Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Still trolling I see.

Fine. How about Dunning--Kruger?

Anonymous wrote:I was just on a hike with a guide who was talking about the pressure he gets from guests who hire him for multi-day treks where they have to cover a certain about of miles each day to get back for a flight and he always says that they have to be flexible given conditions, weather and stamina, etc. Given the profile of the women on the trip my guess is that many of them had obligations that made them feel like they could not hunker down at the huts until the storm passed and the avalanche risk lessened. And the guides probably felt some pressure to do what the guests wanted and get good tips/reviews. I do think there was probably also some peer pressure once some members of the group wanted to go back. The entire thing is very sad and a good reminder to try to put safety first even if it means missing flights or important obligations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Still trolling I see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend, but people on a budget cannot afford such vacations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Those are some pretty big words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

So you never drive a car, or ride in one? If you do and die in an accident—as happens each and every day in this country to 110-120 people (NHTSA and CDC data)—then you died a preventable death that didn’t have to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

So you never drive a car, or ride in one? If you do and die in an accident—as happens each and every day in this country to 110-120 people (NHTSA and CDC data)—then you died a preventable death that didn’t have to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Any mountain can avalanche given the conditions at the time. It was not a smart move to go on the trip at the beginning much less the end. Maybe the less affluent members of the group were under pressure to not waste money / the trip. Maybe the tour guides were also tempted by "great ski conditions." Fine line between great snow and dangerous snow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Thank you for sharing this. I’m so sorry for the loss of your friend.

The condemnation in this thread is disturbing.