Reasons the Jennifer Appel and Tasha Fuiava survival story smells fishy
unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com
unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com
Once I heard the account of the EPIRB (which I totally forgot about) I knew there it was more than just back luck and some hamming up the story for the camera.
This article does a pretty thorough and entertaining job of breaking down all the inconsistencies from the perspective of an experienced sailor. My dad is going to thoroughly enjoy it.
Now, consumer radio/television broadcasts... those run in the 10-100 kilowatt range. That's a "helluva lot".
You need to get much higher up in the spectrum before you have to worry about your signal not passing through walls.
To illustrate, mobile phones typically operate in the 800-900 and/or 1800-1900 MHz range and typically put out ~0.6 watts. Most people have no problems whatsoever using their cell phones from inside their homes.
5 watts on 406 MHz out in the middle of an empty ocean is certainly more than enough to be picked up by a satellite passing overhead.
Last, "entry-level ham radio operators" are permitted 1500 watts (on the frequency bands we're discussing; the limit is a very reasonable 100 watts on the lower/HF bands).
(If you insist on "nitpicking", you should at least make sure you're accurate.)
The history makes more sense if you change "sharks" for "Human sharks". Real sharks never train their sharklings, they'll try to eat them instead. "Sharks are training their kids with us" would be a revealing phrase in this sense about the women knowing the identity of their expected persecutor, probably young or middle aged, that could be closer of the ship and would scan for any electronic help emission (to reach the area and take drastic measures or even sink the ship before the arrival of other external help).
Why to shut all electronic emissions if you are lost at open water?; maybe because you know that you are being hunted and try to hide at sea.
Why to deliberately avoid nearest ports and inhabited areas?; because you know they are surveilled. You will be detected if try to approach to the nearest islands.
They planned the travel with some months in antelation, maybe because you can't buy a huge amount of food in a single take without being suspicious and reported.
Maybe for some places of the world, the quantity of food needed in a ship should be measured as: food needed to escape from the influence area of the local smuggler lord in charge and reach a safe airport or continent.
The position of ships in the sea are continuously registered by electronic emissions. If authorities can take a look to this data in the first days after the ship quitting the port, could even have a list of hypothetical hunters.
This fairly inefficient since most of the transmitter power goes into the carrier frequency, and the power that goes into the sidebands is duplicated for each. A Single Sideband transmitter removes the carrier frequency and one of the sidebands, and then the receiver adds the carrier back in to demodulate the signal.
The reason the SSB radio can bounce signals off the ionosphere is not because it’s SSB, but because it operates in the HF (High Frequency) range. But any modulation system could do this just as well as SSB – it’s the frequency range that makes the difference. Hams, for example, often use CW (Continuous Wave, aka Morse Code) in the HF range, and a few even use AM.
The VHF radio happens to use FM (Frequency Modulation), just like an FM radio station but with a narrower bandwidth. But again, whether it uses FM or SSB is not what determines whether the radio only works line of sight or could also work over the horizon, it’s the frequency range.
This is similar to how AM radio stations can transmit much farther than FM stations, especially at night. It isn’t because one is AM and the other is FM, it’s because AM stations operate in a much lower frequency range.
(I tried to post this comment on the article page itself but had trouble with the commenting system...)
Morse code can be used to modulate a continuous wave, but they are not synonymous.
A bit like the way the ham community uses "CW" and "Morse code" somewhat interchangeably, even though as scoot pointed out they are not the same thing.
In fact, the ICOM IC-M700PRO shown in the article bills itself as an "SSB Radio Telephone", but it also supports other modes including AM, CW, and FSK (frequency shift keying).
http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/marine/ssb/m700pro/
(Note that where the specifications mention USB, they are not talking about Universal Serial Bus. They refer to Upper Sideband. Since there are two sidebands for every AM signal, when you use Single Sideband you have to pick which one you want to use - the upper sideband, USB - or the lower sideband, LSB. This radio only supports upper sideband, not lower. Ham radios use either one depending on the convention for the ham band you're using.)
But still, the article really conflates SSB modulation with the HF frequency range:
"[Ham radio] covers a broader array of wavelengths than SSB..."
"...they’re both using SSB frequencies..."
It's not a big deal, and obviously the author knows far more about sailing than I do. But the article specifically calls out propagation differences for different kinds of radios, and it's worth knowing the actual reason for those differences.
It's a little bit more specific than that. ITU has specific frequency allocations for maritime use that imply several of those details that are not explicitly stated when a sailor refers to his VHF radio, and GMDSS standards also help dictate what kind of equipment and features are expected for different bands.
Here they have many, many baby sharks inside their womb and the baby sharks eat each other until only one baby shark is left. This shark has murdered scores of its siblings before it emerges into the world hungry.
