Do you believe in "Magical Creatures"?

[Woeler]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]I definately believe in things like the loch ness monster. even though there isn't much physical evidence, there are too many eyewitnesses. true, many of them may be liars. but does that mean all of them are liars? also, most of these eye-witnesses usally discribe the creature with the same look and color. But the reason nessie isn't seen or heared about anymore, is most likely because he/she died, or the species died, or left the loch. after all, the loch ness is connected to the sea.[/quote]

The theories and sightings of the loch ness monster can be classified as ''false''. I already hear you ask ''why?''. I'll tell you, for decades divers have searched for the Loch Ness mosnter, not a single one found something. The only reports we have were of people who have absolutely nothing that can prove their sightings. There is also no such creature that does only appear to some. If it exists it should be a physical entity and noticable by anyone. Which would mean that the divers who searched for it should have found it, not to mention the size people claim it is. It is nearly impossible to miss it.

Also, the description given by people is almost 100% the description of a Elasmosaurus, which at it's oldest can be around 42 years. The Loch Ness legend started in 1933, which would mean it would be over 80 years (because it was probably there before 1933 if it ever was)

Also take in account that if it exists it would be classified as a coldblooded amphibian. Such large cold blooded amphibians could NEVER survive in the scottish climate.

[Regulus]

There's no such thing as magic.

So how can there be magical creatures?

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Woeler1"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]I definately believe in things like the loch ness monster. even though there isn't much physical evidence, there are too many eyewitnesses. true, many of them may be liars. but does that mean all of them are liars? also, most of these eye-witnesses usally discribe the creature with the same look and color. But the reason nessie isn't seen or heared about anymore, is most likely because he/she died, or the species died, or left the loch. after all, the loch ness is connected to the sea.[/quote]

The theories and sightings of the loch ness monster can be classified as ''false''. I already hear you ask ''why?''. I'll tell you, for decades divers have searched for the Loch Ness mosnter, not a single one found something. The only reports we have were of people who have absolutely nothing that can prove their sightings. There is also no such creature that does only appear to some. If it exists it should be a physical entity and noticable by anyone. Which would mean that the divers who searched for it should have found it, not to mention the size people claim it is. It is nearly impossible to miss it.

Also, the description given by people is almost 100% the description of a Elasmosaurus, which at it's oldest can be around 42 years. The Loch Ness legend started in 1933, which would mean it would be over 80 years (because it was probably there before 1933 if it ever was)

Also take in account that if it exists it would be classified as a coldblooded amphibian. Such large cold blooded amphibians could NEVER survive in the scottish climate.[/quote]

well, don't get me wrong. many photo's have proven to be fake, I admit that. but it's just impossible that everyone who saw the beast, is a liar. only if they get famous and rich, they have already proven themselves to be a liar. also but some people don't even want money for it. btw, very few pictures haven't been announced fake yet, or can't be imnediately proven as fake. they also caught these big objects on the sonar, which turned out to be some unknown animal.

and true, it's unlikely a plesiosaur would survive in the loch. but not if you realize the loch is connected to the sea, and these unknown species could easily enter and leave the lake. I also believe it's not just óne animal, but a bunch of them together.

I would say leave it at least with a question mark, instead of fully guess it's impossible. the world is full of secrets and mysteries.

[Kaidenbear2011]

I cannot say that I believe in them personally but I am not doubting that beings exists elsewhere. We are far off from understanding everything so you never know, I guess.

[Woeler]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]
they also caught these big objects on the sonar, which [s]turned out to be some unknown animal[/s].[/quote]
Turned out to be some unknown object OR an unknown cave containing natural gas, or some other sort of dense gas.

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]
and true, it's unlikely a plesiosaur would survive in the loch. but not if you realize the loch is connected to the sea, and these unknown species could easily enter and leave the lake. I also believe it's not just óne animal, but a bunch of them together.
[/quote]

Which would be all the more reason for us to find them if there were more, and we still didn't.

In cryptozoology and sometimes in cryptobotany, a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely. Famous examples include the Yeti in the Himalayas and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland.

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Woeler1"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]
they also caught these big objects on the sonar, which [s]turned out to be some unknown animal[/s].[/quote]
Turned out to be some unknown object OR an unknown cave containing natural gas, or some other sort of dense gas.

