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