes on a mountain with a new born and a dog are totally innocuous activities. They all died.

Newborn? Who had a newborn?

NP, but are you purposely being dense? The baby was 9 months to a year old (have seen conflicting reports) but the point is that she was a baby. It is not a prudent or sensible idea to take a baby that age and a furry dog on a steep, challenging, 8-mile hike on a day where temperatures were supposed to go well above 100F. It’s just not, for a number of reasons. It’s certainly not an “innocuous activity.” You can say that without victim blaming or suggesting that they deserved to die for making a stupid decision.

1+ isn’t a newborn.

[Anonymous]

A poster on Websleuths had a very interesting theory of ground currents. Has an indirect lightning strike been discussed as one possibility here? Did sheriff say anything about this possibility after the autopsy results?

From Websleuths:

“ Has anyone commented that their bodies were found in positions consistent with the “lightning crouch”? I’ve known since a youngster in my Sierra backpacking days that when lightning is nearby, you remove any high-profile metal gear like backpacks (or in this case, babycarrier), get a distance from others (Mom 30 yards away), and you crouch down with heels touching and ears covered. When I read that Dad was found sitting with the baby next to him still in the pack and the dog there too, it just felt obvious he had ripped off his pack, crouched down, and held the dog down so it wouldn’t be a canine lightning rod. Mom did the right thing by increasing distance. But everything reads that they were all taken simultaneously through a ground current strike.

There was recorded lighting activity in the area that day (Source: blitzortung.org) Between around 4:38 and 6:25pm, there were 4 recorded strikes roughly 25 miles east of the family’s location.”

[Anonymous]

They did discuss lightning as a possible cause. I dismissed it bc how could it strike that many beings and kill them all?

[Anonymous]

I suggested lightning in the beginning of this thread. Lightning can leave fern like marks. You'd think they would notice that.

[Anonymous]

I feel like Ellen being 30 yards away is a strong indication against lightning.

[Anonymous]

I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

[Anonymous]

I mean, if there's something about the soil/ground that allows a lightning strike to impact far distances, maybe? I do think 4pm-7p, lightning timeframe doesn't sound realistic in this case. If they began their hike at ~8am, that means they would have been hiking past lunch, past naptimes, past a baby's tolerance for sitting in a carrier, etc. etc. To me it doesn't seem realistic to consider they were hiking for that huge amount of time. I wonder if they died within a few hours of beginning their hike, for the simple reason they would have wanted to avoid stressing the baby or the dog.

[Anonymous]

According to the poster on Websleuths, blitzortung.org doesn’t receive data on all lightning strikes as its data come from volunteers who may or may not have their detection devices on at any given time. Is it possible that there were some strikes closer to the family’s location?

Unlike a direct strike, ground currents affect a much larger area. In 2016, an indirect lightning strike hit the ground in Norway and killed over 300 reindeer. You can look up the news and it’s really crazy stuff!

As for mom’s location (30 yards away) maybe they followed lightning safety practice, which is to spread out if in a group so that you increase the chance for survivors who could come to the aid of any victims from a strike.

The investigators should already know time of death for each family members. If a ground current was the cause of their deaths, wouldn’t there be an identical time of death for 3 people and a dog? Of course we don’t have the information for now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Ellen being 30 yards away is a strong indication against lightning.

20 to 30 yds of 20 to 30 ft? I've read both. And either way, that's hardly very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the poster on Websleuths, blitzortung.org doesn’t receive data on all lightning strikes as its data come from volunteers who may or may not have their detection devices on at any given time. Is it possible that there were some strikes closer to the family’s location?

Unlike a direct strike, ground currents affect a much larger area. In 2016, an indirect lightning strike hit the ground in Norway and killed over 300 reindeer. You can look up the news and it’s really crazy stuff!

As for mom’s location (30 yards away) maybe they followed lightning safety practice, which is to spread out if in a group so that you increase the chance for survivors who could come to the aid of any victims from a strike.

The investigators should already know time of death for each family members. If a ground current was the cause of their deaths, wouldn’t there be an identical time of death for 3 people and a dog? Of course we don’t have the information for now.

Unfortunately I think the amount of time it took to find them plus the heat of the environment would impact the precision of estimating time of death. They may have it down to a relatively large window of time but be unable to say anything more narrow than that with high confidence.

That's really interesting about the distance it can travel and 30 yards is a pretty long way. Hopefully the additional testing concludes soon and they will be able to say what happened with some confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Ellen being 30 yards away is a strong indication against lightning.

20 to 30 yds of 20 to 30 ft? I've read both. And either way, that's hardly very far.

30 yards