Kelly Shaw Tells a Damn Good Story From Happy Camp
Happy Camp is pretty famous for its Bigfoot sightings. Kelly Shaw and his team made it up to Eureka California and tells us a story about four family members who witnessed a "gray" sasquatch. What's amazing about this story is the description of what they thought was a rock, but turned out to be a Bigfoot.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK KELLY SHAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIf good work in footery means producing zero evidence then yes... sure...good work
DeleteKelly's come up with some excellent track ways and researchers some amazing accounts.
DeleteYou're on a Bigfoot blog where all said sources are of high relevance and and interest to those who visit.
You wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the bum, anyway.
Kelly is a hoaxer and known cohort of Tim Fasano. Enough said. There is no debate.
DeleteYeah, yeah... They're ALL hoaxers... Rhetorical boy.
DeleteFirst true thing Joe had ever said "they're all hoaxers"
DeleteLearn the definition of sarcasm.
DeleteYou said it bro
DeleteYou missed the boat bro!
DeleteWOW!!!!!! Great video buddy!! Thanks for that!!
DeleteHere's one back at you!!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye2N_2ce3QE
Great selection Joe. I have always been completely mesmerized at how those delta blues guys could play rythem and lead at the same time. One man filling a room full of music
DeleteI tried finding the Beatles Yer Blues from the white album but I couldn't. That's one of my fave blues tunes also
Keep up the quality schooling Joe
MMC
God bless ya bro!!!
DeleteYou too Joe my friend
DeleteMMC
Joe
DeleteQuizzed my work crew about there favorite blues Band. I work with guys from all over the globe. It was pretty much unanimous. Led Zepplin. I can't quit you babe was the song that most came up
MMC
Buddy... I've grown up on Led Zep!!! And in my opinion, Jimmy Page is the best guitarist ever.
DeleteHey dummy ^
DeleteIt's spelled 'their' not 'there'
The Real MMC
Sorry MMC.
DeleteLay off the snacks Kelly Shaw. Your going to need a widescreen soon.
DeleteDaily reminder "joe" is a paid troll. He also is many,if not all,of the superfriends.
DeleteJimmy Page is one of the sloppiest and most overrated guitarists in history. Led Zeppelin plagiarized, end of story.
DeleteKeith Richards has more blues in his right hand than Page has in his whole body.
I love Zeppelin as much as everyone else but check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Have you ever played an instrument Danny?
Delete7, 3 fluently. You think I lived in Music City for no particular reason?
DeleteEric Clapton is the most over rated guitarist out there. If you picked five random bands playing in bars, 3 of them will have guitarist that are better. THE best, hands down IMO, is Alex Lifeson. There is a video on Youtube of Rush playing Crossroads that's blows Clapton away. Oh yeah, David Gilmour gets a nod too.
DeleteAnd that is all I have to say to you. Enjoy your email account Joe.
DeleteClapton is overated but he's not usually sloppy, perhaps lazy or generic, but not sloppy.
DeleteLifeson is good but meh. Rush are talented cats but not my cup of tea.
If you'd played the guitar then you'd know the Stones is a tuning and some lazy bends; beatifully simple and effective. Page made a genre from the blues.
DeletePage's licks and different style range in comparison to Richards' maintained style over his career, come up short... That's not to say Led Zep are a better band.
From a Stones fan, Danny.
Page's licks were all lifted off older blues runs, many off harp runs, like most other people of the time. The difference is everybody else gave credence to those people, Page and Co. Plagiarized. The Stones at least took Muddy on tour.
DeletePage is terrible live. His studio recordings are mainly punch ins and multiple takes.
British blues invasion had already exploded prior to Zeppelin arriving. Page can than Clapton for the Yardbirds and giving him the Telecaster most early Zeppelin recordings were tracked on.
No one,an i mean no one, tourqed out a strat like Stevie Ray ,mentored by albert king!
DeleteD.C., I posted the Clapton downgrade. A stand by it. However, I'm wondering if you're preferred music genre is clouding your judgment a bit. Next to Lifeson and Gilmour, I love the !-2-3 punch of Iron Maiden And the oddball Tool tune .Or A Perfect Circle. While I appreciate the blues and get it's importance to rock and roll, it's influence is waning. They further you go down the pike the further away from "Rock and Roll" you get. IMO of course. I could be wrong.
DeleteNone of the guitarists mentioned make my top 10.
DeleteMark Evans: "And what about the rest of Bryan's american results?
ReplyDeleteThere were 7 samples from Washington state.
2 were cows.
1 was a black bear.
