Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot, Fact or Fake? 80 replies

Please wait...

Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#61 11 years ago

What I find funny is how many people seem to think they could only exist in very secluded places. If they exist, then why can't they exist elsewhere? Something as intelligent as a primate could make do in lots of places.




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#62 11 years ago
sea serpents could exist, we really don't know what lives at the bottom of the ocean

It has nothing to do with what's at the bottom of the ocean, it has to do with what's at the bottom of a 230 meter, enclosed freshwater lake.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#63 11 years ago

why don't buffalo move from the plains to the woods? why don't grizzly bears live in P.A.? why don't scorpians live in maine?




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#64 11 years ago

Because buffalo are large grazing bovines, and bovines do not live in woods. Grizzly bears did live in PA, but habitat destruction forced them northward during the 17-19th centuries. Scorpions are desert-dwelling arthropods... I fail to see what those questions have to do with anything, they don't even have comparable answers...




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#65 11 years ago

crazy wolf asks why they can't exist elsewhere, you pretty much answered that, because its their prefered enviornment, they are more suitable in that one than others (well except grizzly bear)




Pb2Au

Droolworthy

50 XP

4th October 2004

0 Uploads

8,461 Posts

0 Threads

#66 11 years ago

What he was getting at is that, especially as illustrated by the Loch Ness monster, there is no way a single creature could survive in such a limited habitat.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#67 11 years ago

You do realize how adaptable apes are, right? Limiting a supposed ape species to Alaska and Russia when people have claimed to see them as far south as California (and I think there have been some claims as far east as Pennsylvania) just seems silly. Especially since apes tend to be omnivores, which tend to take advantage of any environment offered them...

I understand that there is no evidence to support these apes existing, but is there some way that a scientist who was bored would care to devote time to figure out what the likely average land needed to feed one would be needed?




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#68 11 years ago

I think you misunderstoud me, I meant that the yeti is most likely to exist in Alaska and Russia I do believe that bigfoot probably live out west




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#69 11 years ago

But why would the yeti live in areas where it isn't reported, as opposed to Tibet? Isn't it likely that they are the same creature, or at least in the same family?




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#70 11 years ago

And if they are omnivorse what do they eat in a frozen environment!? it's not like it's alaska or siberia where they can hunt fish and seal like the polar bear.


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.