1000Pks wrote:Easy to speculate. They were from Nebraska, a long way to come. Failed to note or disregarded weather forecasts or signs. You do this to make it to the top. Inexperience. Peer pressure, do or die. Government paid rescue, instant heroes celebs, no fees for rescue services, book deals, TV shows, survival stories, even millions in the bank! Or maybe just regular dumb asses who just didn't know you can get into trouble on an easy peak like Whitney, by me at times. Or whatever!

Off Subject- hiked with Doug Mantle last weekend. You two climbed a bit years ago. Nice guy

sjarelkwint wrote:

Vitaliy M wrote:

The Chief wrote:Gonna be interesting to hear the final report from Inyo Sar on this one.

What do you find INTERESTING about people almost freezing to death???

They OBVIOUSLY made a mistake ...
What was it, how can we avoid it ourself?

Pretty simple; they weren't prepared for this kind of weather. Anything can happen this time of the year. Luckily they are safe and sound.

The other two missing hikers were found near Cedar Grove today. That's quite a detour from their planned route to summit Whitney and come out at Whitney Portal.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks News Release
For Immediate Release: October 22, 2010

Mt. Whitney Area Search and Rescue Ends - Last Two Missing Hikers Found

Two missing hikers, a father and son who had not hiked out on time from the Mount Whitney area after a planned 36-mile cross-country loop, have been found. The two men – Sina Sadeghi Baghsorkhi, 27, and Abdolreza Sadeghi, 56 – walked out on park trails in the Cedar Grove area, which is approximately 50 miles away and far from their original planned route. Approximately 70 people assisted with the search and rescue effort. Groups searching for the missing hikers included the National Park Service, Los Angeles County Search and Rescue, Sierra Madre Search and Rescue, Inyo County Sheriff’s Office, Inyo County Search and Rescue, and the California National Guard.

Right. Tragic, that satellite-phone story.

Now all we get are these stupid phones that have less range than the ones we had in the 1990s. Fifteen years later, but a technological step backward instead of forward in that respect. Sure, their lower power means they can be small now, which comes in handy. But it would at least be nice to have reasonable options to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed.

Of course, the market is driven by 16-year-old texting-while-driving or texting-in-classroom morons who are never more than a mile from the nearest suburban cell tower.

So I don't suppose the two gentlemen who walked out at Cedar Grove gave their story to anyone? Anyone got a link or anything? I'd be very curious what their reasoning was for going to Cedar Grove. 50 miles. I wouldn't think they'd have enough food.

HJ

Vitaliy M wrote:

Day Hiker wrote:
Now all we get are these stupid phones that have less range than the ones we had in the 1990s. Fifteen years later, but a technological step backward instead of forward in that respect. Sure, their lower power means they can be small now, which comes in handy. But it would at least be nice to have reasonable options to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed.

People have a choice. You can buy a satellite phone if you want.

A satellite phone would be great, but I never said I wanted one. What I did say is, "It would at least be nice to have reasonable options to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed."

Sorry, people don't always have a choice. In this case, there is no such system available.

Day Hiker wrote:

Vitaliy M wrote:

Day Hiker wrote:
Now all we get are these stupid phones that have less range than the ones we had in the 1990s. Fifteen years later, but a technological step backward instead of forward in that respect. Sure, their lower power means they can be small now, which comes in handy. But it would at least be nice to have reasonable options to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed.

People have a choice. You can buy a satellite phone if you want.

A satellite phone would be great, but I never said I wanted one. What I did say is, "It would at least be nice to have reasonable options to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed."

Sorry, people don't always have a choice. In this case, there is no such system available.

This is an area where capitalism has failed miserably. Tanzania has better cell coverage in the middle of the Serengeti two days from the nearest paved road than the US has on the most traveled highway from San Francisco to LA. People I've met in South Africa don't even understand what I am talking about when I mention there are areas in the US without cell phone coverage. Pathetic.

Vitaliy M wrote:On the issue of coverage sucking, I agree. I would think living in a country like USA would give me a better coverage than in Tanzania.

Countries I have been in remote, rural areas that have better coverage than the US include Belize, Cambodia, Thailand, Tanzania, Egypt, Guatemala, and South Africa. So we are behind all of them.

Cheaper and just as effective for these scenarios!

Day Hiker wrote: to own a phone with higher transmission power (larger phone, perhaps) for use where better range is needed."

Sounds like a sat phone to me!

Whatever happened to self-sufficiency and the map and compass? Piss on paying over $800.00 (plus 100 annually) for a GPS that spots as well.

With $900.00, hell...



WE COULD CLIMB EVERYTHING
*round trip airfare to pakistan not included
*permit fees not included
*support from askole not included
*not responsible for inability to send A4, 510+
*food and water not included
*this may pay for only half your gear
*may I recommend a sponsor for this peak(s)

hikin_jim wrote:So I don't suppose the two gentlemen who walked out at Cedar Grove gave their story to anyone? Anyone got a link or anything? I'd be very curious what their reasoning was for going to Cedar Grove. 50 miles. I wouldn't think they'd have enough food.

HJ

OK, so I guess no one has anything further on the two that walked out at Cedar Grove. Bummer.

HJ

R.E. Cedar Grove hikers -- follow this thread. Much background info, but you have to be patient and read around the noise.
http://whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubb ... =1&fpart=2

"My friend and I spoke to these 2 Iranian hikers at Meyson Lake on Sunday AM. They arrived at the Lake late Sat PM. They informed us that their route was going up the Cirque south of the Lake, heading east between (I believe) LeConte and Mallory, going by either Lake Iridescent or Sky Blue Lake. From there, I don't recall where they were headed. We last saw them at about 9AM on Sunday at which time they were still camped on the North side of the Lake. When we returned from climbing Mt Irvine at about 4P they were gone. Interestingly, the son told us they planned on summiting Mt Whitney that same day. We explained that they were probably overly ambitious. It started to snow moderately beginning about 2PM on Sunday and was heavy Sunday PM and Monday AM.

They each had a tent, one white and one light yellow. These did not look like tents suitable for winter conditions and neither one had a fly on.The father had a green jacket. They looked liked hikers; not climbers." ...

"The guys crossed Forester, then Glen then down Paradise Valley to Cedar Grove, with some other hikers they met who were able to tell them the direction out to a road."