Guest

Campsite Destroyed

1,748 posts in this topic

I believe someone mentioned that there are military facilities nearby, that MIGHT explain the flight issues. In Nevada the military has some seriously strict rules about where and how you fly near their air training areas.

 

Maybe also fire prevention? High use campgrounds would equal high potential to set off a fire in this weather, and airspace would need to be clear for putting out fires.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that?

I can only say I tried. Yes, it is ridiculous. It goes back and forth because ChasingRabbits picked his moniker well IMO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw photos taken this week of multiple high use campgrounds still closed in the Sam Houston. Trailheads have signs posted as "Closed to all users, travel at your own riskâ€.

A call to Sam Houston, just now, gets the same old wind & water damage, however, the photos obviously say different. Perhaps the 'wildlife' haven't moved back to their old stomping grounds.

A friend who flies says civilian pilots aren't allowed to fly lower than 2000' except over Lake Conroe. Said Military Wingers don’t have those limitations at the Sam Houston.

 

 

Would it be out of line to ask for date/time stamped  photos (preferably also identifying Sam Houston) of said signs? ......an obvious rhetorical question....

Edited by clubbedfoot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What are these protocols? If you cannot produce these protocols, you should stop referring to them.

 

What are these protocols? That is the entire point, in Garret's case there aren't any. Just as an aside, you originally brought up the topic of protocols, I was just responding.

 

So what are the protocols Garrett did not follow? I brought the idea up because the idea of "standards" were brought up. And after asking and asking for them, no one can give an answer what (if any) protocols/standards/criteria are in the Big Foot research world, yet....there are lots of claims Garrett did not follow them.

 

There is a method used in basic research, certain principles that you follow regardless of the type of study that you might be doing no matter what field you are in. You can find these on the internet anywhere but here is a very basic and dumbed down version of the scientific method for you. Show me how Garrett follows this in his research:

 

1. A systematic process of gathering and analyzing data to find a solution to a problem or validate a theory.

( supposedly he filmed a destroyed campsite and was harassed by the government )

2. Based on the results of the above a hypothesis is developed. ( With little more than a video that leaves a lot to the imagination, the conclusion was that bigfoot was responsible)

3.DATA COLLECTION ( What data does Garrett have? )

4. DATA ANALYSIS   ( Of what?)

5. Drawing conclusions ( Bigfoot tore up the campsite and killed people in this particular incident which is based on nothing but Garrett's opinion, if not, his on creative imagination)

 

Garrett's 'torn up camp' has never been presented by Garrett (to my knowledge) as "research".

 

Some bigfoot groups try to follow those by treating certain areas as a crime scene, which is better than simply telling a story. All I see here is a story, many stories from Garrett, not just this one about the torn up camp, dead bodies in trees, and government harassment. It's not research.

 

Again, to my knowledge, the torn up camp was never presented as "research".

 

We can certainly agree on that.

 

So you're back to the presumption that anyone who shares their work are doing so for a wiki page and notoriety.

 

Not necessarily, but in Garret's case, I would say the answer is "yes".

 

Based on what?

 

The lack of evidence and any documentation he might have other than the blurry video to document what he says is most likely true. In this case we don't have anything other than a messed up camp site that could be caused by a lot of other things other than bigfoot in this case.

 

I've stated before that I think other things could have messed up the camp. So we do not disagree there. And we've been through the medical records and 911 call tape thing ad nauseum (the former would need an authorized release from the patient and the 911 call tapes are purged per law) and how they can't be used as "evidence" or "documentation". So that leaves it with other government records. According to the Texas Attorney General's Office Public Information Act Handbook https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/og/publicinfo_hb.pdf, Section V. A states in part that the Public Information Act does not "give an individual a "special right of access" to information concerning that individual that is not otherwise public information". This link delineates those exemptions http://texascityattorneys.org/2010speakerpapers/PublicInfo.pdf  'Section III' has to do with Law Enforcement Information. Section III B  addresses "informer's privilege", which is " the government's privilege to withhold the identities of persons who furnish information of violations of the law to officers enforcing the law". Therefore, if Garrett reported a crime (ie: violation of the law), that information can be exempted from the Public Information Act. Meaning, it won't be released. (PS, I don't mean to insult your intelligence citing this information, because you already knew this. I'm doing it for the benefit of the people who have "faith" that all government records are open and accessible all the time.)

 

You refer to standards and a protocols regarding Big Foot research and yet you cannot produce them. BTW, HIPAA came into this discussion because people here display their ignorance of US Federal patient privacy laws by asking for proof of medical records or by assuming hospitals can release any medical information except the patient's name. At least when I refer to a "protocol" or "standard" or "regulation" I can cite and post a link to it.

