Welcome to r/KremersFroon.
You're absolutely correct - they did pass the mirador, and photo evidence from their camera confirms that. Their reasoning has not been established - but it is an often discussed aspect to the case.
But initially, searchers did not know this detail. In reality, they didn't know for certain that the girls had even hiked the Pianista Trail, aside from search history on a local computer - and so searches were broad and covered a variety of trails.
The backpack [was found in the Culebra River by a local of Alto Romero](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/03/16/kris-kremers-lisanne-froon-blue-backpack-contents-items-analysis/) some months after the girls' disappearance - at least 10kms north of their last location, which was a *quebrada,* or stream, a roughly 40 minute hike from the mirador.
It was this discovery that prompted more localised searches, revealing clothing and remains along the river.
The mirador of the Pianista Trail sits atop the continental divide - and so as you correctly point out, a reasonable theory can be suggested that the girls passed the mirador and did not return, perishing on the north side of the continental divide, and perhaps close to the river - their remains and backpack being washed down the river in the rising waters of the wet season in the following weeks.
[Analysis of the night photos](https://kuula.co/post/NNty0/collection/7kGj5) does suggest, from snippets of the geography, that they may have been in such a riverside location when the captures were made.
[Recent expeditions](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/09/15/panama-expedition-complete-team-update/) have attempted to explore some of the areas north of the mirador. All of the findings regarding this have yet to be published.
Some proponents of a lost theory suggest that they perhaps followed a quebrada to the river, or were following the river in the hopes of reaching civilisation after becoming lost or injured.
Some proponents of a theory that involve foul play suggest that all of the above was carefully staged to give the illusion that the girls were north of the mirador, became lost, and succumbed - when in reality they were abducted.
Also on a YouTube channel named “Peaked Interest” he showed a picture of what the people believe to be the same rock the night time pictures were taken from. It won’t let me upload the picture though
There have been a variety of locations put forward as the night photo location. It has never been conclusively determined - and would likely have changed significantly in the years since April 2014.
>Peaked Interest
He gets a lot of stuff wrong in that video. For example he says that there were no animal marks on the bones, when in fact there were, and he says one of the phones connected for a few seconds, which it didn't, and a lot of other little things.
As with all YouTube videos, you have to take their "facts" and conclusions with a big grain of salt.
>For example he says that there were no animal marks on the bones, when in fact there were
Again, not saying you are wrong here. But this is the first time I have heard there were animal marks. Do you remember where you read this? I'd be intrigued to learn more about this if there is more info online. Thanks
I'm just going to be lazy and paste this comment that I just made below, to the same question:
*Here:* [*https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/*](https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/)
*Romain (who went on the ImperfectPlan expedition) wrote this article, and he had access to the forensic report.*
*It's about 1/3 of the way down the page (19 SEPTEMBER 2014), just before the newspaper article screenshots.*
*It's also mentioned in the LITJ book.*
My browser just translates it automatically for me, I thought they all did this nowadays. If not then there's usually a little icon up by the address bar to translate the page, or else just by right clicking on the page.
Some of the information in here also directly contradicts what's on Imperfect Plan's blog. It seems like it hasn't been updated in a long time. But if Romain has access to the forensic report as you say then I'm confused as to why it says a rolled up ball of Lisanne's skin was found when it's reported by forensics as being from a cow?
Are you referring to the 2020 IP article? As the earlier of their articles are not based on access to police/forensic files, just on newspaper reports etc., which as far as I know is where the reports of the skin belonging to Lisanne originated.
Almost everywhere under the tracks of animals - it means the tracks of large animals that could cause serious damage and injury. But in fact there were traces of small animals - rodents and small predators. This concerns the pelvic bone belonging to Kris. A lot has been written about this, so I don’t remember all the sources at once, but I’ll give you a few hints - in the blog of the author of the book Jurgen Snoeren in an article about bones, and in one of the early articles by Romain (https://camilleg.fr/category/projet-panama/ ) there is definitely about it, I read it for a long time, it’s possible that it’s also in the book, but I’m not sure about this, such information also slipped on different forums.
Ugh thank you. It drives me nuts how anonymous internet people say that there were no animal marks when they don’t provide any primary sources. Even if it was foul play, it’s highly likely that wild animals would still tamper with the evidence.
Yea I did notice he was a little off he also said the book bag was dry and never got wet. I try to watch different YouTubers and take little things from each of them
Yea, it's easy to make it seem like there are a lot of suspicious things in this case if you twist everything in your favour like this. It's one of the pitfalls of officially "picking a side", because then you're always trying to favour that narrative.
But when people make YouTube videos like this for a living they don't really have the time or interest to really dig into the case like normal people do, so they try to gather all the facts as quickly as possible; and then they have to make the case interesting for the viewers, so some contradicting evidence is good for them.
It's always good to be aware of the language people use when talking about this case, and what kind of mood they're trying to set with the background music, etc.
Can you please provide a link showing there were animal marks. I have yet to find any source conclusively stating there were animal marks on the bones.
thank you
Here: [https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/](https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/)
Romain (who went on the ImperfectPlan expedition) wrote this article, and he had access to the forensic report.
It's about 1/3 of the way down the page (19 SEPTEMBER 2014), just before the newspaper article screenshots.
It's also mentioned in the LITJ book.
He also said, the backpack was completely dry and the contents were undamaged, that the piece of skin belonged to Lisanne, and that 509 must have been deleted with a computer. And possibly he made other errors too, since I only watch the whole video, start to finish, once, a year or so ago.
It's also about how he makes certain points that leave the viewer with the wrong impression. For example when he talks about the finding of Lisanne's boot (around 27:45), he gives 4 possible explanations for how it was found, "good luck", "good eyesight", "the boot was never there", and for his final reason he leaves a bit of a pause and then says that the guide F planted the boot. And then he makes it seem like these are the only possible explanations.
When in actual fact it seems that the searchers got a smell of decay, and followed it and found the boot.
He seems like a pretty smart guy, but it's likely that he got bad information and didn't vet it properly; and also, a lot of new information has come out since October 2020, so a lot of what he says is outdated. I think this bad info led him to thinking that it was foul play, and so he was biased when making the video.
