Firefighter chases dog and both are missing 411?

a reply to: JackofBlades

I agree with both of you...I think he and the dog were both spooked and either Byers didn't see "it" or he's too scared or embarrassed to say what he saw. Running after the dog never made sense to me.

If something animal got him it should be obvious. Fear could possibly make him slip and fall.

originally posted by: roadgravel
If something animal got him it should be obvious. Fear could possibly make him slip and fall.

But weren't they saying, initially, that he was found too far from the base of the cliff for it to have been an accidental fall?
And how did he get 'partially covered in brush' if he fell by accident?

originally posted by: megabogie

I agree with both of you...I think he and the dog were both spooked and either Byers didn't see "it" or he's too scared or embarrassed to say what he saw. Running after the dog never made sense to me.

Or maybe he told the whole story to the cops, and they censored it? Running after the dog never made sense, but neither did the fact that authorities declared right from the start that Byars was not under suspicion.

originally posted by: GreenMtnBoys
a reply to: Tsurugi

And if he was 1200 feet high how the hell would dogs below be able to smell them? Tracking dogs are good but how would they ever get wind of a scent that high?

Cadaver dogs can find people buried in an avalance way up on the side of a mountain. Don't ask me how but they can and have.

That's another thing with Paulides.........he puts way too much stock in this whole dogs can't track the victim nonsense. It happens all the time in hunting. Dogs ability to scent and track isn't perfect.

It does not happen during hunting...not with well trained dogs, and police have some of the very best. A well trained bloodhound, once on a scent, rarely looses it. It only happens when the track crosses water, or if the scent crosses itself. And even then, the dogs can pick the scent back up if taken to the opposite side of the water, or by returning to the place of crossing.

originally posted by: Tsurugi
...But weren't they saying, initially, that he was found too far from the base of the cliff for it to have been an accidental fall?
And how did he get 'partially covered in brush' if he fell by accident?

This is one of the many confusions...
If 'accepting' that the Sheriff's statement was based on 'expert analysis/observation' of the location of the body in relation to 'the cliff or sheer rock face'...the possibility that large predators/scavengers pulled the body to such location would need to be considered.
If, on the other hand, the ME's conclusion (blunt force trauma consistent with falling from the mountain/cliffside) is correct/believable...there are other considerations...
1. How high up the rock-face (discarding the possibility that he was dropped from something airborne ... !) was he...before falling/leaping/being-thrown...?
2. If high enough...up the rock-face...and it was the same cliff-structure shown in the photos of the area that include the helicopter...it might be worth considering that he hit some of the 'jutting' stratigraphy, causing the body to go into some kind of bouncing-tumble once hitting the ground below...and...the "brush covering" could simply be the result of 'rolling into brush, and coming to rest while applying pressure to the base of the brush rolled-into...etc...

While I'm not lobbying for these explanations... I am trying to consider any/all/some reasonable explanations...before throwing-out some fact/s that might/should remain.

originally posted by: megabogie
a reply to: Tsurugi

If you read some of the examples of Paulides in the 411 cases, the dogs NEVER are able to track the scent. They usually pick it up at the point they were last seen and then nothing. That is one of the criteria he uses to select a case. It's as if the person just vanished at that spot, only to be returned at a later time in the spot their body is found. Surprisingly, a lot of children are found alive many miles and at a much higher elevation from where they disappeared. Also to note, most when found are missing their shoes. In this case however, he had none to start with.

Yes, I'm just finishing the first 411 book, about to start on the second one. There are also cases where the dogs will track for a while and then suddenly quit, or refuse to track any farther.

The dogs dont always fail though. There are a lot of cases where the dogs track the scent just fine, but the searchers can't believe they're on the right track because the dog is leading them straight up a steep mountainside or something similar.

originally posted by: WanDash
While I'm not lobbying for these explanations... I am trying to consider any/all/some reasonable explanations...before throwing-out some fact/s that might/should remain.

I agree with all of that. As I've said, I'd really like to know if a point of impact was located, and if the ridgeline above was checked for clues. And if he did hit protrusions before final impact, it shouldn't be hard to find that either. But again, seeing as how they apparently have decided to go with "accidental", I very much doubt they will case the scene like they would if foul play was suspected.

The reason I keep mentioning the dogs, the distance from the cliff, and other similar points is simply to keep them at the forefront of the discussion. I've been involved in quite a few discussions about 411-type missing persons cases and I've seen how people will 'decide' on an explanation--animal attack, disorientation, hypothermia, drugs, whatever--that only works if they just sort of 'forget' the facts that don't fit their chosen answer.

I hope the dogs aright...

Thanks for borrowing me the book man^ damn thing costs $60!

originally posted by: FistOfFreedom
Thanks for borrowing me the book man^ damn thing costs $60!

David Paulides himself says to watch out for Amazon. (Assuming that's where you saw them?)
People buy them and take the price through the roof. If you go to his site...canammissing.com, the books are around $25.

Like all the other facts, partially covered by brush wasn't very specific. Might be the vantage point from above, as he was partially under some growing brush not that someone covered him. Maybe he rolled or crawled there.

a reply to: Tsurugi

Bingo, Tsurugi! You're on the same mental track as me. We all know there's no logical reason for Herdman to run after Duke. Barefoot. There's also no reason for Mike to avoid searchers for around a week, then hike up to a 1200+ foot precipice and fall off.
But there is, in fact, a logical reason for someone to do that. They're terrified. And not just terrified, but actively seeing or encountering something which is keeping them fearful.