1 was a white tailed deer.
Derek randles high hopes sample was canine, a wolf or a dog.
And so was the hair from marcell cagy's backyard.
And elsewhere in the USA, there was a horse in texas, a racoon in Arizona and way up in Michigan a porcupine."
Bryan Sykes: "Am I disappointed we didn't find a bigfoot? I guess it would have been fun if we had but my ambitions of the project are entirely fulfilled in that we have identified and examined the best evidence and done it in a scientific systematic and successful way, so I'm really very pleased."
Dealt with comprehensively here;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/bill-brock-looks-serious-in-this.html
Comprehensively? Those were the results bro. No bigfoot.
DeleteLike I said... Follow the link for all your queries.
Delete; )
Were there different results then?
DeleteNope.
The results are out. No bigfoot. Pwned.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/bill-brock-looks-serious-in-this.html
DeleteUnless you are linking to some additional results that came back as bigfoot then you lose. Again.
DeleteConsidering Sykes is still looking for samples, studying hybrid cases, stating that researchers are unfairly treated and theorizing as to what people are seeing, I'll lose should all the chips finally be down.
DeleteStill looking is in itself your opinion. In fact his statements seem to suggest otherwise in that he is no longer testing unless you foot the bill. In other words just don't what all other labs do. Payed work only. If he was still looking that does not equal found.
DeleteNo... Still requesting samples is in fact from the horse's mouth. He's al;ready coughed up considerable amounts of his own money, I'd be asking Footers to cough up too.
DeleteI don't think you understand how expensive it is to test samples, it's ok; take it as learning.
Joe, my t8erhole alarm is ringing loud & clear!
DeleteMMC
Testing samples makes bigfoot real how?
DeleteNope, it means that your closure desperation has been whisked from under you like a hemorrhoid pillow.
DeleteClosure? The case is already closed for skeptics. In fact the case was never open. What it looks like is you are the one that can't accept closure and you are the one being dragged along based on your hopes and dreams alone.
DeleteYes... Closure desperation.
Delete"If the study had been about dogs living in the wild, but none of the test results matched a domesticated canine, would that mean no dogs live in the wild?"
It's the mind of a child that compares the very few amount of samples to thousands of years of cultural & contemporary references & anecdotes, and physical evidence... It is nothing but closure desperation.
The "case was never open"... Thank you, you're psuedoskepticism makes me smile.
Delete; )
Derp^
DeleteThe case was indeed never open. Just like all other mythical creatures. Until the time when some actual physical evidence is put forward there is no reason to open the case. That is how science works. Sorry that it goes against your big foot role playing games. Man up.
Tracks and unknown primate hair - physical and biolgocal evidence.
DeleteYour stance - role playing the confident skeptic, your psuedosketpicims reveals you to be nothing but scared.
"The case was indeed never open."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!
The lack of evidence completely shatters all of your arguments.
DeleteYour level of denial shatters nothing in reality.
DeleteWhat exactly is being denied?
DeleteEvidence that though does not prove the subject, points to it leaving it.
DeleteYou just admitted it proves nothing.
DeleteCheck mate.
That's actually stating a fact... You can't classify something that still has trace of it that is verified by scientific method.
DeleteIt warrants further investigation and not closure.
Remember... We've checked.
but U got hunters and trappers out and about and they see and have seen bigfoots! But @ least around here they dont shoot @ the bigfoots they just let it be.
DeleteCheck mate w*nkers.
ReplyDeleteWe've checked... You don't qualify.
DeleteBUT IS IT SAFE !!!
DeleteJoe seems particularly bottomhurt today.
ReplyDeleteNope! Quite satisfied in fact, after yesterday!
Delete; )
Joe is easily pleased then. If providing zero evidence to back up something you claim, is satisfying then I can't argue with that. Have fun bro.
DeleteYou neither understand consistent science, nor have the bal*s to come out the closet to acknowledge it.
DeleteSkepfooters are very funny.
No skeptics would deny any real evidence such as a body, DNA result, bone, body part, unambiguous video documentation etc etc
DeleteYet you deny archaeological and anthropological studies, footage endorsed by some of the most excelled and relevant scientists. The DNA is sure to come with researchers now having a better understanding of the proper process of accumulation, and som many sources ready to test.
DeleteSweaty times for you my friend.
The DNA would already be here if there were any to find
DeleteAnd we're still trying to understand what this subject is... Human results may mean it's too close to us to differentiate, contaminated and degraded DNA post initial sequencing may have been lost evidence.
DeleteIf its too close to us to differentiate the DNA then it is not an 8 foot hairy quadrapedal night vision ape.
