norseman Posted Friday at 05:38 AM Admin Posted Friday at 05:38 AM 3 hours ago, Huntster said: Oh, I need to add something: I was a supervisor in the Roads and Grounds shop for a few years. Had one of the men in the shop come to me with a sightings report, I would have most definitely handled it differently than if I'd had the sighting myself. If I'd seen one myself, I would be included to report it to my supervisor...............but if I had a low opinion of him, I probably wouldn't report it. But if I was the supervisor, and it was reported to me? I would go to the site and look for sign first, but whether or not I found anything, I would have definitely brought it up my chain of command. I would probably skip the Branch Chief and go directly to the Public Works Director. It's just a matter of responsibility. If you had a sighting? Would you report it up the chain of command? And if you did? What do you think the response would have been? I mean I would be glad to be wrong. It would be wonderful to have some agency some where take this seriously. But looking outside in? It’s a stone wall. And I think witnesses deserve better!
Huntster Posted Friday at 01:17 PM Posted Friday at 01:17 PM 7 hours ago, norseman said: If you had a sighting? Would you report it up the chain of command? And if you did? What do you think the response would have been?........... I'm pretty confident that it would be absorbed, and I wouldn't hear squat about it again. Almost universally, sensitive information that I was involved in was absorbed by management, dealt with confidentially, and it remained quiet. And I remained quiet about it as well, and that confidentiality served me well with management. 1
georgerm Posted Friday at 01:17 PM Author Posted Friday at 01:17 PM (edited) 7 hours ago, norseman said: If you had a sighting? Would you report it up the chain of command? And if you did? What do you think the response would have been? I mean I would be glad to be wrong. It would be wonderful to have some agency some where take this seriously. But looking outside in? It’s a stone wall. And I think witnesses deserve better! Quote If you had a sighting? Would you report it up the chain of command? When I worked for the Forest Service back in 1974 and 1975, I had no concept of what the agency's stance was on bigfoot. While on the job, if I had a sighting, I would have reported it to my boss who was higher up in the district office of the Rogue River National Forest of Medford, Oregon. He probably would have told me to not report it to the wildlife officer since this would put my job in jeopardy. My annual job performance review was coming so I would not have reported it to those higher up in the chain of command. Quote And if you did? What do you think the response would have been? Since my annual review was coming up, and if I reported the sighting to the wildlife officer, I probably would have been fired for disobeying my immediate boss. I would guess the Forest Service has not changed their stance presently, and they call bigfoot a mythical creature for a reason. This means they are not real, so they have no effect on Forest Service policy. Work someplace else if you don't understand the policy. Edited Friday at 01:25 PM by georgerm 1 1
NCBFr Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago On 10/15/2026 at 3:43 PM, MIB said: I don't think that is true. Of all those millions of employees it only takes a single person, a single whistle blower, to bust the lid off. There are enough disgruntled ex employees who left on bad terms already, stigmatized already, to not give a crap about anything else the federal gov't might do, to have aired the story decades ago. There are enough people with principles to have done it if there was any coercion attempted. You can't coerce silence with threats, there are too many people with principles who simply will not knuckle under. You can't sell it on some sort of higher moral ground because too many people simply don't respect that. You can't keep people from talking to spouses, you can't gag spouses. This ain't the Manhattan Project. Nor are these those times, people do not have the respect for authority that those times, those events, required. There is no way there's a gov't wide conspiracy. I find it ridiculous. That does not mean there's no knowledge at all in some compartments within government. That's not what I'm saying at all. Fair enough. Explain it. Harder than shitting on other people's well thought out thoughts.
MIB Posted 2 hours ago Admin Posted 2 hours ago Explain what? 47 minutes ago, NCBFr said: Fair enough. Explain it. Harder than shitting on other people's well thought out thoughts. Are they truly well thought out? We need to keep in mind carefully what we know is true, what we know is false, and what we still do not know. Some people are deathly afraid to admit there is something they do not know so they grab onto falsehood as truth instead. That is how I see this line of reasoning and that's why I'm calling it out. There is no shame in admitting you do not know a thing. There is shame in claiming falsehood is truth. That is what is happening here .. offering falsehood for truth rather than simply embracing the unansweredness of the question out of insecurity. Seems like that is you as well?
Recommended Posts