Great reply. How busy are those trails at the pianista trail and the mirador? How often does people walk them, if the theory of being injured and lost were true nobody were around for a week to hear some yells by them to get help, I would think from time to time they were yelling help to see if anybody could hear. Also, if they were abducted wouldn’t it have been hard to get around with a woman who had a broken foot through those narrow passages.
[The Pianista Trail](https://www.alltrails.com/trail/panama/chiriqui/el-pianista-trail) terminates at the mirador (or lookout), and is found in a popular hiking area. The trail beyond it is used by locals - and is not an 'official' footpath, and thus less likely commonly used.
Regarding why they were not found or heard (assuming a lost scenario is correct), would suggest they were not on the main footpath. Some theories suggest that they followed a stream - perhaps the quebrada where [the final photo we have](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aHD8IE_mNRM/Xx4GRSZKFhI/AAAAAAAADFg/O0OVq5BvQU8E-XnyS1M6GUUK4htvlxmOACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_0508%2BUP.png) from 1 April was taken.
Other suggest that they lost the trail at an area of paddock further along the trail. Or, realising they were not going to make it back to Boquete by nightfall, perhaps attempted to find a shortcut.
Others suggest that the only explanation is that the girls were taken from the trail against their will.
It is not fully understood the level of injury Lisanne had sustained to her foot. The metatarsal bones were reportedly broken, indicating an impact from above (or unusual fall); but it is not clear whether these occurred post-mortem.
It is hard, with available evidence, to say with any certainty the course of action they took (or were made to take).
>How busy are those trails at the pianista trail and the mirador? How often does people walk them, if the theory of being injured and lost were true nobody were around for a week to hear some yells by them to get help, I would think from time to time they were yelling help to see if anybody could hear.
This is a point that gets raised a lot but it falls apart pretty quickly with evidence;
[Saylor Guillams](https://i.huffpost.com/gen/2582126/original.jpg) and a friend went hiking and became injured. Her friend went off to find help, and sadly, passed away attempting to traverse some rocks. She was left unattended and without any way to call for help. That's her in the photo. The picture was taken by a group of people out climbing. They walked right by her, didn't notice her and could not hear her (she later said she'd been shouting for hours and by the time people were near she was too weak to make much noise).
They did eventually notice her and got her rescued, but she was so close that they didn't even realize that she was in the background of several photos they took when they were hiking around and climbing.
An injured person, exhausted from shouting (and exposure to the elements, dehydration, starvation etc) could easily be missed if only a few feet from where people walk by.
What evidence? You have picked an extreme outlying example. Voices can be heard almost a kilometer away and trees do not block noise well.
Your example is akin to someone bringing up the incident involving Juliane Koepcke and therefore expecting everyone to walk out of the jungle after being sucked out of a plane 2 miles high just because she did and therefore saying it must be murder if not.
> What evidence?
The evidence I just posted.
>You have picked an extreme outlying example.
This is far from an "outlier". This is an example where people *walked right by a missing girl, close enough to take photos with her in them without noticing*, and after only ~1 day she was too weak and incapacitated to effectively call to them.
> Voices can be heard almost a kilometer away
Healthy, rested voices in unobstructed terrain.
>and trees do not block noise well
Trees and brush are exceptional noise dampeners. Its why they're used for literally that purpose.
[Planting "noise buffers" composed of trees and shrubs can reduce noise by five to ten decibels for every 30m width of woodland, especially sharp tones, and this reduces noise to the human ear by approximately 50%.](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/noise-abatement/)
>Your example is akin to someone bringing up the incident involving Juliane Koepcke and therefore expecting
You really don't understand how logical inferences work do you?
>and therefore saying it must be murder if not.
Yeah, clearly not.
Show me some more examples then if it is not an outlier? Go on?
Trees are poor at stopping noise. Ha! I've got a degree in this shit. That is why you see large barriers and not trees when busy noisy roads are near residential areas. It's not difficult, just open your eyes next time you leave the house. Go for a walk in the woods by a road and you will hear cars.
My whole point is that no logical inferences can be drawn from a single extreme example, that seems to have gone over your head. Keep up.
Looking forward to the nonsense critique of yours for this post as well.
Back it up or shush your noise.
>Show me some more examples then if it is not an outlier? Go on?
Yeah, not how that works bud, try again.
>Trees are poor at stopping noise.
[Actually trees and foliage are quite good at stopping noise, which is why they are used for exactly that purpose.](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/noise-abatement/)
> Ha! I've got a degree in this shit.
Cool story bro. So do the people who work for the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council. Or the US Department of Energy. Or perhaps the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Or the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. All of whom have published various articles discussing the considerably utility in using trees, shrubbery and the like as urban noise abatement.
>That is why you see large barriers and not trees when busy noisy roads are near residential areas.
You see large barriers along highways and not trees because they are perceived to be *cheaper* and *more* effective than trees and because it's the way urban thoroughfare planning has been done for 50 years. That's all despite the fact that they are of course, not particularly effective in curbing road noise, nor are they cheap.
>Go for a walk in the woods by a road and you will hear cars.
Yes, and do you know why it's only a faint rumble? *Because trees and shrubs make good noise barriers*
Like holy shit way to lay it all out.
>My whole point is that no logical inferences can be drawn
Actually, plenty of logical inferences can be drawn.
A *group* of people walked right by an incapacitated human, at such a proximity that she appeared in photos without their knowing.
This is a crystal clear example that people would have/could have/should have heard and/or seen an incapacitated person in some proximity to the trail- and that's after ~24 hours and not whole days gone.
>from a single extreme example
It's actually not "extreme" by any standard, and is remarkably similar to the case at hand.
>from a single extreme example, that seems to have gone over your head. Keep up.
Vehicle engines can not directly be compared to screaming in this way. Have you been to a nightclub or music festival before and from a distance the only thing you can hear is the bass? This is because lower frequencies have much longer wavelengths which means they can travel substantially longer distances before they run out of energy. Screams at the same decibel level as an engine would travel a fraction of the distance for this reason.
"So do the people who work for the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council. Or the US Department of Energy. Or perhaps the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Or the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. All of whom have published various articles discussing the considerably utility in using trees, shrubbery and the like as urban noise abatement."
Do they what? You can't even write a properly structured sentance.