I think someone hired these morons to smuggle a load of gold bars and something else went wrong.
That's an awfully long way above the design waterline to indicate heavy loading.
Probably explains why they were going around in circles for so long.
Caveats: I'm not a "blue-water" sailor but I've got a small sailing yacht that's easily capable of coastal cruising. When I originally saw their interview, I thought through most of the points in this article and decided I wasn't qualified to write it all up. But just about anyone who sails will at least point out the most obvious five points.
My first thought was ... why didn't someone go up the mast in the bosun's chair and fix that spreader?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they got scared when they saw the coastguard and cut the load. Just like Han Solo.
Edit - that could also explain the ‘shark attack’ story - a loose load tied to one side could bump and damage the hull. They’re trying to cover if someone notices, instead of saying ‘Oh I misjudged a channel width once and bashed the side’.
Plus they really seem to have been at sea for six-months. If you're smuggling I assume you want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible and get rid of the goods, not drift around the Pacific with the contraband.
When they go back and higher ups will know about it, these two lasses are basically dead. So they created this story and tried to get as much attention as possible, hoping that it will help them avoid the imminent punishment.
Also for whatever reason those stories always run to the extravagant and complicated, rather than simpler & more plausible explanations. (Or the obviously best policy of just S'ing TF U.)
If I had to speculate why that is, I'd say it's probably that whoever decides they need to intervene to shape the narrative, already has an overinflated sense of how valuable and beneficial their story (and their talking in general) is to the outcome. Once you've decided the thing that will set things right and save you, is your gums, flapping, then why not go whole-hog? Obviously more of a good thing is better! (They think.)
Although I do not speak from experience, I find it impossible to believe that anyone who needed to move a 50-foot boat load of narcotics would have hired these prevaricating morons.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
Whenever something like this happens, the people at risk of getting caught seem somewhat 'disposable'.
(huge bias involved of course - the competent ones aren't caught anywhere near as often)
[1] http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=840124&...
Thread has many interesting insights and links. I've previously bought into the full blown planned hoax explanation but it seems like 'Appel was completely incompetent as a sailor and more than a little bonkers and a huge bullshitter' is perhaps more likely.
She crashed her previous boat on the rocks at Magic Island [2] (Ala Moana Beach Park). Daily Mail (ugh) ran a (NSFW) article [3] that focused on her BDSM activities but also gives some relevant background on her general sailing incompetence and perhaps impairment of her judgement due to a previous motorcycle injury. Apparently she also had no experience in open ocean short of taking her new boat from Kauai to Oahu
[2] http://www.kitv.com/story/30425516/sailboat-runs-aground-off...
[3] NSFW http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5063707/Bungling-yac...
Then even if the "details" (storms, sharks) turn out to be lies, what remains should be enough for her to enjoy a little more being "famous." I would like if she'd sell the rights for a movie about all what she did.
However, what definitely doesn't fit the story of being five months at the sea in any form is Appel's skin.
I can imagine that she managed to spend good amount of time just as she wished: on some inhabited island. Which would also explain the green stuff on the ship: it could have mostly grown while they were on the island. But I believe everybody would catch a lot of sun on an inhabited island too.
So if they haven't been on some island, they must have then really spent most of the time inside of the boat, being satisfied with floating. Once one doesn't care about actively navigating the boat she doesn't have to be too much exposed to the sun. Then the growth on the ship maybe originates even from the time before they started sailing: if the most money and energy was invested in the food "enough for one year" then it wouldn't be surprising.
http://solotheamericas.org/wp-content/gallery/finish-line/ma...
Are you saying Matt Rutherford is a drug smuggler as well? Do some research before commenting with wild speculations. The fouling is perfectly normal.
I found the section on communication devices to be especially damning.
well, if they had to feed 2 dogs, too...
anyways, back to reading.
The other thing is, every single one of the "problems" the post brings up could be easily explained by "They are idiots." There's no mystery that they already seem dumb, why is it such a mystery to the blogger that they were able to survive by simply being lucky and prepared? Their explanations are off because they're dumb and they don't know what they're talking about, but in that context, all their explanations make sense.
The other thing is using The US Navy in this way could be criminal.
You haven't provided an explanation grounded in stupidity. Simply agreeing that they are morons doesn't explain anything about why they created this situation and told these specific lies. You've postulated no motive, not even a stupid one.
It doesn't matter if they were heroes or not, "stories that make money" aren't always about heroism. "Survival against all odds" is another popular trope. This would fit in the "survival against all odds" category.
People make fools of themselves on reality TV just for the chance of becoming famous.
