Five eyewitnesses say they have seen the Loch Ness Monster.

1337m4n · 1st August 2007, 11:42 AM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lochness/eyewitness.html

Now you may be thinking, "But eyewitnesses are unreliable". That may be true in many cases, but there are six reasons which make THESE eyewitness reports especially trustworthy:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 5 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

2) The simple exists/doesn't exist nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall whether or not they saw a monster)

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake)

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(I have no idea what this means or what this has to do with anything, but having six reasons sounds so much more convincing than having five.)

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand)

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

(How the heck can you forget the [rule8]ing Loch Ness Monster?)

Despite the fact that repeated scientific and sonar studies searching for the fabled Loch Ness Monster using modern technology have all turned up nothing, that it would be extremely unlikely for an huge beast to live in the lake for as long as it as it has, that if such a huge beast is real, there should be more than five witnesses who have seen it, the eyewitnesses all contradict each other in various ways, and the fact that there is zero non-anecdotal evidence for the creature's existence, I'm sticking with my theory that the Loch Ness Monster is real, because five people said that a long time ago, they saw something that might have been a monster. If you disagree, you are either lying or ignoring the evidence.

JimBenArm · 1st August 2007, 11:54 AM

Tell me, was it swimming to the North of the Citgo?

slyjoe · 1st August 2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

...snip

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand)

...snip

Sure it does. Dead giveaway.

uk_dave · 1st August 2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake)

But did they see Nessie waterskiing, or was this obscured by the trees?

I know there are reports that people have been seen waterskiing on Loch Ness, and it's probable that some of those reports are of Nessie on skis, but the police sequestered the 999 call tapes (for some reason) and the waterskiing Nessie has been discounted by the mainstream media, who obviously want to downplay both the eyewitnesses to the path the monster swam as well as the waterskiing, since this is considered to be a non-story.

We just need to find out who drove the boat and what their connection to the government is.

This could take all night.

And possibly part of tomorrow morning.

Comsat Angel · 1st August 2007, 12:11 PM

Surely it's not the Loch Ness Monster, singular?
To survive and manifest all these sightings going back across the centuries, there has to be a whole family of the creatures, right?
Either that, or it's an alien cyborg of devastating proportions*.

*apologies to Dr Who.

mortimer · 1st August 2007, 12:13 PM

Filmed by PBS, the same <eerie sounds>government</eerie sounds> funded institution that went into all their affiliates' offices and private homes around the world to destroy the documentary they filmed that proved that C4-coated rebar was used to reinforce the twin towers' concrete core? They are obviously shills for Nessie.

Drudgewire · 1st August 2007, 12:19 PM

Do they include the guys who almost had their truck eaten by Nessie? Or would they have to pay Dodge for the rights for that footage?

1337m4n · 1st August 2007, 12:56 PM

And now, to definitively prove my theory, I will post images of the five eyewitnesses pointing off in some direction. If pictures of people pointing isn't hard proof, I don't know what is:

Look, they are pointing! That means they CAN'T be wrong!

Tirdun · 1st August 2007, 01:00 PM

Nessie ate my baby.

strathmeyer · 1st August 2007, 01:06 PM

Only five? I could round up ten or twenty myself.

Dr Adequate · 1st August 2007, 01:33 PM

One guy claims to have taken pictures. I'd like to see them.

Quote:

1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.

(we will present 5 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.)

But they don't corroborate one another, because they weren't looking at the same events. Each one, separately, claims to have seen something in the Loch. The descriptions don't particularly match up. Its color is variously given as "black", "grey-brown", "browns and greens" ...

Quote:

2) The simple exists/doesn't exist nature of their claim.

(They only have to recall whether or not they saw a monster)

... or whether they saw something else, which is, y'know, the point of contention.

Quote:

3) The perfect vantage point.

(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake)

You have to be looking at the lake in order to have any vantage point. The perfect vantage point is ten feet away from the monster with a good camera.

Quote:

4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.

(I have no idea what this means or what this has to do with anything, but having six reasons sounds so much more convincing than having five.)

That was engagingly frank.

Quote:

5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.

(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand)

Well, this proves that they really gave the testimony, granted.

