Campsite Destroyed

[Bodhi]

No I disagree Bodhi, the thread is going where people in discussion take it, and at the moment it seems to be whether or not there was anything there. If [key word if] something did occur  why all the opposition, does the public have a right or need know this sort of thing?   

Can you clarify what you mean by "whether or not anything was there"?

 

And if something did occur why all the opposition, by opposition do you mean why do I not take B.G.'s word without any of the evidence which should be readily available? Because to do so would be irrational.

 

OK,let's try a bit of a mind experiment:

If I tell you that a monster attacked campers in the woods and that I found the torn up camp and that I called 911 and that there were shell casings/great big footprints all over the place and that the next day everything was all set right because of a conspiracy between state and federal authorities and lastly I tell you I have ZERO evidence of any of it - if I tell you this story, with no evidence/evidence is conveniently destroyed by the "G", you'd buy that yarn? Seriously? 

 

Setting aside the fact that B.G. had a year to request the 911 tapes and didn't. Allowing that for this event, the tx rangers/sheriff would conspire with the feds and cover this up. Why? And....What about the families of the missing/murdered campers? Are they too, part of the grand conspiracy?

Isn't it much more plausible that B.G. pulled a Standing (without thinking things all the way through) and it got a little more attention than B.G. expected? Isn't that a LOT more likely?

[Guest Divergent1]

 

 

 

 

 

Previous comments in this multiquote were edited for the sake of clarity

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest]

Can you clarify what you mean by "whether or not anything was there"?

 

And if something did occur why all the opposition, by opposition do you mean why do I not take B.G.'s word without any of the evidence which should be readily available? Because to do so would be irrational.

 

OK,let's try a bit of a mind experiment:

If I tell you that a monster attacked campers in the woods and that I found the torn up camp and that I called 911 and that there were shell casings/great big footprints all over the place and that the next day everything was all set right because of a conspiracy between state and federal authorities and lastly I tell you I have ZERO evidence of any of it - if I tell you this story, with no evidence/evidence is conveniently destroyed by the "G", you'd buy that yarn? Seriously? 

 

Setting aside the fact that B.G. had a year to request the 911 tapes and didn't. Allowing that for this event, the tx rangers/sheriff would conspire with the feds and cover this up. Why? And....What about the families of the missing/murdered campers? Are they too, part of the grand conspiracy?

Isn't it much more plausible that B.G. pulled a Standing (without thinking things all the way through) and it got a little more attention than B.G. expected? Isn't that a LOT more likely?

 

First, I cannot explain what was in the mind of another man let alone second guess what his knowledge FOIA was then or now, lots of everyday common citizens are just not as savvy with bureaucratic red tape as me or you.  The unfortunate truth is we expect all to be but that is not always the case especially that sector of public that rarely has any encounter with the law. For many their only knowledge of law enforcement protocol consists solely of what they glean from news media or television.  

 

There are many cases across the country where 911 recorded messages are deleted accidentally or intentionally either a mistake of the heart which is unintentional or it was a mistake of the mind which is intentional that is judgement and action. 

 

What about the families of the missing murdered campers? Well, I know only what my experience tells me and that’s all I can be expected to draw upon in offering you a plausible explanation.  I personally searched for a young man who went missing in the Deep South one hot summer day and remained missing for over thirty years. His mother was not particularly understanding of law enforcement protocol and quite intimidated by her experience.  She was trusting and believed that her personal plea to the local sheriff and the state patrol was enough to make a missing person report based on their personal assurances to file a report and conduct a search.   

 

Thirty two years later, this old woman was still grieving, still waiting by the phone for some reply that never came obviously. Before I retired this particular case bothered me and consumed my every waking moment until I called her late one night asking for anything she may have saved all those years later that I could use. I listened to this old woman weep as she retold the moments the last time she spoke to her son and when she paused I made my promise to search for him and bring him no matter where it took me.

