Pitty really but with how the global warming thing is going we will be on the list soon. And me personally i think its good no other animal that has ever lived has killed and destroyed so many others!
They think some extint creatures are reasons of some myths like the maupinguari or how its called, because the people who have seen him thinks it was a giant sloth.
FInd them here: For those of you who interested, please take a look at Prehistoric Mammals toy collection. Just go to Collectors Quest website and find GURUZEN and his Prehistoric Mammals Collection.
it's interesting how most of the epic huge powerful creatures have become extinct and we're left with mostly small ones, besides whale, elephant and giraffe n stuffffff.... lol ok we got a couple left but damn.. cave lion? super mega sloth? imagine seeing that in the zoo!
Just a small correction: The quagga is an extinct subspecies of the plains zebra, not a cross between a zebra and a horse. Sadly, the last one died on August 12, 1883.
they have proved the loch ness monster to be completely fake. the picture is somebody sticking there hand out of the water (kind of like how you follow through with your shooting hand in basketball).
@IronHedgehog1 It would probably be infertile - like a mule. Mules are not a propagating species. No male has ever been known to be fertile. And in the last 600 years less than 100 female mules have been recorded to have given birth.
@IronHedgehog1 They have, but they're not authentic quaga. They've been extinct all this time but cross breeding has allowed inauthentic breed to exist.
@PowerMatty 1.8 million years was the beggining of the Quadrunary age we live in today. Before that, there was the tersiarry period. Both are the only known time periods to have large mamals. 65 million years ago the dinos went out so it makes perfect sense that a bear lived back then
@TurokSwe I'm certain that it's safe to say that you're wrong. There is no modern documentation of still living individuals or populations of any of these animals. Most are so large and only survive in regions now so heavily populated, that it would impossible for people to not see them if they were still around.
@HamishLamingtons Im certain its safe to say that YOURE wrong. And in fact, there are many modern documentations of all these, and more, living prehistoric animals. Many big animals are often harder to spot, and I dont think they only survive in a special place, they can live almost anywhere, and countless people have seen these and many more prehistoric animals still alive, and lots of evidence have been gathered, and extinction is only a weak theory. You have more to learn.
@TurokSwe Really now? So exactly when and where did anyone see a living cave bear, cave lion, dodo, or any of the species in this video in the modern era? The only accounts come from people who saw and hunted them centuries ago. Hunting might I add was a big contributor to the eradication of many of these large birds mammals. If at any given moment there is certain number of individuals of any animal on earth, and if they are dying off faster than new are being born, then they die out.
@HamishLamingtons You wanna know exactly where? Well Im gonna tell you, Cave Bears have been seen in Asia, Europe and America. Cave Lion, Asia, Europe and America. Dodo, Africa, Asia, America and Europe. English Wolf, Europe. Giant Kangaroo, Australia, Asia and America. Irish Deer, Europe. Mammoths, Europe, America, Asia and Africa. Giant Ground Sloth, America, Europe, Africa. Quagga, Africa. Sabertooth Tiger, America, Europe and Africa. Thylacine, Australia. Caspian Tiger, Asia. Last worldwide.
@HamishLamingtons The theories of extinction is only bad and unliked theories. Accounts of these animals still exist. So youre very wrong. And we dont know exactly how many animals there were, its very possible they could survive. Its seems like you havent been told everything, youre thoughts and information seems to be based on scientific lies and theories, and you should know better than letting science learn and convince you of things that could very certainly be VERY wrong.
@TurokSwe So what is your information based off of? Can you even site a single proven case? You realize that a Mammoth is quite large and would need to migrate in order to find enough food to sustain itself, and frankly, an entire group (yes, it would take a whole herd of mammoth for a species to continue itself, not just far flung individuals.) could not wander across America, which has very little virgin forest, certainly not any that isn't monitored by forestry services, and not be verified.
@HamishLamingtons We dont actually know if the Mammoth even do migrate, and I dont really believe it would wander across the whole America, but it could, and it would not necessarily need virgin forest, you know animals adapt, or didnt you know it. Many people in the forest are reporting seeing Mammoths, but studies show many dont report their sightings, and actually we dont know how Mammoths are. They possibly dont like Humans, and staying away from them, and big animals are harder to spot.
@TurokSwe We do know that they migrated based on the fact that excavated remains and fossils create a chronological pathway across the northern continents. I say they'd probably be in the forest because it's enclosed and people would be less likely to see them were they even there, as well as the fact that there is food to be found there. What sort of logic is 'the bigger the animal the harder it is to spot'? Bigger beasts are easier to see, obviously. Would you notice an ant over an elephant?
@HamishLamingtons Just because remains and fossils show they migrated, according to scientists, we dont actually KNOW it. Its just a theory. Its true, the bigger the animal is, the harder it is to find. Small animals are find more easily than bigger, ive learned that. And, seriously, an ant over an Elephant? Now youre just silly.
@TurokSwe Okay then, nor do you know that extinction isn't real just because you don't want it to be. And, it's true. The majority of rational humanity would notice a large, lumbering animal like an elephant (or a mammoth) over a small ant or insect if both creatures happened to be going passed them at the same time.
@HamishLamingtons Theres no evidence of extinction. And I believe extinction is not true, whatever you say. And your example of noticing animals is bad and only a theory, and it doesnt proove I have wrong.
@TurokSwe Whatever. I understand that you love dinosaurs and "dragons", and that you're fascinated by the the idea of them and all, but you do realize that you've literally been unable to cite even one single reference or source proving any of these animals have been found still alive. You can only claim that people have claimed to see them. Go ahead and believe all you like, but until anyone finds a living specimen, these animals are still classified as extinct.
@HamishLamingtons Whatever. First, I love all kinds of organisms, not only dinosaurs and Dragons. Next, an example, people reporting almost every day, week, month and year that Mammoths are living around Alaska. Humans that live there have even hunted them, and once, maybe more times, a scientist travelled to Alaska and found out they are still alive, he even brought a body of a Mammoth to the Smithsonian Institution, but they covered it up. I certainly dont believe the animals are extinct.
