Anonymous wrote:Sounds like they've ruled out the mine-gas and murder theories: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Chemical-hazards-on-trail-gunshots-ruled-out-as-16414619.php

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Why did they hazmat the scene? Why even mention the toxic algae and the mines? The police for whatever reason don’t think it was heat stroke, despite that being the most obvious explanation. Would heat stroke require toxicology? Why would the police be so squirrely if it was heat stroke?

Normally they’d be embracing it as an opportunity to remind everyone of the dangers of heat stroke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like they are really focusing on the toxic algae.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/25/can-toxic-algae-blooms-can-kill-humans-warnings-issued-california/5583980001/

“"It can be from anywhere from just a little bit sick to it can cause death within a couple hours or days, depending on how much you are exposed to," Holland said.”
So if they went in the river it could have taken them a couple of hours to hike to where they were found and the algae to kick in. It seems really weird though, that they’re not even mentioning the dangerous heat. Seems like it had to be a factor. And with all the attention this tragedy is getting, it’s an opportunity to warn people.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like they are really focusing on the toxic algae.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/08/25/can-toxic-algae-blooms-can-kill-humans-warnings-issued-california/5583980001/

Holland said authorities would be able to tell if the family died from toxic algae by chemicals present in their tissue, which could be detected in a toxicology report.

Anonymous wrote:Did dog have feet protectors on? If it was that hot, dog might have burned paws which could explain the dog being the first to falter. Dog autopsy would show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I don't think 107 degrees dry heat is that hot for young, fit, outdoorsy, experienced desert hikers. Baby and dog definitely would have had a problem with that level of heat. But all four? Also, wouldn't heat stroke show up in an autopsy?

If they were hiking in high heat that would have showed really poor consideration for the baby and the dog. For that reason my guess is they were hiking in the cool morning weather--plus they were seen at ~7:30am. What - they'd go on an hours-long hike with nothing more than one camelback of water? No granola bars for energy, no extra water for the dog, no juice boxes for the baby? Doesn't make sense. These were experienced hikers.

Something other than high heat killed all four. My guess still stands at a freak natural incident of some variety, such as a toxic gas cloud.

I continue to weep for the logic skills of America.

You honestly think a “freak natural incident” is more likely than heat stroke? smh.

DP. If this was clearly heat stroke there never would have been a news article about it. It would have been 'family dies of heat stroke' just like all the other people who die of heat stroke.

I think the most likely reason someone would die on a trail in 109 degree heat is heat stroke, but I think it doesn't look like heat stroke to the investigators, because if it looked even a little bit like heat stroke, that is what they would assume it was.

Anonymous wrote:Did dog have feet protectors on? If it was that hot, dog might have burned paws which could explain the dog being the first to falter. Dog autopsy would show that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another update from websleuths:

“Investigators believe the family hiked most of a grueling 8.5-mile loop — including 5 miles of steep southern exposure trail with little to no trees or shade in 103 to 109 degree heat — before succumbing on the return to their truck on a steep switchback.” Investigators have ruled out 2 causes of death in case of Mariposa family, but still have no answers

I’m fat and indoorsy-how long does it take athletic, experienced hikers to do a difficult 8 mile hike? It does seem awfully crazy to attempt that with a baby. I’m guessing at least 3 hours or so? Do babies actually want to chill out in a hiking backpack for that long?

I can manage 3.5 miles in one hour on flat terrain. I can maintain that for hours. Yes, it's slow.

The problem with their hike is that down is always easy. Up is hard. You don't save much energy doing down hill. Not enough to make up the extra effort for the return climb.

The more I read 8 mile hike, steep, uphill, brought thick furry fog, over 100 degrees, I think the couple were not sharp, not experienced. Plus, I scope out hikes. That couple simply googled it, then went next 105 degree day with a baby and dog?? Heat stroke more and more I am thinking. And wife tried to get back to get help but couldnt.

These were experienced hikers and adventurers. A news article mentioned the wife’s IG account. I looked at it. They had journeyed through the Gobi Dessert, hiked across glaciers in Iceland.. the husband has several online posts about recent hikes in California.

I suspect they had guides in the Goni and Iceland. And no baby. I’m guessing mid hike baby overheated and had a seizure, and they poured water all over it trying to cool it down. Then they double timed back, saving water for baby, and in their rush and panic each suffered heat stroke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean I don't think 107 degrees dry heat is that hot for young, fit, outdoorsy, experienced desert hikers. Baby and dog definitely would have had a problem with that level of heat. But all four? Also, wouldn't heat stroke show up in an autopsy?

If they were hiking in high heat that would have showed really poor consideration for the baby and the dog. For that reason my guess is they were hiking in the cool morning weather--plus they were seen at ~7:30am. What - they'd go on an hours-long hike with nothing more than one camelback of water? No granola bars for energy, no extra water for the dog, no juice boxes for the baby? Doesn't make sense. These were experienced hikers.

Something other than high heat killed all four. My guess still stands at a freak natural incident of some variety, such as a toxic gas cloud.

I continue to weep for the logic skills of America.

You honestly think a “freak natural incident” is more likely than heat stroke? smh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a pp who thought this was probably intended as a short morning hike (like an hour or two and then back home in time for lunch and nap), but 1 of the 4 suffered illness or injury mid-hike and they made the unfortunate decision to stick together which may have made sense in the moment but ultimately killed them all. But now hearing that they may have deliberately set out for a grueling 8+ mile hike, in August, with an infant, makes me think maybe they were just plain stupid. The adults were experienced hikers, but the baby was only one, so they were new to hiking with a baby.

Agree with this.
I think they just underestimated their mortality.

People never think they're going to be the ones to die. It's human nature. People with bad cancer are sure they'll be in the 5% who will respond to treatment. People in the ICU think they'll pull through (I'm an ICU nurse). Heck, most of America is sure that Covid could never harm them personally (even as they watch friends and family members die).
I'm sure this family never thought: "If we go out there in the heat, we could die". I don't have half their level of fitness and my gut reaction is "Oh, I'd be okay, I'll just turn around if I feel bad". I would never think "I may die on the trail, I better not go".

Then why aren't the police saying, this is simple heatstroke and the family messed up? Why all this drama and uncertainty? There must be something that is causing them to rule out this most simple and obvious explanation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a pp who thought this was probably intended as a short morning hike (like an hour or two and then back home in time for lunch and nap), but 1 of the 4 suffered illness or injury mid-hike and they made the unfortunate decision to stick together which may have made sense in the moment but ultimately killed them all. But now hearing that they may have deliberately set out for a grueling 8+ mile hike, in August, with an infant, makes me think maybe they were just plain stupid. The adults were experienced hikers, but the baby was only one, so they were new to hiking with a baby.

Agree with this.
I think they just underestimated their mortality.

People never think they're going to be the ones to die. It's human nature. People with bad cancer are sure they'll be in the 5% who will respond to treatment. People in the ICU think they'll pull through (I'm an ICU nurse). Heck, most of America is sure that Covid could never harm them personally (even as they watch friends and family members die).
I'm sure this family never thought: "If we go out there in the heat, we could die". I don't have half their level of fitness and my gut reaction is "Oh, I'd be okay, I'll just turn around if I feel bad". I would never think "I may die on the trail, I better not go".