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]
and true, it's unlikely a plesiosaur would survive in the loch. but not if you realize the loch is connected to the sea, and these unknown species could easily enter and leave the lake. I also believe it's not just óne animal, but a bunch of them together.
[/quote]

Which would be all the more reason for us to find them if there were more, and we still didn't.

In cryptozoology and sometimes in cryptobotany, a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely. Famous examples include the Yeti in the Himalayas and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland.[/quote]


the loch is very big, and its waters are very dark. even if there are a few of these ''things'' living in there, it's like finding two needles in a swimming pool with milk. and there may be undiscovered caves somewhere or near the loch where these ''things'' could live. but I personally think those things got there by acccident, and the real place where they dwell arround is in the oceans. sightings of sea serpents and sea monsters are decades old. but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed.

[BlitzRogue]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]the loch is very big, and its waters are very dark. even if there are a few of these ''things'' living in there, it's like finding two needles in a swimming pool with milk. and there may be undiscovered caves somewhere or near the loch where these ''things'' could live. but I personally think those things got there by acccident, and the real place where they dwell arround is in the oceans. sightings of sea serpents and sea monsters are decades old. but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed.[/quote]
If you can't find a 40 foot long plesiosaur in any body of water that *isn't* simply too deep to fully explore, your sonar is clearly broken. We have found photographic evidence of much smaller creatures living in much deeper, darker places than Lake Loch Ness, so to say that we never found anything simply because it's "deep" and "dark" is betraying more than a hint of ignorance on the subject.

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="BlitzRogue"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]the loch is very big, and its waters are very dark. even if there are a few of these ''things'' living in there, it's like finding two needles in a swimming pool with milk. and there may be undiscovered caves somewhere or near the loch where these ''things'' could live. but I personally think those things got there by acccident, and the real place where they dwell arround is in the oceans. sightings of sea serpents and sea monsters are decades old. but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed.[/quote]
If you can't find a 40 foot long plesiosaur in any body of water that *isn't* simply too deep to fully explore, your sonar is clearly broken. We have found photographic evidence of much smaller creatures living in much deeper, darker places than Lake Loch Ness, so to say that we never found anything simply because it's "deep" and "dark" is betraying more than a hint of ignorance on the subject.[/quote]

how am I ignorant if I took this from documontaries? it's a fact the loch has very dark water, you can't even see anything below the surface of the lake. And if you ask me why they can't find a 40 foot long plesiosaur, or whatever that thing is, then you can also ask why they leave earth to explore the moon, but won't bother explore the oceans. besides, the loch is very deep as well, 700ft. so a 40 foot long creature, is exactly like a small needle in a big swimming pool with chocolate milk. and not to forget, the loch is over 50 kilometers long. so who's REALLY ignorant of the subject here???

[Woeler]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"][quote="BlitzRogue"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]the loch is very big, and its waters are very dark. even if there are a few of these ''things'' living in there, it's like finding two needles in a swimming pool with milk. and there may be undiscovered caves somewhere or near the loch where these ''things'' could live. but I personally think those things got there by acccident, and the real place where they dwell arround is in the oceans. sightings of sea serpents and sea monsters are decades old. but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed.[/quote]
If you can't find a 40 foot long plesiosaur in any body of water that *isn't* simply too deep to fully explore, your sonar is clearly broken. We have found photographic evidence of much smaller creatures living in much deeper, darker places than Lake Loch Ness, so to say that we never found anything simply because it's "deep" and "dark" is betraying more than a hint of ignorance on the subject.[/quote]

how am I ignorant if I took this from documontaries? it's a fact the loch has very dark water, you can't even see anything below the surface of the lake. And if you ask me why they can't find a 40 foot long plesiosaur, or whatever that thing is, then you can also ask why they leave earth to explore the moon, but won't bother explore the oceans. besides, the loch is very deep as well, 700ft. so a 40 foot long creature, is exactly like a small needle in a big swimming pool with chocolate milk. and not to forget, the loch is over 50 kilometers long. so who's REALLY ignorant of the subject here???[/quote]


Clearly you have no idea what sonar is, do you?

[SlayerOfLight]

I DO know what sonar is. a way of detecting objects under water with soundwaves by distant.