Missing hiker (Monica Reza)

[Sean]

It has been decided by members not to publish certain information. That policy was stated most recently in Matthew's comment regarding the sign up for the hike. The comment on Reddit that I referenced would be in violation of that policy. Therefore, I decided not to link it.

I'm an admin here, and there is no policy against publishing "certain information." You are free to do what you like, especially with information relevant to this high-profile, ongoing mystery. I, or another admin, will let you know if you cross a line. But saying there's relevant shit on Reddit and not providing a link or quote, well, that's completely useless to me. I'm not going to spend time digging through the garbage piles on Reddit hunting for this alleged nugget. I don't like Reddit. That's why I'm here instead. Maybe you could PM me the link and quote, then I can post it myself.

[coloradohiker]

There were 9 people on the hike, not 3. Find it yourself. I'm out.

[SideQuestHiker]

The Reddit comment in question is at the bottom of the following r/socalhiking post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/socalhiking/s/3v1s0Hy20O

[Sean]

The Reddit comment in question is at the bottom of the following r/socalhiking post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/socalhiking/s/3v1s0Hy20O

Okay, here's the first part of the Reddit post:

I would look into Teralyn Dang. Why did she all of a sudden cancel the same hiking event Monica went to? Also, there were supposed to be 13 attendees, but only 9 went, including Monica. Tera has 3 guests coming along and cancelled, which is why there were 9 people on that same hiking trip. Why did the Media only mention Ashwin and Anjali when there were 9 people in total?

I'll give the Redditors points for actually naming the people they talk about. I hope they take their information and questions to the police. I, for one, don't know how many people were on the hike. I wasn't there, and I certainly wouldn't go by the Meetup RSVPs. If there's something suspicious about the attendees, the police are probably investigating it, and they're not going to blab to the world every little lead they follow, like the gossip-mongers here and elsewhere. Besides, we all know it was the Squatch monster.

[RH]

Check out the comment on Reddit posted an hour ago by PiaTequila...

Quote and link or it doesn't exist. Thanks.

It has been decided by members not to publish certain information. That policy was stated most recently in Matthew's comment regarding the sign up for the hike. The comment on Reddit that I referenced would be in violation of that policy. Therefore, I decided not to link it. However, if the comment on Reddit is true, and I don't know whether it's true or not, it would challenge almost everything that's been said or written about this case since June 22, 2025.

My brain hurts reading all the drivel on Reddit. People that never searched for her or anyone else in the wild, people who have never hiked that area, and/or people who are only thinking one way (trying to force things to fit their narrative). I'm open to sinister narratives regarding the case but you have to provide proof. Confirmation bias, correlation vs causation, etc. seem to be ruling the day when it comes to anything mysterious these days.

The comment on Reddit reveals several names that many of us already know. But it seems PiaTeq has not been on many group hikes or MeetUps. The organizers often have "guests" listed (Leader+2 Guests; John Doe+4 Guests, etc) in order to make the hike seem bigger or more interesting often because no one has signed up yet or very few have signed up. It is a way to try to promote it and get more people interested. Also, rarely do the number of people who signed up for MeetUp events actually show. The same three people PiaTeq mentions have also been known to create their own reviews (over and over again) for their business which artificially drives up their review count and rating. This is not cool but not a crime either. Again it can be argued that they do this trying to drum up business for a struggling company rather than being malevolent individuals... though some of the behavior exhibited by one of them does make us question things.

So none of this is some smoking gun that completely changes the narrative. Two of the people listed as going on that hike work closely with Hiker A and they had seven guests listed between the two of them. They may never have intended to go but just sign up on a regular basis to help promote the hikes. Did anyone check previous hikes to see if those same members and guests are listed on other hikes by the same group? So that's nine people that never went on the hike. Then you have Hiker A listed with two guests and that is the number of people that were on the hike.

Supposedly this was confirmed (date; time; and 3 hikers) by sheriff through multiple cameras on the carpool vehicle in Sentry Mode.

[Tob]

I mean I absolutely agree the sensationalism for Monica is beyond nauseating. Even mainstream news outlets just want to focus on this non-existent "connection" to these missing scientists, who I mean yeah that sounds odd at first but people go missing all the time, every year in many different circumstances and from all walks of life.

It would be interesting to compare data from any period in the past for "missing scientists" to see if this number of missing scientists is different than what is typically observed.

Its sad because sometimes there's a benefit when this hyping up happens because it brings attention to a missing person's cause but every single outlet seems to gloss over the actual facts of her disappearance, as few as they may be.

