Difference between revisions of "Talk:Loch Ness Monster"
From Conservapedia
(Link to Video) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Can we link to video of the most recent "sighting?" [[User:FredK|FredK]] | Can we link to video of the most recent "sighting?" [[User:FredK|FredK]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oops, my link didn't work. Fixing, I hope. [[User:MyaR|MyaR]] 15:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:35, June 1, 2007
This statement need attributions if it is true. I personally doubt there has been a survey
It is considered by most to be a legendary hoax. Conservative 12:33, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
TWO WORDS: "Tree fiddy" --Crackertalk 19:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Article needs total re-work
This article has no sourced claims, and gives way to much weight to theories that there really IS a creature. In desperate need of qualification and skepticism. Tmtoulouse 16:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Agreed. Nessie exists as much as Sasquatch or the Abominable Snowman From what I've seen/read, Nessie was a hoax from day one. --Lohengrin 16:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
- Although I personally believe in Nessie, I agree there's no direct proof, and the article should reflect that. Totnesmartin 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Link to Video
Can we link to video of the most recent "sighting?" FredK
Oops, my link didn't work. Fixing, I hope. MyaR 15:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
