Reddit reviews Lost Person Behavior: A search and rescue guide on where to look - for land, air and water

What kind of terrain does your SAR group cover? I'm part of a mountain/prairie group and here's my list. We have to carry a 24 pack.

Emergency bivy bag (thick space blanket)
Reflective tarp (thick space blanket again)
Backpack waterproof cover
Super thin tarp for shelter
Blow up sleeping pad
Sunscreen/bug spray/soap kit
Cooking kit
Food bag
Water bottle
Thermos
Rain pants
Emergency clothing kit (base layer, toque, bandana, socks in waterproof bag)
Garbage bags
Knife
Bear spray
Belt
Headlamp x2
Spare batteries for light/watch
TP
Safety glasses
Ear plugs
Fire starting kit
3mm accessory cord
Gorilla tape
Flagging tape
Foldable saw
Personal first aid kid
Glow stick
Paracord
2 biners, two red lights for outside of pack
Water bottle belt holder
Compass
Notebook
Pen
Lip chap
Leather gloves
Medical gloves
Seasonal dependent clothing
SAR high vis jacket
Hiking pole
Handheld flashlight

Also have my lost person analysis book, map books, life jacket, throw bag, and helmet ready depending on the search.

Now at the start of every search I dump about 50% of this stuff in my truck out. Just have it all ready for whatever goes on.

Here is the link for the lost person book-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1879471396/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1451182926&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40&keywords=Lost+person&dpPl=1&dpID=41tsEFudYML&ref=plSrch

For brands I wouldn't worry too much about the exact brand. Don't cheap out on it though. Look at gear at mid to high range quality. Most of my gear is from mountain equipment coop. At times you'll cover large bits of ground so just make sure you buy lightweight gear. Also good waterproof clothing and good water resistant backpack. Only other recommendations is to get a good fixed blade knife for multipurpose use, and to consider a headlamp that takes AA instead of AAA batteries. Life will be longer and batteries are cheaper in the long run.

I don't want to argue about this or be mean-spirited, ok? If you want to, please refrain from replying.

Let's just talk about the information. If you don't want to, that's ok. /u/KittikatB

-------------------

>It's hard to take him seriously because he calls himself an "expert"

Never heard him say that. Maybe he did. Where did you hear it?

>For example, he loves to go on about people who go missing at Point A and are found at faraway Point B. Guess what? Freaking out and moving far and fast is expected.

I think he's read the Lost Person Behavior book. He says he and his team tries to read up on as many SAR books as they can so they can have an idea of what is normal, standard practice, and can see when something deviates, and reference why it's a deviation.

If you look at the distances and terrain travelled (there's a table in one of his books, and he mentions them in some talks he does - Blaine talk, UPARS talk), they're surprising. You're glossing over the details I think, but if you look at the cases, more than a few stand out as unlikely journeys. Especially young children ending up in high elevation, over difficult terrain, apparently with few signs to show they made that journey - such as scratches on their body.

>Another problematic theme in Paulides' "research" is around people who get lost in plain sight of an obvious way to safety.

I don't even think that's something he talks about. Do you have some examples?

He does say people seem to disappear while in close proximity to other people (last in line, first in line), and that in almost all cases, these people apparently make no noise, and don't yell for help or respond when called.

This includes children, and people who have difficulty moving due to some sort of disability or being elderly. (Maurice Dametz, Owen Parfitt)

They also disappear when they're clearly not lost (Bobby Bizup), or when they are said to know the trail backwards (Karen Sykes). Still possible for them to get lost - that's not lost on me (no pun intended) - but that's usually not the only strange thing about the case.

>People love to go on about terminal burrowing and paradoxical undressing. I somewhat suspect that the incidences of such tend towards overstated on this sub, but the fact remains that they are very real phenomena, phenomena that an "expert" like Paulides should know well and understand. Yet he doesn't. It's a huge mystery to him, obviously supernatural because it can't possibly be rationally explained.

I do think people use it as a cover all explanation, but would also like to here Paulides address this more and explain why it's not relevant.

He may well not understand it, but I still don't think it explains or rules out most of the cases, and I don't see how terminal burrowing can explain people never being found.

If you know, please tell me so I can understand, too.

>Then there are the numbers. Paulides is looking at cases in Canada, the US, and Mexico. The second-largest country in the world, the fourth-largest country in the world, and the thirteenth-largest country in the world. All with a combined population of about 475 million. (Canada obviously contributes a lot to that figure :D) There is nothing strange about the number of people who go missing in the wilderness. Remember that the actual number of people using wilderness areas may be quite a bit higher when you include tourists. The probability of going missing in a wilderness area is very small. In fact, people are still more likely to go missing in an urban area than out in a forest.

