posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:23 AM
1,800 days without nourishment and it was active as well as moving during that time? The article seems to suggest it was quite a popular attraction,
so I'd also guess it was far from hibernation in it's appearance.
Now if we temporarily set aside what is "known" by those I swear make more of a living at being right than being correct at times.....1 of two
things is true here.
#1. It was burning energy (and all things that are active in any form..burn energy) for 1800+ days without replenishment and would seem to be a
world's record holder for consuming more than it took in ..obviously..like a real life energizer bunny. ...and going...and going...and going...
#2. Critters have more than one way of taking in nourishment and more than one thing, quite possibly serves as that for them. I think it's more
likely it went on a 5 year diet in ways we don't yet understand for this creepy crawly. The article says they are known of but rarely studied (or
cared about) or known of in great detail.
The roaches of the deep, I guess.
Maybe they draw from the water itself at times or, being ATS and all for theories...maybe they draw energy from other critters as something equally
useful as opposed to eating them. It seems more logical and likely than an 1,800+ day hunger strike.