 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tensho
Supporting Member
Joined: Mar 26, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 474
Location: England
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Looks like a boat to me thats just started up so the wake is very short. Hard to tell what it is but there is things it can be other than a Loch Ness Monster so anyone who would take this seriously clearly wants to believe the Loch Ness Monster exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wombat wrote: | Let's be logical. There can be no Loch Ness monster just as there can be no "Bigfoot".
You can't have "one" creature. There must be a minimum breeding population.
Let's look at Bigfoot. In a certain area there would have to be several hundred Bigfeet at least.
So in the last couple of hundred years no one has ever shot or captured a Bigfoot.
Conclusion: They don't exist. |
They might have existed at one time, but not now.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
CRD
Phoenix
Joined: Jun 07, 2009
Age: 32
Posts: 622
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Wombat wrote: | Let's be logical. There can be no Loch Ness monster just as there can be no "Bigfoot".
You can't have "one" creature. There must be a minimum breeding population.
Let's look at Bigfoot. In a certain area there would have to be several hundred Bigfeet at least.
So in the last couple of hundred years no one has ever shot or captured a Bigfoot.
Conclusion: They don't exist. |
They might have existed at one time, but not now.
ruveyn |
There was at one time a giant ape that lived in north america. I saw something on the history channle about it awhile back anyone able to fill in the name and some of the basic facts I didn't see much past there was one at one time. Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
Macbeth
Thane of Bar and Cellar
Joined: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2191
Location: UK Doncaster
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Points to note: It requires more than one creature to have a breeding population, but even just two creatures can create a LOT of other life. In the case of say.. a loch monster, or lake monster.. why should it be taken in isolation? There are plenty of "lake monsters" around the place.. I believe the states has a few, as does Scotland, and I believe Africa is liberally provided with similar. Not all of these lakes are landlocked.. many of them have coastal access.... so to disregard the potential existence of a creature based on its singularity seems a touch narrow-minded.
Secondly.. though the possibility of "nessie" or any of her brethern being some sort of prehistoric throwback is certainly unlikely, or at least low down the scale of possibility, there is no reason to think that she may not be some other hitherto undiscovered lifeform. Even if it transpired to be some form of long-necked seal (picking a random creature that has been mentioned before now..) that in itself would be an interesting discovery.
Thirdly: On the "throwback" or "survivor" front.. Coelecanth anyone? Apparently they've been fishing these "extinct" fish up for years, in great numbers. Just because current science considers a creature "extinct", doesn't mean it IS.
Finally.. the fact that UFOs or Crop Circles may be a complete load of bunk does not automatically invalidate cryptozoology. They are distinct fields.
_________________
"Mindset of an aristocrat, budget of a tramp" ZGM
"I dont have to know I'm your first if I already know I'm the best" ZGM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
southwestforests
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 798
Location: A little ways south of the river
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not inclined to summarily dismiss the potential for such things to exist as we "discover" new species all the time - some long-know to the locals who look at the scientists with a "yeah, so? old news here" sort of expression.
Here's this http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/strangespecies/
10 Strange Species Discovered Last Year
And from this page http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/07/discovery-species-papua-new-guinea
Lost world of fanged frogs and giant rats discovered in Papua New Guinea
| Quote: | Lost world discovered : 'A giant woolly rat never before seen by science'
Audio (4min 48sec): Naturalist Steve Backshall on the exploration of a lost world Papua New Guinea, containing 40 undiscovered species |
| Quote: | A team of scientists from Britain, the United States and Papua New Guinea found more than 40 previously unidentified species when they climbed into the kilometre-deep crater of Mount Bosavi and explored a pristine jungle habitat teeming with life that has evolved in isolation since the volcano last erupted 200,000 years ago. In a remarkably rich haul from just five weeks of exploration, the biologists discovered 16 frogs which have never before been recorded by science, at least three new fish, a new bat and a giant rat, which may turn out to be the biggest in the world.
The discoveries are being seen as fresh evidence of the richness of the world's rainforests and the explorers hope their finds will add weight to calls for international action to prevent the demise of similar ecosystems. They said Papua New Guinea's rainforest is currently being destroyed at the rate of 3.5% a year. |
Anyway, back to Bigfoot:
My attitude is that I've not heard or seen enough of what to me is the right kind of evidence to allow an absolute final conclusion to be made either way on those bigfoot type critters.