@TurokSwe In October of 1899 the man who "hunted" and donated a wooly mammoth "specimen" was named Henry Tukeman, and he was not a scientist. The Smithsonian found the corpse was a fake. It was made from stitched together hides of various animals over a round-wood frame. The only authentic thing on it were the tusks which were ancient remains bartered from Eskimo clansmen in Alaska. So, with the few other dates included, there hasn't been a mammoth sighting over half a century.
@HamishLamingtons Haha, thats not what I heard. I heard a sceintists brought a real body to the Smithsonian. And obviously you are so stupid that you are being fooled that easy. And thats not the whole story. Fake, haha. Thats the only thing they are telling us. And there has been Mammoth sightings very often. God, its almost embarrasing how you are so damn bad informed.
@TurokSwe The Smithsonian only has the one record of that particular mammoth hoax. Where exactly did you hear about all these other sightings which, according to you, happen "daily" in Alaska? So you heard a "scientist" brought in a mammoth body, well if you're so well informed what was the scientists name and when did that even happen? Also, why would they need to cover up a mammoth finding if it really happened? There is no logical reason to do something like that.
@HamishLamingtons The sightings happens not only in Alaska, and I heard it long time ago. And I dont need to tell you the whole story. And yes, why? What do you think? Why did they cover it up? Hmm... There is many good theories about that, and they dont want us to know about it. And of course you cant come up with some ideas. USE YOUR BRAIN, and, YOURE COMMON SENSE YOU FOOL! God, cant you think by yourself, or do you always need help with it, "no logical reason", HA!
@TurokSwe I can think for myself, otherwise I wouldn't be challenging your "theory". I simply ask that you present some factual dates, places, and cases to support what you're saying. Otherwise you're just expecting me to believe you just because you say so? What would be the harm of letting people now if mammoths were found alive? There's no reason for anyone to cover it up if it happened.
@HamishLamingtons There is a few many reasons. And I doubt we would have heard about it, maybe from a website, but most scientists dont want to tell us the truth, it would cause more trouble for them than they already has with convincing people about things.
@TurokSwe I don't see why they'd try to cover it up unless it was something that defied some natural law. Just finding a prehistoric animal that they thought was extinct wouldn't interefer with any scientific laws. Infact if anything it would just show that the species was simply lucky or perhaps more resilient than scientists ever thought. You're right in that we cannot search the enitre globe at once to verify a species extinction, but to believe that a species has never died out is improbable
@HamishLamingtons No of course you cant see it. And I dont think its about lucky or resilient, I think its about simple, beutiful, mysterious, wild nature. And I dont think believing is improbable.
@TurokSwe Yes, I suppose. The quagga, dodo, elephant bird, Irish elk... etc. Many of these animals were certainly known to be around not that long ago. Blue bucks are supposed to be extinct as of less than a hundred years ago, but the region they lived in is poorly charted and few people live there. There is nothing to prevent some of these recently rarified animals from still surviving.
@TurokSwe I suppose at this point we must simply agree to disagree on some of the species and whether they could have managed to survive or not. Because, certainly in some cases it is not so unlikely. Oh well.
@HamishLamingtons Do a little research yourself, or do I have to do everything, I aint got time to give you ALL information, neither do I want to, you always seems to make it to something bad, boring and unproovable. Open your mind for gods sake and dont listen to what science or anyone else says, or you can still be fooled by unreliable people if you want to. Whatever you say, "I dont believe in extinction!"
@TurokSwe I have. You simply say that there is such and such evidence, and that there are sightings everyday all over the world, but you never once bothered to look up and show an actual source. I did infact look up the Smithsonian/mammoth case and the facts differed from what you claimed. I presented you a name and date, and a few facts at least. Frankly, I don't think you're presenting any hard facts yourself, because there are none to support that extinction isn't real.
@HamishLamingtons Its called research, you should try that sometime when youre stop being a fool. And what evidence do you have to that the Mammoth was a fake? And I am presenting "hard facts" when I am talking to someone more open and reliable, and not a fooled and sealed one like you. And whatever you says, extinction will forever be unreliable and a bad theory that many people, just like today, wont trust because its obvious that its a lie.
@TurokSwe And I find it somewhat embarrassing that you just lie to yourself about something so simple, and that you make up these wild claims and exaggerations to try and prove something that simply isn't known or else cannot be known at all. Even when I wasn't disagreeing with you, you were still willing to say anything to be contradictory. Simply, if these mammoth sightings are occurring all the time, why are there almost no more than three seriously recorded over the years?
@HamishLamingtons And I am never lying, now YOURE lying. I never making something up, thats what you are doing all the time, you are making up simple "scientific" (unproovable) theories and things about me! Thats just not good, neither professional. Stop lying and making things up, it does not make you any good, it does only make you unreliable. And I were not contradictory, that seems to be your job. And why? Theres one simple answer: "Youve got everything very wrong!"
@TurokSwe If you're not making up these sightings, which according to you happen all over, every day, and are being covered up for whatever outlandish reasons, then why can't you present any facts? I am sorry, but I think you are making these sightings up. You finally told me about the case at the Smithsonian, but when I looked it up myself, the facts were completely different from what you were saying. The man wasn't a scientist, the mammoth was fake, and there haven't been any more sightings.
@HamishLamingtons I am sorry, this is just my belief, and since ive realized that you have choosed to still being fooled and not opening your mind and start think about reality and researching by yourself, seems like you want me to do it for you and then you only going to continue being fooled and believe on the unreliable. I dont giving you anything. Maybe if you stop being a fool and opens your mind and stop to making lies and things up, then I will maybe share some information with you.