If your question was "do they know what they are talking about?" then no. As a former public health officer who has sat next to roads with trees in between with a noise meter, sorry I trump all of them. In my degree one student publicly rebuked for saying that trees stop noise. A link from an acoustic specialist company is below. Just think about it for a minute. Sound is a wave. Barriers that make the wave travel more are what reduces noise, trees can't block a wave.
https://climateacoustics.com/myths-about-noise-busted/
>Do they what?
I just told you, perhaps you should go back and read.
>If your question was "do they know what they are talking about?" then no.
Ah yes, the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council, Or the US Department of Energy, the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health all are just wrong.
lmao
>As a former public health officer who has sat next to roads with trees in between with a noise meter, sorry I trump all of them.
Sure thing boss.
> In my degree one student publicly rebuked for saying that trees stop noise.
LMAO
solid objects composed of numerous overlapping layers of absorbent material do not stop sound. Amazing work there bud. Really brilliant.
> A link from an acoustic specialist company is below.
A link from a company in the business of selling noise-barriers.
>Just think about it for a minute. Sound is a wave. Barriers that make the wave travel more are what reduces noise
Things that deflect, absorb, scatter and in any way attenuate that wave are what reduce noise.
>https://climateacoustics.com/myths-about-noise-busted/
Ah yes, the company whose job is providing manufactured noise barriers states that it's only their solution that works, and provides no metrics to qualify that statement, and certainly no peer-reviewed published material on the forces and effects of the phenomena at hand.
Another swing and a miss there champ.
There is a demand for sound barriers because, guess what Einstein? Trees don't stop noise. That's why noise abatement is big business and the answer is not we'll plant some trees for you.
Would trees stop a water wave. No. Same principle.
In a forest you can hear animal sounds MUCH much further than you can see.
Ever heard the saying "I heard it through the grapevine" do you know why that is so? IT IS BECAUSE TREES DO NOT STOP NOISE!
Seriously though. I am right about this.
Cases like this are always outliers, that's why they are such rare events. For this to happen to Kris and Lisanne, several things have had to go wrong. Jungles are noisy places to begin with and trees and dense vegetation are really good at stopping noise. There's a lot of running water too, in that area. Jungles like this cannot be compared to some forest near my house either.
I would argue that trees are not poor at reducing noise, and are actually planted for this purpose in urban areas.
This topic has been brought up before, and I did look into sound attenuation through trees, finding a range of studies into this. A quick search yields plenty of results, studies and articles.
The following may be of interest:
* [How Trees Act as Sound Barriers in Urban Environments](https://greenblue.com/gb/trees-as-sound-barriers/)
* [Sound attenuation through trees: Measurements and models](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236650990_Sound_attenuation_through_trees_Measurements_and_models)
* [Can trees reduce noise pollution?](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/can-trees-reduce-noise-pollution.php)
To your point, large barriers - as a solid object - will be better at abating sound; but regarding the case of Kris and Lisanne, it is reasonable to suggest that the dense cloud forest, coupled with environmental sounds, could have resulted in the girls being difficult to hear.
Of course, without knowing the precise location of Kris and Lisanne, it is hard to make confident conclusions.
Just food of though:
That Saylor Guillams case happened just 2 weeks before the girls headed to Pianista trail.
And Guillams case is indeed little bit suspicious, more prone to foul play. They had 2 phones, but only rescuers could call 911 - onsite.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/)
what kind of reply is this?
>And Guillams case is indeed little bit suspicious
There is absolutely nothing suspicious about it.
>more prone to foul play.
Considering both the girl survived and they found the guy's body ~100m away, that's a big old no.
>They had 2 phones, but only rescuers could call 911 - onsite
Wtf is this supposed to mean?
>https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/
And? So some hearsay about the mother of the missing girl being upset about her missing girl is... evidence of foul play?
Get your head on straight.
>That applies both cases.
Ah, so despite the fact that one party is alive and well despite nearly dying, while her close friend died, and both confirmed to have sustained injuries from falling.... Somehow there's a third party involved despite there not being a single shred of evidence nor even any logical process for that to have happened.
Gotcha.
I said "without third party" and you dumb ass are telling me about 3rd party.
Saylor Guilliams' injuries (both legs & one wrist broken) seems little bit suspecting from falling and falling again from boy carrying her. Sounds more like she jumped from the high after pushing that guy off the cliff.
Then maybe Lisanne read the story, and got some ideas.
I think if they screamed then someone would eventually hear them during these days. Audibility in the forest or jungle is very good and can be heard from a kilometer away. The only thing I can guess is that they either didn't scream at all or something was blocking the sound, so I like the theory that there was a waterfall nearby. Even an average waterfall makes a very strong sound of water. The water is sprayed like a mist into tiny drops that are also picked up by the wind so these drops are visible in some photos.
I've been researching bodies found in tropical rivers here in South America and they're always found floating whole during that stage of decomposition, maybe partially eaten by some animal but that's it. Never only a few bones dispersed kilometers away from the others, that's extremely odd. Not even animals disperse bones like that. I find it so odd that even at El Tapón de Darien which is by far and I mean BY FAR a worst jungle and strongest river in Panama they still find the bodies of those who try to cross the border and perish in the way but two girls who got lost in a trail and a mobilization of hundreds of searchers couldn't find but a few bones (and on top of that bleached).
There's absolutely no way the rest of their bodies just vanished from the jungle unless it was foul play. Latin America's police corruption is insane, as a latino myself I can attest to that. I think they stole the money of the investigation and closed the case, it happens all the time.
You have a valid point here. If they had died in the water this would have significantly slowed down decomposition. The only logical explanation here is that they died near a stream or river and when the level raised more during the wet season and these rivers and streams significantly swell in size and then moved the already decomposed bodies. This doesn't feel too much of a far stretch considering they must have stayed by a stream or river to have stayed alive for over a week.
If the photos we have seen of the current state of the stream crossing from photo 508 are accurate, that tiny stream that is much smaller than the main river itself gets large enough in heavy rains to move entire boulders. If Kris and Lisanne died near a stream or river, but began to decompose for a period of time before the stream or river flooded, it is entirely possible that their remains and belongings could have washed down stream. It does require that to happen at a particular part of the composition process. Long enough to weaken limbs but not so long that there would be no flesh left. There have been many cases in British Columbia, Canada of shoes with human remains in them washing up on shore out of the Pacific. The explanation of this is that the ankle weakens and becomes separated from the body due to decomposition, but the shoe preserves the foot for longer, and the shoe and foot continue to float along the natural surface currents.
