Do you believe in "Magical Creatures"?

[Woeler]

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

Well then how does it matter that the lake is deep and dark? Xd
That would have no effect on sonar...

[SlayerOfLight]

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

Well then how does it matter that the lake is deep and dark? Xd
That would have no effect on sonar...

because I think that thing is either gone or dead, like I said. there haven't been any eye-sightings for a long while. the latest one was somewhere between 2002 or 2005 or something.

[BlitzRogue]

because I think that thing is either gone or dead, like I said. there haven't been any eye-sightings for a long while. the latest one was somewhere between 2002 or 2005 or something.

And they've had sonar in some form or another for closing in on a century, long before the initial "sightings" of Nessie. And they've been improving upon the system ever since.

Using sonar, we can very easily locate and identify a needle in a pool of whatever liquid you'd like because it doesn't rely on our vision. "Deepness" and "darkness" have no effect whatsoever. So finding a 40-foot prehistoric creature would've been found within a few months of searching. Even including your theory that whatever creature(s) inhabited the loch are now dead or gone, we've had well over 50 years to search that body of water, and we found absolutely nothing of the sort you're claiming.

So, yes, if you want to claim that the loch ness monster(s) merely "evaded" our detection over the last 70+ years, be my guest. But I, and plenty of others, can and will call BS. So be prepared for that.

[SlayerOfLight]

because I think that thing is either gone or dead, like I said. there haven't been any eye-sightings for a long while. the latest one was somewhere between 2002 or 2005 or something.

And they've had sonar in some form or another for closing in on a century, long before the initial "sightings" of Nessie. And they've been improving upon the system ever since.

Using sonar, we can very easily locate and identify a needle in a pool of whatever liquid you'd like because it doesn't rely on our vision. "Deepness" and "darkness" have no effect whatsoever. So finding a 40-foot prehistoric creature would've been found within a few months of searching. Even including your theory that whatever creature(s) inhabited the loch are now dead or gone, we've had well over 50 years to search that body of water, and we found absolutely nothing of the sort you're claiming.

So, yes, if you want to claim that the loch ness monster(s) merely "evaded" our detection over the last 70+ years, be my guest. But I, and plenty of others, can and will call BS. So be prepared for that.

who even said it's a 40 foot long sea-dinosaur? it could also be something else. it has never been confirmed being a plesiosaur, not even by eye-witnesses, only as prehistoric looking. and like you said, it takes a few months to search. but that thing can enter and leave the loch whenever it pleases, that's why eyewitnesses are rare. you don't just get to look at the loch and HOPE you'll see that lake-dwelling beast.

if you wanna call it BS, be my guest. you may be right, or you may be wrong. but I won't completely mark it as ''bullsh#t'' only because scientists say so. I'll leave it at a question mark, meaning, I'll accept it as a mystery, and only time will tell before we'll discover a REAL prehistoric sea-dwelling animal, or not. just like a plesiosaur-like rotting corps was taken aboard on a japanese fishing boat. unfortunately, the unindentified animal was dumped back into the ocean before a full examine could have occured.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

[BlitzRogue]

who even said it's a 40 foot long sea-dinosaur? it could also be something else. it has never been confirmed being a plesiosaur, not even by eye-witnesses, only as prehistoric looking. and like you said, it takes a few months to search. but that thing can enter and leave the loch whenever it pleases, that's why eyewitnesses are rare. you don't just get to look at the loch and HOPE you'll see that lake-dwelling beast.

if you wanna call it BS, be my guest. you may be right, or you may be wrong. but I won't completely mark it as ''bullsh#t'' only because scientists say so. I'll leave it at a question mark, meaning, I'll accept it as a mystery, and only time will tell before we'll discover a REAL prehistoric sea-dwelling animal, or not. just like a plesiosaur-like rotting corps was taken aboard on a japanese fishing boat. unfortunately, the unindentified animal was dumped back into the ocean before a full examine could have occured.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

You're completely ignoring the point again, but whatever. Bottom line is: there is claimed to be a creature who lived/lives in Lake Loch Ness that was FAR larger than any creature that is a native of that area, and no evidence beyond scattered reports of "things" in the water have ever been documented to back that claim.

Also, you clearly don't know much about the migratory tendencies of large, aquatic animals. Creatures that large don't just move between inland lakes and the ocean on a day-to-day basis. They remain in one or the other for very large periods of time. One example, the beluga whale that swam up the Delaware river a block and a half away from my house that did nothing but drift around in a half-mile radius for several weeks last year.