@TurokSwe That's just the thing. It isn't realistic to believe that giant dinosaurs and arthropods bigger than full grown men could still survive in any habitat the Earth could offer today. That's why they'd be extinct. For dinosaurs, most of the world is too cold for the majority of cold blooded dinosaurs to survive, and in the case of giant insects and other land dwelling arthropods, the amount of oxygen in today's atmosphere is too small a quantity. Those are just a couple plausible reasons.
@HamishLamingtons Theres a thing! Realistic, bullshit! Its unbelieveably possible, and new research show they can easily survive in extreme cold, except maybe on Antarctica. And the "oxygen" thing is only a theory, nothing that can be proved. And those plausible reasons are so god damn bad, theyre simple theories thats unreliable.
@TurokSwe The oxygen theory can be proven. It is known that insects breathe through book lungs, and can't actually inhale to gather oxygen like we can. A large insect would require more oxygen in its environment to nourish its greater amount of tissues. So when the oxygen level in the atmosphere decreased over the millenia, insects had to adapt and evolve into smaller species. Thus the ones which were too big would have died out.
@HamishLamingtons I am not that convinced that it can be proven, in fact I dont believe in those theories niether the extinction theory, I believe in nature.
@TurokSwe Yes, but it would be through a process of nature by which poorly suited species perished while their better suited descendants managed to adapt.
@TurokSwe However, there were some species of dinosaur and other prehistoric reptiles which had fur-like material sprouting from their scales, as well more effecient ways to warm themselves which theoretically could still survive in a colder mainland climate. Still that begs the issue of how a large creature exists without being seen on land.
@HamishLamingtons Its really a mystery about larger creatures, as ive seen it, the bigger the animals are, the harder they are to find. Ive noticed that many people often find small creatures more often than big, and why? Thats a mystery no one possibly can solve, there will maybe only be theories and speculation about it.
@HamishLamingtons Its embarrasing that you and many others are fooled by what science is telling you, science is mostly unreliable, thats what ive learned. I dont believe in everything that science says, especially, they have prooven they are really unreliable when they talking about that organisms have gone extinct, extinction is only a theory thats based on lies and built of more lies and fooled people.
@TurokSwe Then would it really matter if it were a scientist trying to prove that the animals are still alive? If science is that unreliable then a scientist couldn't even be trusted to verify any animal remains, infact, without science, nobody could. And as I keep saying, extinction can easily be proven real by simply observing the natural world around us and how it, and the organisms in it, behave and are affected by that change.
@HamishLamingtons There are a few scientists that dont believe in the other ones, and they are trying to uncover the truth, that extinction isnt real, and you and many others should have realized that long ago. I dont believe in everything that science says, but a few things, but I really dont believe in extinction, extinction is so unlikely in reality. Certainly NOT! There is no way, not even the one you mentioned (that was absurd, it was not even close to proof), that extinction can be proven.
@TurokSwe Get in touch with the real world dude. Your undocumented "daily sightings" of Alaskan Mammoths are about as make-believe as dragons. Scientists currently working on mapping the Mammoth genome (with the purpose of one day perhaps cloning one) would certainly use a living, breathing Mammoth and the story you're citing sounds as childish and unsubstantiated as what kids use to tell their schoolmates about the hoverboard in Back to the Future: of course it exists. It's just a cover-up.
@seamus136 Dont need to, I am already in touch with the real world, something you would try maybe? If you dared to do any research sometime you would understand. Niether Alaskan Mammoths or dragons are make-believe animals, they are real living animals, but you have to decide by yourself what to believe. I already know about the "Mammoth cloning idea". Well, thats your opinion!
@TurokSwe Get me a scientist (a real scientist, not some insane hermit) that would claim Dragons are real and Mammoths are alive, ask him to bring physical proof, and you will have a case. The fact of the matter is that the world of science accepts Mammoths as extinct and dragons as fictional. I suppose you have chosen to reject that reality and substitute your own, to (appropriately) quote a famous mythbuster.
@seamus136 "a real scientist, not some insane hermit" thats exactly what all scientists are, and I think you mean a scientist who only can believe and work with what he MUST believe, and I dont find those kinds of scientists reliable, so forget that! Except facts arent reliable, and what science (in other words some Humans) accepts (in other words believes) to be true doesnt matter, what matters is what YOU believe! I may reject "realities" that I dont believe in, just like every other Human.
@TurokSwe And as far as calling extinction just a theory, it's really a worldwide and historically accepted theme of existence. Logically, if the individuals of a species are dying off as they naturally would from predation, starvation, sickness, exposure to the elements, etc... at a faster rate than they are reproducing and giving birth, then eventually the population collapses and soon the last of them die out. Now, an individual of any of these animals has yet to be caught and verified.
@HamishLamingtons Extinction is only a bad theory, while the animals themselves are being sighted, reported and documented all the time. And extinction is accepted by a part of history, the other part says the opposit. And now you too only came with a theory, and theories are not the truth, theyre only theories, thats known worldwide by many people. And animals like these has been caught, but not verified, and I dont think science would accept it, thats an worldwide known possible explanation.
@TurokSwe And you have yet to provide a single exact date or place. It's like me saying 'I knew a guy who knew a guy who saw a living dinosaur in his backyard in Utah.', but that doesn't make it true. Maybe if said hypothetical dino was caught and observed by a real scientist, then it would be tangible evidence. Most people are not experts, they may see a particularly large grizzly bear and exaggerate it into an ancient rarity. My point being that these animals^ are to large to go unnoticed.
@TurokSwe Belief is one thing, but there are in fact people who research ecosystems all around the globe. These animals are not being found, and there is no evidence that there exist any populations that would leave their mark on the environment were they present. If the subject of discussion had been a species of fish, amphibian, insect, or bird; distinctly something small that humans wouldn't notice unless they were specifically looking for it, then I might agree with you in that case.
Our great great (or even sooner) grand kids will probably see dolphins and whales in these "extinct" tribute videos.. So sad. And yet we have millions of chicken and pigs and cows.
