Given how much the media has gotten wrong, I’d like to see an actual quote from Fuiava. Not that it might not be true, but they’ve been overblowing their hardships so much I would have thought it would have been mentioned in one of the previous interviews.
I would just point out that the blogger was first saying the fact that the two “hadn’t lost an ounce” as evidence that they were lying, and now says that Fuiava claiming she lost 70 pounds is evidence she is lying.
I’m surprised given all the attention this has been getting that reporters seemingly haven’t been investigating Appel and Fuiava’s backgrounds in Hawaii that much. They do seem to have contacted some family and friends but haven’t said much about it.
Speaking of clothes, shouldn’t theirs have been in absolutely shitty condition? Her shirt looks to be pretty fresh in this pic. Were they desalinating water to do laundry every week for five months?
“The crew of the USS Ashland saved our lives. Not from the ocean, but from the vessel that was trying to render assistance to us. Had they not been able to locate us, we would have been dead within 24 hours.”
As an indication of how careful their preparations were for an extended voyage, they reveal they forgot to pack toothbrushes or towels.
Most hilarious part: Towards the end, Appel says that when the sailors see them roaming about the Ashland they rush up to them and say “You must be lost!” She seems to be completely unaware that they might be making fun of them rather than trying to be helpful.
like i said, retracted unless there’s a better cite, but that clip i do remember from twitter, so that’s probably where i saw it. the blog guy is a little too ‘hot take’ for me to consider reputable, but his comments about the food aren’t entirely off base.
IF they had a six month supply of food, they should have been just fine. IF they had a six month supply of food and ate nearly all of it, how is she losing 70 pounds?
it’s not that the food amounts and types, or the weight loss (or not), or the condition of the dogs is absolutely suspicious, or even that all of those things together are necessarily suspicious - just that those things in combination with the REST of the unlikely, impossible, and just plain weird shit they’re saying makes it more obvious that their comments about the food don’t exactly hang together as coherently as they perhaps should.
There may never be a smoking gun unless someone is willing to spend the time and money to travel all around the Pacific to locate everyone who had contact with them. It is in the best interest of the Navy to show them on deck with all the sailors standing behind for a photo op. So why would they want to debunk the story.
I am still hoping someone that has knowledge of this kind of thing can tell if the moss or whatever showing up on the side of the boat is common to a boat that has been adrift for several months.
I have seen one reference to the trawler who gave them a tow. What info is there on that boat and did they mention anyone swimming from the towed boat to the towing boat? Seems like it would be hard. I wonder if the crew would owe up to trying to damage the girls boat so they could harm them.
I don’t disagree. Much of what they say is obviously disconnected from reality. But I think a large part of this is that Appel in particular is disconnected from reality.
I would point out, however, that many of these anomalies would still exist even if we accept the idea that they hid out on an uninhabited island somewhere rather than were drifting (or sailing) all that time. If they’re vegan and won’t eat fish or bird’s eggs, they wouldn’t have had any more food available if they stopped on an island (except maybe coconuts). Depending on the size of the island, they might or might not have had more freshwater.
My understanding from airline pilot friends is that they do routinely monitor 121.5 MHz, and report any beacon signals they hear.
It may be that the EPIRB is an older 121.5 version. But (strange as this may seem) Appel’s understanding is flawed here. From airliner cruising altitudes, the line-of-sight range to a boat is something like 350 km - so you do not need to be near a flight path to be heard.
It’s FAA policy bordering on regulation to do so whenever possible. Which would apply to US-registered aircraft anywhere globally. It’s also ICAO “recommended policy” that most other national authorities will require of their operators. Within most sections of oceanic airspace it’s also separately required by the airspace control agency.
IME airliner compliance isn’t 100% but it’s not too far off. If someone was near a typical oceanic route they might not be heard by every airplane going by, but within a few jets = an hour tops they’d be sure to get at least one if not several.
Line of sight is as you say. But that’s not the complete story.
How far an ELT signal can be heard depends on it’s battery condition, transmitter power, and antenna condition and orientation. It also depends on the receiver’s squelch threshold and antenna orientation.