I'd like to share the case of Eloise Lindsay. Eloise went missing in 1989 in So.Cal. after going for a hike on her own. She stopped at a cabin and signed the log book thing as Eloise and George so no one would know she wasn't alone. Smart thing to do.
At some point however, she became confused and found herself lost. She was reported missing and a search initiated. She was missing for around 2 weeks (I've seen 10 days to two weeks), before she was found by a deer hunter.
After being found she stated to the press and her parents on several occasions that even before the official SAR started she felt hunted.

"We feel that had she wanted to come out and be rescued, the opportunity was probably there numerous times,"

That from the emergency preparedness director.
She also claimed that the men were using walkie talkies and discussing her within earshot. She never saw anyone, but according to several sources she knew they were there.

''I could tell there was no good intent involved,'' she said but added there was no clear indication they meant her harm. ''I used instinct, like a deer,'' she said, adding that the men carried walkie-talkies and that she could hear them discussing her.

Sheriffs later went on record saying they believed there was no one chasing her, and that she was in fact delirious. For two solid weeks. So delirious that she had the clarity of thought to avoid the entire search and rescue effort for around two weeks involving more than 100 people.

Two days after the search was called off, a deer hunter stumbled across her. She didn't run into his arms, or cry and beg for help. She told him, straight up, "I don't know if I can trust you." He eventually persuaded her and she returned with him.

She said she ditched her pack and kept only some dried apples to eat. ''I felt I had to let go of my belongings to survive, and run as far and as fast as I could,'' she said. She said she saw rescue helicopters overhead but didn't build a fire to attract attention because it might have given her away to the men she believed were chasing her. ''I wasn't hungry,'' she said. ''It didn't matter. I was too scared and cold to be hungry.''

Ditches her pack, and bolts into the woods. Avoids SAR for approx 2 weeks and, when found, immediately makes it clear that the man in front of her, the potential lifeline, could be as dangerous as the ones authorities claim she imagined. The part where she claims she had to get rid of her pack and just run is interesting. Mike had no shoes and no gear, and instead of returning to camp after a short while to grab his stuff, he apparently just kept running. Avoiding SAR. Avoiding flyovers. And then was found dead due to "blunt force trauma."

Interesting, eh?

These are the articles I mainly used, but a quick search of "Eloise Lindsay" missing will bring you back a few others.

a reply to: Tsurugi

Also rain will wash away most scent and cause a dog to not track.

a reply to: JackofBlades

I just realised this is a "little" similar to the Dyatlov Pass incident.

a reply to: JackofBlades

That is how i feel about the missing 411 stuff.
Someone/s is actively hunting some of these people who go missing

originally posted by: Tsurugi

originally posted by: megabogie

I agree with both of you...I think he and the dog were both spooked and either Byers didn't see "it" or he's too scared or embarrassed to say what he saw. Running after the dog never made sense to me.

Or maybe he told the whole story to the cops, and they censored it? Running after the dog never made sense, but neither did the fact that authorities declared right from the start that Byars was not under suspicion.

That could very well be as they didn't want to tarnish his reputation by revealing some outrageous story that would make people think they were strung out on hallucinogenic drugs.

originally posted by: hesse
a reply to: JackofBlades

I just realised this is a "little" similar to the Dyatlov Pass incident.

BINGO! I've been reading the 411 books by Paulides and every case reminds me of those Russian hikers. Something happens that is so terrible that they go against every instinct and do the exact opposite of what would be expected.

a reply to: JackofBlades

The Eloise Lindsay case is one of the strangest cases that I’ve read about.



I watched some of the videos about the search for Herdsman on YouTube and here are some of the strange things I picked out.

- Herdsman ran out into the night on Friday the 13?

- The body was found in an area that is extremely difficult to access, 1200 ft. on the side of a rugged mountain (He was only wearing a black t-shirt and shorts with no shoes).

- The police say, they never searched the area because "what are the odds that a man wearing no shoes, shorts and a t-shirt would climb a mountain in the middle of the night".

- He dropped the backpack while he was out there in the wilderness? So he did have time to grab his pack?
The big question is how / why did he get on that mountain? I just got back from vacation in and around the Los Padres National Forest, but further north. There are rattlesnakes all over the place!

originally posted by: Tsurugi

originally posted by: WanDash
While I'm not lobbying for these explanations... I am trying to consider any/all/some reasonable explanations...before throwing-out some fact/s that might/should remain.

I agree with all of that. As I've said, I'd really like to know if a point of impact was located, and if the ridgeline above was checked for clues. And if he did hit protrusions before final impact, it shouldn't be hard to find that either. But again, seeing as how they apparently have decided to go with "accidental", I very much doubt they will case the scene like they would if foul play was suspected.

The reason I keep mentioning the dogs, the distance from the cliff, and other similar points is simply to keep them at the forefront of the discussion. I've been involved in quite a few discussions about 411-type missing persons cases and I've seen how people will 'decide' on an explanation--animal attack, disorientation, hypothermia, drugs, whatever--that only works if they just sort of 'forget' the facts that don't fit their chosen answer.

Maybe Duke the dog was chasing Mike...not vice versus.