@halo3GuY345 No quaggas arent crossed by a zebra and a horse. they are there own species and arent crossed with anything. although they are a RELATIVE of the zebra. A cross between a zebra and a horse is a zorse. look it up
@AnahLindahh Benjamin did indeed freeze to death. But everybody seems to phrase it that he died of neglect. So I went with the trend. But neglect is of course a general word.
how could cave lions and bears live in europe now? it is impossible :(( they didnt leave a single wood that is untouched..and again if they would live people would be in danger or the animals would live in only cages..shit
@msnina87 Thylacine, technically Thylacinus cynocephalus. 'Benjamin' the last known Tasmanian tiger died on the 7th of Septembes 1936 at the Hobart zoo due to neglect. But at least one subsequent expedition to find any remaining individuals, during the 1940's found Thylacine scats and heard at least one call out.
Wolly mammoths, dodo birds and sabertooth -3
OhhShitMann 4 weeks ago
Pitty really but with how the global warming thing is going we will be on the list soon. And me personally i think its good no other animal that has ever lived has killed and destroyed so many others!
TurkishEcko 1 month ago
@TurkishEcko i think after us the world will ether be gone or when we do die new animals that can stand the heat will live on earth
dragonballzfan41 3 weeks ago
You can even see men beating the Dodos to death with sticks in the backround. Shameful.
TheGreenTuxedo 1 month ago
Thanks .. It help me to ilestrat my essay..
aalsaab 2 months ago
I hate humans look at the humans in the back at 0:36
saltyluke10 2 months ago
@saltyluke10 It's a drawing....And I'm sorry you hate yourself. I would advise you seek help.
KillerDragon117 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
where is elephant bird?
your stupid ...
elephant bird is cool and beautiful bird ..so you should put in there...
markmallari68 3 months ago
where is elephant bird..
your stupid ...
elephant bird is cool and beautiful bird ..so you should put in there...
markmallari68 3 months ago
The extinct whale`s name was Basilosaurus, Zeuglodon is scientific banned since the 19th century.
7kaoz 4 months ago
They think some extint creatures are reasons of some myths like the maupinguari or how its called, because the people who have seen him thinks it was a giant sloth.
Kelobozo 4 months ago
What really sets this vid apart (and above) others is the fact screens in between the pictures. Thank you! I enjoyed this very much!
txtblockd 4 months ago
The music is cool
MMark998 4 months ago
FInd them here: For those of you who interested, please take a look at Prehistoric Mammals toy collection. Just go to Collectors Quest website and find GURUZEN and his Prehistoric Mammals Collection.
guruzin 5 months ago
90% of those animals are extinct cuz of human actions
GTXMAN 6 months ago
@GTXMAN Suuure! I dont believe in extinction.
TurokSwe 4 months ago
Lol at Quagga.. just get a Zebra and Horse to have sex then BAM unextinct..
SimpleShot94 6 months ago
extincted animals were cool, new ones suck and their boring.
AllNamesRntAvailable 6 months ago 2
@AllNamesRntAvailable First, I doubt on the extinction theory, secondly, both old and new ones are interesting, I love all life in universe!
TurokSwe 4 months ago
That thing come round my House I KLL IT!
LetzGetFukedUP 6 months ago
the quagga i saw a recent picture of in ripleys belive it or not book they called it a zorse and it looked just like that
hihihihi411 6 months ago
1:10 just look like a deer on steroids!
wahsnehmada 6 months ago
but its so tempting to shoot and kill animals...thats why they are here..
hibstillidie 6 months ago
I know why some animals extinct because of world wars.
TheWatcher055 6 months ago
@TheWatcher055 dumbest shit ive heard
youpornguy112 6 months ago 5
@youpornguy112 lol
Jazzmencorp7 6 months ago
it's interesting how most of the epic huge powerful creatures have become extinct and we're left with mostly small ones, besides whale, elephant and giraffe n stuffffff.... lol ok we got a couple left but damn.. cave lion? super mega sloth? imagine seeing that in the zoo!
laurence265 7 months ago
holy fuck whatta giant sloth! geez
SevenScreamingSnakes 7 months ago
id most likely want to see a cave lion and a giant kangaroo.
SevenScreamingSnakes 7 months ago
wtf look at that deer
Rasgachokah 7 months ago
most of these animals go extinct not just because of humans but also of the wild and the way our world is changing!
- Yurges
YurgesBitch 7 months ago
what happened 10 K years ago that got so many big animals extinct?
GTXMAN 7 months ago
@GTXMAN Environment changed.
SmileyLieutenantDan 7 months ago
So,most of the animals got extinct cuz of human activity ,except the dinosaurs and rare mass extinctions? is that correct?
GTXMAN 7 months ago
@GTXMAN There aren't a whole lot of animals that go extinct because of Humans, a lot of them go extinct because of evolution.
updisho 7 months ago
you forgot dinsouars!!
MrPolonez1997 7 months ago
Just a small correction: The quagga is an extinct subspecies of the plains zebra, not a cross between a zebra and a horse. Sadly, the last one died on August 12, 1883.
Thanks for the video!
mrwcf 7 months ago
that was one big sloth
NLxGameing 7 months ago
i wish the kanagaroo (giant) was alive
BOGZASV8MA 7 months ago
these animals are so cool and i wish i could see them
elie9212 7 months ago
the cave lion looks badass i wish it wasnt extinct
kingofallsaiyans123 8 months ago
in manila zoo theres a quagga u call... its a mix of zebra and horse... come and go there its in the Philippines...
araykopu123 8 months ago
they have proved the loch ness monster to be completely fake. the picture is somebody sticking there hand out of the water (kind of like how you follow through with your shooting hand in basketball).
DMskits8 8 months ago
fucks not facts
azzert10 8 months ago
you suck balls on your vid
xTecksupportx 9 months ago
the qugga are still alive they got rediscovered in 2005 there just real rare.
lilxhater 9 months ago
dodo birds were murdered!! >:O
xlAznBoi 9 months ago
at least there is still very large octupus deep down in the ocean which have lived for centuries, :P maybe?
turtlebest 9 months ago
Caspian has SOME sightings in Japan :L get the facts right....
charliebunz1 10 months ago
Couldn't they just cross breed a horse and zebra and make a quaga.
