The point of this thread is to show that engaging in what you would have done, and extrapolating that they must have done that is a fallacy in logical thinking. I'm going to give an example, and be prepared to suffer the wrath of others for not using a good example.
Several years ago I watched a program on the Discovery Channel or one of those kinds of channels. The viewer was presented with survival scenarios based on actual historical fact, and then challenge the viewer to make a decision. Later in the program, they reveal what the actual survivor did, and what was likely to happen with the other options. The following case was presented.
On April 26, 1976, Lauren Elder was a passenger in a Cessna 182P on a flight from Oakland to Furnace Creek in Death Valley. The plane crashed in the Sierra Nevada when the pilot missed Kearsarge Pass. The wreckage ended up on a ridge above 12,000 feet about a half mile south of Mount Bradley. The pilot and another passenger were severely injured in the crash, and died the next day. On the first night, Ms. Elder could see the lights of Owens Valley below, but shear icy cliffs lay in that direction. In the other direction, was miles of snowy wilderness towards Fresno. She was dressed in blouse, a wraparound skirt, and boots with 2 inch heels. At this point, the viewer was offered the option of walking through the woods and mountains to Fresno, or climbing down the dangerous cliff face to the Owens Valley.
I chose the option of walking to Fresno. I based my decision on my personal experiences, having grown up in the White Mountains of Arizona, and having a lot of experience hunting, fishing, and camping. Later in the program, the viewer was shown that this would have been a difficult trek, in thawing deep snows through miles of wilderness.
Ms. Elder did not pick my option. In real life she spent several days climbing down the cliff face and walked into the town of Independence, California.
The point of this example is, what I would have done is not what someone else did do.