Unsolved Mysteries... what are the creepiest unsolved cases you've heard of
- Thread starter Ol’Otis
- Start date
Looks like someone needs their basic "how to read the internet" lessons.Claim:
You do know that the avalanche theory is not accepted as a reasonable explanation right?
Actual quote:
to your claims that it's "not accepted as a reasonable explanation". All your quote shows is classic internet speak for "There are conspiracy theorists out there who question it". Saying that it "has been questioned" by some anonymous questioners is just a way of playing out the conspiracy.But I'm sure the avalanche explanation is still the leading explanation, for good reason. I haven't seen all the details laid out exactly the way I just laid them out, but I dare you to pass my explanation by anyone who knows their way around the mountains (who's not just a conspiracy theorist), and have them deny that it's not a likely explanation.
Now, what specifically is off about the random conspiracy theory details that you just quoted?
This should have been your clue that this particular part of the wikipedia section was written by a conspiracy theorist who didn't even know the facts. The bodies weren't found "within ten days of the event". That is a lie.
The hikers died on February 2. The search didn't even start until after February 20, and the site was found on February 26.
That's nearly a month after the incident - far more than enough time for all traces of an avalanche to have disappeared. Snow avalanches are just that....snow. A small avalanche, after a few weeks of additional snowfall and melting, doesn't show much trace at all.
And second of all, those first bodies that were found were NOT caught up in the avalanche. So of course they only had a shallow layer of snow on them. That's a diversion by the conspiracy theories. Those 5 people died of hypothermia after they had fled from the tent trying to get away from the avalanche...which is really easy to do when it's -20F and you just fled down a slope in the dark in terror. On the other hand, the 4 people who were caught up in the avalanche were buried in 15 feet of snow!!!
Where does that 15 feet of snow come from, if not an avalanche?
The claim that the avalanche would have swept up the other bodies as well is complete bullshyt. How does the person writing that know where the other people were when the avalanche hit those first 4 bodies? The other 5 people didn't freeze in place when the avalanche hit - they would have kept moving around trying to find the tent in the dark or other shelter.
Your own source admits that the experts showed the avalanche could have passed nearby, but wouldn't have hit the tent.. If it wouldn't even have hit the tent, then how the fukk do you know that it would have hit the other 5 fools, when you don't have the slightest idea where those fools were standing when the avalanche reached them?
OBVIOUSLY an avalanche that could miss the tent, as your own source insists that it would have, could also have missed the 5 people who ran the right way. It just hit the 4 people who ran the wrong way.
Yes, it's not surprising that an avalanche was unlikely. Unlikely events have to happen sometimes, otherwise they're not "unlikely", they're impossible. These hikers got screwed by an unlikely avalanche.
But your "source" is WAY overexaggerating how unlikely an avalanche is. You know what you need to create "avalanche conditions"? A slope and new snowfall. That's it. Any time you have a meaningful slope and new snowfall, an avalanche is possible. Both those conditions were present here. The conditions may have been such that avalanches were rare, but certainly not impossible.
Which is convenient, because my explanation also points out that the avalanche bypassed the tent. In fact, an avalanche hitting the tent wouldn't make the least sense with the other facts we know. The avalanche only hit 4 of the climbers, after they left the tent in fear of the sound of the avalanche coming.
Also, this is another part of your "reading the internet" lesson. You notice that this section sneakily admits that an analysis of the terrain showed that an avalanche was possible in exactly that area!!!
The conspiracy theorist writing this section spoke like a politician and didn't want to admit the fact without giving the argument against, but the very part that he says, "its trajectory would have bypassed the tent" rather than "it would have been a mile away" gives you an idea of just how close the "likely avalanche" trajectory was to supporting my exact explanation.
Please, that's appeal to expertise. Of course people who are experienced fukk up sometimes. You watch sports, right? You don't think that experienced people can fukk up?
Saying that one guy was experienced and another guy was studying for his Masters ignores the fact that experienced people in the mountains get fukked up by avalanches all the time.
And their camp wasn't actually in the path of the avalanche anyway, it was just too close for comfort.
And it probably wasn't a likely avalanche, it probably was an unlikely one. They caught some bad luck.
The objections are minor and easily countered. The objections to any other explanation are MUCH greater. I like the possibilities of the "secret military test" explanation, but that leads to MUCH bigger problems than the "but but but this wasn't the absolute prime spot for an avalanche" disagreement.
Last edited:
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Claim:
Actual quote:
That's not "not accepted as a reasonable explanation". Saying that something "has been questioned" by unnamed anonymous sources is classic internet speak for "There are conspiracy theorists out there who question it". Which, of course, if there weren't, it wouldn't even be in this thread.
But I'm sure the avalanche explanation is still the leading explanation, for good reason. I haven't seen all the details laid out exactly the way I just laid them out, but I dare you to pass my explanation by anyone who knows their way around the mountains (who's not just a conspiracy theorist), and have them deny that it's not a likely explanation.
Now, what specifically is off about the random conspiracy theory details that you just quoted?