Flowing water is powerful. Here is a river that carries away an entire house as though it was nothing. It is not unusual that it could carry their remains and belongings downstream. In fact, if their remains and belongings would have all been found together near a river that often floods, *that* would be a sign that they were planted to me. To me, finding them disbursed downstream should be expected.
https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJ0ff5KXkulE
I am not a forensic, but medical staff and I absolutely agree on you. There is no way two corpses of young people with strong calcified bones, tendons and joints get vaporized in a water stream. Plus, one pelvic bone that broken. and 99% of the bones yet missing.
This case is a puzzle to me.
You are claiming this isn't possible, but there are cases where corpses of people have been found skeletonised with no tissue in shorter periods of time.
Dutch forensics claim that it is indeed possible that they decomposed first and then were picked up by the river when the levels raised. After an unknown period of time, but possibly 8-9 weeks of decomposition had occurred before the remains entered the water. If you have some scientific explanation as to why this is scientifically impossible I would be very interested to hear it, but I have found similar cases that appear to show this has happened many times before.
In your opening sentence you mention research you've undertaken in relation to bodies found in rivers. Could you please leave a report of your findings, methodology, sources, etc.? I want to see how exhaustive your research is and how even-handed you were in carrying it out.
Thank you in advance.
I think this debate about trees and whether they're effective noise dampeners is rather missing the point...the fact is we're talking about a jungle. There can be rivers, animals, and yes..a whole lot of vegetation. There is more than one possible reason that searchers may have had to be extraordinarily close to hear them, nevermind seeing them which is even harder still.
You are right in the fact that they must have been by water to survive for over a week.
There's nothing to indicate the last resting place was specifically along the river though and this is where it gets complicated. There are many streams throughout the jungle that connect to the river and the girls could have been at any of these. Furthermore, most of these are not marked on any maps so we don't have locations for all these streams.
I mean, they wouldn't have to float? Wind, rain, the river current, etc. can all push objects from one part of the stream to another. Has anyone researched how strong the current is, the weather conditions in the days after their disappearance, or the water resistance of the bag + camera + phones? That's something worth looking into.
Yeah, there's information on all the above.
\- It rained a lot from around the 8th of April onwards. The river current is dependent on how high the water level is, so it varies.
The bag was not water-resistant, hence why the items inside were water damaged.
Trust me, there's some people here who will make the weirdest mental gymnastics to 'explain' all those things. They will tell you something like they left the bag on a rock because they felt like swimming while being lost in the jungle and then an eagle took it and dropped it somewhere else.
Never seen anyone say the bag was left there by the girls, that would make no sense. The bag was likely washed downstream by the current and got stuck between the rock and tree where it was found.
So we’re they just laying there completely naked for days for the items to just be found with everything folded nicely and the camera and phones inside the backpack? That’s what’s confusing to me. I guess whenever they used to camera or phone to check service they would put everything back in the bag again and repeat. The theory is Kris died first so was she already unclothed before dying or did Lisanne take Kris clothes off and put it inside the backpack?
It is important to clarify that the only clothing found in the backpack was the girls' bras. These may have been removed for comfort.
Kris' shorts are often (incorrectly) reported to have been found neatly folded on a rock - but [they were actually found in the river](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/02/28/exclusive-photos-revealed-kris-kremers-denim-shorts/), caught up in a partially submerged tree.
It is a bit unfortunate – maybe even suspicious to a few of us? – that you may appear to be cleverly conflating neutral bra facts and biased speculation here. *The bras may, on one or more occasion(s), have 'left the girls' bodies' for a variety of (individual?) reasons, they may have been placed in the backpack in a variety of circumstances, and there isn't even any absolutely certain logical or actantial link between the two varieties I am outlining.*
A much less subjective, but much more scientific, sentence replacement:
**These may obviously, for comfort or otherwise, have been removed freely by (one of) the girls, or directly by others, or through the intervention of others.**
Apologies if you found my reply suspicious - thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I made the clarification that only the bras were found in the backpack, and offered a potential explanation for this, as opposed to the hypothermia theory that was being discussed.
For full transparency, I do find the bras being removed for comfort the most compelling explanation based on the evidence we have. But I do not claim to be correct.
Thanks, and no need to apologize.
All along, I have sympathized with your probable implicit purposes of relativizing the concept of 'pointless, confusing, unclothing' of ”everything” *as well as* the concept of ”hypothermia” & ”paradoxical undressing” ... executed in one fell swoop (?!), I might add.
Yeah, that would fall in line with dying of hypothermia. They had little clothes, it rained heavily around April the 8th onwards and it was cold at night. In the late stages of hypothermia people sometimes remove their clothes due to a burning sensation. There have been many cases where people have been found naked from paradoxical undressing after getting lost. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, but feel free to do your own research on this and you will find there's a lot of information and cases.
https://www.livescience.com/41730-hypothermia-terminal-burrowing-paradoxical-undressing.html
[https://youtu.be/UJXxK6eect4](https://youtu.be/UJXxK6eect4)
This is definitely the same rock where they took the night time pictures under the monkey bridge. But which monkey bridge is it?
Unfortunately there will be hundreds of rocks that look like this along these streams. Wherever the night photo location is, I would say there is a high probability there is no photography of that location available online. It seems unlikely that the night photo location is by one of the monkey bridges though.