Doesn't seem relevant. They happen often enough that something strange is going on, or there needs to be more public education or better safety measures put in place in parks or urban areas.

For example, if people are getting drunk and having car accidents, the authorities respond by educating the public, etc, to prevent it. It still happens, but successful campaigns lessen it.

>Then there is the location of his "hot spot." Shockingly, all coincide with popular parks, trails, and wilderness areas. If enough people go through an area, someone is eventually going to get hurt. Simple probability. If, say, one in 1000 people get hurt, an area that sees tens of thousands of visitors per year is going to have A LOT more accidents than an area that only sees a few thousand visitors per year. And then there are the realities that some terrain/areas/systems are simply more dangerous than an easy stroll on a flat, groomed trail.

Fair point, and I think his database should be held to scrutiny. We can't access it though, because he doesn't share it. I don't know why he doesn't share it, though he said he would share it with the park service if they wanted it.

I do think that the cluster areas don't discount the strangeness of some cases, and that the sub-clusters (certain types of people going missing) is worth considering (even if it's to educate that group so they don't go missing as much).

I also think better statistics on this whole subject would be good in general, so his stats can be held to scrutiny. Right now there don't seem to be any good stats on missing people.

>And the conspiracy angle. Jesus. If it was true, it would include thousands and thousands of people across most of a continent and include hundreds, thousands of independent agencies and organizations. It's absurd to argue that they are all in on some cover-up. How can SO many people keep that sort of secret...unless there isn't a secret.

I don't think he ever says it's a conspiracy, but he has presented what he says are the facts.

I think you're exaggerating what he does say.

>I don't know about you, but I'm not aware of any SAR techs, first responders, or related professionals who actually believe that anything outside of normal could possibly be going on. That alone should be a pretty big indicator that Paulides is full of shit.

Paulides says he has encountered many, including some at the NASAR talk he did:

>In the summer of 2012 I was asked to be a speaker of the NASAR (National Association for Search and Rescue) conference in South Lake Tahoe, one of the largest search and rescue conferences in the world. Our findings were presented to a packed room. Dozens of professionals approached me after the presentation and stated that what I had presented was known by the majority of the senior SAR personnel but that most don’t wish to discuss it. They stated that it is staggering the number of people that simply vanish in the wilds of North America.

Maybe he's lying. Who knows. Anyone attend that talk? Is there a recording?

I also don't think he'd be invited there for entertainment value. Some people must see value in what he says.

>If your game plan is so vague that it includes literally everything, it isn't a game plan. His "risk factors" or whatever he calls them are literally rocks, water, weather.

He doesn't say they're risk factors. That's misrepresenting what he says.

This is what happened:

• he got tipped off by a ranger that there were many disappearances, and they weren't getting investigated much
  
  
• he decided to look into it, and creater a criteria: no cases were drowning, animal predation, or mental health (suicide) was likely
  
  
• after looking at over a thousand cases, certain patterns showed up: missing shoes; found dead near water; missing clothes; berries; weather hinders the search; found much further than person would expected to be
  
  He's profiling. That's to be expected given his background as a cop.
  
  >If you put the entirety of humanity under some bizarre 'lost/hurt in the wilderness' watch, you WILL find a case that meets your criteria. It's a mathematical certainty because people DO get hurt in the wilderness. But it's literally akin to saying, "Everyone with a nose eventually dies, so something about noses must have something to do with their demise."
  
  I don't think so.
  
  Have you looked at the cases?
  
  Even if 50% of them are explainable, the remaining ones are strange. That's all I'm saying, by the way - I don't know what's causing this, but when you take an open minded look at this, the possibilities of what might be happening are concerning.
  
  Let's hope he's wrong and it's easily explainable.
  
  >Here's his Bigfoot organization!
  
  He said he:
  
  
• had no interest in bigfoot
  
  
• was paid to look into it by some people who wanted him to prove or disprove whether a biped exists.
  
  
• took on the job, and feels he proved he bigfoot exists with the DNA study (whether you believe that is another topic, and not relevant to your point of "he thinks it's bigfoot taking people")
  
  (source)
  
  However, he has never said bigfoot is the cause of missing people, nor has he said it isn't.
  
  So, saying he has is wrong, or you have some information I don't have, or are reading between the lines of what he writes - which he invites, but isn't neccessarily something he said.
  
  If you consider what he's speculating might be causing these disappearances (which you would know if you have done enough research), it seems to be more than just bigfoot.
  
  I'm not saying I buy into that. I am saying I think it warrents investigation.