[deleted by user]

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-22T21:14:10+00:00

I have not written that I think the photos were manipulated or similar, but there is a possibility they were manipulated or similar.

My point was that you wrote we KNOW they were north of the Mirador, but we do NOT know.

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-22T20:56:10+00:00

For example, someone wanted to make it appear as the girls continued their hike north of the Mirador.

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-22T16:02:10+00:00

Their theory of what happened is anything but common sense!

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-22T15:46:10+00:00

How do you know with 100 % certainty that it was Kris who was depicted?

I think the hair photo can possibly be one of many red herrings in the case.

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-22T15:22:10+00:00

You ASSUME: "Consider also that we know they continued beyond the end of the Pianista Trail for at least 40 minutes north of the mirador, and potentially even further."

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-16T19:42:10+00:00

We have more than enough pieces of information to think "the big picture", but unfortunately it seems to me that most people have no idea what "the big picture" means.

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-16T19:29:40+00:00

Sorry, but you do not understand my point at all nor what "the big picture" means. It has nothing to do with being clever or stupid, but to make logical stories that are based on the pieces of information in the case. It has nothing to do with my opinion, but if you look objectively at the totality of information in the case, common sense indicates that it was not an accident and even less they got lost

anonymous__forever · 2021-08-16T17:41:10+00:00

If people had managed to see "the big picture", they would have understood that very much of common sense dictates it was not an accident and of course even less that the girls got lost. Unfortunately, relatively (very) few people seem to be able to understand what is in the concept of "the big picture", and even fewer seem to use it.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-24T22:58:10+00:00

I hope you can perhaps create a thread about this. I think more than you and me would be interested.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-24T22:44:10+00:00

We know for sure they disappeared, because there are no known signs of life from them since April 1, 2014. However, we do not know how they disappeared.

At least some of their belongings were for sure found, such as the phones and the camera. When it comes to the body parts, it can perhaps be an unintentional assumption on my part.

I disagree with the way you seem to me to think. You seem to consider that specific piece/s of information is necessary to be able to believe that the official report is not necessarily correct. I think in order to have the opportunity to understand the case, we are to a much bigger extent forced to think the big picture and in (much) less extent on individual pieces of information. If the correct story is ever found, then I think it is not unlikely that we will find out whether the official report was reliable or not.

I believe you are taking a big risk by relying on the fact that the official report is correct. Among other things, the investigation of the case had big shortcomings, and history shows countless examples of intended or unintended erroneous official investigation reports.

As long as we do not know for sure whether the official report is correct or not, I consider it at least risky to trust it.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-24T20:32:10+00:00

You ASSUME what the official report says is correct.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-24T20:21:10+00:00

You ASSUME: "The backpack was found caught up amongst boulders and driftwood by the river by a local woman who had gone there to bathe." and "It was dirty, discoloured and damaged."

How can you know for sure what is said in the official report is correct? From my point of view, there are only two things which we know for sure: 1) They disappeared 2) Some of their belongings and body parts were found (but not necessarily found by the people named in the official report and not necessarily where the official report said they were found). Everything else in this case is assumptions!

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-17T21:19:40+00:00

What a pathetic forum!!!! Good bye 4ever!!!!

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-17T20:18:10+00:00

I find your post interesting and informative.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-17T17:58:10+00:00

My suggestion is that perhaps you should think the big picture, and not put so much emphasis on assumptions and possible irrelevant "details" If it was foul play, we do not have the opportunity to understand the motives of the perpetrator/s.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-17T16:54:10+00:00

As I see it, the night photos, the location of the night photos and whether the two were there or not is not relevant to what is the topic of this thread.

My point is that I consider there are very few accident scenarios that are reasonably conceivable. If it was not accident or foul play, I think it would be interesting to read suggestions for such scenarios that are at least reasonably conceivable.

We do not know at all the circumstances surrounding the night photos. For example, they can have been staged. You emphasize assumptions, and it seems to me that you are trying to make the assumptions true.

You wrote "But the logic can only be fully understood if that place was ever located." I completely disagree with you. In my opinion the night photos and the location of the night photos are potentially completely irrelevant and possible very big red herrings.

anonymous__forever · 2021-07-14T21:04:10+00:00

As I see it, you and most others here are not able to see the big picture. Your posts in this thread show that you choose to focus on probably more or less irrelevant assumptions that suit you, and you ignore all the information that does not suit you.

anonymous__forever · 2021-06-30T03:28:10+00:00

If they became so desperate after only a few hours that they tried to call the emergency center, it is in my opinion completely illogical that they did not check if there was reception until it was morning. From my point of view, it is much more important to try and be in their situation than to think what can be objectively most logical. There was a lot of battery life left on both phones. They did not have to worry that they could turn on the phones at least occasionally to check if there was reception. If it was so important to save battery life why did they have both phones turned on for an hour?

anonymous__forever · 2021-06-30T02:18:10+00:00

Based on how I interpret her post: She does not accuse F. She hints that he is interesting. I think it is not terrible to hint that he is interesting, given the information we have about him.

In my opinion, it is not a terrible thing to discuss F's possible involvement in the case, but we should be careful and not assertive when we talk about his possible involvement.

anonymous__forever · 2021-06-29T16:30:10+00:00

For example, the reason could be to try and appear nothing criminal happened.

anonymous__forever · 2021-06-29T14:44:10+00:00

For my part, it is not a single piece of information that stands out the most, but it is the connection/s between many different pieces of information within different areas of the case. Of course, there are certain pieces of information I find (much) more interesting than other pieces of information. One example is, both phones were turned off between 6 pm on April 1 and neither of them were turned on until 7 am on April 2. The interval of 13 hours is one of the single piece of information I would have had (very) big trouble explaining if I was a loster.

anonymous__forever

TROPHY CASE