Quote:

6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.

(How the heck can you forget the [rule8]ing Loch Ness Monster?)

It does not follow that they'd accurately remember the details of what they saw. You may be aware that a lot of research on the reliability of eyewitnesses has been done by staging a crime right in front of them. This is dramatic enough, and seen at much, much closer range than these "monster sightings", but people still get the details confused.

---

BTW, shouldn't this be in GS&TP?

Slayhamlet · 1st August 2007, 01:36 PM

Pssst. It's a parody.

Viper Daimao · 1st August 2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Tirdun

Nessie ate my baby.

Nessie ate my dingos!

uk_dave · 1st August 2007, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Slayhamlet

Pssst. It's a parody.

It is? Where's the youtube vid?

Oh and who made the waterskis?

Architect · 1st August 2007, 01:55 PM

So there's me, taking a swim in Loch Ness earlier today, and these daft tourists all start takin' ma photae an' everyhin!?! Whits a' tha' aboot then? It's no like ahm John Smeaton or onyhin!

[Only I'm allowed to make this joke by dint of nationality. And maybe Gravy, given then he plays for Partick Thistle....]

uk_dave · 1st August 2007, 02:10 PM

Of course, we should ask 'who benefits from this conspiracy?'

The obvious answer would be the scottish tourist and haggis board.

But that's just misdirection.

After literally minutes of research I have discovered two vital pieces of pieces of information.

Firstly, but not necessarily primarily, there is this:

The Program for an Inebriated Scottish Society...or PIS.... well, you can work it out.

In 2004 they published their manifesto online for all to see, in which they stated "Scotland can not expect any attention from the world unless something amazing happens like, oh say....... like a wee beastie being discovered within one of our many pleasant and family friendly lochs"

Suspicious, huh?

Then there was this, from 1378... (October, I believe)...

"och aye, nae wee scrubblers git yer jammies oop ya wee scroogles ya mangy nae prae mae och aey dunna cae ya hae?"

Which has recently been translated by someone called 'Watson' as:

"We propose to overthrow the english before pub opening time by staging a sighting of a monster within one of our pleasant, family friendly lakes"

Suspicious eh?

Wake ooop sheeple!!!

Architect · 1st August 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

"och aye, nae wee scrubblers git yer jammies oop ya wee scroogles ya mangy nae prae mae och aey dunna cae ya hae?"

"Oh yes, no little scribblers get your pyjamas up you little scroggles you mangey no pray wheyhey don't call you have?"

Undesired Walrus · 1st August 2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

One guy claims to have taken pictures. I'd like to see them.

But they don't corroborate one another, because they weren't looking at the same events. Each one, separately, claims to have seen something in the Loch. The descriptions don't particularly match up. Its color is variously given as "black", "grey-brown", "browns and greens" ...

... or whether they saw something else, which is, y'know, the point of contention.

You have to be looking at the lake in order to have any vantage point. The perfect vantage point is ten feet away from the monster with a good camera.

That was engagingly frank.

Well, this proves that they really gave the testimony, granted.

It does not follow that they'd accurately remember the details of what they saw. You may be aware that a lot of research on the reliability of eyewitnesses has been done by staging a crime right in front of them. This is dramatic enough, and seen at much, much closer range than these "monster sightings", but people still get the details confused.

---

BTW, shouldn't this be in GS&TP?

Ummmmm.. shall you tell him or I?

JimBenArm · 1st August 2007, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Ummmmm.. shall you tell him or I?

Nah. Let him figure it out himself.

Rolfe · 2nd August 2007, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

So there's me, taking a swim in Loch Ness earlier today, and these daft tourists all start takin' ma photae an' everyhin!?! Whits a' tha' aboot then? It's no like ahm John Smeaton or onyhin!

[Only I'm allowed to make this joke by dint of nationality. And maybe Gravy, given then he plays for Partick Thistle....]

Oi!! You're not the only one you know. And next time there's a get-together, turn up, why don't you? Excuses such as being totally crippled, bedbound and unable to walk are clear obfuscation.

You can start with Chillzero's birthday party a week on Saturday. Come on, you can't love Kilmarnock so much you never want to leave! I know. I've been there.