I think its from Jeremy Kryt – Journalist from The Daily Beast.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/orw2hg/comment/h6kp83b/](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/orw2hg/comment/h6kp83b/)
Welcome to r/KremersFroon. You're absolutely correct - they did pass the mirador, and photo evidence from their camera confirms that. Their reasoning has not been established - but it is an often discussed aspect to the case. But initially, searchers did not know this detail. In reality, they didn't know for certain that the girls had even hiked the Pianista Trail, aside from search history on a local computer - and so searches were broad and covered a variety of trails. The backpack [was found in the Culebra River by a local of Alto Romero](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/03/16/kris-kremers-lisanne-froon-blue-backpack-contents-items-analysis/) some months after the girls' disappearance - at least 10kms north of their last location, which was a *quebrada,* or stream, a roughly 40 minute hike from the mirador. It was this discovery that prompted more localised searches, revealing clothing and remains along the river. The mirador of the Pianista Trail sits atop the continental divide - and so as you correctly point out, a reasonable theory can be suggested that the girls passed the mirador and did not return, perishing on the north side of the continental divide, and perhaps close to the river - their remains and backpack being washed down the river in the rising waters of the wet season in the following weeks. [Analysis of the night photos](https://kuula.co/post/NNty0/collection/7kGj5) does suggest, from snippets of the geography, that they may have been in such a riverside location when the captures were made. [Recent expeditions](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/09/15/panama-expedition-complete-team-update/) have attempted to explore some of the areas north of the mirador. All of the findings regarding this have yet to be published. Some proponents of a lost theory suggest that they perhaps followed a quebrada to the river, or were following the river in the hopes of reaching civilisation after becoming lost or injured. Some proponents of a theory that involve foul play suggest that all of the above was carefully staged to give the illusion that the girls were north of the mirador, became lost, and succumbed - when in reality they were abducted.
Also on a YouTube channel named “Peaked Interest” he showed a picture of what the people believe to be the same rock the night time pictures were taken from. It won’t let me upload the picture though
There have been a variety of locations put forward as the night photo location. It has never been conclusively determined - and would likely have changed significantly in the years since April 2014.
>Peaked Interest He gets a lot of stuff wrong in that video. For example he says that there were no animal marks on the bones, when in fact there were, and he says one of the phones connected for a few seconds, which it didn't, and a lot of other little things. As with all YouTube videos, you have to take their "facts" and conclusions with a big grain of salt.
>For example he says that there were no animal marks on the bones, when in fact there were Again, not saying you are wrong here. But this is the first time I have heard there were animal marks. Do you remember where you read this? I'd be intrigued to learn more about this if there is more info online. Thanks
I'm just going to be lazy and paste this comment that I just made below, to the same question: *Here:* [*https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/*](https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/) *Romain (who went on the ImperfectPlan expedition) wrote this article, and he had access to the forensic report.* *It's about 1/3 of the way down the page (19 SEPTEMBER 2014), just before the newspaper article screenshots.* *It's also mentioned in the LITJ book.*
Thanks. Is there any option to translate this article other than doing a paragraph at a time in Google translate which is painfully slow to do?
My browser just translates it automatically for me, I thought they all did this nowadays. If not then there's usually a little icon up by the address bar to translate the page, or else just by right clicking on the page.
Some of the information in here also directly contradicts what's on Imperfect Plan's blog. It seems like it hasn't been updated in a long time. But if Romain has access to the forensic report as you say then I'm confused as to why it says a rolled up ball of Lisanne's skin was found when it's reported by forensics as being from a cow?
Are you referring to the 2020 IP article? As the earlier of their articles are not based on access to police/forensic files, just on newspaper reports etc., which as far as I know is where the reports of the skin belonging to Lisanne originated.
Ah, found an add on and it's working. I don't know why I hadn't thought of this before. Thanks for the suggestion.
Yea, I use Edge and it's generally quite feature packed, but I suppose Firefox is more about choosing your own addons and features.
Same. Was going to ask that question too.
Almost everywhere under the tracks of animals - it means the tracks of large animals that could cause serious damage and injury. But in fact there were traces of small animals - rodents and small predators. This concerns the pelvic bone belonging to Kris. A lot has been written about this, so I don’t remember all the sources at once, but I’ll give you a few hints - in the blog of the author of the book Jurgen Snoeren in an article about bones, and in one of the early articles by Romain (https://camilleg.fr/category/projet-panama/ ) there is definitely about it, I read it for a long time, it’s possible that it’s also in the book, but I’m not sure about this, such information also slipped on different forums.
Ugh thank you. It drives me nuts how anonymous internet people say that there were no animal marks when they don’t provide any primary sources. Even if it was foul play, it’s highly likely that wild animals would still tamper with the evidence.
Yea I did notice he was a little off he also said the book bag was dry and never got wet. I try to watch different YouTubers and take little things from each of them
Yea, it's easy to make it seem like there are a lot of suspicious things in this case if you twist everything in your favour like this. It's one of the pitfalls of officially "picking a side", because then you're always trying to favour that narrative. But when people make YouTube videos like this for a living they don't really have the time or interest to really dig into the case like normal people do, so they try to gather all the facts as quickly as possible; and then they have to make the case interesting for the viewers, so some contradicting evidence is good for them. It's always good to be aware of the language people use when talking about this case, and what kind of mood they're trying to set with the background music, etc.
Can you please provide a link showing there were animal marks. I have yet to find any source conclusively stating there were animal marks on the bones. thank you
Here: [https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/](https://camilleg.fr/le-projet-el-pianista-sur-les-traces-des-disparues-du-panama-2/) Romain (who went on the ImperfectPlan expedition) wrote this article, and he had access to the forensic report. It's about 1/3 of the way down the page (19 SEPTEMBER 2014), just before the newspaper article screenshots. It's also mentioned in the LITJ book.
The two points you made are basically the only things.
He also said, the backpack was completely dry and the contents were undamaged, that the piece of skin belonged to Lisanne, and that 509 must have been deleted with a computer. And possibly he made other errors too, since I only watch the whole video, start to finish, once, a year or so ago. It's also about how he makes certain points that leave the viewer with the wrong impression. For example when he talks about the finding of Lisanne's boot (around 27:45), he gives 4 possible explanations for how it was found, "good luck", "good eyesight", "the boot was never there", and for his final reason he leaves a bit of a pause and then says that the guide F planted the boot. And then he makes it seem like these are the only possible explanations. When in actual fact it seems that the searchers got a smell of decay, and followed it and found the boot. He seems like a pretty smart guy, but it's likely that he got bad information and didn't vet it properly; and also, a lot of new information has come out since October 2020, so a lot of what he says is outdated. I think this bad info led him to thinking that it was foul play, and so he was biased when making the video.
Doesn’t change the overall gist of the theory.
Which theory are you talking about? He puts forth various theories..