 

I will spare you the details of what I done and where it took me however, I will only say that the local sheriff never made a missing person report and it was apparent he lied to this old woman all those years before. The local sheriff had long since retired and passed away when I came knocking on the door rattling the cage looking for this missing person report. I confirmed the sheriff’s personal phone number from old Bell Telephone bill the old woman kept and used it as leverage among other things and finally resolved the mystery. About 21 months later, I personally contacted the old woman to deliver the news that I was able to make good on my promise and delivered the remains to her for proper burial. She received her closure and I retired. He was a victim of homicide …

 

So the point I am getting at many times more than you know people do not always report a family member missing for a variety of reasons. There are county examiner offices filled to capacity all over the country with unidentified John Does and Jane Does, like it or not that is a reality. I hope that helps.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[jayjeti]

There is no evidence for the attack so that is evidence of a conspiracy.

The lack of evidence of a conspiracy is further evidence of a very well held together conspiracy.

How is this "hypothesis" falsified?

This thread has completely jumped the shark.

 

Well, there is some evidence that perhaps you believe is weak; so, that's not really an accurate statement Bodhi.  And conversely there is "no evidence," the incident never happened or any other facets of the story never happened -- those are without any evidence.  There is some evidence besides Bob Garrett's and the others with him's word in form of video (before and after the alleged clean up of the torn up camp),  and Wes Germer claimed to have found an informant in government, the source that two were killed (one decapitated and the other found up in a tree).  So, your hypothesis is false, and I'm surprised you claimed there is no evidence.  You can't say you didn't know these things.

 

It really comes down to belief.  Either you believe it did happen, didn't happen, or you're not sure.  So, it's a matter of accepting or rejecting what evidence there is "FOR" the incident being true since there is "NO" evidence to the contrary.  Arguments from silence, like documentation that may or may not exist, is not actual evidence.  Considering this story hinges around government cover-up it's unreasonable to argue for government documents showing government cover-up.  But there is other evidence that the government does suppress this kind of information, such as through David Paulides.

[clubbedfoot]

No victim names (dead or alive)  = </ thread> (in any rational world) ....."I'm going off of the rails on a crazy train...."

[clubbedfoot]

No victim names (dead or alive)  = </ thread> (in any rational world) ....."I'm going off of the rails on a crazy train...."

disclaimer: I am questioning my sanity only....

[roguefooter]

 

 

thank you for admitting that you use your opinions, and not any real (read: objective) criteria. 

 

 

The "real" criteria is the total inability to provide backing evidence for the story- that in itself is a fact. I told you before my opinions are based on the existing evidence.

 

So what proof do you have Garrett's research isn't "active"?

 

 

Where did I make that claim? Please show me. I only believe this to be a hoax- I have never officially claimed it to be a hoax or said that Garrett was definitely a hoaxer.

 

You like jumping to your own conclusions.

 

What are "credible sources"?  Or are they "credible" because it's your opinion that they are....sorta like how you determine a researcher is "serious" based on your opinion.

 

 

Again I already explained this to you. 911 calls are recorded and logged, same with police reports, same with phone records, etc. Those official sources are about as credible as they come- and they do not exist to back up his claims.

 

Of course, everything here is an opinion. That's why I can not understand this near obsession frenzy with suppressing opinions and/or trying to change opinions.

 

 

Nobody is suppressing or changing anything. It's simple debate.

 

Who determines that category is incorrect?

 

 

If someone categorizes me as something I'm not- then I decide it's incorrect.

 

Talk about semantics! Hoaxes are either hoaxes or they are not.

 

 

If everything was so definitive in this field then it wouldn't be a cryptid would it? Occam's Razor plays a large part in this field.

 

The bias is that you base your conclusions on your opinions, not on facts or evidence.

 

 

What conclusion did I make without supporting facts or evidence? Please show me.

 

I also have to wonder why you are so intent on focusing on me rather than the actual argument? You seem obsessed with my personal opinions, my personal definitions, digging for discrepancies in my personal words, etc. 

 

Is it my magnetic personality?    I have to wonder sometimes.

 

Maybe you should refocus your argument...really.

 

The administratively and judicially part of the April 12, 2014 Nevada Bundy rancher episode sounds eerily similar to the B. Garrett Torn up Campsite business too.

