FromNZbrotha wrote: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.
The 1987 search revealed a 3 "things" in the lake, which were all concluded to be anything from a seal to a group of salmon swimming together. And google has no knowledge of this expedition in 2000, so if you could provide some citation for that, it'd be appreciated.
FromNZbrotha wrote:So now I am a liar all of a sudden? you surely seem to be someone who takes conclusions about others very quickly.
When you say one thing, and then say something else that negates the first statement, it's called a contradiction. In other words: lying. So, yes, that
would in fact make you a liar. It's not exactly a difficult conclusion to come to... >.>
Also, accusing me of jumping to conclusions too quickly whilst simultaneously jumping to conclusions about me is not an effective way to make a point.
FromNZbrotha wrote:but better be carefull what you say. there may be certain persons dwelling arround here who won't take this kindly. especially if we won't accept science as our ''god''.
Cute. However, I'm fairly certain this isn't a thread about religion, so I'd recommend you keep your potshots at atheism, and your preconceived notions about atheists, out of it. Thanks.