This should have been your clue that this particular part of the wikipedia section was written by a conspiracy theorist who didn't even know the facts. The bodies weren't found "within ten days of the event". That is a lie.
The hikers died on February 2. The search didn't even start until after February 20, and the site was found on February 26.
That's nearly a month after the incident - far more than enough time for all traces of an avalanche to have disappeared. Snow avalanches are just that....snow. A small avalanche, after a few weeks of additional snowfall and melting, doesn't show much trace at all.
And second of all, the bodies found within ten days were NOT caught up in the avalanche. So of course they only had a shallow layer of snow on them. That's a diversion by the conspiracy theories. Those 5 people died of hypothermia after they had fled from the tent trying to get away from the avalanche...which is really easy to do when it's -20F and you just fled down a slope in the dark in terror. On the other hand, the 4 people who were caught up in the avalanche were buried in 15 feet of snow!!!
Where does that 15 feet of snow come from, if not an avalanche?
The claim that the avalanche would have swept up the other bodies as well is complete bullshyt. How does the person writing that know where the other people were when the avalanche hit those first 4 bodies? The other 5 people didn't freeze in place when the avalanche hit - they would have kept moving around trying to find the tent in the dark or other shelter.
Your own source admits that the experts showed the avalanche could have passed nearby, but wouldn't have hit the tent.. If it wouldn't even have hit the tent, then how the fukk do you know that it would have hit the other 5 fools, when you don't have the slightest idea where those fools were standing when the avalanche reached them?
OBVIOUSLY an avalanche that could miss the tent, as your own source insists that it would have, could also have missed the 5 people who ran the right way. It just hit the 4 people who ran the wrong way.
Yes, it's not surprising that an avalanche was unlikely. Unlikely events have to happen sometimes, otherwise they're not "unlikely", they're impossible. These hikers got screwed by an unlikely avalanche.
But your "source" is WAY overexaggerating how unlikely an avalanche is. You know what you need to create "avalanche conditions"? A slope and new snowfall. That's it. Any time you have a meaningful slope and new snowfall, an avalanche is possible. Both those conditions were present here. The conditions may have been such that avalanches were rare, but certainly not impossible.
Which is convenient, because my explanation also points out that the avalanche bypassed the tent. In fact, an avalanche hitting the tent wouldn't make the least sense with the other facts we know. The avalanche only hit 4 of the climbers, after they left the tent in fear of the sound of the avalanche coming.
Also, this is another part of your "reading the internet" lesson. You notice that this section sneakily admits that an analysis of the terrain showed that an avalanche was possible in exactly that area!!!
The conspiracy theorist writing this section spoke like a politician and didn't want to admit the fact without giving the argument against, but the very part that he says, "its trajectory would have bypassed the tent" rather than "it would have been a mile away" gives you an idea of just how close the "likely avalanche" trajectory was to supporting my exact explanation.
Please, that's appeal to expertise. Of course people who are experienced fukk up sometimes. You watch sports, right? You don't think that experienced people can fukk up?
Saying that one guy was experienced and another guy was studying for his Masters ignores the fact that experienced people in the mountains get fukked up by avalanches all the time.
And their camp wasn't actually in the path of the avalanche anyway, it was just too close for comfort.
And it probably wasn't a likely avalanche, it probably was an unlikely one. They caught some bad luck.
The objections are minor and easily countered. The objections to any other explanation are MUCH greater. I like the possibilities of the "secret military test" explanation, but that leads to MUCH bigger problems than the "but but but this wasn't the absolute prime spot for an avalanche" disagreement.
Miss me with the bullshyt rhetoric....... there is no fukking thing as a "conspiracy" theory, so trying to marginalize the post by throwing that descriptor in there is low level gimmicky hoe shyt.....
Those quotes were from 2 different sources...... You claimed that the avalanche was the most likely explanation...... but there are many sources that state otherwise..... and then you got the nerve to throw in that the source is anonymous...
Like, who the fukk are you? You aint enough.....
to be some type of authoritative figure on any subject... Again, this that internet lame shyt yall cats be on.... This is one of the greater and most fascinating "unsolved mysteries" for a reason.... If the avalanche theory was highly plausible.... This shyt would've been put to bed a long time ago
Red Shield
Global Domination
The kennedy assassination
Yea.. like a week ago I stumbled upon a site that makes a very interesting case for how dude was killed.
Jackie did that shyt
Self_Born7
SUN OF MAN
How kerosene can melt steel beams? 
Diane Augat
On April 10, 1988, 40-year old Diane Augat left her residence in Odessa, Florida and mysteriously disappeared. Three days later, Diane’s mother received a message on her answering machine from a woman who sounded just like her daughter. She was saying “Help, help, let me out” and “Hey, gimme that” as the sounds of someone trying to grab the phone away could be heard in the background. The caller ID read “Starlight”, but there was no answer when Diane’s mother called the number back.
