CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #49

[ColdHands]

Thanks for the reply, Ghostwheel. I guess I just thought they would need permission from whomever is in charge of the investigation. I don't know how accuracy of evidence could be assured without the authorities on site.

My cousin in a county sheriff in NC. Guess I could ask him. Don't know if it would be the same in CO.

I think it would be really interesting to hear what another LE group thinks.

@Redhead72 - Vallecito is one of the few lakes in the state that doesnt have an underwater topo graph posted anywhere online. It is possible to buy one for I think it was $26. If you or anyone wants one, just google "Vallecito underwater topography map."

 

[azgrandma]

LE seems pretty confident that there is no reason to search the lake again. I hope that their right and Dylan is alive somewhere waiting to be found.

I would like to hear more about the family sponsored search of the lake. It was said that once the lake thawed it was going to happen. Then it's maybe mid-May. I'm not sure why this lake search has to be so secret.

If the family has a qualified search organization lined up why don't they let us know who they are and when they can search. MOO.

Considering the abuse this poor mother has been subjected to? Elaine, Mike and Cory have made it perfectly clear they want the public to respect their privacy. The search isn't intended to be a spectator sport and they simply don't want to share that information. I completely understand their perspective and I don't blame them one bit. It doesn't appear they are getting much assistance from LE, so why would they bother letting anyone know their plans or who will be conducting the search?

I'm not suggesting that Elaine's or anyone's privacy be violated. I don't see how making people aware of a search for a missing child is turning it into a spectator sport.

The last I heard they were soliciting money to help pay for lodging and other expenses so that the search team could come and look for Dylan at Vallecito Lake. Hopefully the search team can come and do their job soon.

Keeping the search for Dylan quite because of personal reasons is not right as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes people need to make personal sacrifices when a child is missing. MOO.

IMO keeping the search quite is exactly what needs to be done at this time, especially when you take into consideration that the family has requested that the dive team be allowed to do their search without interruption. I agree with NC Analyzer, and also personally think that there are times in the case of a missing child or other tragic events when the public is on a need to know basis. It does not change the lives of the public if the date is given or not, but it WILL change the lives of the family - this is regardless of what the divers find or don't find.

BBM how many personal sacrifices should a family of a missing child make? IMO they have made the ultimate one. There are just some things in life that we as society should allow for people to experience on their own and in their own way. The search of a lake for their child IMO would be one of them.

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

How do you get 55 ft. at its deepest point??

You can't just take a percentage of an average depth and then figure out how deep the lake would be in the deepest part... Water runs downhill, and the deepest part of the lake would still maintain its depth - unless the shallower parts were totally dry.

This isn't basic math anymore... You need to start doing volume measurements if you're going to start saying things like the lake at the dam was 50 ft. below normal. Even using basic math 55 ft. is still wrong. If the lowest measurement in the deepest part is 110 ft. then 30% lower than that would be 77 ft. deep still. And, I know that's not the type of math we should be using anyway.

Also please note - we are talking about a reservoir that when it is at it fullest - the maximum depth is 165 feet.

What we really need to put all of this to rest, imo is a topographical depth map of the lake itself. And then pinpoint the areas searched/where the dogs hit.

I won't belabor the point any longer, but there is no way the reservoir at the dam was only 55 ft. deep last November... Absolutely not physically possible.

Here was my thinking. A reservoir (in my mind) is basically a bowl with an uneven bottom. But the top stays level. So, if the water level was 70% lower in one place, it would be 70% lower in all places. Otherwise, again to my thinking, you would have a lake top that angled and water doesn't do that. The 55 feet was using the 167 foot depth as the deepest part. I can't quite visualize how one part would stay at its full depth while the other went down. That doesn't mean I am right, just having trouble with that concept.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Here was my thinking. A reservoir (in my mind) is basically a bowl with an uneven bottom. But the top stays level. So, if the water level was 70% lower in one place, it would be 70% lower in all places. Otherwise, again to my thinking, you would have a lake top that angled and water doesn't do that. The 55 feet was using the 167 foot depth as the deepest part. I can't quite visualize how one part would stay at its full depth while the other went down. That doesn't mean I am right, just having trouble with that concept.

I'm no mathematician, but 100% of water gone at the edge would not translate to 100% of the water gone at the deepest end of the lake/reservoir/bowl. fifty percent of 2 feet is one foot. one foot is a very small percentage of 100 feet (1 %) I hope that helps.

A 30% drop overall would mean varying water levels depending on depth.

 

[Redhead72]

Here was my thinking. A reservoir (in my mind) is basically a bowl with an uneven bottom. But the top stays level. So, if the water level was 70% lower in one place, it would be 70% lower in all places. Otherwise, again to my thinking, you would have a lake top that angled and water doesn't do that. The 55 feet was using the 167 foot depth as the deepest part. I can't quite visualize how one part would stay at its full depth while the other went down. That doesn't mean I am right, just having trouble with that concept.