There is a strong sense of 'wrongness' in the US culture when Alice tells Bob a lie and Charlie knows it is a lie but Bob doesn't. Later Bob will be offended and ashamed that he believed Alice's lie to be the truth so in anticipation of that wrong, Charlie feels compelled to 'out' the lie and save Bob the embarrassment and hurt. Then when Donna, Edith, and Frank come to Alice's defense and double down on the lie Charlie goes apoplectic trying to defend against it for Bob's sake.
I think the challenge here is that uncontested lies that end up in the group consciousness as possible truths can have consequences that effect the group. Perhaps a bad example but one that has happened, is a community that gets a cell tower removed, reducing cell service to everyone in the community, because a group of them believe the cell tower is causing medical conditions to manifest in them.
Alice tells Bob his headaches are being caused by the cell tower, Charlie argues that she is mistaken, Donna, Edith, and Frank side with Alice and the tower is removed and now Charlie has to stand on the back corner of his porch to hit the cell tower one neighborhood over to make reliable phone calls. That is the sort of scenario Charlie fears that the lie persisting will create.
When people have a few experiences like that, where a lie they knew was a lie, came back and made their life poorer because it wasn't identified as such early on. They start having stronger and stronger reactions to lies like that. Sort of an escalating immune response if you will.
That is my current theory on why people get so worked up over stories like this.
And yet, the blogger feels obsessed with going over the minutiae of this and trying to prove how these two are con artists, but I don't see the con. I feel like the anger is completely out of place, given the lack of crime, which is fascinating to me. And I've seen several posts like this, which is why it's something I've noticed specifically with this story.
As for the minutiae, it seems to be a familiar response to the others who come to the defense with either implausible or improbable defensive statements like "while it is unlikely all of their radios died at once they could have." The author has gone apoplectic and wants people to know that the only facts he feels have the weight of truth are that these women were on a boat, the boat was originally in Hawaii, and that the Navy picked them up off the boat. He is just that offended by what he perceives as lies that others are "believing."
I would guess that his outrage is being fueled by his own experiences and what he sees as people being "gullible."
Furthermore, knowing that someone has lied in the past leads us to distrust them, and even warn others about their behavior, even if there is no apparent victim, or even without clear evidence that they are currently being deceptive. Reputation is an important part of the network of trust that an ethical society depends on, and furthermore, we have probably all learned to be wary of deception even when we cannot immediately see the harm. Liars are suspected of being up to no good, and for good reason in general.
It also seems to be that blatant lying provokes more anger, even though subtle, minimal lying is often more effective, perhaps because blatant lying signals confidence in the perpetrator that he will prevail. In this case, the lying is blatant from the perspective of the author, who is knowledgable about the domain.
I recall a study from years ago - some sort of game-theoretic simulation - which showed, given its assumptions, that it was not enough that rule-breakers be punished for the society to remain whole, but so also should those who were tolerant of antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, I have lost track of it so I cannot check the plausibility of its assumptions, but note that someone getting away with something sometimes provokes more anger than the original offense, and then it often extends to those who permitted it. To the author, the lame rationalizations of the womens' defenders probably feels like collusion. Also, I see that in this thread, pfarnsworth's 'but there is no victim here' comment has been downvoted, while khazhou's 'no quarter' comment goes unremarked.
It sounds to me as if he's saying they are simply liars. And for what reason, no one can yet figure out. Not quite "masters" of anything.
Is this true?
>there are eight amino acids from protein and fats (11 for dogs) that the body cannot synthesize, without which you will die in a couple of months.
Those are called essential amino acids, and they are indeed essential for life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid
As far as I know though they are just from protein, not from both protein and fat.
Wouldn't a small bottle of the correct vitamins allow you to live healthy and for very long periods on carbs?
The real poor live on rice and very little else for years. Surly carbs and vitamins pills are enough?
Centrum Silver is a brand of multivitamin. Sardines, being an animal product, is what's called a "complete protein" - one that contains all essential amino acids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
Some plants are complete proteins as well, such as soybeans.
To clarify though, amino acids are not vitamins though, they are a component of protein.
But I don't see the issue. I'm sure they also had hygiene products and things as well. I don't think it's unusual to not mention them. You only need these things in trace amounts. Anyway I think any non vegetarian would pack canned or dried meat.
I see the issue with the dogs but they bought dog food and fed human food to the dogs (Why they used a whole years worth)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/28/rescued-wome...
if you find yourself in similar troubles remember that green algae growing in the ship are also vegetables. I ate Ulva and Enteromorpha and both make a passable salad if taken from a non contaminated source of water, cleaned of sand and debris, and boiled.
Your kidneys excrete the excess salt you ingest. The problem is, sea water has higher salinity than the kidneys can excrete so your kidneys have to excrete more water than you ingested of sea water and you actually die of dehydration.
