CASE FILE BF-01-002: Subject ID & Physical Description
CASE FILE BF-01-002
SUBJECT: BF-01 (“Beerfoot”) – Physical Description & Behavioral Profile
REPORTING AGENT: T.W. Dunlap, BATF-F-001
DATE FILED: April 3, 1977
DIGITIZED BY: Agent J.L. Porter, BATF-F-002
DIGITIZATION DATE: October 2019
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION: WHO (OR WHAT) IS BEERFOOT?
Agent T.W. Dunlap, April 1977
Official Classification: CryptozoologicAL Entity, Bipedal Hominid (Suspected), Class III Nuisance Actor
Subject BF-01, known publicly as “Beerfoot,” is a large, hairy, ape-like creature standing approximately 6’8″ to 7’2″ tall, weighing an estimated 325-375 lbs (usually more around the holidays), with oversized feet (hence the designation) and a distended midsection consistent with chronic beer consumption.
[Class III Nuisance Actor is not an official classification in any federal system. Dunlap invented this category. – J.L.P.]
Unlike his Cascade Mountain cousin, Beerfoot does not hide in the wilderness. He walks among us. Dive bars. Breweries. Tailgates. Music festivals. Anywhere people gather to drink socially, Beerfoot is there, watching, waiting, and when the moment is right, taking what isn’t his.
[Dunlap is positioning Beerfoot as a regional variant, which presumes the existence of the original, which is generous. – J.L.P.]
Witnesses describe him as non-aggressive, though persistence appears to be his primary characteristic. His modus operandi is theft: beer, wallets, phones, car keys, dignity. He operates in the grey area between myth and misdemeanor, and that’s exactly where he thrives.
[I reviewed 23 witness statements from 1977-1980. The descriptors vary wildly. Most witnesses use phrases like “tall guy,” “some dude,” and “I don’t remember.” – J.L.P.]
The irony, of course, is that the very people I’m trying to protect are often too inebriated to remember the encounter, or willing to believe it happened at all.
[The phrase “myth and misdemeanor” keeps making me want to pronounce misdemeanor with a lisp. I’ve read this file four times now and it happens every time. – J.L.P.]
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (COMPOSITE FROM WITNESS REPORTS):
- Height: 6’8″ to 7’2″
- Weight: 325-375 lbs
- Build: Heavy-set, broad shoulders
- Hair: Dark brown, covering entire body. Multiple winter sightings suggest seasonal coat thickness variation.
- Facial features: Described as “ape-like” or “unusually hairy” and often, “familiar”
- Feet: Size estimated at 18-22 (hence “Beerfoot”)
- Distinctive feature: Prominent beer gut
- Odor: Described as “stale beer and questionable choices”
[The “stale beer and questionable choices” descriptor appears in one report from a witness who later admitted he might have been describing his roommate. – J.L.P.]
BEHAVIORAL PROFILE:
Subject demonstrates advanced problem-solving skills, pattern recognition, and social adaptability. He appears to understand human social dynamics well enough to blend into crowded drinking establishments and identify optimal moments for theft.
[Assuming these incidents represent a single entity rather than multiple unrelated thefts. – J.L.P.]
Most encounters follow a predictable sequence:
- Subject observes social gathering from periphery
- Subject integrates into group during peak intoxication hours
- Subject identifies unattended items or vulnerable targets
- Subject executes theft with minimal detection
- Subject exits before victims realize loss
[Dunlap’s “predictable sequence” assumes coordinated behavior. Establishing whether these incidents represent pattern or coincidence remains the central question of this investigation. – J.L.P.]
The subject has never demonstrated violent behavior. No witness has reported physical assault or aggressive confrontation. The worst documented incident involved the Subject and associates breaking and entering the Schlitz brewing facility (see subsequent documentation).
[The Schlitz incident (Case Report 1976-008) remains our most substantiated claim. The most coordinated so far. – J.L.P.]
HABITAT & RANGE:
While early reports concentrated in East Tennessee, subsequent sightings suggest a broader range. Subject appears to follow beer culture: craft brewery openings, music festivals, college towns during football season, and anywhere Oktoberfest is celebrated with enthusiasm.
[This “broader range” is based on Dunlap filing reports from other jurisdictions under his own case number despite having no authority to do so. – J.L.P.]
DIETARY PREFERENCES:
Subject shows marked preference for:
- Lager (domestic and imported)
- IPA (particularly hazy varieties)
- Stout (seasonal preference)
- Unattended bar snacks
- Pizza (any variety)
[This list is based on items reported stolen from bars. It’s literally a list of what’s available at bars. – J.L.P.]
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR:
Despite operating primarily as a solitary entity, Subject demonstrates understanding of human social protocols. Multiple witnesses report Subject “fitting in” before disappearing with their belongings.
[Dunlap seems continually surprised that this alleged creature behaves like a person in social settings. – J.L.P.]
The subject has never been photographed clearly. All alleged photographic evidence shows blurry figures that could plausibly be any tall, heavyset individual at a distance. Subject appears to possess either remarkable luck or deliberate camera avoidance.
[The lack of clear photographic evidence is consistent with either deliberate avoidance behavior or… I’m not sure what the alternative explanation would be. The pattern is notable. – J.L.P.]
Agent Dunlap’s subject description reads more like a character sketch than a field report. The physical characteristics are composite descriptions that could match thousands of individuals. The behavioral profile describes theft in drinking environments, which… well, it’s certainly documented thoroughly.
The most notable aspect of this file is what it doesn’t contain: photographs, physical evidence, or consistent witness descriptions.
That said, the Schlitz thing is hard to explain.
FILE STATUS: Archived