Am I understanding correctly what this PiaTequila account is claiming? That these 5 additional hikers who initially RSVP'd but then bailed and who coincidentally are associated with Subject A, are the same ones who were ready to go and arrived shortly after Monica went missing to form the initial search party before SAR took over? I mean I definitely agree that if true, LE has to be aware of this by now and has determined that there is no funny business but from the outset, I can see why some people might be a little suspicious, ngl.

That certainly does not justify instigating a witch hunt by any means. But I'm assuming if this is all true, it has been thoroughly looked into.

[Gene]

Another summary video by the Lore Lodge.

[RH]

Am I understanding correctly what this PiaTequila account is claiming? That these 5 additional hikers who initially RSVP'd but then bailed and who coincidentally are associated with Subject A, are the same ones who were ready to go and arrived shortly after Monica went missing to form the initial search party before SAR took over?

It's not 5 hikers who RSVPed and then bailed. It was 2 people with 7 guests for a total of 9 that didn't show but that is common. And no, they were not the ones who helped search that first day.

[JeffH]

... June 22nd is a significant date in the occult world, falling on or near the summer solstice. Midsummer sees a weakening of the barrier between our world and the fairy realm....

It's also close to International Hike Naked Day which is June 21. Might be fun to combine these events.

[Sean]

It would be interesting to compare data from any period in the past for "missing scientists" to see if this number of missing scientists is different than what is typically observed.

To discover the typical amount of missing scientists would be a lot of painstaking work. You'd have to search the archives of all the major newspapers and detail every missing scientist for the last several decades at least, maybe going back to WW2, when snatching scientists became a thing, according to Indiana Jones movies.

I'm unwilling to spend time on that project, but I did do a quick Google Trends search.

Screenshot_20260427-185552.Chrome.png

I think the current spike in interest is because some researcher connected Monica Reza with the missing general in New Mexico, who apparently had ties with the UFO community, and then all the conspiracy hounds jumped on the case with their deadend leads and hasty speculations.

Thousands of missing person cases go unsolved each year. A small percentage of those people are bound to be scientists. In this era of the pocket computer it's easy to punch a few search terms into your cell phone and broadcast questions, insinuations and conspiracy theories on social media. It's much harder to do the field work of an actual detective or scientist, visiting the scene, collecting evidence, interviewing witnesses and suspects, processing and analyzing the evidence, and piecing together actual facts and evidence into a viable theory that might result in a resolution to the case.

I'm just a dude on my cell phone, but I've studied the history of missing people in the San Gabriel Mountains. I've read the articles spanning a hundred years. My serious guess is that Monica missed her turn and continued down a use or animal path along the ridge until she realized that she was lost. Panic ensued. She dehydrated and stopped thinking clearly. In the midsummer heat she might have sought shade under a rock, been bitten by a rattlesnake, attacked by a cougar or bear, maybe she wandered into Devil's Canyon seeking water, which happened with Eugene Jo.

I've scrambled through Devil's Canyon. It's no picnic, especially without a picnic basket full of food and critical supplies. I did it on purpose, prepared, within a day. Unprepared, it took Eugene Jo a week to escape the canyon's clutches. If that's where Monica ultimately landed, any number of bad things could have stopped her in her tracks.

[Tob]

Am I understanding correctly what this PiaTequila account is claiming? That these 5 additional hikers who initially RSVP'd but then bailed and who coincidentally are associated with Subject A, are the same ones who were ready to go and arrived shortly after Monica went missing to form the initial search party before SAR took over?

It's not 5 hikers who RSVPed and then bailed. It was 2 people with 7 guests for a total of 9 that didn't show but that is common. And no, they were not the ones who helped search that first day.

Ah okay. That makes much more sense. Yeah she seems a little too determined to prove this group was acting nefarious. Thank you for clearing this up.

So I know this group is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to Monica's disappearance. I'm still just learning so forgive me if this is already known. But in Sidequest Hiker's excellent 2 part video series he mentions at one point that the investigation shared that they were able to determine exactly when her phone stops pinging at a point on Mt Waterman. Am I correct that is consistent with the exact time and place Subject A says he last saw Monica?

Furthermore did he indicate at any time to any of you guys or did LE say that he shared any of his phone data to corroborate any of his claims? Seems like a very basic thing to determine/establish but I just thought I'd ask. I know generally people were saying that Subject A was protective of information.