DeleteWrong, we have early homos that have significant morphological differences that scientists are now suggesting are from the same species.
DeleteGoogle cro-magnon homo sapien.
Yet they can be identified via DNA differences which blows your argument out of the water.
DeleteA complete anatomically modern male skeleton was discovered in 1823 in a cave burial in Gower, South Wales, United Kingdom. It was the first human fossil to have been found anywhere in the world. At 33,000 years old, it is still the oldest ceremonial burial of a modern human ever discovered anywhere in Western Europe. Associated finds were red ochre anointing, a mammoth skull, and personal decorations suggesting shamanism or other religious practice. Numerous tools were with the skeleton as grave goods. Genetic analysis of mtDNA yielded the Haplogroup H, the most common group in Europe
DeleteIn human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup H is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup that likely originated in Southwest Asia 20,000-25,000 YBP.
A Cro-Magnon DNA sequence 28,000 years old was obtained from fossil bones discoverd in the Paglicci cave, in Italy. The results show that the DNA is identical to the DNA sequences of certain modern Europeans.
"Of CERTAIN modern Europeans".
DeleteKeep self obliterating bro.
Pathetically irrelevant. You learned something bro, and you were very welcome.
DeleteYou are diverting away yet again.
DeleteThe original argument still stands. No bigfoot DNA.
Actually, it is you who's diverting from an explanation as to why previous samples have come back as human.... Please, keep track of the train of a thread.
DeleteNo Bigfoot DNA yet.
Are you actually saying that some samples that have come back human were actually from a bigfoot?
DeleteI'm theorizing, actually. Bigfoot are human.
DeleteOh boy here we go^
DeleteHa ha ha ha!!!!!!
DeleteSo patty is one of your human bigfoots?
DeletePossibly. We can't know until we swob her grand kids.
DeletePatty can not have identical DNA to human. This is very basic stuff.
DeleteI don't think you countered my argument up top enough to make that kind of comment in confidence.
DeleteAlso, she might not be... We have two types widely reported.
DeleteTwo types now? Oh boy here we go
DeleteHa ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
DeleteThis has been maintained all along.
Ok so your non human kind has no DNA found then. Pwned.
DeleteNone found yet... Or... Patty fits my theory.
DeleteSchooled.
Schooled by a claim? Na.
DeleteSchooled by info on this thread that you wouldn't have learned had you not vomited on to this blog today, yes.
DeleteWhat info. Nothing learned. No monkey.
Delete"No monkey"? Yeah, you certainly haven't leant anything from the thread.
DeleteBeyond saving.
You are beyond saving.
DeleteZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
DeleteNO WAY !!!!
DeleteDont play into him guys. Joe is a paid troll. Notice that he never gives any coherent logical reply, and just changes subjects to encourage further conversation. Dont feed him
DeleteOK havent found reruns of Mountain Monsters YET !!!!
DeleteDoes joe really believe in bigfoot?
ReplyDeleteOf course not.
I am in fact convinced by the evidence.
DeleteYea but do you REALLY think there are actual 8 foot apes walking around north america living breathing mating hunting eating sleeping? Really?
DeleteThe evidence points to an unknown primate leaving it. The reports by credible professionals suggest an accurate and consistent basis.
DeleteThe evidence points to hoaxers, liars, nutcases, fraud, and zero bigfoots.
DeleteScience says "no".
Delete; )
Science says no bigfoot. Correct.
DeleteScience interprets what it analyses, does not INTERPRET things or lean on preconceived preferences... Your comment never more fitting.
DeleteYep that's science and guess what zero bigfoots found. Pwned.
DeleteIf you were to agree with the real version of science I referenced, then you wouldn't maintain your empty arguments.
DeletePlenty found... None caught.
None found.
DeleteNone caught.
None in existence.
None found.
DeleteNone caught.
None in existence.
5:06
Delete5:17
Delete5:06
Delete5:17
Delete5:06
DeleteOf course Joe doesnt believe in bigfoot, he is a paid troll only here to influence blog traffic
DeleteIts clear what needs to be done. Joe bend over.
ReplyDelete????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteDWA has lost it.
ReplyDeleteCompletely lost it.
and BOBO ????
DeleteThere is no such thing as a bigfoot. You all know it because there is nothing to show after all these years.
ReplyDeleteIf it didn't exist, then people wouldn't be seeing them and there certainly wouldn't be any trace evidence of it.