Many lightplanes still have the 121.5 ELTs. We hear one going off every few workdays. But it’s rare to hear one for long. It’ll start by weakly breaking squelch intermittently, then continuously but at low volume, then get loud and obnoxious, then get quieter, then finally start squelching in and out and then disappear completely. All within the space of 3-5 minutes = 25-50 miles’ travel.
We can never know directly whether we just nicked the edge of any particular ELT’s circle of useful transmission strength or whether we went right overhead and bisected that circle. But I’ve sure never heard one breaking squelch long enough for us to listen to it for 2x350km. Which implies to me the effective transmission distance is far less than line of sight.
I’m ignorant of the details of marine beacons vs. the sort commonly found on light airplanes. They might well have greater power output. Questions about whether the boat had an antenna, whether their unit was hand-held, water activated, etc., would all bear on what its capabilities might be.
As yet another example of the “sailor”'s evident lack of knowledge, apparently her reasoning for not activating the beacon was that she was not below a flight path. To make that decision soundly she needed to know A) where she was and B) where all the flight paths are. If she can operate a GPS she might know A. IMO it’s pretty unlikely she’d have anything other than guesswork to guide her on where B is.
Perhaps she was waiting to see contrails so as to confirm a plane before turning on the EPIRB, but when she did see some, she hid in the cabin, 'cause contrail conspiracy, reasons, etc.
More seriously, you cannot argue with crazy, and very often you cannot understand crazy.
I was wondering, 2 white women alone on a boat, nobody even knows they are there. If some bad guys decided to overpower them, who would know and who could stop them?
No. Not really. CT proponents are simply divorced from any sort of reality where and they have only nebulous patently absurd reasons for the possible existence of a massive conspiracy which would require massive amounts of money, time and people all for something which the clear explanation is the most reasonable.
For our two friends at sea, the story itself has far too many holes. They are getting their 15 minutes of fame, and there are possible methods of cashing in, so the question of a that as a possible motive is entirely reasonable.
My first guess was total incompetence, but the more I see, the less it all makes sense; they are obviously either exaggerating or simply lying.
While there are people who shout out hoax too quickly, this is a case where they may be right. Who knows?
Agree it’s unclear. My own take as of today is jumping around between “Incompetent” and “Incompetent but now smell a chance for fame and so are incompetently trying to milk that for all it’s worth”. Conversely, “Pre-planned media hoax from the git-go” is far down my personal list.
My point was around the commenters who immediately fastened on minor *non sequiturs *in early news media reports and all but insisted that that proved hoax, dismissing any thought that the reports might be incomplete or wrong. It’s the starting from “This particular input is totally true and therefore …” thinking that bugs me. For essentially randomly chosen tidbits of input. As you say, that’s not CTism, but IMO it’s the baby seeds from which mighty oaks of CT thinking grow.
Once we add in that these boat people are mentally flaky it becomes a real fools’ errand to construct logical “if <this circumstance>, then <that behavior>” syllogisms. With nuts, and doubly so incompetent nuts, “if <this circumstance>, then <any behavior imaginable and a different one every day>” is closer to the truth.
A meta comment on the meta situation …
We now live in a crazy media- and fame-driven world. One where there is some chance any random schlub can parlay any random notoriety into a career, lucrative book deal, etc. Which leads to a gold rush mentality in many people who suddenly have a microphone stuck under their nose. Why not spin the viral fame wheel of fortune as hard as you can? You might get the lucky number.
Which of course a moment later leads other people to think “Hey, if so and so got famous for that real event, how about I concoct a fake event designed to be a catchy hook. Profit!!”
It’s reasonable to expect there will be an increasing number of made-for-instant-fame fake events. At least until society recalibrates it’s credulity meter for just how much crap goes on in a nation of 350 million monkeys.
Man bites dog is not news; it happens every day. We just didn’t know that until we turned on the 350-million person party line and all started listening in.
She seems to be completely unaware that they might be making fun of them rather than trying to be helpful.