Sasquatch Alert Sign Posted By Usfs @ Big Pine Creek, Ca

[Guest tracker]

Interesting sign, looks authentic but who knows.

http://en.wikipedia....ek_(California)

You wouldn't see a sign like this up here unless authentic. But I edited the thread to allow for other possibilities.

T

Edited August 27, 2012 by tracker

[Guest]

Not a real FS Bulletin and your wiki link is for what? It isn't a link to anything related to the bulletin.

[Guest]

Kinda lacking in the validity dept.

[Martin]

Give it a few weeks and it this will be part of sasquatch fact.

It will go like this.

Enthusiast: Wow.. My friend said that Sasquatch were now so common in "insert any location here" that the USFS has had to put out warning signs for campers.

Sceptic: I think that was a sign that was made as a joke.

Enthusiast: I have known my friend since we both wore the same diaper and he is honest and I am offended.

Sceptic: Go get some evidence.

Enthusiast: OK

then later

Enthusiast: Well, I went to the site. We heard wood knocks, found teepee formations and the sound of bipedal walking just out of range of the campfire. But the government has removed the signs. I asked some locals and the tribal elders and was told that the timber companies pressured the USFS to remove the signs and keep it hush hush.

Sceptic: I told you so.

Enthusiast: Look, You will never understand because you are close minded and haven't had the experiences in the field that I have....... Excuse me now because I am off the the Government Conspiracy Thread to post an update on this new information I have discovered while field researchin'.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Martin

[Drew]

That is not a valid USFS bulletin number.

[Guest]

Ok Folks...

This thread is being opened back up, but with this warning inserted...

#1 For several reasons, the authenticity of this "bulletin" is very much in question.

#2 It should probably not be taken seriously, at all.

After discussing it as a team, the BFF staff has formed a general consensus, that discussion should be allowed on this dubious alleged document.

There were some concerns initially, and we appreciate your patience while we worked our way through the process of discussing and alleviating some of those concerns.

Thank you.

Art

[Guest]

bump.. thread is back open.

see above staff advisory...

[Guest BFSleuth]

As noted above and on other forums, the bulletin number does not correspond with known NFS bulletins. It may very well be that these bulletins were posted at trailheads, but not by the NFS. If this is the case, then these bulletins are hoaxes and likely are illegal use of government message boards and use of government logos.

I strongly urge anyone that comes across a bulletin like this posted at a trailhead to do the following:

1. Do not touch it.

2. Take a photograph or photographs.

3. Report the bulletin to the nearest NFS office or officer.

These bulletins may be appearing in other locations. Keep your eyes open and let us know if you find any and what responses you have from the NFS.

[bipedalist]

Well there are National Forests offices in most states with a Supervisor. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service is the proper agency. Here is the National contact page. U.S. Forest Service breaks down units as Ranger Districts in National Forests across the U.S. For example this is the site for N.C.

I think the USDA Forest Service has spell-check so the misspelling of predominantly is a heads-up more than likely about invalidity of the bulletin/broadside.

Brians Common Errors in English Usage comes to my rescue (again). He explains:

“Predominantly†is formed on the adjective “predominant,†not the verb “predominateâ€; so though both forms are widely accepted, “predominantly†makes more sense.

Further using the GPO number in bottom left of broadside at this address brings up no hits:

http://www.loc.gov/r...blications.html http://catalog.gpo.gov/F?RN=105939597

http://metalib.gpo.gov/V/FQ49CPI1L48ACKF449GTXX2GRHX56UMQ8JNQCQDCP2VCRBG978-02567?func=quick-2-merge

Edited August 27, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest tracker]

Ok Art . Why not just let the members decide for themselves and state their own opinions. Why the censorship warnings?

just wondering, T

Edited August 27, 2012 by tracker

[Guest]

Well, Tracker to be honest...

Before you get upset, and get your feelings hurt, there's something you should know.

#1 Someone felt that the alleged document was so ridiculous, that you couldnt possibly be serious in posting it.

That person felt you were intentionally trolling the forums, and suggested we look into it.

#2 I personally at this point in time have stuck my neck out to allow the thread to remain AT ALL... against the (probably sage) advice of some of my co-staff members.

I dont have to explain anything else to you, or any other member, that involves the running of these forums.

Be glad your thread is still open, and dont push it.

[Cotter]

Has anyone sent an inquiry to the forest service?

If not, I can take the lead on that one.

Thx.

[Guest tracker]

No worries Artie it just an interesting sign.

Besides no sign, picture or even another PGF like video taken by any amateur is going to change anything. Someone with a PhD like Dr Jeff or Dr John needs to film and or acquire a body or part of to make the next big thing stick.

jmo, T

[Guest BFSleuth]

Cotter, that would be a good idea. If you would be so kind as to take that lead it would be good.

FWIW, while the staff was discussing this thread while it was closed this morning I did a Google Image search with the OP image of the poster. I came up with a web site that had posted it 18 hours ago as of this writing on a paranormal forum. I then googled, "sasquatch alert big pine creek" and it looks like bigfootevidence blog posted it about 4 hours after that initial post in the other forum. On BFE I saw comments noting similar bulletins at a Washington State trailhead.

Let us know what you find out.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I thought a lot about this today, and I think it's not the real deal. The NPS and U.S Forest service wouldn't do such a thing. There could be Bigfoot sightings all over California and they still probably wouldn't do it. At least not rit now.

Edited August 27, 2012 by OntarioSquatch