Rolfe.

16.5 · 2nd August 2007, 03:08 PM

Without photographic proof that "debunkers" could not have possibly seen the Lake (unless they slightly turn their heads which has been proven to be impossible) I have to say: Unproven.

Dr Adequate · 2nd August 2007, 09:35 PM

Oh?

Right, very well.

But ... stop me if I'm wrong ... shouldn't a parody be more funny than the thing it's sending up?

The "Nessie" people seem much much saner than the 9/11 CTs.

---

Is it, perhaps, a parody of some specific thread?

I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was.

JamesB · 2nd August 2007, 10:18 PM

Well that is more people than saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon, or who saw the WTC wired for demolition.

Free Nessie!

Brainache · 2nd August 2007, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Oh?

Right, very well.

But ... stop me if I'm wrong ... shouldn't a parody be more funny than the thing it's sending up?

The "Nessie" people seem much much saner than the 9/11 CTs.

---

Is it, perhaps, a parody of some specific thread?

I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was.

Not sure about the ostrich eggs, but the Nessie witnesses thing is a parody of Lyte Trip's "Pentacon" nonsense.

Pardalis · 2nd August 2007, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

Nessie ate my dingos!

This thread has now officially become R rated.

Redtail · 2nd August 2007, 11:08 PM

Does it count if i've seen "Champ"?

slingblade · 2nd August 2007, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was.

It was someone in the R&P, with limited English skills (which is fine), and a head full of woo (which is somewhat less than desirable).

Something about the Koran saying the world was an ostrich egg, and this was a miracle. Hokulele is still searching for her nest.

And my dingo ate Nessie!

Viper Daimao · 3rd August 2007, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...ffa8c15f95.gif

This thread has now officially become R rated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingos_ate_my_baby

Hyperviolet · 3rd August 2007, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by JimBenArm

Tell me, was it swimming to the North of the Citgo?

Nessie was, without doubt, to the North of the Citgo. Though, i have to correct you Jim. She was not "swimming." Oh no, for that was a sleight of hand. She gracefully hovered over the water.

As of yet, no one understands what purpose this illusion serves. However, we can deduce, at the very least, that ol' nessie is a crafty bugger.

Architect · 3rd August 2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Oi!! You're not the only one you know. And next time there's a get-together, turn up, why don't you? Excuses such as being totally crippled, bedbound and unable to walk are clear obfuscation.

You can start with Chillzero's birthday party a week on Saturday. Come on, you can't love Kilmarnock so much you never want to leave! I know. I've been there.

Rolfe.

One might suggest that being crippled, bedbound, and unable to walk are more qualifications to play for said burgh's football team!

fromdownunder · 3rd August 2007, 04:45 PM

There is no Loch Ness. It's part of the plot. You just don't get it!

Norm

1st August 2007, 11:42 AM	#1
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	Five eyewitnesses say they have seen the Loch Ness Monster. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lochness/eyewitness.html Now you may be thinking, "But eyewitnesses are unreliable". That may be true in many cases, but there are six reasons which make THESE eyewitness reports especially trustworthy: 1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts. (we will present 5 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.) 2) The simple exists/doesn't exist nature of their claim. (They only have to recall whether or not they saw a monster) 3) The perfect vantage point. (No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake) 4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves. (I have no idea what this means or what this has to do with anything, but having six reasons sounds so much more convincing than having five.) 5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location. (This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand) 6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget. (How the heck can you forget the [rule8]ing Loch Ness Monster?) Despite the fact that repeated scientific and sonar studies searching for the fabled Loch Ness Monster using modern technology have all turned up nothing, that it would be extremely unlikely for an huge beast to live in the lake for as long as it as it has, that if such a huge beast is real, there should be more than five witnesses who have seen it, the eyewitnesses all contradict each other in various ways, and the fact that there is zero non-anecdotal evidence for the creature's existence, I'm sticking with my theory that the Loch Ness Monster is real, because five people said that a long time ago, they saw something that might have been a monster. If you disagree, you are either lying or ignoring the evidence.