IronHedgehog1 10 months ago
@IronHedgehog1 It would probably be infertile - like a mule. Mules are not a propagating species. No male has ever been known to be fertile. And in the last 600 years less than 100 female mules have been recorded to have given birth.
raygoshay1400 10 months ago
@IronHedgehog1 They have, but they're not authentic quaga. They've been extinct all this time but cross breeding has allowed inauthentic breed to exist.
GreshProject 8 months ago
im pretty sure bears didnt live1.8 million years ago!!
PowerMatty 10 months ago
@PowerMatty 1.8 million years was the beggining of the Quadrunary age we live in today. Before that, there was the tersiarry period. Both are the only known time periods to have large mamals. 65 million years ago the dinos went out so it makes perfect sense that a bear lived back then
GreshProject 8 months ago
they are all still alive
DaAlphaOmega 10 months ago
Couldn't scientists breed a horse and a zebra?
XbabyCCX 10 months ago
The day when species gets extinct, that day is only a fairy tale.
TurokSwe 11 months ago
Cryptozoology novel about two boys who find something strange on the beach one night see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
woolly mammoth 11 feet? really? u have GOT to be kidding me
MegaChickenNuggetz 11 months ago
please clone the dodo
coo757 11 months ago
@coo757 Why clone it when its very possible its still alive?
TurokSwe 11 months ago
@TurokSwe yea the world is to big for us to know if animals are extinct or not it would just be nice to have evidence right but you are true
coo757 11 months ago 9
They are now cloning the wooly mammoth from dima
coo757 11 months ago
I dont believe in extinction, and in fact, all of the animals in the video have been reported alive.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I'm certain that it's safe to say that you're wrong. There is no modern documentation of still living individuals or populations of any of these animals. Most are so large and only survive in regions now so heavily populated, that it would impossible for people to not see them if they were still around.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Im certain its safe to say that YOURE wrong. And in fact, there are many modern documentations of all these, and more, living prehistoric animals. Many big animals are often harder to spot, and I dont think they only survive in a special place, they can live almost anywhere, and countless people have seen these and many more prehistoric animals still alive, and lots of evidence have been gathered, and extinction is only a weak theory. You have more to learn.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
@TurokSwe Really now? So exactly when and where did anyone see a living cave bear, cave lion, dodo, or any of the species in this video in the modern era? The only accounts come from people who saw and hunted them centuries ago. Hunting might I add was a big contributor to the eradication of many of these large birds mammals. If at any given moment there is certain number of individuals of any animal on earth, and if they are dying off faster than new are being born, then they die out.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons You wanna know exactly where? Well Im gonna tell you, Cave Bears have been seen in Asia, Europe and America. Cave Lion, Asia, Europe and America. Dodo, Africa, Asia, America and Europe. English Wolf, Europe. Giant Kangaroo, Australia, Asia and America. Irish Deer, Europe. Mammoths, Europe, America, Asia and Africa. Giant Ground Sloth, America, Europe, Africa. Quagga, Africa. Sabertooth Tiger, America, Europe and Africa. Thylacine, Australia. Caspian Tiger, Asia. Last worldwide.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons The theories of extinction is only bad and unliked theories. Accounts of these animals still exist. So youre very wrong. And we dont know exactly how many animals there were, its very possible they could survive. Its seems like you havent been told everything, youre thoughts and information seems to be based on scientific lies and theories, and you should know better than letting science learn and convince you of things that could very certainly be VERY wrong.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 3
@TurokSwe So what is your information based off of? Can you even site a single proven case? You realize that a Mammoth is quite large and would need to migrate in order to find enough food to sustain itself, and frankly, an entire group (yes, it would take a whole herd of mammoth for a species to continue itself, not just far flung individuals.) could not wander across America, which has very little virgin forest, certainly not any that isn't monitored by forestry services, and not be verified.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons We dont actually know if the Mammoth even do migrate, and I dont really believe it would wander across the whole America, but it could, and it would not necessarily need virgin forest, you know animals adapt, or didnt you know it. Many people in the forest are reporting seeing Mammoths, but studies show many dont report their sightings, and actually we dont know how Mammoths are. They possibly dont like Humans, and staying away from them, and big animals are harder to spot.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
@TurokSwe We do know that they migrated based on the fact that excavated remains and fossils create a chronological pathway across the northern continents. I say they'd probably be in the forest because it's enclosed and people would be less likely to see them were they even there, as well as the fact that there is food to be found there. What sort of logic is 'the bigger the animal the harder it is to spot'? Bigger beasts are easier to see, obviously. Would you notice an ant over an elephant?
