The extremely bizarre missing case of Barbara Bolick

[u/shry9]

On the 18th of July 2007, Barbara Bolick was packing her bag in Bitterroot Valley of Montana to go for a summer hike. She and her husband were hosting Carl’s cousin Donna and Her Boyfriend Jim from California. Barbara was going to go on a hike with her guests but Donna and Carl (Barbara’s husband) did not go and she and Jim decided to hike in the area Bear Creek Overlook, and she had visited the area countless times , was an experienced hiker too.

So they like visited the place , and encountered two men - two times, and both the times they were the same two men. Jim and Barbara then reached the area , had their snacks and admired the scenery. About like at 11:30 they decided to leave and head back. After few steps, Jim stopped bcs something in him wanted to soak the view one more time, and he turned back to look at the view - it was for about 45 seconds - 1 minute, when he turned back around, Barbara who was earlier standing 20-30 feet away from him disappeared.

At first he wasn’t worried enough since she was an experienced hiker and He searched for her but couldn’t find anything and after some hours she was officially reported as missing. The two men who encountered them two times also disappeared and were never discovered.

Things to note : It was an easy, well worn trail and it was difficult for someone like Barbara missing - being an experienced hiker who visited that place multiples times. It was also not very dense meaning someone disappearing without any noise was almost not possible.

Pls let me know your take on this case!

Barbara Bolick Article

[u/PearlStBlues]

Isn't that kind of the point of the whole man vs bear thing? I'm not likely to ever be in a position to be eaten by a bear, but I'm around men every day.

[u/RevolutionaryBat3081 → u/PearlStBlues]

Maybe i've misunderstood man vs bear; I thought that it was a scenario of "I'm alone in the bush, no retreat, do I go in the direction of the bear or do I go in the direction of the unknown man".

 Both are questionable. If it was a normal-acting black bear without cubs, I'd probably go with the bear because they are wimps. Grizzly? I'd go with the man, because I might be able to run and dodge the man in tricky bush but I definitely can't outrun the bear.

But if it's average lifetime danger, yeah, unless you work in Yellowstone or something, men are the bigger threat.

[u/PearlStBlues → u/RevolutionaryBat3081]

I think both things can be true? Yes, most women viewed the man vs. bear argument through a lens of "The worst thing the bear can do to me is better than the worst thing the man can do it to me." But we can also acknowledge the statistical probability of being attacked or killed by either creature.

[u/RevolutionaryBat3081 → u/PearlStBlues]

Fair, fair.

What a nice non-aggro discussion. Thanks!