Leaderboard

I was just listening to episode 180 of Bigfoot & Beyond. Can't give you a time mark as I was otherwise engaged, but the guest, Joe Perdue, discusses being an employee of a West Virginia government agency (probably state parks or DEC) and discusses his supervisors' reaction too, and limitations on, Bigfooting on the job. Basically, he could not initiate any Bigfoot discussions and if sightings were reported to him, he could take the reports for his own personal use, but they didn't want them as official records, such as injury reports at the park, bear sightings, etc.

^^^ I wonder what LEOs would do if those same reports came in today. Probably arrest the witness for making a false emergency call, or explain that they just misidentified a nine-foot tall plume of swamp gas or Venus low on the horizon.

Nothing that dramatic. Employee X, you are reminded that you are not permitted to speak as to the official government position. You may talk all you want about Bigfoot, Bigfoot, Bigfoot, but you must make clear that all opinions expressed in this interview, podcast, blog, etc., represent your personal views and do not represent the official view of the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S government, or any U.S. government agency. These are standard instructions for federal employees engaging in outside employment or volunteer work or outside speaking engagements (e.g., acting as an adjunct professor at a local college). Failure to follow those instructions may result in a wide range of disciplinary actions, ranging from an oral or written reprimand to being fired, depending on the nature of the violation. So Employee X is not fired because he says "Bigfoot is real," he's fired for ignoring the instructions or directions given him by his supervisor. I don't know of any case directly on point, but law enforcement personnel would want to remain silent to avoid being impaired during future testimony. For example, if FBI investigator Y states on live TV, "I saw Bigfoot run across the road in front of my official vehicle," that statement will be used to impeach that investigator every time she testifies. So, at most a smart investigator would say, "Well, something ran in front of my vehicle, but I was not able to identify the animal." Not saying that either of the above is fair, but that's what would happen. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Norse, okay, thanks, I see what you were getting at now.

If we had that home-run video footage it still might not be the earthquake shift I would hope it to be. I fit into the category of "undecided lean real" Bigfoot status. I call it addition by subtraction. That is, I do not know if Bigfoot exists or not. But those who are skeptics have done such a poor job proving the PGF is a hoax it makes me lean toward it being real. If Roger Patterson was on trial for the PGF being a hoax, I would say there is not any evidence offered to convict him. This suggests the PGF must be real. Yet, IF there was some home-run recreation I would go where the facts take me and say, "Yep, it's probably fake" Absent that, it suggests the opposite. If I can't be 100% convinced (!) and I have a big intertest in the PGF, I don't expect this skeptic to be. I just want to know the truth. Then, I can move on to the next mystery.

From Outside Online, July 2016. It's a long article; the full .pdf is attached. The Outside Online website at https://www.outsideonline.com/featured offers good information on a variety of outdoor activities. Who knows, they may even have more Bigfoot articles. 2016 Outside Online Article.pdf