DeleteThey must be really rare. I would put their numbers in the hundreds only. I take the sightings as a reflection of mans imagination. But 10% could really be true. It's this evidence flimsy in its nature but still very real that keeps me hoping. Although there never has been any primate that didn't master fire north of the tropics. It's still doesn't explain the sightings though.
Delete6 am couldn't be more wrong
DeleteFar from it.
DeleteNo one is seeing them. They are reporting that they do. People used to report that they saw Elvis. The didn't see Elvis. Come to the US and have your eyes opened by the level of ignorance.
DeleteTrapper did seein the back end of a yahoo runin into the boosh
DeleteProfessional consistency says shut up and sit down.
DeleteTo 8:33.
DeleteJo F has this fantasy version of the US. There's all these Bigfoot sightings and the US is 70 % unexplored forest. It's nonsense. Get away from your computer in Ireland or England(if thats really where your from) and come to the United States.
DeleteActually, I've said 70% of the US is wilderness, not that it's not been explored; you're either baiting or need to get your into straight.
DeleteTruth hurts, expecially when someone where I'm from does it regarding your own back yard.
; )
*Info
DeleteYou are living in fantasy land. Quit watching US TV shows and get your own experiences.
DeleteIt sounds to me that you're in need of getting out there yourself, boyo. What's worse, not traveling across the pond, of not getting in your own back yard?
DeleteAlso... I am in close affiliation with researchers and enthudiasts, that have had encounters. Some of which have 20 years of precessional experience.
It's either believing my friends... Or little old Anon you.
*professional
DeleteWHAT THE !!!!
DeleteJoe, when you say Sykes is theorizing on what bigfoot might be, are you referring to where he gave a FIVE percent chance that neanderthal dna might show up in the samples?
DeleteSo he was, in other words, 95% sure that it wouldn't, but you're going to cling to the 5% instead?
You don't see the problem with this?
5% chance based on the very small frequency of samples, yes.
DeleteYou're not clever Don.
No need to get all dooshbaggy there dip sh it.
DeleteExplain your answer please. If all the samples were alleged to be from bigfoots, then from Sykes stand point they all have an equal percent chance of being bigfoot. His comment would seem to indicate that he believes there is a about a 5% chance that bigfoot is a neanderthal, period. Or to look at it another way, he is imagining that people might be seeing neanderthals when they report bigfoot sightings, but puts this as a very remote possibility, in fact about 95% not likely.
Back to the sample frequency. If someone gave me 40 alleged bigfoot samples and it was my personal opinion that all bigfoot sightings are misidentified bears, then I would say something like I think there is a 95% chance that bear dna will turn up in some of these samples. If I thought it an extremely unlikely possibility of, say neanderthal, then I might say something like I have about a 5% expectation that neanderthal dna might pop up in some of these samples. Either way, I'm about 95% sure that it won't.
Look at it this way Joe. Sykes was either 95% sure that the samples did not come from the alleged source, or he thinks it only 5% likely that bigfoot could be a neanderthal.
DeleteThe very small amount of samples in comparison to the cultural/contemporary references, anecdotes and physical evidence, is minute. Sykes, with a very small chance at finding something would base the probability of that chance on finding something on the source quantity... Hence 5% chance out of the number of samples. Funny he should drop in relict 'Neanderthals', eh?
DeleteBigfoot are rarer than bears, and bear hairs wouldn't have such a complex screening process.
Sykes has also stated that researchers have had a hard time. Relict Neanderthals theorised; your problem not mine.
; )
You're missing the point again Skippy.
DeleteIf Sykes thought the samples provided before analyzing them were genuine, then why only 5% chance? If he really had any kind of conviction that bigfoot could be a relict neanderthal, then why only 5%? Only two possible answers:
1) He assumes that approx 95% of the samples are not from actual bigfoots therefore will not produce neanderthal dna. Ergo he assumes the submitters had about a 5% chance of getting actual bigfoot DNA.
2) He gives each sample an equal chance of being from a bigfoot, but he only gives the theory of bigfoot as a neanderthal about a 5% of being true.
Which one is it? Comparing the number of samples to the blah blah anecdotes and conjecture is simply blowing smoke and has no relevance at all.
Nice pwnage of Joe dmaker. But you should be aware that Joe is a paid troll and not worth arguing with. He is here only to influence blog traffic. And most likely is a blog admin.
DeleteIf Sykes thought the samples prior to testing were genuine, then why test them at all? It's to find out there lineage. This is painfully basic stuff.
Delete(Pffffffft)
Sykes has a small amount of samples and therefore basis a prediction on not only what he theorises a potential find to be, but because it's unrealistic such a unique and rare subject could be accumilated by amateur researchers.