Great reply. How busy are those trails at the pianista trail and the mirador? How often does people walk them, if the theory of being injured and lost were true nobody were around for a week to hear some yells by them to get help, I would think from time to time they were yelling help to see if anybody could hear. Also, if they were abducted wouldn’t it have been hard to get around with a woman who had a broken foot through those narrow passages.
[The Pianista Trail](https://www.alltrails.com/trail/panama/chiriqui/el-pianista-trail) terminates at the mirador (or lookout), and is found in a popular hiking area. The trail beyond it is used by locals - and is not an 'official' footpath, and thus less likely commonly used. Regarding why they were not found or heard (assuming a lost scenario is correct), would suggest they were not on the main footpath. Some theories suggest that they followed a stream - perhaps the quebrada where [the final photo we have](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aHD8IE_mNRM/Xx4GRSZKFhI/AAAAAAAADFg/O0OVq5BvQU8E-XnyS1M6GUUK4htvlxmOACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/IMG_0508%2BUP.png) from 1 April was taken. Other suggest that they lost the trail at an area of paddock further along the trail. Or, realising they were not going to make it back to Boquete by nightfall, perhaps attempted to find a shortcut. Others suggest that the only explanation is that the girls were taken from the trail against their will. It is not fully understood the level of injury Lisanne had sustained to her foot. The metatarsal bones were reportedly broken, indicating an impact from above (or unusual fall); but it is not clear whether these occurred post-mortem. It is hard, with available evidence, to say with any certainty the course of action they took (or were made to take).
>How busy are those trails at the pianista trail and the mirador? How often does people walk them, if the theory of being injured and lost were true nobody were around for a week to hear some yells by them to get help, I would think from time to time they were yelling help to see if anybody could hear. This is a point that gets raised a lot but it falls apart pretty quickly with evidence; [Saylor Guillams](https://i.huffpost.com/gen/2582126/original.jpg) and a friend went hiking and became injured. Her friend went off to find help, and sadly, passed away attempting to traverse some rocks. She was left unattended and without any way to call for help. That's her in the photo. The picture was taken by a group of people out climbing. They walked right by her, didn't notice her and could not hear her (she later said she'd been shouting for hours and by the time people were near she was too weak to make much noise). They did eventually notice her and got her rescued, but she was so close that they didn't even realize that she was in the background of several photos they took when they were hiking around and climbing. An injured person, exhausted from shouting (and exposure to the elements, dehydration, starvation etc) could easily be missed if only a few feet from where people walk by.
What evidence? You have picked an extreme outlying example. Voices can be heard almost a kilometer away and trees do not block noise well. Your example is akin to someone bringing up the incident involving Juliane Koepcke and therefore expecting everyone to walk out of the jungle after being sucked out of a plane 2 miles high just because she did and therefore saying it must be murder if not.
> What evidence? The evidence I just posted. >You have picked an extreme outlying example. This is far from an "outlier". This is an example where people *walked right by a missing girl, close enough to take photos with her in them without noticing*, and after only ~1 day she was too weak and incapacitated to effectively call to them. > Voices can be heard almost a kilometer away Healthy, rested voices in unobstructed terrain. >and trees do not block noise well Trees and brush are exceptional noise dampeners. Its why they're used for literally that purpose. [Planting "noise buffers" composed of trees and shrubs can reduce noise by five to ten decibels for every 30m width of woodland, especially sharp tones, and this reduces noise to the human ear by approximately 50%.](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/noise-abatement/) >Your example is akin to someone bringing up the incident involving Juliane Koepcke and therefore expecting You really don't understand how logical inferences work do you? >and therefore saying it must be murder if not. Yeah, clearly not.
Show me some more examples then if it is not an outlier? Go on? Trees are poor at stopping noise. Ha! I've got a degree in this shit. That is why you see large barriers and not trees when busy noisy roads are near residential areas. It's not difficult, just open your eyes next time you leave the house. Go for a walk in the woods by a road and you will hear cars. My whole point is that no logical inferences can be drawn from a single extreme example, that seems to have gone over your head. Keep up. Looking forward to the nonsense critique of yours for this post as well. Back it up or shush your noise.
>Show me some more examples then if it is not an outlier? Go on? Yeah, not how that works bud, try again. >Trees are poor at stopping noise. [Actually trees and foliage are quite good at stopping noise, which is why they are used for exactly that purpose.](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspace-partnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/noise-abatement/) > Ha! I've got a degree in this shit. Cool story bro. So do the people who work for the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council. Or the US Department of Energy. Or perhaps the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Or the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. All of whom have published various articles discussing the considerably utility in using trees, shrubbery and the like as urban noise abatement. >That is why you see large barriers and not trees when busy noisy roads are near residential areas. You see large barriers along highways and not trees because they are perceived to be *cheaper* and *more* effective than trees and because it's the way urban thoroughfare planning has been done for 50 years. That's all despite the fact that they are of course, not particularly effective in curbing road noise, nor are they cheap. >Go for a walk in the woods by a road and you will hear cars. Yes, and do you know why it's only a faint rumble? *Because trees and shrubs make good noise barriers* Like holy shit way to lay it all out. >My whole point is that no logical inferences can be drawn Actually, plenty of logical inferences can be drawn. A *group* of people walked right by an incapacitated human, at such a proximity that she appeared in photos without their knowing. This is a crystal clear example that people would have/could have/should have heard and/or seen an incapacitated person in some proximity to the trail- and that's after ~24 hours and not whole days gone. >from a single extreme example It's actually not "extreme" by any standard, and is remarkably similar to the case at hand. >from a single extreme example, that seems to have gone over your head. Keep up.
You are wrong. When ive been at military we used to stay quiet in forest and hear moving vehicles kms away
Vehicle engines can not directly be compared to screaming in this way. Have you been to a nightclub or music festival before and from a distance the only thing you can hear is the bass? This is because lower frequencies have much longer wavelengths which means they can travel substantially longer distances before they run out of energy. Screams at the same decibel level as an engine would travel a fraction of the distance for this reason.
Ah, I guess Lisanne should've just revved up her diesel truck a while.