1st August 2007, 11:54 AM	#2
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Tell me, was it swimming to the North of the Citgo?
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

1st August 2007, 11:58 AM	#3
slyjoe Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins Posts: 972	Originally Posted by 1337m4n ...snip 5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location. (This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand) ...snip Sure it does. Dead giveaway.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

1st August 2007, 12:08 PM	#4
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by 1337m4n 3) The perfect vantage point. (No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake) But did they see Nessie waterskiing, or was this obscured by the trees? I know there are reports that people have been seen waterskiing on Loch Ness, and it's probable that some of those reports are of Nessie on skis, but the police sequestered the 999 call tapes (for some reason) and the waterskiing Nessie has been discounted by the mainstream media, who obviously want to downplay both the eyewitnesses to the path the monster swam as well as the waterskiing, since this is considered to be a non-story. We just need to find out who drove the boat and what their connection to the government is. This could take all night. And possibly part of tomorrow morning.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

1st August 2007, 12:11 PM	#5
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893	Surely it's not the Loch Ness Monster, singular? To survive and manifest all these sightings going back across the centuries, there has to be a whole family of the creatures, right? Either that, or it's an alien cyborg of devastating proportions. apologies to Dr Who.
Comsat Angel Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 893

1st August 2007, 12:13 PM	#6
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,474	Filmed by PBS, the same <eerie sounds>government</eerie sounds> funded institution that went into all their affiliates' offices and private homes around the world to destroy the documentary they filmed that proved that C4-coated rebar was used to reinforce the twin towers' concrete core? They are obviously shills for Nessie.
	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

1st August 2007, 12:19 PM	#7
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Do they include the guys who almost had their truck eaten by Nessie? Or would they have to pay Dodge for the rights for that footage?

1st August 2007, 12:56 PM	#8
1337m4n Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 3,499	And now, to definitively prove my theory, I will post images of the five eyewitnesses pointing off in some direction. If pictures of people pointing isn't hard proof, I don't know what is: Look, they are pointing! That means they CAN'T be wrong!

1st August 2007, 01:00 PM	#9
Tirdun Muse Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Near DC, in an underground NWO bunker Posts: 637	Nessie ate my baby.
	__________________ The rain has a such a lovely sound to those who're six feet underground The leaves will bury every year and no one knows I'm gone -Tom Waits May You Never Thirst, Slàinte!

1st August 2007, 01:06 PM	#10
strathmeyer seriously unable to be serious Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Posts: 2,382	Only five? I could round up ten or twenty myself.

1st August 2007, 01:33 PM	#11
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	One guy claims to have taken pictures. I'd like to see them. Quote: 1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts. (we will present 5 separate accounts all corroborating each other while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire investigative body of evidence.) But they don't corroborate one another, because they weren't looking at the same events. Each one, separately, claims to have seen something in the Loch. The descriptions don't particularly match up. Its color is variously given as "black", "grey-brown", "browns and greens" ... Quote: 2) The simple exists/doesn't exist nature of their claim. (They only have to recall whether or not they saw a monster) ... or whether they saw something else, which is, y'know, the point of contention. Quote: 3) The perfect vantage point. (No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on whether or not there is a monster in the lake, than those looking directly at the lake) You have to be looking at the lake in order to have any vantage point. The perfect vantage point is ten feet away from the monster with a good camera. Quote: 4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves. (I have no idea what this means or what this has to do with anything, but having six reasons sounds so much more convincing than having five.) That was engagingly frank. Quote: 5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location. (This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims, unless we were to lead them or bias them beforehand) Well, this proves that they really gave the testimony, granted. Quote: 6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget. (How the heck can you forget the [rule8]ing Loch Ness Monster?) It does not follow that they'd accurately remember the details of what they saw. You may be aware that a lot of research on the reliability of eyewitnesses has been done by staging a crime right in front of them. This is dramatic enough, and seen at much, much closer range than these "monster sightings", but people still get the details confused. --- BTW, shouldn't this be in GS&TP?

1st August 2007, 01:36 PM	#12
Slayhamlet Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 2,427	Pssst. It's a parody.

1st August 2007, 01:53 PM	#13
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 498	Originally Posted by Tirdun Nessie ate my baby. Nessie ate my dingos!

