may take a while to find the remains. Best to take the time then to assume wrongly.

Boy ..... archaeologists would shake their head at that methodology ........

The quickest way to disturb a site? ... bulldoze it.

And what "happens" if they dont find any remains!

Then one of the other scenarios they have as an explanation would kick in ....... by now, that may be the most plausible one.

http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/inbasket/mmgreene.091214_1416.DRDC-CSS-TN-2009-003.pdf

An interesting report on the use of archeological methods to investigate such "overwhelming" fatal fires as this one might have been ....

It sates in the abstract:

"The aim of this study is to assist fire investigators in understanding the value of the application of archaeological recovery methods at fatal fire scenes. It also is intended to provide insight into the essential skills utilized in these methods. The anticipated outcome can be to increase the amount of human remains recovered along with more associated artifacts surrounding the death and, thereby, improve the quantity and quality of critical evidence."

I just hope that they find him so the family can have some closure. Good luck!

Gus did you ever see the pictures of the earth moving machinery at the Picton farm? Found a lot of evidence there. Its all about the screening and recognizing what you are looking at.

I realize it is all about screening. Archaeolgy is most certainly all about screening. Where it differs is that it is all about screening an undistrubed area in an orderly fashion so that one does not lose relational context.

For example, if one were to fnd a ring or watch he wore, but nothing else, what would that indicate? With an archaeological dig approach, it would mean that area would get much closer scrutiny since human remains would likely be very close by if the watch had been on the person and not set down on a vanity in order to take a shower.

Any high concentration of human ashes from an intense fire would likely be disbursed when the dig is with a backhoe or front end loader or some such device. Given an archseological practices approach, the ashes and small bone fragments would normally be found very close to the watch.

gus,

your point is killed when you consider the actual scene itself, very heavily disturbed from the fire itself as well as the effects from fighting the fire.

A very apple and orange comparison.

I appreciate the comment Stompin Tom.

There is nothing superspecial about the fire. It is a large open building. No one fought the fire with heavy equipment to get it under control. By the time they got heavy equipment in there the fire had pretty well burned itself out as I recall.

So far, a normal high intensity fire fue to the open building without fire suppression systems. Most fires are fought with water and wahtever other means at one's disposal that might help. So nothing special about that either.

By the time the fire had burned itself out, they knew someone was missing. His truck was parked outside and was very visible on the images of the fire.

When I speak about taking care, I start from the time they were mopping up after the fire. That is the time to start. A few days ago after debris had already been piled up mechanically, it was already too late, as you say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpGgK0ArKNU A reminder of what the scene looked like.

The report that I linked to basically states that current systems of investigation can be improved when a possbile death is involved - was there a death, is it accidental, is it suicide, is it a homicide. In addition it would help in determining the cause of the fire, which I believe has not been reported yet.

That investigation has to start after the fire has been extinguished and before pieces of structure are removed. Pretty well in the same fashiopn as one deals with building after a structural collapse when people are still in it and may still be alive.

The other point to consider is that even when one pretty well knows that they will not find anything, they still have to go through the motions, even half heartedly. So painstaking exploration is deemed not to be warranted.

I think that is prttey well the situation we have here.

Does anyone know whether the insurance company, on the assumption the building had some insurance on it, has been on the scene yet and maybe has already concluded its report?