beerhunter Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 (edited) That's okay, I was demonstrating how blood appears to me. :-) Yes that reminded me of the time I spent on a kill floor at a packinghouse, the blood on the floor was like thick Jello, cut and cleared away with squeegees. Edited July 19, 2015 by beerhunter
Guest Divergent1 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 The toilet paper roll would likely be a coagulated mess if that dark spot it's lying in is really blood.
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Interesting point, Divergent. Judging by the few small splotches viewed on top of the roll, it looks as though the blood had soaked into the dry sand fairly thoroughly before the paper rolled into the area. Edited July 20, 2015 by diana swampbooger Removed quote of post just above
Guest Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) The toilet paper roll would likely be a coagulated mess if that dark spot it's lying in is really blood. Or if its not blood, it could be, if an untrained squatched used it, well ask Rockape, i just sent him 10 lbs of it.... This could be an important clue. No wonder they get so angry over toilet paper, one roll equals one use! Stupid squatches don't know HOW TO USE TOILET PAPER PROPERLY! So we could probably conclude, bringing in toilet paper to the forest, equals DANGER! Unless you bring enough to share. Question is, will Sas-Chronicles pick up on this? They could do a show titled: Sas-Squatch-Pickles. and we ain't talking cucumbers baby! Hope they don't poo-poo that idea. Were the crew really getting bluff-CHARGED, or was that a squatch squattin' in the woods, you know what I mean? I mean, if a Bear does it in the woods, a squatch probably does also, we could conclude that. Did the ''Bluff-charge'' sound like this: GrrrrrRRRRRRRRrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Thats not a bluff-charge, thats a constipated squatch! Remember, throw your TP rolls in the direction of the SOUNDS!! Toss em good! Edited July 20, 2015 by Wag
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) charming Edited July 20, 2015 by diana swampbooger Removed quote of post just above
Guest Divergent1 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Look, this bear wrecked a camp site and was found passed out from drinking all of the Rainier Beer in the coolers. If it happens to bears then surely it could happen to a sasquatch. Just where are all the empty beer cans in this video? If not bears and sasquatch, what man alive goes camping without beer? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5756809/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/bear-downs-beers-passes-out-campground/#.Vaxi0bWo21w Edited July 20, 2015 by Divergent1
Bodhi Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Nice point D1 but I think we should insist that those who claim this is a real event with injured and killed campers provide some tangible proof. Playing games about whether the dark splotch under the toilet paper is hilarious but where are the 911 calls, where is the missing persons reports, where is a police report. The number of people who would have to be a part of a conspiracy to "hush" this up is ridiculous. If Jade Helm15 has done nothing else it showed that tx authorities are not likely to play nice with the feds. And to what purpose, to hide a sasquatch sighting in a National Preserve? No "big timber" industry logging interest to be concerned about there. The whole premise is laughable, the claims are outrageous and without ANY tangible trace evidence of anything sasquatch related. Rather than staring a screenshots of imaginary blood (which STILL would not equal sasquatch by the way) how about showing 1 911 person, tx ranger,forest service person, cop, emt, nurse or doctor who will verify ANY part of this tall tale. The only credibility this thing ever had is that some people here have a soft spot for B.G. and simply cannot believe he'd make this up. That is the logical fallacy of personal incredulity, just because a proponent cannot imagine that B.G. would hoax/be wildly mistaken doesn't mean that the story is factual/correct. In fact, enough time has past since the original event was reported without ANYONE coming forward to back him up that it's reasonable to say that this was always a B.S. story that got out of hand, IMO. Edited July 20, 2015 by chelefoot Removed quote of post just above
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) EMTs, hospital officials, nurses or doctors who would be willing to verify any part of this would be directly violating patient privacy laws. Here's the American Medical Association's website delineating the penalties of privacy rights violations http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page And it's not a wacky 'government conspiracy' theory to say that the Feds will go after any HIPAA violator. (http://hipaaviolation.org/) Asking for eye witness medical personnel should cease because they aren't stupid enough to risk their careers to violate HIPAA. Edited July 20, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Removed quote of post just above
Guest Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Well, seriously, its time to call out the Squatch-Scat experts. Rockape will soon be a (suspected) Squatch-Scat expert in a few months, but who we want now is the King of Squatch-Scat knowledge. Someone PM Young Nathan and get his behind onto this, pronto! I've sent him a good 20lbs of Suspected Squatch Scat, but fear he had to burn it to keep warm up there in the PNC, after the Falcon Project failed. I hear he is still waiting for his check. Nate, as soon as I can collect another 20 lbs of (suspected) squatch-scat, I'll send it right up bud! Keep warm pal!!