 

I thought your FYI on HIPAA was an assumption that we were all ignorant. As I recall only one person here asked about hospital records. As for research models or protocols that could be used for bigfoot research, all you have to do is look up study protocols for wildlife research to get your answer. To use BigTreeWalker as an example, they had 3 or 4 bone piles so they used the case study method. I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

When people cite  the lack of medical records or medical providers confirming injuries/hospitalizations/etc. as a "lack of evidence" it means these people do not know HIPAA, the US Code of Federal Regulations regarding HIPAA, PHI and what constitutes PHI, and why medical providers/hospitals cannot release PHI.

 

FYI, BigTreeWalker's "wildlife research" is a case report.

 

What people? I saw one person bring it up. BTW's research is a case study of more than one bone pile. You asked for a specific type of methodology that could be used in bigfoot research. I gave it to you. You can call it a case report if you like.

 

If you only saw one person bring it up, you haven't been following the Garrett case. It's been brought up earlier in the thread and it's been brought up in blogs.

 

I saw one person bring it up. THe thread is so redundant it really isn't necessary to go back and see who brought it up first. My point was that used you that opportunity to divert the conversation into this diatribe we are having now.

 

I call BigTree's paper a case report because it is a case report.

 

You can call it whatever you like but your original question to me was about what kind of methodologies could be used in bigfoot research. BTW used the case study method.

 

Given the choice between what something "sounds like" to you and a definition in a legal textbook like Black's Law Dictionary, those of use who love real evidence and fact would choose Black's Law Dictionary.

 
Well the fact is that Garrett can't present any facts to back up his story about what the government said or did to him. Technically that is hearsay by Black's Law Dictionary. It doesn't do you any good to look things up if you can't understand how to apply the concept to real world situations, or not so real, in this case.
 
Well, the fact is your opinion contradicts the evidence (Blacks Law Dictionary). Because as Garrett was statements were about himself, not someone else. But I'll give you that whatever Germer has said about the Garrett case is hearsay. Now how many people will go back and listen to those shows to see what Garrett said and what Germer said? (Probably the same number of people who actually looked up medical record release policies and regulations).
 
Garrett's statements were about the government's actions involving him, it's hearsay. It's not my opinion, it's based on what hearsay is.
 
Not according to Black's Law Dictionary because Garrett's statements have been about himself, not someone else.

Garret's statements were about what some other entity said or did to him, it's hearsay

 

Based on your idea of if it isn't documented it didn't happen, the sun is not self-evident. In fact, based on your idea of if it isn't documented it didn't happen, nothing is self-evident. So for you to use self-evidence as an excuse is really, truly, laughable.

 

Well laugh away while the sun shines on both of us. If you don't document your actions or steps taken in research then it really isn't research. If you take a shirt back to Wal Mart for a return you can't prove you bought it at their store without a receipt. If Garrett says regulatory agencies interfered with his "research" but can't provide the reports then it didn't happen. It's pretty self evident, or at least one would think.

 

Again, based on your "if it isn't documented, it didn't happen" idea, there is nothing that is self-evident, including the sun rising, the aroma of a vine ripened tomato, etc.

 

Research undocumented is not research. If you want to equate what Garrett has been doing to the sun rising that is a completely different topic and a very old logical fallacy commonly used in debate tactics. It's not a very strong argument.

 

You can't have it both ways. If research undocumented is not research, then the sunrise undocumented is not sunrise.

 

Affirming the consequent, it's an invalid argument.

 

It's obvious you don't know what these protocols/standards are, if you did, you wouldn't be asking me to look them up for you, you would have posted them or linked to them (like I linked and posted the US Code of Federal Regs concerning HIPAA and Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "hearsay"), and you would have known that the medical/biological sciences (which includes pharmacology and pharmacokinetics) use population based studies and chemistry and physics do not.

 

I don't need to ask you to look them up for me. Do you not understand that physics and chemistry are not bodies of science that are distinct and separate from each other? Laws of physics define how chemicals move across membranes and interact with each other, once again, an example of willful ignorance on your part as evidenced by your argument. I guess you have no idea what kind of research is involved with GMO's do you? I'm not doing your homework for you but I will say this, you make too many assumptions about what I do and don't know. We can continue going back and forth with this topic that you brought up regarding the lack of research protocols in bigfoot research to justify Garrett's lack of documentation for any of  the events he claims happened but I seriously doubt you'll look any more intelligent than you already think you are after I get done with you.

 

It's obvious that you know nothing about chemistry, physics and biologic research standards/protocols if you think that the biologic sciences have the same research protocols and standards as a physics or chemistry study.

 

They do, they all follow the scientific method, which is a standard.

 

Oh, I see where you are coming from now. It's from a very elementary school "understanding" of science where everything is lumped into a "science" heading. Mea culpa.

 

Obviously you failed to grasp that basic concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm green, CR is blue.

Edited by Divergent1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.