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 yesterday at 01:18 AM Posted yesterday at 01:18 AM 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 yesterday at 02:11 AM Admin Posted yesterday at 02:11 AM 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?
georgerm Posted 6 hours ago Author Posted 6 hours ago (edited) 18 hours ago, MIB said: Explain what? 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? Quote We need to keep in mind carefully what we know is true, what we know is false, and what we still do not know. Well, I know it's true that the forest service says bigfoot is a myth. My question is why do they hold this position when so many average Americans go on BFRO and report sightings while in the national forest lands. Why is the forest service refusing to get to the bottom of the bigfoot issue? 1. Is the administration afraid to address this issue and study bigfoot since it may result in logging being shut down. 2. Do the higher ups spend too much time in the office and will never see one, and they believe that eyewitnesses are mistaken. 3. Are the higher ups so busy, they don't have time to spend on the topic? 4. Is their budget so tight they don't have the funds to hire biologist to study the issue? 5. Does the forest service administration know bigfoot exists, and it they admit this, their jobs will be in jeopardy? 6. Has the president and cabinet ordered the Forest Service to ignore the issue? 7. Does the administration know bigfoot exists but they don't have the expertise to study the creature. 8. There is nothing to investigate since bigfoot is not real according to their biologist. List your top three reasons starting with the most likely reason. What are the real reasons why the Forest Service doesn't get to the bottom on this issue?. Edited 6 hours ago by georgerm
MIB Posted 2 hours ago Admin Posted 2 hours ago 3 hours ago, georgerm said: Well, I know it's true that the forest service says bigfoot is a myth. My question is why do they hold this position when so many average Americans go on BFRO and report sightings while in the national forest lands. Why is the forest service refusing to get to the bottom of the bigfoot issue? 1. Is the administration afraid to address this issue and study bigfoot since it may result in logging being shut down. 2. Do the higher ups spend too much time in the office and will never see one, and they believe that eyewitnesses are mistaken. 3. Are the higher ups so busy, they don't have time to spend on the topic? 4. Is their budget so tight they don't have the funds to hire biologist to study the issue? 5. Does the forest service administration know bigfoot exists, and it they admit this, their jobs will be in jeopardy? 6. Has the president and cabinet ordered the Forest Service to ignore the issue? 7. Does the administration know bigfoot exists but they don't have the expertise to study the creature. 8. There is nothing to investigate since bigfoot is not real according to their biologist. List your top three reasons starting with the most likely reason. What are the real reasons why the Forest Service doesn't get to the bottom on this issue?. I would say #1 is less likely. There isn't a ton of timber harvest of USFS land anymore, much -> most seems to come from private timber lands and BLM lands as well as state forest lands now, none of which USFS has any responsibility or authority for. I'll mix #2 and #3 together because I think #3 presents the situation with fair accuracy, moreso than #2. #4 is definitely true. Moreover, many -> most of their "biologists" are on the forestry side, not the wildlife side. Typically wildlife issues on federal lands of all sorts go to the US F&W service, not the land management agency. My expectation is if USFS were to get involved, they would quickly pass the torch to the federal wildlife agencies, not a timber / recreation agency. Oooh oooh .. that brings up another thing: USFS now spends more time / money managing recreation than they do managing timber harvest. ... and if you look at the condition of our USFS-maintained trails you'll see even that is a failure. Since you had your sighting up behind Prospect and Butte Falls, you're somewhat familiar with the area. Did you know that 2 years ago USFS only had 2 people on the High Cascades (Prospect) ranger district tasked with trail maintenance because their budget was so tight? #5 -- I don't think BF exactly puts jobs in danger, BUT I do think making a fuss about bigfoot might cause problems for someone trying for a career that goes beyond a local ranger district or forest. To move up in rank above .. I think it is GS-11 but it might be GS-9 .. you almost have to transfer to another forest. The supervisor on the "receiving" forest can accept your transfer or reject it. If you've made trouble in your current position, forced the district ranger there to deal with issues they don't want to, then likely the transfer .. as well as the promotion going with it .. are going to be denied. That doesn't mean you get fired, you just get .. stuck in place with a lot fewer upward mobility options. #6 -- I don't think the president or cabinet have a role in this. This has gone on since 1967 or before across administrations, across parties. If it were as simple as that, with this much time passing, some administration would have decided to spill the beans. #7 and #8 are both possible. So to summarize, I think USFS doesn't get to the bottom of this because it is not their job. I think it would more clearly fall on USF&W servivce on public land in general, possibly on some of the military base command (like JBLM) where appropriate. More likely than some deep conspiracy to keep us in the dark, I think the reason lies somewhere else. We, as citizens, expect our government to be subject matter experts, to manage situations, to control them, and to protect us. Facing a situation they do not have expertise, cannot manage or control, and cannot guarantee our safety, the most rational option for their employees is to pretend the situation does not exist. Until someone officially and publicly acknowledges it, someone with the authority to speak for an agency when they do so, the situation truly does not exist so far as their responsibility to handle it goes. Just my view of course.
bipedalist Posted 1 hour ago BFF Patron Posted 1 hour ago (edited) On 9/25/2026 at 5:30 PM, georgerm said: When I was younger, I had a dream Landscape Architect job with the Forest Service designing a large RV campground and a recreation park along the Applegate River in southern Oregon that took a year to do. I'm 79 now and want to be truthful about memories. After this was completed, my job became irritating and boring. No more parks were on the horizon, and my new job was to fool the public about logging! It was a clever plan that I've kept secret until now. My job was deception and to drive the main national forest highways and mark all the forest areas on a map that one can see from the road. I also marked forest areas behind mountains that were not seen. Can you guess where the plan for public deception is headed? The hillsides marked as unseen while driving the highway were going to be clear cut of all trees which upsets the public because Bamby the deer's forest was going to wiped out with logging and clear cutting. The refreshing forest seen from the highway were going to be preserved and all is good in nature land ................ so the public thinks. Needless to say, I became out raged, quit, and went to a different landscape architect job. My point is deception by the federal government that is also taking place with bigfoot. The forest service hires credentialed wildlife biologist and how many bigfoot reports have you read from one of these biologist? They spend hours driving remote forest roads, and hike on trails and a few of them must have seen bigfoot. Lots of people see them. I have two friends that saw one and I saw one too. See my eye witness sketch is below. Do some internet searches and find even one report by a forest service biologist that mentions or even focuses on bigfoot. One of the forest service's duties is to study and protect wildlife during logging operations. You as a taxpayer are still being kept in the dark when if comes to bigfoot? How do you feel about this dilemma? What is your opinion? Should I have quit the forest service? Are we being kept in the dark? My sighting is below. Gotta laugh, sort of like USFS as a billboard proponent and sleuth fo the "beauty strip" script. I was doing some volunteer work yesterday and many different environmental agencies were involved. I was the only nongovernmental person present. I can tell you there are some very dedicated personnel out there doing important jobs that keep their head low now. My personal perspective is that Sasquatch and UAP and NHI are Siamese partners who swim in the same pool. Edited 54 minutes ago by bipedalist
Recommended Posts