Do you believe in "Magical Creatures"?

[SlayerOfLight]

@BlitzRogue

''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.''

during operation deepscan (1987) even the sonar expert Darrell Lowrance admitted there was something living in the lake we don't understand. and they weren't concluded to be seals, but COULD'VE been seals. they weren't proven to be seals at all. David Steensland of Laurence said that one of the targets might be a very large known fish, but took it very unlikely at that kind of depth. the two other targets were strange and larger then sharks from the coast of Florida. even the project leader Adrian Shine said it was very UNLIKE salmon and known loch inhabitants. and they lost the 3 targets, so we can never be sure what they really were. and the expidition in 2000 I read this in the dutch wikipedia encyclopedia. twelf scientists with boats and sonar equipment were on the search for the beast, and caught a bit object on the sonar, but they quickly lost it.

''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... >.> ''

or maybe it's called a misunderstanding. what I really ment is that I definately believe in sea monsters and big unknown animals, and that I am not sure about the loch ness monster and accept it as a myth. how is this ''lying'' to you? seriously, why would I even need any reason to lie about something that small? It looks like you're just trying to be slightly verbal abusive.

''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.''

lol no, because you already made that point yourself by accusing me ignorantly as a liar, for something you didn't catch. but no matter, even if you'd keep calling me a liar I'd be able to forgive you seventy times seven if I had to.

''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.''

once again you didn't read my statement very properly. I didn't attack atheism, I just said there are CERTAIN people here who aren't very kind to those who don't believe everything from science like they do. do you feel offended by that? wow... besides, I wasn't even talking to you right there.

[BlitzRogue]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]once again you didn't read my statement very properly. I didn't attack atheism, I just said there are CERTAIN people here who aren't very kind to those who don't believe everything from science like they do. do you feel offended by that? wow... besides, I wasn't even talking to you right there.[/quote]
Oh no, I wasn't attacking atheism, I was just pointing out that atheists are only out to force their newfangled "science" down our throats, that's all. D:

Gimme a break, dude. XD But whatever, I'm done talking about this. You can believe whatever the heck you wanna believe.

[Woeler]

[quote="BlitzRogue"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]once again you didn't read my statement very properly. I didn't attack atheism, I just said there are CERTAIN people here who aren't very kind to those who don't believe everything from science like they do. do you feel offended by that? wow... besides, I wasn't even talking to you right there.[/quote]
Oh no, I wasn't attacking atheism, I was just pointing out that atheists are only out to force their newfangled "science" down our throats, that's all. D:

Gimme a break, dude. XD But whatever, I'm done talking about this. You can believe whatever the heck you wanna believe.[/quote]
I know your pain

[WildSimba]

If this is going to turn into a religious debate, then I will lock this. Please keep on topic. Thank you.

[LionsAreKings]

I'm sorry.. this had to be done.

[Ozy]

[quote="LionsAreKings"]I'm sorry.. this had to be done.
[/quote]

This explains EVERYTHING. Don't question Bean.

[Woeler]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]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.

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???


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.

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.

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

[/quote]

Indicates the following: Own opinions, speculations, rejection of facts.

Also you posts are full of: Maybe, but, could have been.

Also if scientists said that bananas couldn't fly, would you say: It's not a fact because scientists say so?

You name ''a big object'', could have been a big bowl of tomatoes lying under water, still as much a speculation as the monster.

Just picking up where Blitz left off.

Also, come with new arguments please. You're brining up expeditions like 10 times and they all HAVE FAILED. you can't use them again against our new arguments. you're just repeating yourself and Blitz had to keep explaining the same thing over and over again, that's why he got tired. so please don't call him ignorant because he knows what he is talking about.

[SlayerOfLight]

1 because I don't conclude there really is something there. the argument for me is not to PROVE the loch ness monster really excist, but only the CHANCE of it's excistance based on all eye witnesses and a few photograpics that are hard to tell it's a fake, and all the huge objects that have been caught on the sonar.

2 I would agree with scientists if they say banana's can't fly, because even a 1 years old could tell that.

3 a bowl of tomatoes would be would be no more bigger then like 6 inches, so I wouldn't really call it a ''big'' object from like 20 to 40 feet. I doubt a bowl of tomatoes would reach that size anyway.

