ChaseChat - Treasure Chat

Full Version: Ideas for the Search & Rescue team
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(01-24-2016, 12:57 PM)Milan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 12:50 PM)fundamental design Wrote: [ -> ]Stephanie, I'm just adding this comment to try and add what information we know and not to stop anyone from searching where they feel they want to.

I thought John Brown said that lower Frijoles was a finite place to search. If the Bandelier Rangers report they did a thorough and extensive search then we get close to a finite place being searched adequately. Not sure what's not to trust with their search, it is their backyard so to speak.

The problem is this, imo: the Bandelier Rangers would not have the same mindset as Chase searchers. They wouldn't consider looking in the pool of water at the bottom of the falls, why would they because the trail to the falls has been closed for years.

They also wouldn't have a reason to look for a makeshift trail to the southwest of the canyon - a place Randy may have been trailblazing to get access to the upper falls.

I don't trust they did a thorough search because Randy was not the typical Bandelier visitor use case.

I still don't see how a thorough and exhaustive search in a finite place that is the Bandelier Rangers' backyard becomes a search that doesn't have the correct mindset as a fenner. The problem with your and Stephanie's description is that the Bandelier Rangers found human and dog tracks that were going in and coming back out. Follow the logic.

HollyfromMN

Is there any private land there and does it interfere with the rescue? In my search area old Mexicsn law can apply if the landowner has the deed to the riverbed...
On Forrest's write up the other day over at dals he said there was a hole in the raft and Randy's feet and pants would be wet but not if he had waders- right? And does anyone know if the hole was big enough to make the boat unusable for sure? If those rafts get a hole how long do you have to get to shore?
(01-24-2016, 03:51 PM)Starrynite Wrote: [ -> ]On Forrest's write up the other day over at dals he said there was a hole in the raft and Randy's feet and pants would be wet but not if he had waders- right? And does anyone know if the hole was big enough to make the boat unusable for sure? If those rafts get a hole how long do you have to get to shore?


He said the raft had a tear in the bottom but was still serviceable. It was left there, that way, on purpose. Why prop it up that way with such a small opening. I think he lost Leo and had to get out of there. He propped it up like that in case Leo found it he could use it as shelter. The only way he would leave Leo is if he was in trouble and couldn't take any more time to look for him. He fell in the water trying to cross over from Frijoles. That separates him from the dog and puts him in trouble. Wet and cold and burning daylight.
(01-24-2016, 03:33 PM)fundamental design Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 12:57 PM)Milan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 12:50 PM)fundamental design Wrote: [ -> ]Stephanie, I'm just adding this comment to try and add what information we know and not to stop anyone from searching where they feel they want to.

I thought John Brown said that lower Frijoles was a finite place to search. If the Bandelier Rangers report they did a thorough and extensive search then we get close to a finite place being searched adequately. Not sure what's not to trust with their search, it is their backyard so to speak.

The problem is this, imo: the Bandelier Rangers would not have the same mindset as Chase searchers. They wouldn't consider looking in the pool of water at the bottom of the falls, why would they because the trail to the falls has been closed for years.

They also wouldn't have a reason to look for a makeshift trail to the southwest of the canyon - a place Randy may have been trailblazing to get access to the upper falls.

I don't trust they did a thorough search because Randy was not the typical Bandelier visitor use case.

I still don't see how a thorough and exhaustive search in a finite place that is the Bandelier Rangers' backyard becomes a search that doesn't have the correct mindset as a fenner. The problem with your and Stephanie's description is that the Bandelier Rangers found human and dog tracks that were going in and coming back out. Follow the logic.

Coincidence can be deadly in a search. If they had some evidence that confirms those are his tracks then the case is closed, but I doubt they have that.
(01-24-2016, 04:02 PM)Tars-1 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 03:51 PM)Starrynite Wrote: [ -> ]On Forrest's write up the other day over at dals he said there was a hole in the raft and Randy's feet and pants would be wet but not if he had waders- right? And does anyone know if the hole was big enough to make the boat unusable for sure? If those rafts get a hole how long do you have to get to shore?


He said the raft had a tear in the bottom but was still serviceable. It was left there, that way, on purpose. Why prop it up that way with such a small opening. I think he lost Leo and had to get out of there. He propped it up like that in case Leo found it he could use it as shelter. The only way he would leave Leo is if he was in trouble and couldn't take any more time to look for him. He fell in the water trying to cross over from Frijoles. That separates him from the dog and puts him in trouble. Wet and cold and burning daylight.


