>>2353743Lol fair enough. I'm just interested in which retarded decisions they made, and how it all fits with the timeline and evidence. It's unlike a lot of cases of this type because there's a fair amount of evidence (especially the photos). Almost feels like a puzzle
>>2353744>The original report just states that a bag was found, there's no mention of its condition that came much later after the daily beast's articlesYeah fair enough I've seen conflicting stuff on this
>Most likely using the flash as a light sourceTry it. Go somewhere absolutely pitch black and use a split second camera flash to see your way around. You'll see nothing and lose any night vision you had. MAYBE they were looking back at the pictures to see if there was dangerous terrain around but I doubt it. The signalling rescuers theory is more likely
>That's not weird, going back and deleting a pic?It was done in a way that you would have to connect to a computer, not just through the camera itself. Though some people have said a fault with that camera model can sometimes give a "phantom" photo file so that's a possibility
>One drowned and the other got killed, it's just a coincidence4 healthy people dying within a year (?) is a coincidence? Seems pretty suspicious to me
>What?CCTV of them in a pharmacy buying mosquito repellent was deleted, shop owner had connections to guide's son
>Because they clearly didn't returnSome people think that they did return to the town and got picked up by someone, with the missing photo (last one between the normal ones and the night photos) showing them in the town, which was deleted to support the story of them being lost in the jungle. Pretty far-fetched imo but possible