Bodhi Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 EMTs, hospital officials, nurses or doctors who would be willing to verify any part of this would be directly violating patient privacy laws. Here's the American Medical Association's website delineating the penalties of privacy rights violations http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page And it's not a wacky 'government conspiracy' theory to say that the Feds will go after any HIPAA violator. (http://hipaaviolation.org/) Asking for eye witness medical personnel should cease because they aren't stupid enough to risk their careers to violate HIPAA. They wouldn't have to divulge the names of the patients to acknowledge that patients arrived on or around that date who were injured while in the Big Thicket. Not asking for names, let's not use that as an excuse. There's enough excuses going around for B.G. without inventing new ones.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Nope. According the US Code of Federal Regulations: http://www.hipaa.com/hipaa-protected-health-information-what-does-phi-include/ Protected Health Information is Identifiable Health Information which is defined as: “Individually identifiable health information is information that is a subset of health information, including demographic information collected from an individual, and: (1) Is created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and (2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual; and (i) That identifies the individual; or (ii) With respect to which there is a reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual.†Therefore, if a doctor, nurse, ward secretary, EMT is stupid enough to say "yeah, we had a guy come into County General Memorial Hospital around July 15 claiming to have been attacked by a Big Foot and spent the next 2 weeks in the psych ward", that is PHI because there is a "reasonable basis to believe the information can be used to identify the individual" per US Code . It is also PHI because that information is "created or received by a health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse; and (2) Relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual;" per US Code. This is why the expectation that verification from the medical field is necessary is a flawed and unrealistic expectation because it would in direct violation of Federal law and subject to penalties that aren't worth it. Moreover, state medical and nursing boards can take action against these HIPAA violators resulting in penalties and sanctions (like license suspensions or revocations). And for me, I would question the judgment and integrity of any health care professional who would willfully violate a patient's privacy rights. Edited July 20, 2015 by ChasingRabbits Removed quote of post just above
Bodhi Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) You are using a hypothetical that works best in your favor and assumes much. If a guy drives to the emergency room and says he was attacked in the Big Thicket on day "x". That information would be enough to establish that at least something occurred on/around the dates in question. Where you get this idea of a 72 hr hold is beyond me but in any event. No reports of animal attack or attacks on hiker/campers on or around that date have been reported to 911 or the cops, park service, tx rangers, etc, etc. So, again, either it didn't happen or a vast conspiracy was concocted and has held tight ever since. I cannot prove that it isn't all a conspiracy but there is a blogger who called quite a few people attempting to verify B.G.'s claims and the results were that no one knew anything about it. You can choose to believe B.G. if you wish, but there is certainly no proof that anything untoward occurred. Take it on faith if you choose, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of that but I'd appreciate someone who is just honest enough to admit that's what is happening. Edited July 20, 2015 by chelefoot Removed quote of post just above
Rockape Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) ask Rockape, No, don't ask me anything about this. I have been called a liar, troll, government agent and talked to like a dog for daring to disagree with Bob Garrett. I was lucky to get by with posting those photos a page or two back. I've sworn off this once and am doing so again. Edited July 20, 2015 by Rockape