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Just because remains and fossils show they migrated, according to scientists, we dont actually KNOW it. Its just a theory. Its true, the bigger the animal is, the harder it is to find. Small animals are find more easily than bigger, ive learned that. And, seriously, an ant over an Elephant? Now youre just silly.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
@TurokSwe Okay then, nor do you know that extinction isn't real just because you don't want it to be. And, it's true. The majority of rational humanity would notice a large, lumbering animal like an elephant (or a mammoth) over a small ant or insect if both creatures happened to be going passed them at the same time.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Theres no evidence of extinction. And I believe extinction is not true, whatever you say. And your example of noticing animals is bad and only a theory, and it doesnt proove I have wrong.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
@TurokSwe The evidence is simple logic.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Thats not evidence.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 4
@TurokSwe Whatever. I understand that you love dinosaurs and "dragons", and that you're fascinated by the the idea of them and all, but you do realize that you've literally been unable to cite even one single reference or source proving any of these animals have been found still alive. You can only claim that people have claimed to see them. Go ahead and believe all you like, but until anyone finds a living specimen, these animals are still classified as extinct.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Whatever. First, I love all kinds of organisms, not only dinosaurs and Dragons. Next, an example, people reporting almost every day, week, month and year that Mammoths are living around Alaska. Humans that live there have even hunted them, and once, maybe more times, a scientist travelled to Alaska and found out they are still alive, he even brought a body of a Mammoth to the Smithsonian Institution, but they covered it up. I certainly dont believe the animals are extinct.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 8
@TurokSwe In October of 1899 the man who "hunted" and donated a wooly mammoth "specimen" was named Henry Tukeman, and he was not a scientist. The Smithsonian found the corpse was a fake. It was made from stitched together hides of various animals over a round-wood frame. The only authentic thing on it were the tusks which were ancient remains bartered from Eskimo clansmen in Alaska. So, with the few other dates included, there hasn't been a mammoth sighting over half a century.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Haha, thats not what I heard. I heard a sceintists brought a real body to the Smithsonian. And obviously you are so stupid that you are being fooled that easy. And thats not the whole story. Fake, haha. Thats the only thing they are telling us. And there has been Mammoth sightings very often. God, its almost embarrasing how you are so damn bad informed.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe The Smithsonian only has the one record of that particular mammoth hoax. Where exactly did you hear about all these other sightings which, according to you, happen "daily" in Alaska? So you heard a "scientist" brought in a mammoth body, well if you're so well informed what was the scientists name and when did that even happen? Also, why would they need to cover up a mammoth finding if it really happened? There is no logical reason to do something like that.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons The sightings happens not only in Alaska, and I heard it long time ago. And I dont need to tell you the whole story. And yes, why? What do you think? Why did they cover it up? Hmm... There is many good theories about that, and they dont want us to know about it. And of course you cant come up with some ideas. USE YOUR BRAIN, and, YOURE COMMON SENSE YOU FOOL! God, cant you think by yourself, or do you always need help with it, "no logical reason", HA!
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I can think for myself, otherwise I wouldn't be challenging your "theory". I simply ask that you present some factual dates, places, and cases to support what you're saying. Otherwise you're just expecting me to believe you just because you say so? What would be the harm of letting people now if mammoths were found alive? There's no reason for anyone to cover it up if it happened.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Oh, I really doubt you can think for yourself, since you didnt get anywhere with the "cover up".
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I was asking you. There's no reason to hide it, so if anyone had proven they were still alive, we'd have heard. That's what I'm thinking.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons There is a few many reasons. And I doubt we would have heard about it, maybe from a website, but most scientists dont want to tell us the truth, it would cause more trouble for them than they already has with convincing people about things.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I don't see why they'd try to cover it up unless it was something that defied some natural law. Just finding a prehistoric animal that they thought was extinct wouldn't interefer with any scientific laws. Infact if anything it would just show that the species was simply lucky or perhaps more resilient than scientists ever thought. You're right in that we cannot search the enitre globe at once to verify a species extinction, but to believe that a species has never died out is improbable
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons No of course you cant see it. And I dont think its about lucky or resilient, I think its about simple, beutiful, mysterious, wild nature. And I dont think believing is improbable.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe Yes, I suppose. The quagga, dodo, elephant bird, Irish elk... etc. Many of these animals were certainly known to be around not that long ago. Blue bucks are supposed to be extinct as of less than a hundred years ago, but the region they lived in is poorly charted and few people live there. There is nothing to prevent some of these recently rarified animals from still surviving.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Yeah.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I suppose at this point we must simply agree to disagree on some of the species and whether they could have managed to survive or not. Because, certainly in some cases it is not so unlikely. Oh well.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Do a little research yourself, or do I have to do everything, I aint got time to give you ALL information, neither do I want to, you always seems to make it to something bad, boring and unproovable. Open your mind for gods sake and dont listen to what science or anyone else says, or you can still be fooled by unreliable people if you want to. Whatever you say, "I dont believe in extinction!"
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe I have. You simply say that there is such and such evidence, and that there are sightings everyday all over the world, but you never once bothered to look up and show an actual source. I did infact look up the Smithsonian/mammoth case and the facts differed from what you claimed. I presented you a name and date, and a few facts at least. Frankly, I don't think you're presenting any hard facts yourself, because there are none to support that extinction isn't real.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Its called research, you should try that sometime when youre stop being a fool. And what evidence do you have to that the Mammoth was a fake? And I am presenting "hard facts" when I am talking to someone more open and reliable, and not a fooled and sealed one like you. And whatever you says, extinction will forever be unreliable and a bad theory that many people, just like today, wont trust because its obvious that its a lie.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe And I find it somewhat embarrassing that you just lie to yourself about something so simple, and that you make up these wild claims and exaggerations to try and prove something that simply isn't known or else cannot be known at all. Even when I wasn't disagreeing with you, you were still willing to say anything to be contradictory. Simply, if these mammoth sightings are occurring all the time, why are there almost no more than three seriously recorded over the years?
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons And I am never lying, now YOURE lying. I never making something up, thats what you are doing all the time, you are making up simple "scientific" (unproovable) theories and things about me! Thats just not good, neither professional. Stop lying and making things up, it does not make you any good, it does only make you unreliable. And I were not contradictory, that seems to be your job. And why? Theres one simple answer: "Youve got everything very wrong!"
