Do you believe in "Magical Creatures"?

[SlayerOfLight]

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.

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.

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.

[SlayerOfLight]

they also caught these big objects on the sonar, which turned out to be some unknown animal.

Turned out to be some unknown object OR an unknown cave containing natural gas, or some other sort of dense gas.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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???

[SlayerOfLight]

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

[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.