So if you have waders on and let's say fall into the water trying to get out there on the east side of the river - what do you do? If water has entered the waders but you were still able to get out out of the river do you take them off and dump the water? Do you take off your wet clothes underneath? I don't know-
(01-24-2016, 03:55 PM)admin Wrote: [ -> ]Jeez, didn't realize how long that was.

@FD ok feet in and feet out...but what about another set in? Is it possible that they just wrote them off as in and out without seeing if there were double going in for the footprints?

I don't know the answer to a second set of incoming prints but I suppose they would have found them if they were in the same area not less he walked in the exact same prints as the first trip (assuming a second trip). And they searched for 8 hours so I also don't know if that's adequate but they did say a thorough and exhaustive search which means to me that they would look for other footprints. You and Milan said in an earlier post that you thought they only looked on the ground and not down in deeper crevices or water pools below the falls. Well, footprints would be on the ground. That's why I say it's fine to check again but it goes against Wolf's description of Probibity Of Detection and Last Known Position.

Larsonist

(01-24-2016, 04:07 PM)FFSeeker Wrote: [ -> ]Coincidence can be deadly in a search. If they had some evidence that confirms those are his tracks then the case is closed, but I doubt they have that.

The only witness to those tracks is Leo. Can his footprints be taken and compared significantly to the canine tracks in Frijoles?
(01-24-2016, 04:07 PM)FFSeeker Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 03:33 PM)fundamental design Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 12:57 PM)Milan Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 12:50 PM)fundamental design Wrote: [ -> ]Stephanie, I'm just adding this comment to try and add what information we know and not to stop anyone from searching where they feel they want to.

I thought John Brown said that lower Frijoles was a finite place to search. If the Bandelier Rangers report they did a thorough and extensive search then we get close to a finite place being searched adequately. Not sure what's not to trust with their search, it is their backyard so to speak.

The problem is this, imo: the Bandelier Rangers would not have the same mindset as Chase searchers. They wouldn't consider looking in the pool of water at the bottom of the falls, why would they because the trail to the falls has been closed for years.

They also wouldn't have a reason to look for a makeshift trail to the southwest of the canyon - a place Randy may have been trailblazing to get access to the upper falls.

I don't trust they did a thorough search because Randy was not the typical Bandelier visitor use case.

I still don't see how a thorough and exhaustive search in a finite place that is the Bandelier Rangers' backyard becomes a search that doesn't have the correct mindset as a fenner. The problem with your and Stephanie's description is that the Bandelier Rangers found human and dog tracks that were going in and coming back out. Follow the logic.

Coincidence can be deadly in a search. If they had some evidence that confirms those are his tracks then the case is closed, but I doubt they have that.

That's why I asked the forum in an earlier post if Eugene or NMPD (New Mexico Police Department) got photographic evidence of any prints Randy made at his vehicle and compare to the lower Frijoles prints. I think it was dirt there on the ground. No response yet.
(01-24-2016, 04:13 PM)Starrynite Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 04:02 PM)Tars-1 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2016, 03:51 PM)Starrynite Wrote: [ -> ]On Forrest's write up the other day over at dals he said there was a hole in the raft and Randy's feet and pants would be wet but not if he had waders- right? And does anyone know if the hole was big enough to make the boat unusable for sure? If those rafts get a hole how long do you have to get to shore?


He said the raft had a tear in the bottom but was still serviceable. It was left there, that way, on purpose. Why prop it up that way with such a small opening. I think he lost Leo and had to get out of there. He propped it up like that in case Leo found it he could use it as shelter. The only way he would leave Leo is if he was in trouble and couldn't take any more time to look for him. He fell in the water trying to cross over from Frijoles. That separates him from the dog and puts him in trouble. Wet and cold and burning daylight.


So if you have waders on and let's say fall into the water trying to get out there on the east side of the river - what do you do? If water has entered the waders but you were still able to get out out of the river do you take them off and dump the water? Do you take off your wet clothes underneath? I don't know-


Never worn them. Only heard stories. In deeper water the only way out is to ditch the waders. Get free of them. Shallow enough water you could plant your feet and stand up. If you stripped out of them to dump the water, would you put them back on? I don't know.