4 the expiditions failed to FIND the thing in the lake, but they don't fail to prove the possibility of something big living in the water, and that's why blitz probally left. he doesn't even seem to wanna accept the possibility of something living in the loch. he also started getting more verbal abusive, and went off-topic by claiming that I lied.

and I guess we better stop arguing before the discussion goes wrong again just like last time. and I'm not in the mood for a internet brawl

[Woeler]

[quote="FromNZbrotha"]1 because I don't conclude there really is something there. the argument for me is not to PROVE the loch ness monster really excist, but only the CHANCE of it's excistance based on all eye witnesses and a few photograpics that are hard to tell it's a fake, and all the huge objects that have been caught on the sonar.

2 I would agree with scientists if they say banana's can't fly, because even a 1 years old could tell that.

3 a bowl of tomatoes would be would be no more bigger then like 6 inches, so I wouldn't really call it a ''big'' object from like 20 to 40 feet. I doubt a bowl of tomatoes would reach that size anyway.

4 the expiditions failed to FIND the thing in the lake, but they don't fail to prove the possibility of something big living in the water, and that's why blitz probally left. he doesn't even seem to wanna accept the possibility of something living in the loch. he also started getting more verbal abusive, and went off-topic by claiming that I lied.

and I guess we better stop arguing before the discussion goes wrong again just like last time. and I'm not in the mood for a internet brawl[/quote]

Alright then.

Just to explain. With the bowl of tomatoes I was not being literal.
''I think there is a monster in Loch Ness'' and ''I think there is a giant bowl of tomatoes in Loch Ness'' has the same probability of being true. Monster have been proven over all the time that we have recorded history to not exist, and so have giant living bows of tomatoes, thus giving them the same probability of existence. It's sounds stupid but it really is not.

Then , I was replying on your comment ''just because scientists say it is fake doesn't make it fake''
If a scientist states the following two things:
''the loch ness monster is fake'' and ''bananas CAN fly''
You would disagree with both. However, we may have never seen flying bananas. Maybe they exist? We just haven't seen them.

take this sentence: ''the Loch-Ness-Monster lives in Loch ness''
Replace ''the Loch-Ness-Monster'' with any object you want and it will still have the same probability of existing. Thus making it's probability if existing as low as the probability of a giant swimming banana living in Loch Ness.

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Woeler1"][quote="FromNZbrotha"]1 because I don't conclude there really is something there. the argument for me is not to PROVE the loch ness monster really excist, but only the CHANCE of it's excistance based on all eye witnesses and a few photograpics that are hard to tell it's a fake, and all the huge objects that have been caught on the sonar.

2 I would agree with scientists if they say banana's can't fly, because even a 1 years old could tell that.

3 a bowl of tomatoes would be would be no more bigger then like 6 inches, so I wouldn't really call it a ''big'' object from like 20 to 40 feet. I doubt a bowl of tomatoes would reach that size anyway.

4 the expiditions failed to FIND the thing in the lake, but they don't fail to prove the possibility of something big living in the water, and that's why blitz probally left. he doesn't even seem to wanna accept the possibility of something living in the loch. he also started getting more verbal abusive, and went off-topic by claiming that I lied.

and I guess we better stop arguing before the discussion goes wrong again just like last time. and I'm not in the mood for a internet brawl[/quote]

Alright then.

Just to explain. With the bowl of tomatoes I was not being literal.
''I think there is a monster in Loch Ness'' and ''I think there is a giant bowl of tomatoes in Loch Ness'' has the same probability of being true. Monster have been proven over all the time that we have recorded history to not exist, and so have giant living bows of tomatoes, thus giving them the same probability of existence. It's sounds stupid but it really is not.

Then , I was replying on your comment ''just because scientists say it is fake doesn't make it fake''
If a scientist states the following two things:
''the loch ness monster is fake'' and ''bananas CAN fly''
You would disagree with both. However, we may have never seen flying bananas. Maybe they exist? We just haven't seen them.

take this sentence: ''the Loch-Ness-Monster lives in Loch ness''
Replace ''the Loch-Ness-Monster'' with any object you want and it will still have the same probability of existing. Thus making it's probability if existing as low as the probability of a giant swimming banana living in Loch Ness.[/quote]

great, now we are starting to argue about fruit and giant banans instead of the loch ness monster. but know what, I'll just give up and let you win because this argument makes zero sense for both of us.

and just so you know, I already received a warning for supposedly ''involving'' relegion in this topic which I didn't. so I have no Idea if a few mods are liars, or just simply hate me. But I dont wanna give them another reason to give me a second stupid warning. so, I hope you dont mind if I quit.