Things got really morbid on April 15 when the severed tip of Diane’s right middle finger was found in the area where she was last seen. Two weeks later, a bag containing her neatly folded clothing was discovered in a convenience store’s freezer. Two-and-a-half years after Diane went missing, a local paper published a story about her disappearance. The very next day, Diane’s brother’s girlfriend happened to discover a plastic bag in another convenience store. It had the name “Diane” written on it and contained items which may have belonged to her. In spite of these bizarre clues, no other trace of Diane Augat has ever been found.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Odessa is literally 5 minutes from me.
Recca Gatsby
LWO
Because you tried to use the anonymous "people have questioned the account" as proof that the account was not acceptable.
That's just ridiculous.
Any account can be questioned as long as our criteria is "anonymous people on the internet said something".
Like, who the fukk are you? You aint enough.....
No, I'm just someone who can lay out the facts in order.
Unlike you, who had to copy-and-paste a random anonymous wikipedia quote that got the most important details completely wrong, then try to pass it off without comment as authoritative.
That pretty much sums up the whole argument.
"If there's a conspiracy theory, then the reasonable explanation MUST be wrong!"
You haven't pointed out a single thing wrong with my theory except your internet quote, which I just tore to pieces because all their facts were wrong or purposely misleading. And your only comeback is "stop it with that conspiracy theory rhetoric! I must be right because PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS!"
p.s. - while I might not be a mountaineering expert, I coincidentally just got off the phone with a friend back in Oregon who is an expert hiker (he was calling me about something else), and when I briefly summarized the case and asked him to guess what happened, he made the exact same guess as me, even though I didn't say one word about an avalanche or even that the 4 bodies with the injuries were buried in 15 feet of snow. He even said, "they probably heard an avalanche coming" as the most likely reason they left the tent and "that would explain those injuries". I've only spent a bit of time in the snow, but I've read enough mountaineering accounts to know how that shyt goes down.
His words after I told him the objections: "I don't know what they're talking about not being an avalanche likely place. Avalanche can happen anywhere. It's just new snow sloughing off. You have to be careful whenever there's new snow no matter where you are."
And "A snow avalanche is just snow. What signs are you expecting to find after the melt?"
Last edited:
Born2BKing
Veteran
This one still intrigues me. I think he survived myself.
Nomad1
Tupac KONY and GOAT
same
Dr. Sebi Jr.
Trust Me
That doesn't explain the radiation.Because you tried to use the anonymous "people have questioned the account" as proof that the account was not acceptable.
That's just ridiculous.
Any account can be questioned as long as our criteria is "anonymous people on the internet said something".
No, I'm just someone who can lay out the facts in order.
Unlike you, who had to copy-and-paste a random anonymous wikipedia quote that got the most important details completely wrong, then try to pass it off without comment as authoritative.
That pretty much sums up the whole argument.
"If there's a conspiracy theory, then the reasonable explanation MUST be wrong!"
You haven't pointed out a single thing wrong with my theory except your internet quote, which I just tore to pieces because all their facts were wrong or purposely misleading. And your only comeback is "stop it with that conspiracy theory rhetoric! I must be right because PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS!"
p.s. - while I might not be a mountaineering expert, I coincidentally just got off the phone with a friend back in Oregon who is an expert hiker (he was calling me about something else), and when I briefly summarized the case and asked him to guess what happened, he made the exact same guess as me, even though I didn't say one word about an avalanche or even that the 4 bodies with the injuries were buried in 15 feet of snow. He even said, "they probably heard an avalanche coming" as the most likely reason they left the tent and "that would explain those injuries". I've only spent a bit of time in the snow, but I've read enough mountaineering accounts to know how that shyt goes down.
His words after I told him the objections: "I don't know what they're talking about not being an avalanche likely place. Avalanche can happen anywhere. It's just new snow sloughing off. You have to be careful whenever there's new snow no matter where you are."
And "A snow avalanche is just snow. What signs are you expecting to find after the melt?"
On the real, one of the theories I always thought was that the Zodiac Killer either was a police officer or had some type of connection with the police in the Bay, which was why he was able to commit his murders and call the police which were near the POLICE stations and how the police officers that saw the Zodiac Killer at night time after the cab shooting didn't question him and let him practically walk away. 
I legit had me my own case book just on the Zodiac case, like listing me a bunch of suspects and writing down the facts on the case and theories way back. 
Ashley Banks
All I ever wanted was the world
thanks, I wasn't planning on sleeping anyways.
That doesn't explain the radiation.
That's explained pages back - the radiation was always a red herring. It was only a trace amount and only on one sweater/jacket, not on the other people and not on the bodies. There are lots of ways to get trace amounts of radiation on a piece of your clothing - thorium from the camp lanterns, something spilled in one of the labs that several of them worked in (they were all from a Polytechnic Institute), something spilled while one of their friends in a lab was borrowing the clothing, something that was hanging outside when fallout from the frequent nuclear tests of the 1950s occurred, etc.
If radiation was a part of the incident, it would have been on some of the bodies and on someone else's clothes. But it wasn't, just on one sweater/jacket, which makes it almost certain that the sweater/jacket was contaminated in a separate or very minor event.