This is why it is so horrible: the more sea water you drink, the more dehydrated you become, the thirstier you get, and the faster you die.
Ref: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/drinksw.html
See also salting slugs: http://www.slugoff.co.uk/slug-facts/salt
Would take a lot of fuel though, usually propane for the USA, I think? In the UK many use Butane instead, or CampingGaz - in any case you don't really want to use it all up when you are out at sea.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/how-salty-should-pasta-wa...
He concluded that is inedibly salty and even half that is on the upper end of what tastes good.
Undiluted seawater suitability seems to vary by food[1][2], my cursory search didn't provide any factual specifics for rice, oatmeal, and vegetables. Some comments indicate you can boil fish in straight seawater.
That's all without considering pollution and natural toxins from algae blooms. The sources I skimmed mentioned commercially sourced culinary "sea water", I would expect some amount of filtering and heat treatment.
[1]https://www.chowhound.com/post/cooking-seawater-785862
[2]https://www.quora.com/Could-seawater-be-used-for-cooking-e-g...
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51729/can-i-use-...
All your favorite comedians do, all your favorite non-fiction authors do.
Given their ineptitude at sailing I also think their storytelling is also quite awful.
But still I don't see why their basic premise isn't true, 5 months at sea without the skill set or common sense to get home.
I don't get the skepticism on this story but so many other stories are clearly in doubt on HN. Is it because the media is accepting of this skepticism? I mean this story is only reinforcing what the media already has said.
Nothing in particular in this article shows the basic story isn't true. They were to silly to know it wasn't sharks attacking with a bit of exaggeration thrown in?
This is a good example of one of the sad sides of HN.
We need a way to downvote the downvoters haha
If it is a legitimate rescue then they probably won't charge you. If you called in a false distress, then they will charge you money and criminally prosecute you as well.
I am incredibly skeptical of anyone who starts an article like this - comes across like a teenager trying to be edgy.
As for the article itself, I find it incredibly odd how worked up people get over this stuff. The vitriol of the article is quite frustrating to get over even though the analysis and breakdown is accurate.
Yet, there wasn't any politics in it, was tehre?
>As for the article itself, I find it incredibly odd how worked up people get over this stuff. The vitriol of the article is quite frustrating to get over.
I find the people who find it odd when people get worked up about elaborate scheming, odd.
That's not the point. There's better ways to express the fact that your post isn't political than implying that people are just "too sensitive" about racism and sexism or something. Like I said, it comes across like a teenager trying to be edgy and that childish tone is carried through the entire article.
> I find the people who find it odd when people get worked up about elaborate scheming, odd.
Again such anger and vitriol. Like honestly why are people so worked up over such a thing? This doesn't bother me at all. If they're lying, the police will figure it out. If they're not, then they won't. What's so odd about just letting idiots be?
I think this armchair cross-examination is tiring and pointless.
EDIT: Never knew being critical of the author's tone was deserving of down-voting - interesting crowd here I must say.
I know where you're coming from. However this article is not like facebook randos posting their 2 cents on non-stories. The guy has expertise in sailing, and in ripping apart stories, we enjoy both.
It is just Internet bullying - to try to tear apart these people for sport, and even more viciously the objects of attack are people who have more than enough trauma from a horrible experience. Imagine surviving something like that, only to find discussions on the Internet by people who just seem to enjoy hurting you.
[from their about page:]
> I hate stupid people. I see blatant displays of irrationality so often that I don’t even think about it anymore.
[from the article:]
> I don’t know what the fuck happened. But I do know these women are full of shit.
EDIT: I'll add there's plenty of irony in writing the above and calling others 'stupid'. And it's obsessive Internet rants like the article which turn out to be ignorant, deceitful, and a meaningless waste of time and emotion - i.e., 'stupid' - in the end.
If I made statements saying that not only did I discover, but also made love to and raised the children of a dragon to international media, do you think it would be bullying for people to tell me it’s nonsense? If so, you’d have a pretty spectacular definition of bullying if you ask me. We should not allow liars to go unchecked.
> We should not allow liars to go unchecked.
There are many ways to address deceit; none of the good ones include abusing people. No matter what these women did or didn't do, I think the people that abuse them, including the author, are doing much worse. Where is the check on them?
But more importantly, this article is just 'something I read on the Internet', by someone who announces on their about page the intent to abuse people the author thinks is "stupid" (an ironic statement). Surely we are well beyond trusting such things by now. Where is the check on the liars and, more importantly, the abusers of the Internet?
> Allowing that to happen would lead to a society where fantastic lies are the norm and you’d never know if you could trust anything anyone would say.
A great point.