 

Except there is one major difference here- the BG story is a purely faith-based tale- on the same level as a campfire story. The Nevada incident is fully documented from start to finish.

[Bodhi]

First, I cannot explain what was in the mind of another man let alone second guess what his knowledge FOIA was then or now, lots of everyday common citizens are just not as savvy with bureaucratic red tape as me or you.  The unfortunate truth is we expect all to be but that is not always the case especially that sector of public that rarely has any encounter with the law. For many their only knowledge of law enforcement protocol consists solely of what they glean from news media or television.  

 

There are many cases across the country where 911 recorded messages are deleted accidentally or intentionally either a mistake of the heart which is unintentional or it was a mistake of the mind which is intentional that is judgement and action. 

 

What about the families of the missing murdered campers? Well, I know only what my experience tells me and that’s all I can be expected to draw upon in offering you a plausible explanation.  I personally searched for a young man who went missing in the Deep South one hot summer day and remained missing for over thirty years. His mother was not particularly understanding of law enforcement protocol and quite intimidated by her experience.  She was trusting and believed that her personal plea to the local sheriff and the state patrol was enough to make a missing person report based on their personal assurances to file a report and conduct a search.   

 

Thirty two years later, this old woman was still grieving, still waiting by the phone for some reply that never came obviously. Before I retired this particular case bothered me and consumed my every waking moment until I called her late one night asking for anything she may have saved all those years later that I could use. I listened to this old woman weep as she retold the moments the last time she spoke to her son and when she paused I made my promise to search for him and bring him no matter where it took me.

 

I will spare you the details of what I done and where it took me however, I will only say that the local sheriff never made a missing person report and it was apparent he lied to this old woman all those years before. The local sheriff had long since retired and passed away when I came knocking on the door rattling the cage looking for this missing person report. I confirmed the sheriff’s personal phone number from old Bell Telephone bill the old woman kept and used it as leverage among other things and finally resolved the mystery. About 21 months later, I personally contacted the old woman to deliver the news that I was able to make good on my promise and delivered the remains to her for proper burial. She received her closure and I retired. He was a victim of homicide …

 

So the point I am getting at many times more than you know people do not always report a family member missing for a variety of reasons. There are county examiner offices filled to capacity all over the country with unidentified John Does and Jane Does, like it or not that is a reality. I hope that helps.

You went to a LOT of trouble to avoid giving a straight answer. You do this sort of obfuscation all the time. How about a straight answer - So, you are more comfortable assuming a series of unfortunate mishaps destroyed all the evidence rather than accept the idea that's it's a untrue?

Well, there is some evidence that perhaps you believe is weak; so, that's not really an accurate statement Bodhi.  And conversely there is "no evidence," the incident never happened or any other facets of the story never happened -- those are without any evidence.  There is some evidence besides Bob Garrett's and the others with him's word in form of video (before and after the alleged clean up of the torn up camp),  and Wes Germer claimed to have found an informant in government, the source that two were killed (one decapitated and the other found up in a tree).  So, your hypothesis is false, and I'm surprised you claimed there is no evidence.  You can't say you didn't know these things.

 

It really comes down to belief.  Either you believe it did happen, didn't happen, or you're not sure.  So, it's a matter of accepting or rejecting what evidence there is "FOR" the incident being true since there is "NO" evidence to the contrary.  Arguments from silence, like documentation that may or may not exist, is not actual evidence.  Considering this story hinges around government cover-up it's unreasonable to argue for government documents showing government cover-up.  But there is other evidence that the government does suppress this kind of information, such as through David Paulides.

You might want to check into Paulides before you hang your hat there. Don't worry about skeptical sources. There is a "knower" who will provide you with some background if you take the time to google it. The source is Jeff Kelley/Squatchers Lounge Podcast.

 

So, same question as posed to Gum. You know very well what evidence should be out there in the public sphere. If I came to you with B.G.'s story would you believe me with the same amount of "evidence"? A straight up answer or please just skip it, I'm so tired of the circular reasoning and obfuscation on this site.