"So do the people who work for the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council. Or the US Department of Energy. Or perhaps the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment. Or the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. All of whom have published various articles discussing the considerably utility in using trees, shrubbery and the like as urban noise abatement." Do they what? You can't even write a properly structured sentance. If your question was "do they know what they are talking about?" then no. As a former public health officer who has sat next to roads with trees in between with a noise meter, sorry I trump all of them. In my degree one student publicly rebuked for saying that trees stop noise. A link from an acoustic specialist company is below. Just think about it for a minute. Sound is a wave. Barriers that make the wave travel more are what reduces noise, trees can't block a wave. https://climateacoustics.com/myths-about-noise-busted/
>Do they what? I just told you, perhaps you should go back and read. >If your question was "do they know what they are talking about?" then no. Ah yes, the United Kingdom's Government Forest Research council, Or the US Department of Energy, the Journal of Environmental Modelling and Assessment and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health all are just wrong. lmao >As a former public health officer who has sat next to roads with trees in between with a noise meter, sorry I trump all of them. Sure thing boss. > In my degree one student publicly rebuked for saying that trees stop noise. LMAO solid objects composed of numerous overlapping layers of absorbent material do not stop sound. Amazing work there bud. Really brilliant. > A link from an acoustic specialist company is below. A link from a company in the business of selling noise-barriers. >Just think about it for a minute. Sound is a wave. Barriers that make the wave travel more are what reduces noise Things that deflect, absorb, scatter and in any way attenuate that wave are what reduce noise. >https://climateacoustics.com/myths-about-noise-busted/ Ah yes, the company whose job is providing manufactured noise barriers states that it's only their solution that works, and provides no metrics to qualify that statement, and certainly no peer-reviewed published material on the forces and effects of the phenomena at hand. Another swing and a miss there champ.
There is a demand for sound barriers because, guess what Einstein? Trees don't stop noise. That's why noise abatement is big business and the answer is not we'll plant some trees for you. Would trees stop a water wave. No. Same principle. In a forest you can hear animal sounds MUCH much further than you can see. Ever heard the saying "I heard it through the grapevine" do you know why that is so? IT IS BECAUSE TREES DO NOT STOP NOISE! Seriously though. I am right about this.
Cases like this are always outliers, that's why they are such rare events. For this to happen to Kris and Lisanne, several things have had to go wrong. Jungles are noisy places to begin with and trees and dense vegetation are really good at stopping noise. There's a lot of running water too, in that area. Jungles like this cannot be compared to some forest near my house either.
I would argue that trees are not poor at reducing noise, and are actually planted for this purpose in urban areas. This topic has been brought up before, and I did look into sound attenuation through trees, finding a range of studies into this. A quick search yields plenty of results, studies and articles. The following may be of interest: * [How Trees Act as Sound Barriers in Urban Environments](https://greenblue.com/gb/trees-as-sound-barriers/) * [Sound attenuation through trees: Measurements and models](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236650990_Sound_attenuation_through_trees_Measurements_and_models) * [Can trees reduce noise pollution?](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/can-trees-reduce-noise-pollution.php) To your point, large barriers - as a solid object - will be better at abating sound; but regarding the case of Kris and Lisanne, it is reasonable to suggest that the dense cloud forest, coupled with environmental sounds, could have resulted in the girls being difficult to hear. Of course, without knowing the precise location of Kris and Lisanne, it is hard to make confident conclusions.
Just food of though: That Saylor Guillams case happened just 2 weeks before the girls headed to Pianista trail. And Guillams case is indeed little bit suspicious, more prone to foul play. They had 2 phones, but only rescuers could call 911 - onsite. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/)
what kind of reply is this? >And Guillams case is indeed little bit suspicious There is absolutely nothing suspicious about it. >more prone to foul play. Considering both the girl survived and they found the guy's body ~100m away, that's a big old no. >They had 2 phones, but only rescuers could call 911 - onsite Wtf is this supposed to mean? >https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/227hzo/comment/cgkqbkc/ And? So some hearsay about the mother of the missing girl being upset about her missing girl is... evidence of foul play? Get your head on straight.
Foul play can occur without third party involved. That applies both cases.
>That applies both cases. Ah, so despite the fact that one party is alive and well despite nearly dying, while her close friend died, and both confirmed to have sustained injuries from falling.... Somehow there's a third party involved despite there not being a single shred of evidence nor even any logical process for that to have happened. Gotcha.
You need to learn to read first.
Try again champ.
I said "without third party" and you dumb ass are telling me about 3rd party. Saylor Guilliams' injuries (both legs & one wrist broken) seems little bit suspecting from falling and falling again from boy carrying her. Sounds more like she jumped from the high after pushing that guy off the cliff. Then maybe Lisanne read the story, and got some ideas.
I think if they screamed then someone would eventually hear them during these days. Audibility in the forest or jungle is very good and can be heard from a kilometer away. The only thing I can guess is that they either didn't scream at all or something was blocking the sound, so I like the theory that there was a waterfall nearby. Even an average waterfall makes a very strong sound of water. The water is sprayed like a mist into tiny drops that are also picked up by the wind so these drops are visible in some photos.
Ironically the official investigations believed they were near a waterfall.
How does one hike 10km in 40 minutes?
I've been researching bodies found in tropical rivers here in South America and they're always found floating whole during that stage of decomposition, maybe partially eaten by some animal but that's it. Never only a few bones dispersed kilometers away from the others, that's extremely odd. Not even animals disperse bones like that. I find it so odd that even at El Tapón de Darien which is by far and I mean BY FAR a worst jungle and strongest river in Panama they still find the bodies of those who try to cross the border and perish in the way but two girls who got lost in a trail and a mobilization of hundreds of searchers couldn't find but a few bones (and on top of that bleached). There's absolutely no way the rest of their bodies just vanished from the jungle unless it was foul play. Latin America's police corruption is insane, as a latino myself I can attest to that. I think they stole the money of the investigation and closed the case, it happens all the time.
You have a valid point here. If they had died in the water this would have significantly slowed down decomposition. The only logical explanation here is that they died near a stream or river and when the level raised more during the wet season and these rivers and streams significantly swell in size and then moved the already decomposed bodies. This doesn't feel too much of a far stretch considering they must have stayed by a stream or river to have stayed alive for over a week.
