Young Hikers Missing in Joshua Tree Since Thursday [7/27/17]

[cynthia23]

Wow, that's dramatically different info. But that is an older article, so maybe they have studied the ping further. Or, not, and they're just not sure. So confusing.

Yes, Wildhorse, it's really a sad image of Orbeso's dad out there every day in the heat, searching for him when others have given up. A parent's love knows no bounds or ends. I'm remembering a case, I think from last year, of a young man--perhaps there were two?--who were lost in Southern California, I want to say in the San Gabriel mountains--and after SAR had given up, the family kept searching for another month, and eventually found their deceased family members. Not exactly a happy ending, but at least they had some closure. I can only hope for that, for this family.

[Sean]

I read that and thought it the damnedest odd statement. But Smith is the park Super, so he either knows what he's saying or skilled enough to know how to not say something while sounding like he is. There's no way a cell ping has a 10 mile margin of error. Curious they didn't mention where the ping was and sad that the media present at the press conference didn't think enough to ask.

Doesn't he mean that Orbeso's cell phone must have been within a ten-mile radius of the cell tower it pinged? What's so odd about that?

[OtherHand]

Yeah, I can see how you could get that interpretation, which is why Smith was careful in choosing his words. But he didn't say "cell tower". He said, "where the ping was". Pings have locations. Press reports in the initial few days of the search suggested the ping location was somewhere in proximity of the vehicle and not of much use. But something must have changed as much more recent reports allude to a vague location near Smith Water (which also would account for reports of searching near there).

When Ewasko went missing, not all phones had full GPS and not all towers were fully set up to record it. That's why Verizon's Serin tower, at the time, could only report a 10.6 mile distance. But in reports it was always mentioned it was 10.6 miles from the tower. Smith used the sort of wording I'd use if I wanted to keep things vague. Which raises the question of why?

[Sean]

Pings have locations...When Ewasko went missing, not all phones had full GPS and not all towers were fully set up to record it.

Ah. So, you're saying that when Orbeso's phone pinged the tower, part of the data recorded might have been the phone's current GPS coordinates. Is that correct? In which case they should be able to narrow down that location.

[OtherHand]

Ah. So, you're saying that when Orbeso's phone pinged the tower, part of the data recorded might have been the phone's current GPS coordinates. Is that correct? In which case they should be able to narrow down that location.

Yes, and yes again. At least to my level of understanding of how the cellular location system works. I believe the federal requirement has now been in place for a number of years for cell phone providers to be able to locate handsets within 100 meters for 911 emergencies. But as far as I'm aware, there's been no public release of a specific recorded location nor has it appeared the media has pressed the park on it. Just that obtuse statement by Smith, which sounds like he's saying something, but in fact he's not.

You are also making an assumption it was Orbeso's phone that made the ping. We don't know that, as it's yet another interesting bit info of info that hasn't been released. Normally, there shouldn't be any reason not to release such data. So much weirdness....

[Perry]

Maybe NPS doesn't want to be rescuing people in Smith Water Canyon in the summer who are trying to get a $10,000 reward?

[Sean]

You are also making an assumption it was Orbeso's phone that made the ping. We don't know that, as it's yet another interesting bit info of info that hasn't been released.

Well, it's been reported a few times, most recently in yesterday's Desert Sun article.

[Ed]

I'm not sure an NPS superintendant or spokesman would know much more about locating cell phones, or talk more precisely about it, than most of us.

I'm finding this discussion confusing. If only one tower was pinged, wouldn't the estimated location be a circle around the cell tower, rather than a point? Or am I being simple-minded here? My understanding is that one cell tower records the time difference between the signal sent and received, which gives an estimated distance only, so you need several cell towers to give a point estimate.

[OtherHand]

Damn...I completely glossed over that tidbit about the phone being Orbeso's. That's about what I expected. Not good.

Cell systems used to use triangulation a lot, but that was before about every new phone got a GPS chip stuck into it. In the case of Ewasko, he had an old flip-style phone that couldn't report a GPS position, so the tower only knew a distance. Usually at worst, towers have segmented antennas that split the reception into 120 degree areas which speeds and verifies the GPS location. These two likely had the latest tech, running location apps, so the phones should know where they are, even if not connected to a tower. And if there's even a brief tower connection, one of the first items shared between the handset and tower is the handset's location. Da Man knows where you are at all times....

[Perry]

They used the phrase "triangulated area" which implies at least 2 towers, or using the phrase more loosely it could be 1 tower and a coverage map. Doesn't sound like GPS because that would be more exact. But who knows because it's a game of telephone. Verizon told SAR or NPS, SAR told Orbeso's father, Orbeso's father told a reporter who was hopefully taking good notes and asking for clarification.

Do modern flip phones have GPS?