
Reasons the Jennifer Appel and Tasha Fuiava survival story smells fishy - harambaebae69
https://unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com/2017/10/31/19-reasons-this-survival-story-smells-fishy/
======
gooseus
I have limited sailing experience with my family as a child and this story had
my BS detectors on alert when I saw how happy/healthy they were, their story
of all the comms being disabled and the ridiculous story about having to
huddle and be quiet because of sharks or something.

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.

~~~
chx
EPIRB is a fantastic technology, saving thousands of people at sea every year.
A modern beacon will do a quarter second burst of digital information at 406
MHz at five watts (which is a helluva lot) then becomes silent for about 50
seconds. Today it is precise enough that only about two square kilometres
needs to be searched. Fun fact: the 50 seconds is randomized so that two
beacons don't become sync'd. A real lot of thought went into creating the
protocol. As for the devices, the author was only half kidding about them
surviving a nuclear war. Once deployed it's less tough but their brackets
(which most autodeploy from if it gets four metres deep) definitely survives
some real bad stuff although I can't find hard data on how they are tested.

~~~
colanderman
I know I'm nitpicking, but... 5 watts isn't a "helluva lot". Consumer WiFi can
transmit up to 1 watt. Entry-level ham radio operators can transmit up to 5
watts. If you put a 5 watt transmitter at 406 MHz inside your house, it's
possible the signal might not even be strong enough to be received outside,
depending on what the walls are made of.

Now, consumer radio/television broadcasts... those run in the 10-100 kilowatt
range. _That 's_ a "helluva lot".

~~~
burntrelish1273
I worked at Trimble Nav in the radio group. 5W for a consumer device is on the
high end. UHF base stations often do around 25W-50W+ for wide-area coverage on
top of a tower. If you did like a coworker did with a YAGI antenna and
accidentally place a base-station onto high-power mode, nearby flesh (<10cm)
will receive a significant radio burn.

~~~
mcguire
Speaking as a software guy, I love stories about hardware. :-)

------
Stratoscope
A correction on the radio terminology used in the article... SSB (Single
Sideband) is a modulation system, not a frequency range like VHF (Very High
Frequency). SSB is a variation of AM (Amplitude Modulation). If you look at
the frequency spectrum of an AM signal, you will see a peak in the middle –
the carrier frequency – and two “sidebands” above and below the carrier that
have the actual signal. Each sideband is a mirror image of the other.

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...)

~~~
scoot
> Hams, for example, often use CW (Continuous Wave, aka Morse Code)

Morse code can be used to modulate a continuous wave, but they are not
synonymous.

~~~
wglb
CW, which is in fact an abbreviation of Continuous Wave, is an often-used
phrase used to describe Morse Code on the radio.

------
graniter
I think it's pretty well accepted that the story doesn't hold up. The real
question is what were they really doing. Reminds me of some teenagers that get
pulled over by a cop and then tell some elaborate story about why they were
speeding, who they were fleeing from, etc. Just forget their story entirely
and look for evidence of what really happened.

~~~
Steko
The most plausible explanation I've seen is that this was a hoax/publicity
stunt designed to drive a book/movie deal. Balloon boy is often brought up.

------
vax425
The algal growth on the side of the boat points to a sudden drop in weight.

I think someone hired these morons to smuggle a load of gold bars and
something else went wrong.

~~~
mcguire
Or that the boat was heeled over for a long time, probably grounded.

That's an awfully long way above the design waterline to indicate heavy
loading.

~~~
clort
I concur, this boat was heeled over for a while. Sailing along upwind on one
tack could do that. I don't know the pacific, the course they took if that
would be feasible. (normally people sail downwind if possible, its a lot
nicer)

~~~
antod
_> Sailing along upwind on one tack could do that._

Probably explains why they were going around in circles for so long.

------
foxylad
Possible motive: perhaps Appel fell in love with Fuiava, and wanted a few
months of exclusive companionship to win her over. Easy to tell a landlubber
that all comms and motive power are down, and sharks are trying to kill them
so they need to cuddle together in fear below decks.

------
LeoJiWoo
More reasons why just listening and believing is never a great idea.

I found the section on communication devices to be especially damning.

------
leeoniya
> But weirdly, they claim to have gone through 90% of their food by the time
> they were rescued. So did they bring six months’ supply or a year? And how
> did they go through it so quickly?

well, if they had to feed 2 dogs, too...

anyways, back to reading.