No victim names (dead or alive)  = </ thread> (in any rational world) ....."I'm going off of the rails on a crazy train...."

No kidding Clubbed, good point.

[jayjeti]

 

So, same question as posed to Gum. You know very well what evidence should be out there in the public sphere. If I came to you with B.G.'s story would you believe me with the same amount of "evidence"? A straight up answer or please just skip it, I'm so tired of the circular reasoning and obfuscation on this site.

 

 

Circular Reasoning?????     That's been my comment of you saying there should be government documentation to support an incident whose primary theme is about government cover-up.

[jayjeti]

You went to a LOT of trouble to avoid giving a straight answer. You do this sort of obfuscation all the time. How about a straight answer - So, you are more comfortable assuming a series of unfortunate mishaps destroyed all the evidence rather than accept the idea that's it's a untrue?

 

 

Obfuscation?????  You asked Gumshoeye a question whose choices don't include Garrett's and other's allegation/explanation for the destruction of evidence, that the government is covering things up.    

[Guest]

I disagree with you once again Bodhi, I offered a solid basis for believing as I do. Your presupposition is “I am more comfortable assuming a series of unfortunate mishaps destroyed all the evidence rather than accept the idea that’s it’s a untrue?â€

 

Notice I never use the word assume …  

 

A couple of things first, you start a leading question by telling me what I think or know rather than asking a direct question.  Please don’t do that. Don’t ever presuppose to know what anyone thinks or knows because nobody does better than the person directed with the question.  That's a freebie from me to you. Finally, you might say I went through a lot trouble to offer a ‘reasonable supposition’ and that, in spite of what you think, is closer to the truth of it. Therefore, there is no confusion or obfuscation as you say.   

Edited July 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

How much infringement is too much infringement?

 

In our litigious world the compendium for advisories and warnings stretch across all facets of our daily lives and all of these are reflected in adjustments in scope and purpose if life has meaning.  If the purpose of advisories and warnings are for the safety and well-being of society shouldn’t this same standard also be applied to things that go bump in the night, or things that lurk in the woods?  Does the question of missing people in the woods and state or federal parks warrant warning labels? 

 

Whichever way we choose to believe or label them whether bipedal beings,  wild animals or not, they’re still wild and need to be left alone or contained, and public needs to be reminded of the fact in similar fashion as any other wild animal such as elk, moose, bear, wolves etc. or do they? 

 

Cigarette warnings for example have become progressively more graphic with each passing year. The movie industry places ratings on their movies and even soda and other soft drinks have become a point of contention earning early warning warnings to consumers against dangers of too much sugar or its derivatives- all being some sort early warning reporting purpose designed wholly to reduce deaths, injuries, or safeguard our health or emotional well-being.  

 

So what is the meaningful difference in public warnings from automotive or weather to cigarette or sugars in food or even film ratings than oft possibility of missing people; given the reach and frequency of exposure of each what then is different about Bigfoot/Sasquatch awareness?  Seems there are more concerns about blowing smoke in the eyes of children and second hand smoke than what dangers lurk in the woods for unattended children and adults and I say this as a non-smoker.  As conscious beings do we as a society have an obligation to advise or warn others of potential dangers?  If life has meaning, does society have a duty or obligation to make us feel safe?

 

This has always been a lingering question that I've found myself wrestling with over a very long time and thought it would be a refreshing change to have some feedback on this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest diana swampbooger]

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.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

absolutely fascinating.

 

 

Yes it is.

 

BTW Bodhi, I won't be on the net tomorrow (Friday, July 31, 2015): I have a dental appointment in the morning and I'm getting 'the works' ( hair done and a mani-pedi) in the afternoon. As I previously informed you, I don't spend my weekends reading and posting on Internet forums, so I won't be here on saturday or sunday either. I don't want you to be sitting around all weekend wondering what's happened to me. You see, I feel very sad that you spent last saturday waiting for my reply, while I was spending an highly relaxing and enjoyable day outdoors collecting rock specimens, filling my lungs with fresh air, and interacting with other rock and mineral collectors.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous comments in this multiquote were edited for the sake of clarity

 

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".

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.