And backpeddling to call it a "mystery" only works if you haven't already claimed that it does exist.

"because I think that thing is either gone or dead" ; "but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed."

That's twice that you've worded your posts to indicate that you actively believe a creature or group of creatures were at one point living in Lake Loch Ness. That's not a "mystery". That's a claim on your part that has been debunked rather thoroughly.

If you'd like to *retract* your previous statements, you're welcome to do that. But don't lie about things that you very clearly said a few posts up. That just makes you seem disingenuous and, quite frankly, doesn't give me much desire to take you at all seriously.

[SlayerOfLight]

who even said it's a 40 foot long sea-dinosaur? it could also be something else. it has never been confirmed being a plesiosaur, not even by eye-witnesses, only as prehistoric looking. and like you said, it takes a few months to search. but that thing can enter and leave the loch whenever it pleases, that's why eyewitnesses are rare. you don't just get to look at the loch and HOPE you'll see that lake-dwelling beast.

if you wanna call it BS, be my guest. you may be right, or you may be wrong. but I won't completely mark it as ''bullsh#t'' only because scientists say so. I'll leave it at a question mark, meaning, I'll accept it as a mystery, and only time will tell before we'll discover a REAL prehistoric sea-dwelling animal, or not. just like a plesiosaur-like rotting corps was taken aboard on a japanese fishing boat. unfortunately, the unindentified animal was dumped back into the ocean before a full examine could have occured.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

You're completely ignoring the point again, but whatever. Bottom line is: there is claimed to be a creature who lived/lives in Lake Loch Ness that was FAR larger than any creature that is a native of that area, and no evidence beyond scattered reports of "things" in the water have ever been documented to back that claim.

Also, you clearly don't know much about the migratory tendencies of large, aquatic animals. Creatures that large don't just move between inland lakes and the ocean on a day-to-day basis. They remain in one or the other for very large periods of time. One example, the beluga whale that swam up the Delaware river a block and a half away from my house that did nothing but drift around in a half-mile radius for several weeks last year.

And backpeddling to call it a "mystery" only works if you haven't already claimed that it does exist.

"because I think that thing is either gone or dead" ; "but now I think that ''thing'' living in the loch is either dead, or it left the lake unnoticed."

That's twice that you've worded your posts to indicate that you actively believe a creature or group of creatures were at one point living in Lake Loch Ness. That's not a "mystery". That's a claim on your part that has been debunked rather thoroughly.

If you'd like to *retract* your previous statements, you're welcome to do that. But don't lie about things that you very clearly said a few posts up. That just makes you seem disingenuous and, quite frankly, doesn't give me much desire to take you at all seriously.

dude, at 1987 they searched for 5 days with 20 boats in the lake for the monster, and they found 3 big moving objects at a dept of between 150 and 180 meters, but the search had to be called of due a lack of money. at an expidition in 2000 they also found a big object from about 5 meters long with sonar, but before they could check out what it was, they lost it. these facts conclude there is/was something big in that lake, enough said. they only lack evidence that it is a plesiosaur because it hasn't been FOUND. but there indeed is or was ''something'' big living in that waters, or it IS/WAS at least possible there was something. And that beast is likely to enter and leave the lake if it can't find any food.

''And backpeddling to call it a "mystery" only works if you haven't already claimed that it does exist'.''

well mr obvious, excuse me for using the wrong phrase.

''But don't lie about things that you very clearly said a few posts up. That just makes you seem disingenuous and, quite frankly, doesn't give me much desire to take you at all seriously.''

So now I am a liar all of a sudden? you surely seem to be someone who takes conclusions about others very quickly. And why should I care if you take me serious or not? ''seriously'' dude... I couldn't care less.

[Ozy]

This topic reeks of impending lock

[SlayerOfLight]

This topic reeks of impending lock

well it went fine, untill mr obvious started becomming a little bit verbal abusive.

[MalibuTrashDog]

I believe that dragons at least existed once, but many years ago. I know this isn't worth anything to a lot of you but there is even evidence in the Bible that hints at dragons and dinosaurs. And real life evidence would be some of the dinosaur bones that have been discovered. There are a few dinosaur skulls that have an extra passageway either near the nostrils or the mouth that no one knows what they're there for. I believe that those passage ways are for the flames they used to emit, this making these skulls not dinosaurs, but dragons.

They've also recently discovered a tiny living specimen that is considered a dragon of today. It doesn't breathe fire, but it has "wings" and can at least glide for some distances. It's called Draco Volans.

[FlipMode]

^Thats is so awesome! Brb, must google.