Mystery sonar images detected at Loch Ness

It's up to the person making the ridiculous claim to come up with evidence, not the person rejecting the moronic idea. and how much of a moron would the skeptic be if it were proven ?

Wow.........such vitriolic responses aimed at a personal opinion. Seems like the "believers" are a bit insecure............. I'm not a believer nor skeptic... remember giant squid used to be just a myth too..but skeptics are just as insecure.

Wow.........such vitriolic responses aimed at a personal opinion. Seems like the "believers" are a bit insecure............. But i mean... surely you didn't expect any less? You realized when you posted it that people would find it offensive

But i mean... surely you didn't expect any less? You realized when you posted it that people would find it offensive Surly if the case was that you had to prove something didn't exist, a police man could say to you 'you murdered that woman' you reply 'no i didn't' and he replies 'prove otherwise or you're going to jail... doesn't really work does it. Surly its up to someone to prove something exists before another person proves it doesn't, otherwise the news would have to report on every tiny crazy thing that anyone ever believed in?? just my opinion

and how much of a moron would the skeptic be if it were proven ? A big moron for ignoring the evidence. But in the case of Loch Ness there is no evidence. And nothings ever been proven. For about a century now. So it's safe to say that the believers are the morons in this case.

I'm not a believer nor skeptic... remember giant squid used to be just a myth too..but skeptics are just as insecure. Some believers are insecure. Some skeptics are insecure. Some believers are mentally challeneged. Some skeptics suffered brain damage as children. Some believers are geniuses. Some skeptics are prodigies. Yoiu simply cannot define a person by something so trivial.

Ok kids, lets stop calling each other morons, this post is not about believers arguing with skeptics about who is more insecure, it's about a possible loch ness encounter. Now what we do know is there have been unnatural radar readings and some odd pictures, I personally am a believer so, I'm going to say that it is a possibility that there is something down in that water that hasn't been explained yet. It's the unknown we all want to learn about and these reading seem positive enough, of course maybe the boat hit some logs or moved them a bit causing the strange radar readings. I don't person... [More]

If this were true, there would be no need in the world for references, fotenotes, or sources. Both parties are equally responsible to explain what spews forth from their speaking orifice. Whether it be their mouth or their ***. No, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Let us assume that there were never any sightings or reports of Nessie-like creatures. Since there is no conception of Nessie, the first claim made about Nessie would have to be an assertion that it exists. Since this existence assertion comes before the nonexistence reply, the burden of proof has to be on th... [More]

"Och, simbaedy ginna clowze dem mizzle hatchus befur ciffiliuns see thur werhedz?" Translation: "Is somebody going to close the missile hatches before the civilian sonar sees the warheads popping up?"