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe If you're not making up these sightings, which according to you happen all over, every day, and are being covered up for whatever outlandish reasons, then why can't you present any facts? I am sorry, but I think you are making these sightings up. You finally told me about the case at the Smithsonian, but when I looked it up myself, the facts were completely different from what you were saying. The man wasn't a scientist, the mammoth was fake, and there haven't been any more sightings.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons I am sorry, this is just my belief, and since ive realized that you have choosed to still being fooled and not opening your mind and start think about reality and researching by yourself, seems like you want me to do it for you and then you only going to continue being fooled and believe on the unreliable. I dont giving you anything. Maybe if you stop being a fool and opens your mind and stop to making lies and things up, then I will maybe share some information with you.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe That's just the thing. It isn't realistic to believe that giant dinosaurs and arthropods bigger than full grown men could still survive in any habitat the Earth could offer today. That's why they'd be extinct. For dinosaurs, most of the world is too cold for the majority of cold blooded dinosaurs to survive, and in the case of giant insects and other land dwelling arthropods, the amount of oxygen in today's atmosphere is too small a quantity. Those are just a couple plausible reasons.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Theres a thing! Realistic, bullshit! Its unbelieveably possible, and new research show they can easily survive in extreme cold, except maybe on Antarctica. And the "oxygen" thing is only a theory, nothing that can be proved. And those plausible reasons are so god damn bad, theyre simple theories thats unreliable.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe The oxygen theory can be proven. It is known that insects breathe through book lungs, and can't actually inhale to gather oxygen like we can. A large insect would require more oxygen in its environment to nourish its greater amount of tissues. So when the oxygen level in the atmosphere decreased over the millenia, insects had to adapt and evolve into smaller species. Thus the ones which were too big would have died out.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons I am not that convinced that it can be proven, in fact I dont believe in those theories niether the extinction theory, I believe in nature.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe Yes, but it would be through a process of nature by which poorly suited species perished while their better suited descendants managed to adapt.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Hm, sounds like a theory, but I still dont believe in extinction, I think ive made that clear.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe Absolutely.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@TurokSwe However, there were some species of dinosaur and other prehistoric reptiles which had fur-like material sprouting from their scales, as well more effecient ways to warm themselves which theoretically could still survive in a colder mainland climate. Still that begs the issue of how a large creature exists without being seen on land.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Its really a mystery about larger creatures, as ive seen it, the bigger the animals are, the harder they are to find. Ive noticed that many people often find small creatures more often than big, and why? Thats a mystery no one possibly can solve, there will maybe only be theories and speculation about it.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Its embarrasing that you and many others are fooled by what science is telling you, science is mostly unreliable, thats what ive learned. I dont believe in everything that science says, especially, they have prooven they are really unreliable when they talking about that organisms have gone extinct, extinction is only a theory thats based on lies and built of more lies and fooled people.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe Then would it really matter if it were a scientist trying to prove that the animals are still alive? If science is that unreliable then a scientist couldn't even be trusted to verify any animal remains, infact, without science, nobody could. And as I keep saying, extinction can easily be proven real by simply observing the natural world around us and how it, and the organisms in it, behave and are affected by that change.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons There are a few scientists that dont believe in the other ones, and they are trying to uncover the truth, that extinction isnt real, and you and many others should have realized that long ago. I dont believe in everything that science says, but a few things, but I really dont believe in extinction, extinction is so unlikely in reality. Certainly NOT! There is no way, not even the one you mentioned (that was absurd, it was not even close to proof), that extinction can be proven.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe you should cite your source when you make such an outrageous claim.
benlorenc 11 months ago
@benlorenc What claim do you mean?
TurokSwe 11 months ago
@TurokSwe Get in touch with the real world dude. Your undocumented "daily sightings" of Alaskan Mammoths are about as make-believe as dragons. Scientists currently working on mapping the Mammoth genome (with the purpose of one day perhaps cloning one) would certainly use a living, breathing Mammoth and the story you're citing sounds as childish and unsubstantiated as what kids use to tell their schoolmates about the hoverboard in Back to the Future: of course it exists. It's just a cover-up.
seamus136 4 months ago
@seamus136 Dont need to, I am already in touch with the real world, something you would try maybe? If you dared to do any research sometime you would understand. Niether Alaskan Mammoths or dragons are make-believe animals, they are real living animals, but you have to decide by yourself what to believe. I already know about the "Mammoth cloning idea". Well, thats your opinion!
TurokSwe 4 months ago
@TurokSwe Get me a scientist (a real scientist, not some insane hermit) that would claim Dragons are real and Mammoths are alive, ask him to bring physical proof, and you will have a case. The fact of the matter is that the world of science accepts Mammoths as extinct and dragons as fictional. I suppose you have chosen to reject that reality and substitute your own, to (appropriately) quote a famous mythbuster.
seamus136 4 months ago
@seamus136 "a real scientist, not some insane hermit" thats exactly what all scientists are, and I think you mean a scientist who only can believe and work with what he MUST believe, and I dont find those kinds of scientists reliable, so forget that! Except facts arent reliable, and what science (in other words some Humans) accepts (in other words believes) to be true doesnt matter, what matters is what YOU believe! I may reject "realities" that I dont believe in, just like every other Human.
TurokSwe 4 months ago
@TurokSwe And as far as calling extinction just a theory, it's really a worldwide and historically accepted theme of existence. Logically, if the individuals of a species are dying off as they naturally would from predation, starvation, sickness, exposure to the elements, etc... at a faster rate than they are reproducing and giving birth, then eventually the population collapses and soon the last of them die out. Now, an individual of any of these animals has yet to be caught and verified.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
@HamishLamingtons Extinction is only a bad theory, while the animals themselves are being sighted, reported and documented all the time. And extinction is accepted by a part of history, the other part says the opposit. And now you too only came with a theory, and theories are not the truth, theyre only theories, thats known worldwide by many people. And animals like these has been caught, but not verified, and I dont think science would accept it, thats an worldwide known possible explanation.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
@TurokSwe And you have yet to provide a single exact date or place. It's like me saying 'I knew a guy who knew a guy who saw a living dinosaur in his backyard in Utah.', but that doesn't make it true. Maybe if said hypothetical dino was caught and observed by a real scientist, then it would be tangible evidence. Most people are not experts, they may see a particularly large grizzly bear and exaggerate it into an ancient rarity. My point being that these animals^ are to large to go unnoticed.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
hey u forgot about justin bieber
GrandNecro 1 year ago
Why did the animals die out? A: Cuz you touch yourself at night.