This particular reservoir would be more like a bathtub than a bowl. With the dam being where the drain is. When water drains out of your bathtub, the shallow part in the back drains away, while there is still water in the deep part of the tub.

Hope that makes it easier to "see" what I was talking about. Another example would be a paint roller tray - the rectangular ones with a deeper portion that holds the paint, and then the angled back that you roll the excess paint off on?

OK, went and found a picture to illustrate a little better. The paint tray is probably a better visual than a bathtub, but the concept is the same. If you filled the paint tray with water to the rim, the surface would obviously be level, but the portion where the paint goes will be deep, and at the back of the tray it will be shallow. If you poked a hole in the bottom of the paint well portion, the shallow part at the back of the tray would empty with the deepest part slowly emptying out last.

I probably made this even more confusing than it needed to be - sorry if I did.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

This particular reservoir would be more like a bathtub than a bowl. With the dam being where the drain is. When water drains out of your bathtub, the shallow part in the back drains away, while there is still water in the deep part of the tub.

Hope that makes it easier to "see" what I was talking about. Another example would be a paint roller tray - the rectangular ones with a deeper portion that holds the paint, and then the angled back that you roll the excess paint off on?

OK, went and found a picture to illustrate a little better. The paint tray is probably a better visual than a bathtub, but the concept is the same. If you filled the paint tray with water to the rim, the surface would obviously be level, but the portion where the paint goes will be deep, and at the back of the tray it will be shallow. If you poked a hole in the bottom of the paint well portion, the shallow part at the back of the tray would empty with the deepest part slowly emptying out last.

I probably made this even more confusing than it needed to be - sorry if I did.

It is hard to explain! But your explanation made sense with my thinking.

 

[Crosby87]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGEwCBPy90w"]KUSA - Dylan Redwine - Dad's uncut interview - YouTube[/ame]

During the interview, Mark said he would do anything for Dylan and the two were inseparable but when Mark and Dylan were on vacation in August, Mark said no to Dylan when he wanted to go home with Mark and visit his friends. At the 4:29 mm Mark said after Dylan moved to CS he tried to call his son at least once a week and he left it up to Dylan to respond to him but Dylan didn't because his environment wasn’t conducive for that so Mark may have felt the bond he shared with Dylan was broken after he moved to CS. When Dylan returned to Durango in November, which according to Mark was the first time he saw Dylan since they took a trip together in August and Elaine was awarded primary custody of Dylan, Dylan asked Mark to drive him to meet his friend Sunday night and again Mark refused to do what Dylan wanted. Imo, Mark’s attitude towards Dylan changed and Mark became defiant after Dylan moved.

At 16:30 mm Mark said before ER & DR moved to CS they didn’t have to deal with transporting Dylan and it made life easy for everyone and Dylan’s flight in November was postponed and rescheduled. Mark also said it bothered him when he asked Dylan Sunday evening how he liked his new school and Dylan told him he was hurt and disappointed because he wasn't allowed him to join the football team because it was too late to register and he needed a physical examination.

Mark said when Dylan lived in Durango Dylan went to him before he would go to his mom and he bonded with Dylan but Elaine didn’t and that caused problems between him and Elaine for years. According to Mark, the couple had been fighting over Dylan for a very long time. Mark said he met with his lawyer on Monday morning because they were in the process of filing some papers with the Courts in regards to the divorce which occurred in 2008.

At 4:02 mm Mark said “WE” dropped Dylan off in Colorado Springs on our way back and he and Dylan were alone.

At 35:00 mm Mark said his thinking at times is irrational but that’s the way he thinks.

MOO

 

[ColdHands]

This site shows normal depth at the dam is 121.5 ft. I think other #s have been stated but this is what I'm going with. At that depth, the top of the lake is 7,665 ft elevation.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Vallecito+Dam&groupName=Dimensions
On the next site, you have to do some navigating yourself because the chart options don't save in the URL.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/ds/vallecito.html
Go to Historic Data
Select Vallecito Reservoir and Select Dates
Set it to a date range that includes last November.
Click on Pool Elevation.
You'll see a chart that shows the lake surface was at about 7,625 in November. Meaning the lake depth had dropped about 40 ft fom the "normal" of 7,665. Whatever number you use as a max or normal lake depth at the dam, subtract 40 feet to get the depth in November.

Now what's really interesting is looking at historic data and using some common sense, the lake will be at its deepest in May due to runoff when the search is proposed.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

KRDO.com news April 19

 

[Tennlyn]

This site shows normal depth at the dam is 121.5 ft. I think other #s have been stated but this is what I'm going with. At that depth, the top of the lake is 7,665 ft elevation.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Vallecito+Dam&groupName=Dimensions
On the next site, you have to do some navigating yourself because the chart options don't save in the URL.
http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/ds/vallecito.html
Go to Historic Data
Select Vallecito Reservoir and Select Dates
Set it to a date range that includes last November.
Click on Pool Elevation.
You'll see a chart that shows the lake surface was at about 7,625 in November. Meaning the lake depth had dropped about 40 ft fom the "normal" of 7,665. Whatever number you use as a max or normal lake depth at the dam, subtract 40 feet to get the depth in November.

