That was my point. If something you think should be common sense, but clearly the results show it isn't, maybe it's not, and you shouldn't use it as your argument.
Why is it you think only experienced survivalists could survive this scenario? I agree, it's a huge plus. But I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for a non-experienced person to survive this. Humans do what they need to live.
I wouldn't normally respond to someone who refers to something that's a statistical possibility as magical, but if it'll appease your curiosity and shut all the naysayers up, I'll give it a try.
Dozens of times I've gone on hunting/camping trips in Wisconsin. Usually 2-5 days long. I can skin/cook/preserve animals I kill. I can start fire a couple of different ways. I know how to purify drinking water. I can tell direction. I have made my own shelter in the woods before. And I've chopped wood.
No. I've never spent more than a week in the wilderness. Nor have I been anywhere so cold.
(didn't you make a separate thread for this stuff Vogz?)
I clearly gave the general public too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.
Why do I think only experienced survivalists could survive? Because established communities of people have trouble surviving in Northern Alaska in the winter when they lose power or their food source for any length of time. Not to mention the suicide rate is insane up there when it's dark ALL DAY and doesn't rise above zero for months at a time.
You clearly don't realize just how cold it gets up there. How scarce food is and the mental toll something like that would take even if somehow you were able to stay warm without proper winter gear and stay fed without a guaranteed food source.
I did make a separate thread, and the people voting mostly turned it into a joke.