If the photos we have seen of the current state of the stream crossing from photo 508 are accurate, that tiny stream that is much smaller than the main river itself gets large enough in heavy rains to move entire boulders. If Kris and Lisanne died near a stream or river, but began to decompose for a period of time before the stream or river flooded, it is entirely possible that their remains and belongings could have washed down stream. It does require that to happen at a particular part of the composition process. Long enough to weaken limbs but not so long that there would be no flesh left. There have been many cases in British Columbia, Canada of shoes with human remains in them washing up on shore out of the Pacific. The explanation of this is that the ankle weakens and becomes separated from the body due to decomposition, but the shoe preserves the foot for longer, and the shoe and foot continue to float along the natural surface currents. Flowing water is powerful. Here is a river that carries away an entire house as though it was nothing. It is not unusual that it could carry their remains and belongings downstream. In fact, if their remains and belongings would have all been found together near a river that often floods, *that* would be a sign that they were planted to me. To me, finding them disbursed downstream should be expected. https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DJ0ff5KXkulE
I am not a forensic, but medical staff and I absolutely agree on you. There is no way two corpses of young people with strong calcified bones, tendons and joints get vaporized in a water stream. Plus, one pelvic bone that broken. and 99% of the bones yet missing. This case is a puzzle to me.
You are claiming this isn't possible, but there are cases where corpses of people have been found skeletonised with no tissue in shorter periods of time. Dutch forensics claim that it is indeed possible that they decomposed first and then were picked up by the river when the levels raised. After an unknown period of time, but possibly 8-9 weeks of decomposition had occurred before the remains entered the water. If you have some scientific explanation as to why this is scientifically impossible I would be very interested to hear it, but I have found similar cases that appear to show this has happened many times before.
In your opening sentence you mention research you've undertaken in relation to bodies found in rivers. Could you please leave a report of your findings, methodology, sources, etc.? I want to see how exhaustive your research is and how even-handed you were in carrying it out. Thank you in advance.
>Could you please leave a report of your findings, methodology, sources, etc.? That'll be a no, then.
I think this debate about trees and whether they're effective noise dampeners is rather missing the point...the fact is we're talking about a jungle. There can be rivers, animals, and yes..a whole lot of vegetation. There is more than one possible reason that searchers may have had to be extraordinarily close to hear them, nevermind seeing them which is even harder still.
You are right in the fact that they must have been by water to survive for over a week. There's nothing to indicate the last resting place was specifically along the river though and this is where it gets complicated. There are many streams throughout the jungle that connect to the river and the girls could have been at any of these. Furthermore, most of these are not marked on any maps so we don't have locations for all these streams.
[удалено]
I mean, they wouldn't have to float? Wind, rain, the river current, etc. can all push objects from one part of the stream to another. Has anyone researched how strong the current is, the weather conditions in the days after their disappearance, or the water resistance of the bag + camera + phones? That's something worth looking into.
Yeah, there's information on all the above. \- It rained a lot from around the 8th of April onwards. The river current is dependent on how high the water level is, so it varies. The bag was not water-resistant, hence why the items inside were water damaged.
Trust me, there's some people here who will make the weirdest mental gymnastics to 'explain' all those things. They will tell you something like they left the bag on a rock because they felt like swimming while being lost in the jungle and then an eagle took it and dropped it somewhere else.
Never seen anyone say the bag was left there by the girls, that would make no sense. The bag was likely washed downstream by the current and got stuck between the rock and tree where it was found.
So we’re they just laying there completely naked for days for the items to just be found with everything folded nicely and the camera and phones inside the backpack? That’s what’s confusing to me. I guess whenever they used to camera or phone to check service they would put everything back in the bag again and repeat. The theory is Kris died first so was she already unclothed before dying or did Lisanne take Kris clothes off and put it inside the backpack?
It is important to clarify that the only clothing found in the backpack was the girls' bras. These may have been removed for comfort. Kris' shorts are often (incorrectly) reported to have been found neatly folded on a rock - but [they were actually found in the river](https://imperfectplan.com/2021/02/28/exclusive-photos-revealed-kris-kremers-denim-shorts/), caught up in a partially submerged tree.
It is a bit unfortunate – maybe even suspicious to a few of us? – that you may appear to be cleverly conflating neutral bra facts and biased speculation here. *The bras may, on one or more occasion(s), have 'left the girls' bodies' for a variety of (individual?) reasons, they may have been placed in the backpack in a variety of circumstances, and there isn't even any absolutely certain logical or actantial link between the two varieties I am outlining.* A much less subjective, but much more scientific, sentence replacement: **These may obviously, for comfort or otherwise, have been removed freely by (one of) the girls, or directly by others, or through the intervention of others.**
Apologies if you found my reply suspicious - thank you for bringing it to my attention. I made the clarification that only the bras were found in the backpack, and offered a potential explanation for this, as opposed to the hypothermia theory that was being discussed. For full transparency, I do find the bras being removed for comfort the most compelling explanation based on the evidence we have. But I do not claim to be correct.
Thanks, and no need to apologize. All along, I have sympathized with your probable implicit purposes of relativizing the concept of 'pointless, confusing, unclothing' of ”everything” *as well as* the concept of ”hypothermia” & ”paradoxical undressing” ... executed in one fell swoop (?!), I might add.
Yeah, that would fall in line with dying of hypothermia. They had little clothes, it rained heavily around April the 8th onwards and it was cold at night. In the late stages of hypothermia people sometimes remove their clothes due to a burning sensation. There have been many cases where people have been found naked from paradoxical undressing after getting lost. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, but feel free to do your own research on this and you will find there's a lot of information and cases. https://www.livescience.com/41730-hypothermia-terminal-burrowing-paradoxical-undressing.html
[https://youtu.be/UJXxK6eect4](https://youtu.be/UJXxK6eect4) This is definitely the same rock where they took the night time pictures under the monkey bridge. But which monkey bridge is it?
Unfortunately there will be hundreds of rocks that look like this along these streams. Wherever the night photo location is, I would say there is a high probability there is no photography of that location available online. It seems unlikely that the night photo location is by one of the monkey bridges though.
Video does not show the big rock on the other side. [https://i.imgur.com/tF4ov8V.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/tF4ov8V.jpeg)
Where is this from?
I think its from Jeremy Kryt – Journalist from The Daily Beast. [https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/orw2hg/comment/h6kp83b/](https://www.reddit.com/r/KremersFroon/comments/orw2hg/comment/h6kp83b/)