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 You are using a hypothetical that works best in your favor and assumes much. If a guy drives to the emergency room and says he was attacked in the Big Thicket on day "x". That information would be enough to establish that at least something occurred on/around the dates in question. If that information makes it into the medical record, it becomes PHI per US Code of Federal Regulations. And its unauthorized release by the hospital (and its employees) is a HIPAA violation. Where you get this idea of a 72 hr hold is beyond me but in any event. I never mentioned a 72 hr hold. Yup, looked at my posts and I don't see anything about a 72 hr hold. at all. No reports of animal attack or attacks on hiker/campers on or around that date have been reported to 911 or the cops, park service, tx rangers, etc, etc. My posts have specifically addressed healthcare workers, not "911 or the cops, park service tx rangers, etc. etc. But since you brought up 911, some pages back I looked up the 911 call center policy in Texas, specifically Hardin County where this incident allegedly occurred in the Sam Houston National Forest (not the Big Thicket as you keep referring). I couldn't find Hardin County's policy, but I did find Houston's. And in Houston, 911 calls are purged from the system after 1 year. So until someone can find Hardin County's 911 policy on record purges, it's unrealistic to cite the lack of a 911 call record as "proof" this never happened. So, again, either it didn't happen or a vast conspiracy was concocted and has held tight ever since. I cannot prove that it isn't all a conspiracy but there is a blogger who called quite a few people attempting to verify B.G.'s claims and the results were that no one knew anything about it. You can choose to believe B.G. if you wish, but there is certainly no proof that anything untoward occurred. Take it on faith if you choose, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of that but I'd appreciate someone who is just honest enough to admit that's what is happening. If that's the blogger whose blog I read a few months ago, I think she cites the location as the Big Thicket, when it was supposed to have occurred in the Sam Houston National Forest (two different places according to Google maps).
Bodhi Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) You are using a hypothetical that works best in your favor and assumes much. If a guy drives to the emergency room and says he was attacked in the Big Thicket on day "x". That information would be enough to establish that at least something occurred on/around the dates in question. If that information makes it into the medical record, it becomes PHI per US Code of Federal Regulations. And its unauthorized release by the hospital (and its employees) is a HIPAA violation. Where you get this idea of a 72 hr hold is beyond me but in any event. I never mentioned a 72 hr hold. Yup, looked at my posts and I don't see anything about a 72 hr hold. at all. No reports of animal attack or attacks on hiker/campers on or around that date have been reported to 911 or the cops, park service, tx rangers, etc, etc. My posts have specifically addressed healthcare workers, not "911 or the cops, park service tx rangers, etc. etc. But since you brought up 911, some pages back I looked up the 911 call center policy in Texas, specifically Hardin County where this incident allegedly occurred in the Sam Houston National Forest (not the Big Thicket as you keep referring). I couldn't find Hardin County's policy, but I did find Houston's. And in Houston, 911 calls are purged from the system after 1 year. So until someone can find Hardin County's 911 policy on record purges, it's unrealistic to cite the lack of a 911 call record as "proof" this never happened. So, again, either it didn't happen or a vast conspiracy was concocted and has held tight ever since. I cannot prove that it isn't all a conspiracy but there is a blogger who called quite a few people attempting to verify B.G.'s claims and the results were that no one knew anything about it. You can choose to believe B.G. if you wish, but there is certainly no proof that anything untoward occurred. Take it on faith if you choose, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of that but I'd appreciate someone who is just honest enough to admit that's what is happening. If that's the blogger whose blog I read a few months ago, I think she cites the location as the Big Thicket, when it was supposed to have occurred in the Sam Houston National Forest (two different places according to Google maps). Nice read font. You mentioned a psych issue with the hypothetical patient, hence 72 psych hold. B.G. had a full year to request those 911 records as proof that he had called in a report. Wonder why he didn't do that? My guess is that no call was made but, that's just a guess based on the lack of any other corroborating proof. Again, giant red font notwithstanding, feel free to believe the guy but at least acknowledge that you choose to do so in the absence of any evidence. Edited July 21, 2015 by See-Te-Cah NC Remove quoted content in violation of the rules.
Recommended Posts