Forums → WEPR → bigfoot vs. lochness vs. chupacabra : which is more believable?

tikbalang for sure

honestly i dont think any of them are that believable..

Nessie all the way. That's one reason why I've never, and don't even know how to swim. I'd be completely aquafobic if it weren't for the fact that i love getting all wet and muddy in the rain. And because the other ones are completely unbelievable, and I would never believe in either of them if my life depended on it.

ahh yes the classic 'j4js' routine.

For a second I thought you were mocking my name...

Anyways. it's proven none of them knowledgebly have proof to exist beyond mans thought.

chupacabra and bigfoot is the ones in my thingy i call a brain

I have no idea what chupacabra is but I say lochness...

bigfoot, he could just be an ancestor of an ape or soemthing and a speicews we didnt find yet.
chupacabra, just a dog/fox sucking on goats blood
lockness is just a stick stinking out of somelake, if people wanted to find it they could just use sonar, and find the thing.

ummm chupacabra...its almost been caoght on tape, acually it has

Chupa and big foot there actually proof of both of them (not so positive about big foot tho thats what i hear)

*actually a cop car caught one on tape in Texas*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqebUluWFM4

chupacabra

Who knows there are still hundreds of thousands of animals yet to be identified. They could all be true.

Who knows there are still hundreds of thousands of animals yet to be identified. They could all be true.

crap sorry for the double post

well "bigfoot" did come out on the news

it just a mit! sow...