Anything's possible.
And some of it may be quite likely.
But don't be gullible.
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
|
|
| Back to top |
|
southwestforests
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 798
Location: A little ways south of the river
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's something which has a principle worth applying to the Bigfoot matter:
| Quote: | | "The science supports Maori mythology of the legendary pouakai or hokioi, a huge bird that could swoop down on people in the mountains and was capable of killing a small child," he said. |
Extinct New Zealand eagle may have eaten humans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_on_sc/as_sci_new_zealand_killer_eagle
| Quote: | By MICHAEL CASEY, AP Environmental Writer Michael Casey, Ap Environmental Writer – Fri Sep 11, 3:34 pm ET
BANGKOK – Sophisticated computer scans of fossils have helped solve a mystery over the nature of a giant, ancient raptor known as the Haast's eagle which became extinct about 500 years ago, researchers said Friday. The researchers say they have determined that the eagle — which lived in the mountains of New Zealand and weighed about 40 pounds (18 kilograms) — was a predator and not a mere scavenger as many thought.
Much larger than modern eagles, Haast's eagle would have swooped to prey on flightless birds — and possibly even the rare unlucky human.
Ken Ashwell of the University of New South Wales in Australia and Paul Scofield of the Canterbury Museum in New Zealand wrote their conclusions in the peer-reviewed Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
Using computed axial tomography, or CAT, the researchers scanned several skulls, a pelvis and a beak in an effort to reconstruct the size of the bird's brain, eyes, ears and spinal cord.
They compared their data on the Haast's eagle to characteristics of modern predator birds and scavenger birds to determine that the bird was a fearsome predator that ate the flightless moa birds and even humans.
The researchers also determined the eagle quickly evolved from a much smaller ancestor, ... |
That Extinction date is interesting:
| Quote: | | Scientists believe the Haast's eagle became extinct about 500 years ago, most likely due to habitat destruction and the extinction of its prey species at the hands of early Polynesian settlers. Before the humans colonized New Zealand about 750 years ago, the largest inhabitants were birds like the Haast's eagle and the moa. |
Say, how long is it, again, the coelacanth has been "extinct"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth | Quote: | | The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period, until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938. |
And back to the "Folk Tale" aspect:
| Quote: | | Scofield said the findings are similar to what he found in Maori folk tales. "The science supports Maori mythology of the legendary pouakai or hokioi, a huge bird that could swoop down on people in the mountains and was capable of killing a small child," he said. |
Don't know about you, but I'm curious as to what other "folk tales" may someday be supported by science.
Someday we may well nab a Nessie or bag a Bigfoot.
Anything's possible.
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any of them giant primates or giant aquatic animals?
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
CRD
Phoenix
Joined: Jun 07, 2009
Age: 32
Posts: 622
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The giant squid would fall under giant aquatic animals wouldn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
southwestforests
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 19, 2009
Age: 46
Posts: 798
Location: A little ways south of the river
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
Any of them giant primates or giant aquatic animals?
ruveyn |
To illustrate the principle I'm getting at there;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050527105010.htm
| Quote: | New Primate Discovered In Mountain Forests Of Tanzania
ScienceDaily (May 29, 2005) — Two research teams working independently in Tanzania have discovered a monkey that had eluded scientists despite decades of research in the region. The "highland mangabey" is the first monkey species to be described in Africa since 1984.
The entire known range for the highland mangabey totals a mere 28 square miles (73 square kilometers). Due to the combined threats of logging, charcoal-making, poaching and excessive removal of forest resources, this rare animal is at great risk of extinction, and the researchers estimate only a few hundred of the monkeys remain. |
Key phrases to illustrate the idea are:
1. eluded scientists despite decades of research in the region
2. entire known range for the highland mangabey totals a mere 28 square miles (73 square kilometers)
3. and the researchers estimate only a few hundred of the monkeys remain.
1.1 - people looking at various things all over the place for a pretty long time hadn't come across it before then
2.1 - lives in a really small zone
3.1 - aren't exactly millions of them running all over the planet
That having happened with a small primate means it could potentially happen with any other critter of whatever size.
Stuff we didn't expect to be does get discovered.
So, investigate to your heart's content.
And if you don't find that, you may even chance across something else, maybe even more important.
Or not.
Smart to not reject things prematurely.
Smart to not gulliblely accept flimsy evidence for something.
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