I can try and spell it out for you and your cheerleader, but I fear the effort would be just as fruitless. Remember... Your problem not mine.
: p
LOL, of course he has to test them Joe. He can't just turn it over in his hand and say " yup, bigfooty enough".
DeleteIf, as you say, it is unrealistic for such a rare subject to be accumulated by amateurs, then why bother with the study in the first place? That makes no sense whatsoever. And if that is truly how you think, and feel that Sykes felt, then why did you do all your crowing and tick-tocking, Sykes is coming nonsense before the airing of the documentaries? Hm? That is not very congruent there chiefy. Try to get your opinions straight, will ya?
"LOL, of course he has to test them Joe. He can't just turn it over in his hand and say " yup, bigfooty enough"."
DeleteYou got done like a cipper, old boy.
Why bother in the first place? Why bother in the first place... Hmmmmmmm, I'll leave that with you, clever boy. If I keep answering these questions for you, you're not gonna develop.
; )
^^ Ah yes, the classic footer I don't really have a good answer, so I'll just mumble some nonsense, walk away and pretend I won.
DeleteAt least you are sticking true to form Joe. The problem is that not everyone in your target audience is as stu pid as you are and can quite easily see through your antics.
The answers are obvious, why would Sykes bother with a hominid study? Come on Don, you can do this!
DeleteCome on Don...
Now, now Joe. Use the full context please. You said that Sykes has very little faith that amateurs can bring actual bigfoot evidence to the study. This raises the question of why in the world spend all that money on a study that asks those same amateurs to provide samples?
DeleteIt was you that said Sykes feels it is very unlikely that amateurs could provide the evidence, not me. You raised the question by your absurd assertion.
No, you lose the context, clever boy... Why would spend his valuable time analysing alleged Sasquatch samples from a field of largely amateur researchers? Wouldn't it be painfully obvious that there wouldn't be anything in it? That it's all just a silly game of rednecks running about the woods??
Delete"This raises the question of why in the world spend all that money on a study that asks those same amateurs to provide samples?"
You're getting closer! Come on... You can do this...
"It was you that said Sykes feels it is very unlikely that amateurs could provide the evidence..."
Did I Don? Are you at the tail end of your argument, Don??
Now you're just rambling. Spit out whatever nonsense it is you're trying to get at please.
DeleteIt's hilariously obvious that you lack the imagination so badly to work this out, you've been listening to what people have been telling you for too long. I'll leave you work it out buddy... Consider it your homework.
DeleteLaters.
Typical footer. Nothing but empty promises.
DeleteWhat a giant idiot.
(Pfffffffft)
DeleteI've seen drunk Sarah Palin give more coherent responses than Joe just did on this drop down.
DeleteJoe, you wouldn't be the youngest child of your family would you?
Come on bro... You're so clever, read between the lines... Let's see if you can work it out...
DeleteYour hero burped in his own face, let's see you try... Ha ha ha!!
just another story of a story by friend of a friend who knows somebodys sister's uncle who was told the story by a friends friends
ReplyDelete^ Good enough for Joe. Hell, he took one of those types of stories and massaged it to not only bigfoot swings through the tree tops, he instinctually knows what branches will hold his weight. And now he professes it like it's as common knowledge as hippos living in rivers.
Deletehappy - happy - joy - joy - just sayin
ReplyDeletethat bein a Snallygaster attact or I am a FOOL !!!
ReplyDeleteduz Trapper knows about tham ape critters cawz thays lookin lack tham grassmans ans yahoos critters
ReplyDeleteGaza Crisis: Isis Pledge to Join the Palestinian Fight Against ‘Barbaric Jews’
ReplyDeleteceasefire is over
GAME ON BOYz
all is going according to PLAN : )
DeleteCan someone tell me why comments don't appear sometimes until you refresh the page twice??
ReplyDeleteIts the govement trying to cover up bigfoot like you claim
DeleteThe logging companies mandate that you refresh more than once in order to get more information on you.
DeleteSounds like a conspiracy there old boy, you're not coming to the dark side, are you?
DeleteI dont know Joe, since your paid to be here, maybe you can tell us. I would think the blog admins are very well aware of the reason. Nice try though
Delete^Now there's a conspiracy nut.
Delete^ You're just the garden variety type of nut.
Delete^ nuts grow on trees, that grow in orchads.
DeleteGarden variety numpty!
WILD BILL bear huntin sesshun comin in Sept sos hes gots some time to gits his scoutin done ans gos shoots tham bears
ReplyDelete