Parkerman13 1 year ago
wait we had wolves in ireland! i dont like the person who killed the last wolf
fizzylemon1 1 year ago
@fizzylemon1 I think the wolves are still out there.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 9
@TurokSwe Belief is one thing, but there are in fact people who research ecosystems all around the globe. These animals are not being found, and there is no evidence that there exist any populations that would leave their mark on the environment were they present. If the subject of discussion had been a species of fish, amphibian, insect, or bird; distinctly something small that humans wouldn't notice unless they were specifically looking for it, then I might agree with you in that case.
HamishLamingtons 1 year ago
stupid dodo had it comeing. dumb fat ball of a bird would have practicly rolled onto your plate
keithmoon00 1 year ago
our great great great grandsons problably look back and see the last dolphin lived and died miollions of years ago
GAM3RKID3 1 year ago
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
tuvinh34 1 year ago
@tuvinh34 What?
TurokSwe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
isnt the tasmanian wolf called a Thylacine? or is that different? they look kinda the same. :/ Humans diagust me...
sugarbunny225 1 year ago
isnt the tasmanian wolf called a Thylacine? or is that different? they look kinda the same. :/
sugarbunny225 1 year ago
@sugarbunny225 they are the same, some people also call it the Tasmanian Tiger
recmonty 1 year ago
as of now we should preserve some animals that is only intact today
asliarman22 1 year ago
dont forget dinosaurs!
Sisters1208 1 year ago
Our great great (or even sooner) grand kids will probably see dolphins and whales in these "extinct" tribute videos.. So sad. And yet we have millions of chicken and pigs and cows.
superduperboyx 1 year ago
@dannyfarrell1996 no it's not read the bible
TheRyan0001 1 year ago
Cant we just bring the quagga back to life by crossbreeding a horse and a zebra?
halo3GuY345 1 year ago
@halo3GuY345 No quaggas arent crossed by a zebra and a horse. they are there own species and arent crossed with anything. although they are a RELATIVE of the zebra. A cross between a zebra and a horse is a zorse. look it up
wenroball 1 year ago
@theryan0001. No the world isn't dat old it's over 3 million years old
dannyfarrell1996 1 year ago
The world is actually only about 5000-10000 years old fuck off with this millions and billions of years shit
TheRyan0001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRyan0001 In fact, no one knows how old the world is.
TurokSwe 1 year ago 2
things went extinct long before humans had anything to do with it. go hug a tree...damn hippies.
ruggedbrad 1 year ago
Mother Nature is dangerous.
spacetime12345 1 year ago
Those animals couldn't survive a few-hundred-million-human-being world. What the rest of nature would do with close to 7 billion humans?
The nature has a great chance to get messed up.
SudiArabia 1 year ago
it's not even cool these animal extinct
YINGAI1995 1 year ago
water creature amazes me more.
iwhitecastle 1 year ago
Humans ruin nature.
KillerBugful 1 year ago 49
@KillerBugful that's very true I won't be surprised if we go bye bye ourselves
ThePholosho 1 year ago
@ThePholosho lol with the way we pollute the ozone we most likely will =) but hope NOT in our life time
JacobsSexyWife 1 year ago
@KillerBugful Yea we fuck things up but you also need to think about relaity many animals went extinct way before humans could even harm animals.
ShuruTheBladehog 1 year ago
@ShuruTheBladehog We dont know that the animals went extinct, and I dont believe in extinction.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@KillerBugful so true
11094DEREK 1 year ago
@KillerBugful have you ever thought that humans nature is to ruin nature? Im not in favor of it... its very sad, but have you thought of that...
ZooTycoon2Boy 1 year ago
@KillerBugful YOU RUIN NATURE!
termax02 1 year ago
@KillerBugful Yeah
tuvinh34 1 year ago
@KillerBugful
Nature created humans. Seems like nature didn't think it through all too well when it created humans.
Nature creates vermin too. Maybe that's what humans are. Vermin. Bacteria.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
Great video lots of information on each animal 5 stars
Hopper12357 1 year ago
im sad those animals went extinct
cwhanna 1 year ago 2
@cwhanna How do you know they went extinct? I dont believe in extinction.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
show us there names!!!!! now!!!!!!!
moralclores 1 year ago
wow a type of kangaroo became extinct!! imgaine if all these animals were here today
16pawprint 1 year ago 2
@16pawprint I imagined, and it seems like my imagination not where imagination, it was reality. Extinction is a lie!
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe i sent that 5 months ago do i really care now?
16pawprint 1 year ago
@16pawprint I dont know, do you?
TurokSwe 1 year ago
@TurokSwe not really it 5 months ago i got better things 2 do
16pawprint 1 year ago
Megaladon? Where is it in the video?
xboxlivegtsubzeroaz 1 year ago
i would have a dodo as a pet and theres no sutch thing as a saber tooth TIGER it was a smilodon in the pic
Lettalou 1 year ago
@AnahLindahh Benjamin did indeed freeze to death. But everybody seems to phrase it that he died of neglect. So I went with the trend. But neglect is of course a general word.
Surroundx 1 year ago
that irish deer has big horns
Luigi32826 1 year ago
man it's kinda scary to know that some of these things once roamed the earth. i know if i seen most of these i would shit my pants.
Uberboy07 1 year ago
@Uberboy07 You know, its very possible they are still roaming the whole Earth. I dont believe in extinction.
TurokSwe 1 year ago
how could cave lions and bears live in europe now? it is impossible :(( they didnt leave a single wood that is untouched..and again if they would live people would be in danger or the animals would live in only cages..shit
hdenyz 1 year ago
@msnina87 Thylacine, technically Thylacinus cynocephalus. 'Benjamin' the last known Tasmanian tiger died on the 7th of Septembes 1936 at the Hobart zoo due to neglect. But at least one subsequent expedition to find any remaining individuals, during the 1940's found Thylacine scats and heard at least one call out.
Surroundx 1 year ago
@Surroundx they die per frozen
AnahLindahh 1 year ago
@wildlife011803 sub-species: Equus quagga quagga
Surroundx 1 year ago