Is your issue that I refuted it where it appeared in your post rather than tracking it back to the original statement? You initially stated that Gricar would have needed significant savings in order to walk away (from his life, his pension, etc.), and that was the main statement I was refuting. In order to support that argument of yours, you accepted the estimate of $4000 per month as a baseline, which is why I also questioned that estimate within the same post.
Incidentally, facts are not the only way to refute an assumption. Another way is to raise a plausible scenario that contradicts the assumption. For instance when I pointed out that Gricar had a lover willing to support him, he would not have needed any savings, that illustrated the flaw in your logic.
The biggest issue with your post is that you use absolutes. E.g., when talking about running away to live in poverty you state, "
No one does that . . .," whereas you could have stated, "It's unlikely that someone would do that . . .." You stated, "he would
have had to have a huge savings . . ." rather than stating, "he most likely would have needed significant savings." Your credibility suffers when you use absolutes to discuss matters that are far from certain.
Actually, the biggest (unstated) assumption in many of your arguments is the assumption that whatever Gricar did, he must have been acting rationally. People who disappear are not always thinking rationally. Sometimes they're depressed, sometimes they have schizophrenia, etc. If Gricar was running away from "something bad," that something bad may have been in his mind. I acknowledge that it is uncommon for a sane to voluntarily disappear unless driven by fear or financial problems.
Speaking of depression, that tends to run in families, and we already know that Gricar's brother committed suicide. Men are 2.44 times as likely to commit suicide in the two decades following the death of a sibling by suicide.* The only reason I held the probability of suicide at 25% is the fact that after all these years no body has been found. Otherwise, I'd be at close to 100% on that. (Maybe it's common for the bodies of suicides by drowning to not be found; I guess I'd need more information.) I suppose I shouldn't list anything at 0%, so let's say a more objective breakdown is:
Voluntary disappearance: 70%
Suicide: 25%
Foul play: 5%
*Source:
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/sibling-loss-increases-risk-of-suicide-0621133