Now what's really interesting is looking at historic data and using some common sense, the lake will be at its deepest in May due to runoff when the search is proposed.

So using these numbers 121.5 - 40 = 81.5 feet, but the divers only went 40 feet...so less than half way to the bottom at the dam? Just trying to get all the numbers straight in my head. :moo:

 

[The Cheese]

So using these numbers 121.5 - 40 = 81.5 feet, but the divers only went 40 feet...so less than half way to the bottom at the dam? Just trying to get all the numbers straight in my head. :moo:

I'm not the smartest cookie in the box, but I'm desperately trying to understand this.

I think that some more numbers need to be factored in.

The divers had about 8 or 9 feet maximum visibility. Let's just say 10 feet max visibility, because that makes it easier for my weary mind. 40 plus 10 = 50.

So the divers saw to about 50 feet maximum.

At the depths being proposed as those the divers really searched, that would mean that the abnormalities seen on the bottom with the sonar were at least (81.5 minus 50 = 31.5) 31.5 feet away from where they could see at all.

And if the water was 110 feet, then they were (110 minus 50 = 60) feet away from where they could see at all.

So that means the divers never even saw the abnormalities, let alone checked them to see if any of them were Dylan.

But despite not being able to see or check the abnormalities on the bottom, the job they were there for, these professional state police divers kept on diving, over and over again, for 2 days, doing basically nothing.

I'll continue to try to understand this. There's probably something I'm just not getting.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't think anyone is saying the divers didn't do the absolute best they could. But given the numbers I think we can safely assume that there is no way divers could see ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM in the deepest part of the lake. Based on the numbers this seems clearly impossible to me. Again, I don't think anybody is trying to insinuate that they did not do a good job.

 

[KateNY]

re some discussion ^^ about PIs, and possible offer by a certain PI to ER


I'd speculate that ER may have already had a PI on her team, would seem very reasonable to me..




:twocents:

 

[scorekeeper]

re some discussion ^^ about PIs, and possible offer by a certain PI to ER


I'd speculate that ER may have already had a PI on her team, would seem very reasonable to me..




:twocents:

Yes, I believe you are talking about Bobby Brown.

per MSM

A private investigator and well-known bail bondsman Bobby Brown of Colorado Springs are helping also.

"This is personal to me because the Redwines are my neighbors," said Brown. "The resources that we have, we think we can bring some new life in this case. (It) hasn't gotten a lot of (attention from) the national media, but tonight I got two calls from the New York media."

http://www.krdo.com/news/Birthday-p...teen/-/417220/18444970/-/rrj7h6z/-/index.html

I agree why would Elaine want to speak with MO, she was already working with one the best in the area.

JMO

 

[Salem]

Just for clarification, everyone. Comments following MSM articles are considered rumor. You may do the same as you would do for social media - post a brief note to "see the comment at 10:24 p.m. by "initials"" to direct other posters to the information - BUT such information is not discussed here. You just put it under your hat and wait for it to break in the MSM.

I have removed the discussion regarding the PI. That needs to be limited to what was in the MSM.

Salem

 

[The Cheese]

I'm posting info from Kevin Torres' facebook (paraphrased of course) in the search thread. I've got the first day of the search done. Will work on the second day.

He posts that people on the boats said the water was normally 140 feet, but since it had been dry, it was 60 to 80 feet.

 

[mixologist74]

re some discussion ^^ about PIs, and possible offer by a certain PI to ER


I'd speculate that ER may have already had a PI on her team, would seem very reasonable to me..




:twocents:

Please elaborate.

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

I'm posting info from Kevin Torres' facebook (paraphrased of course) in the search thread. I've got the first day of the search done. Will work on the second day.

He posts that people on the boats said the water was normally 140 feet, but since it had been dry, it was 60 to 80 feet.

What about this. Is it helpful?

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/studies/vr_24month.html

 

[Bayou Mistress]

What about this. Is it helpful?

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/wcao/water/rsvrs/studies/vr_24month.html

So, that chart has the water in the reservoir at it's highest/deepest in May and June of 2013?? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

So, that chart has the water in the reservoir at it's highest/deepest in May and June of 2013?? Am I understanding that correctly?

It sure looks like that to me. And it looks like the lake really was only 40 feet-ish in November/December of 2012. Still doesn't answer the deepest part question though. And whether it was deeper than 40 feet where they were diving. One of those depth maps would be nice.

So while diving might have been feasible in 2012. I don't know if they could actually dive deep enough in May. They might have to have someone with different equipment? Aren't there experts here? Dive Guy and Sars, I think. (my apologies if I have the names wrong.)