Originally posted by Ratzaroony
There's a big difference between a closed body of water and a dense jungle. In my opinion, if there was a Loch Ness Monster, or a Bigfoot for that
matter, we would have found a body by now. Also keep in mind that they have known this rhino existed for many years, just the interest hasn't been
high enough to devote serious resources to filming it.
Maybe, maybe not.
On Borneo, there have been no confirmed reports of rhinos apart from those in Sabah for almost 20 years, leading experts to fear that the species
may now be extinct on the rest of the island.
No rhino has been seen for over 20 years, leading scientists to think that it was extinct. That means no carcass was found either.
Let's look at other numbers...
In 2005 scientists found dozens of new animal and insect species in New Guinea. Live animals, not dead animals.
In 2006 scientists discovered more than 100 new species in the Hawaiian Islands. Live animals, not dead ones.
In 2006 2 new species of animals was found in the Philippines. Live animals, not dead ones.
In 2006 52 new species was discovered on Borneo
. 400 hundred species since 1996. Funny enough during this 10-year research project no sign of
the Borneo Rhino was found. (Which also tells us more than enough time and money and interest were spent in the jungles of
In 2005 Scientists discovered a new species of monkey in East Africa. Live animals, again.
In 2006 8 new live species were discovered in Israel.
In 2002 they rediscovered the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker in Arkansas, USA after they thought it extinct for over 10 years (with no confirmed sightings
for nearly 60 years.) No carcasses were found for 60 years - and still aren’t found.
I can go on and on like this. As you can see the past 2 years (or so) hundreds of new species was discovered. No one found a "body" to give a slight
indication that the animal existed. The breakthrough was live animals.
Look at the Big Cat(s) roaming around in Britain. Only one skull has been found (in 2005, the first believed "real evidence") which could belong to
the elusive black "panther-like" cat prancing around the place. (It's difficult to be sure about the origin of a feline skull, seeing that large
cats lived on the Islands up 1500 years ago, and hundreds of cats escaped circuses, zoos and illegal owners in the past 40+ years.) Several other
larger cats have been killed over the past few years, but the majority of them have been traced back to their human owners. All that said, the British
isles are a lot smaller than the USA, with a higher population per area.
A guessed number of 25 Borneo Rhinos keeps the species alive in 427,500 km² (21.8 sq mi) of rainforest. I must agree/admit that the 56.4 km² of Loch
Ness (with depths of up to 230 m (754 feet)) may not be enough to sustain an animal of the size some reported sightings describe. Compared to Lake
Champlain (1130 km² (435 mi²) surface and depths of up to 122 m (400.3 ft), which is much more likely to sustain a larger species.
Nonetheless, the area of uninhabited natural forest in the USA is vast, more than enough space to sustain any "undiscovered species" such as a large
primate or humanoid sub-species, better known in the public tongue as Bigfoot.
In conclusion, hoping to find a "body" (or rather carcass) of an animal to proof that the species exists is a fool’s game. Every new species that
is discovered reminds us that we do not yet know everything, nor know all animals. Cryptos may still be discovered, and removed from the crypto list.
Which would be a pity. I'd hate to see Bigfoot "go".