Sunday, January 17, 2016

This Audio Sounds Like King Kong


Paranormal Central posted the following audio of what they believe to be the sound of a bigfoot roaring in the Kings Canyon National Park area. The audio is very faint, so it might help to throw on some headphones.

We recorded a Bigfoot roaring at us like King Kong. The recording does not do justice to just how loud was. It was actually vibrating my stomach and chest!! Wear headphones in order to hear it better. But im pretty sure if you have fairly good speakers you will be able to hear it. This was recorded a couple of years ago at what we call the "Spot". It is near Kings Canyon National Park. Just outside the boundary line of the park. We have had many experiences with what we think is a family or clan that live in this particular secluded valley. We also have recordings from the Tule Reservation as well, and the sounds are so similar you would think it was the same Bigfoot's.

13 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. how many times does there have to be zero bigfoots for you to understand?

      Delete
    2. 1:04- zero is also your I.Q
      What a co-inki dinky

      Joe

      Delete
    3. 1:04... How many people over many, many hundreds of years who are supported by physical evidence, have to come forward with their reports before you go into full denial meltdown mode and dedicate your entire life to something else?

      Delete
  2. Peter Byrne, a professional hunting guide and later a professional bigfoot researcher, expressed serious concerns about the film processing timeline, after devoting "hundreds of hours" investigating the issue. In addition to the fact that the Eureka post office closed at 5 pm, Byrne found that there was no package shipping by bus, and that there were no scheduled air carriers from the one commercial field in the area, located between the coastal towns of Eureka and Arcata. According to Byrne, that left a chartered flight as the only option. Of course, neither Patterson or Gimlin claimed to have sent the film by chartered airplane. There were five charter pilots at the time, and Byrne found four of them, all of whom not only denied such a flight, backed up by their log books. The fifth man was deceased. In addition, the pilots found that it was rainy and windy that evening, and they would not have flown under those conditions except in the case of an emergency, which, one must agree, this film was not. Further, neither Patterson nor Gimlin was likely to had the cash to have contemplated such a flight. That left Al DeAtley to have, somehow, and for some reason, to have arranged for a charter flight during a storm. He had a pilot, but it turned out the pilot was unavailable that day. DeAtley upon repeated questioning by Byrne, Long, and others has continued to repeat that he has no recollection whatsoever of any role in transporting or processing the film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you've been watching too much star wars mate
      You have Kylo Ren on the brain

      Joe

      Delete
    2. ^
      Uncomfortable with any dissenting information about Bigfoot, so takes the low road by engaging in insults

      Delete
    3. nope, I just don't like trolls
      So why are you here mate ?

      Joe

      Delete
    4. "... the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded (not necessarily true if a willing pilot had been found, and there was a break in the weather)."
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=0

      "The rainstorm did not hit until the early morning of October 21st, starting to rain around 5:00 a.m., as I recall Gimlin saying. The film, were it on a plane, would have been in the air the preceding evening, probably before 9:30 or so when he was talking to the newspaper guy. It would have been landed in Seattle or Yakima area before the rain even hit, so how can you be so sure they would have prohibited flights out of Murray Field? The 6:15 timeline idea is based on what Gimlin and Hodgson say. That they could have made it to Willow Creek by 6:15 is indisputable. However, what they did once they went over the hill to the coast is another matter. The airport people told Christopher Murphy that there WERE 24-hour services available there in 1967, with charter flights available and pilots on call. They apparently didn't have any records of those years in the office when Murphy was there. Perhaps Greg Long talked to a different person who knew more? I'd be curious to know."
      - Bigfoot Bookman
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/a-miscellany-of-posts-ive-made-on-jref.html?m=0

      Oh, and just for good measure; Brian Dunning, who's extract posted up top is attributed to, recycled all his information about the PGF from Greg Long, to which many of the people he interviewed for his book have come forward to state he fabricated their statements. Here is a serous list of all the things Dunning has wrong regarding the PGF. It's very, very damning;
      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=0

      Delete
    5. "Let me get this straight, Long says that Byrne said he talked to four of five charter pilots who lived in the area, they showed him their log books which said 'rain and wind' and say they would not have flown.

      California contains something like 10-15% of all pilots and planes in the US (about 80,000 and 100,000 respectively nationwide at that time).

      20% of the 'identified' potential pilots from the area remain un-interviewed, not to mention the ability of DeAtley, or anyone for that matter, to charter any of hundreds of planes within a short flight time away.

      And in SkepticLand that magically becomes 'no charter, no planes, no timeline, PGF is a hoax.'

      Then, when pointed out that the statement 'all flights were grounded' appears to be either a factual error/overstatement if not an outright fabrication, the argument becomes 'well, even if was flown (counter to a centerpiece of the skeptic timeline argument), it still means nothing'.

      When needed to support the timeline argument, the skeptics glom on to the 'remote nature of the site' and how long it would have taken to drive, but when needed to discredit specific investigators or claims, they suggest the filmsite was 'not remote at all'.

      Seriously, if that is the position and approach in play, there is absolutely zero reason to continue to pretend there is even a weak facade of respect for the opposition from the skeptical side in this debate."
      - Infoman from the BFF

      Delete
    6. #Troll blown the f u ck out.

      Delete
  3. sorry but the sounds are of a jungle NOT the western usa!

    ReplyDelete