------
pfarnsworth
My biggest question is why do people get worked up over this? They are clearly
dumb, and I don't see what sort of personal gain they would get from this.
It's not a story of heroism, it's a story of being relatively dumb and
surviving by luck. There's not much here to celebrate, so whether or not they
are lying, there's not much worse they could look. But the number of people
who are getting worked up and feel like they should "expose" these people are
much higher than I would have imagined.

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.

~~~
astura
No, there's plenty to gain from this, fame and fortune. This is the kind of
story that leads to TV shows, book deals, movie deals. etc. Plus, of course,
the obligatory GoFundMe.

The other thing is using The US Navy in this way could be criminal.

~~~
pfarnsworth
There no heroism. They fumbled their way to survival. Unless they want to
further humiliate themselves, I don't think there's any deals here. There's no
Gofundme either.

~~~
newlyretired
I think you underestimate the lengths to which some people will go for fame.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Hanlon's Razor: Don't attribute to malice something that can be better
explained by stupidity. These two aren't smart enough to conspire to come up
with some ridiculous story for the purpose of fame. We already know they're
stupid. Them weaving a tale just for the purpose of fame seems entirely
unlikely. That's my opinion anyway.

~~~
wtallis
> Don't attribute to malice something that can be better explained by
> stupidity.

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.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Wrong. I have. My explanation is that things happened exactly as they
perceived because they are idiots, but it’s not what happened in reality. They
probably saw dolphins and thought they were sharks. They probably had 10ft
waves and they thought they were 40’ waves etc. none of their story makes
sense because they are idiots and can’t describd them better because they are
idiots. Etc.

------
trgv
> The human body cannot live on carbs alone for five months

Is this true?

~~~
aaron695
I also question this.

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?

~~~
astura
Which is why the author followed it up with "I’ll assume they also had some
Centrum Silver and canned sardines on board that they didn’t talk about that
kept them from dying."

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](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.

~~~
aaron695
OK.

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...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/28/rescued-women-
sailors-not-properly-prepared-hawaii-tahiti)

------
agumonkey
archive in case (like me) images dont load
[http://archive.is/foH5Y](http://archive.is/foH5Y)

------
auggierose
So you cannot cook rice in salt water?

~~~
sitharus
Not in sea water, it’d be far too salty to be edible. You’d end up drinking
more water to compensate.

~~~
spurcell93
According to the book "Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat" the optimal salinity for pasta
water is about 2%. So 1 part sea water, 1 part fresh water - roughly.

------
aaron695
All good story tellers 'lie'.

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?

~~~
qume
I have a little experience after living aboard st sea for several years, and
am 100% skeptical about their story, however your point is well made and
definitely not worthy of down voting.

This is a good example of one of the sad sides of HN.

We need a way to downvote the downvoters haha

------
bitmapbrother
This is a long and excellent read that dissects the lies these 2 people have
concocted.

------
Blazespinnaker
Firing up the beacon doesn't come free. It's possible they were hoping to get
rescued more cheaply.

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.

~~~
scott_karana
If they hadn't also breathlessly bragged about life-threatening storms and
sharks, that would be plausible. :-)

------
spaceseaman
> No politics here (though I’m sure if you squint you can find a way to accuse
> me of racism or sexism or something)

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.

~~~
jackmott
>I am incredibly skeptical of anyone who starts an article like this - comes
across like a teenager trying to be edgy.

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.

~~~
spaceseaman
> Yet, there wasn't any politics in it, was tehre?

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.

~~~
ygaf
>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 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.

------
forapurpose
Who is the author? Why would they attack these women? Why would they spend so
much time and effort on it?

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.

~~~
axman6
So you think that calling out someone who makes (very) public, demonstrably
false statements for pretty clear personal gain is internet bullying? I would
call it being held to account - what sane society would listen to such a
ridiculous story and not call it the bullshit it obviously is? 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.

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.

~~~
forapurpose
The article objectifies and abuses its targets (which is what the author's
motive is, per their own about page). The way bullying and abuse work,
especially in the Internet age, is that people find a target they feel is
justified or merely vulnerable (because everyone else is attacking them) and
viciously act out against them. Having a crowd do it allows humans to ignore
their better sense and to do horrible things; it's an angry mob and people
hide in it as they act badly. As most people on HN probably know, there are
many, many such incidents; the abuse does real harm to real people. Hurting
other people is wrong; engaging in it for some self-righteous motive is
obviously a bad, as is doing it because of 'something I read on the Internet'.

> 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.

