What do you think of the US Forest Service's view on bigfoot?

[Trogluddite]

^^

I'm thinking that you quoted the wrong thing or put in the wrong reply in response to my post.  I'm very confused. 

[georgerm]

5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

That is everyone's preference. No doubt a body on a slab is proof and proably the only proof science will accept.

 

 

Clearly until there is a body on a slab (or in a cage) ALL the public will not be convinced.

 

 

 

If the federal government calls bigfoot a mythical creature how long do you think some Joe Blow is going to be showing off his real bigfoot until the feds show up, take his computer, replace the body with a fake bigfoot and fine or imprison Joe? The feds know all about bigfoot.

[georgerm]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

 

 

With government, I believe they have come to recognize that the best policy is to keep sasquatchery in the realm of myth. It is certainly best for the sasquatches, it is the easiest and least expensive policy for government, and it's even easiest and best for the public.

 

 

The Forest Service's own opinion as of this year is as follows: "The US Forest Service's official stance on Bigfoot is that it's a creature of folklore and urban legend, though they have engaged in some playful acknowledgements of the creature." 

[georgerm]

2 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

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. 

If you high up in the federal forest service in Washington DDC and a forest service biologist starts reporting on his bigfoot experiences while on the job, what do you think is going to be the standard reaction? "The US Forest Service's official stance on Bigfoot is that it's a creature of folklore and urban legend, though they have engaged in some playful acknowledgements of the creature."  Your fired or you may have a deadly accident.

[norseman]

34 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

^^

I'm thinking that you quoted the wrong thing or put in the wrong reply in response to my post.  I'm very confused. 

I find parallels with the push back on your post of a Virginia forest ranger or employee and science in general in my post.

 

Look at this.

 

 

 

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

If you high up in the federal forest service in Washington DDC and a forest service biologist starts reporting on his bigfoot experiences while on the job, what do you think is going to be the standard reaction? "The US Forest Service's official stance on Bigfoot is that it's a creature of folklore and urban legend, though they have engaged in some playful acknowledgements of the creature."  Your fired or you may have a deadly accident.

 

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.

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Trogluddite said:

..........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..........

 

Exactly, and perfectly explained.

 

Quote

.........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."..........

 

This is true today, but back in the '70's and 80's, county sheriffs and deputies (particularly in southern Washington counties) who responded to calls dutifully filed police reports on their findings. 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2599

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1620

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/BFRO.group/posts/10159438079950169/

 

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13653

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/graysharbor.htm

[Trogluddite]

^^^

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. 

[Huntster]

33 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

^^^

I wonder what LEOs would do if those same reports came in today..........

 

Fifty years of lawyers have changed everything. Now police reports are like classified information. I had some firearms stolen in California a few years ago, and after recovering yet another gun, one police department is refusing to give me the police report on the recovery incident......and this after paying for the report. They say that I "have to be a victim" in order to get the report.........as if getting my firearms stolen doesn't make me a "victim".

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Fifty years of lawyers have changed everything. Now police reports are like classified information. I had some firearms stolen in California a few years ago, and after recovering yet another gun, one police department is refusing to give me the police report on the recovery incident......and this after paying for the report. They say that I "have to be a victim" in order to get the report.........as if getting my firearms stolen doesn't make me a "victim".

Such BS! Yes you are a victim of theft. 

[Trogluddite]

49 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Fifty years of lawyers have changed everything.

I represent that remark!

[Huntster]

9 hours ago, Backdoc said:

If we had that home-run video footage........

 

 

[Huntster]

No, times have changed. Photographic evidence isn't going to cut it.............