1st August 2007, 01:54 PM	#14
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Slayhamlet Pssst. It's a parody. It is? Where's the youtube vid? Oh and who made the waterskis?
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

1st August 2007, 01:55 PM	#15
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	So there's me, taking a swim in Loch Ness earlier today, and these daft tourists all start takin' ma photae an' everyhin!?! Whits a' tha' aboot then? It's no like ahm John Smeaton or onyhin! [Only I'm allowed to make this joke by dint of nationality. And maybe Gravy, given then he plays for Partick Thistle....]
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

1st August 2007, 02:10 PM	#16
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Of course, we should ask 'who benefits from this conspiracy?' The obvious answer would be the scottish tourist and haggis board. But that's just misdirection. After literally minutes of research I have discovered two vital pieces of pieces of information. Firstly, but not necessarily primarily, there is this: The Program for an Inebriated Scottish Society...or PIS.... well, you can work it out. In 2004 they published their manifesto online for all to see, in which they stated "Scotland can not expect any attention from the world unless something amazing happens like, oh say....... like a wee beastie being discovered within one of our many pleasant and family friendly lochs" Suspicious, huh? Then there was this, from 1378... (October, I believe)... "och aye, nae wee scrubblers git yer jammies oop ya wee scroogles ya mangy nae prae mae och aey dunna cae ya hae?" Which has recently been translated by someone called 'Watson' as: "We propose to overthrow the english before pub opening time by staging a sighting of a monster within one of our pleasant, family friendly lakes" Suspicious eh? Wake ooop sheeple!!!
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

1st August 2007, 02:28 PM	#17
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Originally Posted by uk_dave "och aye, nae wee scrubblers git yer jammies oop ya wee scroogles ya mangy nae prae mae och aey dunna cae ya hae?" "Oh yes, no little scribblers get your pyjamas up you little scroggles you mangey no pray wheyhey don't call you have?"
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

1st August 2007, 02:37 PM	#18
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,882	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate One guy claims to have taken pictures. I'd like to see them. But they don't corroborate one another, because they weren't looking at the same events. Each one, separately, claims to have seen something in the Loch. The descriptions don't particularly match up. Its color is variously given as "black", "grey-brown", "browns and greens" ... ... or whether they saw something else, which is, y'know, the point of contention. You have to be looking at the lake in order to have any vantage point. The perfect vantage point is ten feet away from the monster with a good camera. That was engagingly frank. Well, this proves that they really gave the testimony, granted. It does not follow that they'd accurately remember the details of what they saw. You may be aware that a lot of research on the reliability of eyewitnesses has been done by staging a crime right in front of them. This is dramatic enough, and seen at much, much closer range than these "monster sightings", but people still get the details confused. --- BTW, shouldn't this be in GS&TP? Ummmmm.. shall you tell him or I?

1st August 2007, 04:37 PM	#19
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 12,967	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Ummmmm.. shall you tell him or I? Nah. Let him figure it out himself.
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

2nd August 2007, 02:20 AM	#20
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,311	Originally Posted by Architect So there's me, taking a swim in Loch Ness earlier today, and these daft tourists all start takin' ma photae an' everyhin!?! Whits a' tha' aboot then? It's no like ahm John Smeaton or onyhin! [Only I'm allowed to make this joke by dint of nationality. And maybe Gravy, given then he plays for Partick Thistle....] Oi!! You're not the only one you know. And next time there's a get-together, turn up, why don't you? Excuses such as being totally crippled, bedbound and unable to walk are clear obfuscation. You can start with Chillzero's birthday party a week on Saturday. Come on, you can't love Kilmarnock so much you never want to leave! I know. I've been there. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

2nd August 2007, 03:08 PM	#21
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,612	Without photographic proof that "debunkers" could not have possibly seen the Lake (unless they slightly turn their heads which has been proven to be impossible) I have to say: Unproven.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,612

2nd August 2007, 09:35 PM	#22
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Oh? Right, very well. But ... stop me if I'm wrong ... shouldn't a parody be more funny than the thing it's sending up? The "Nessie" people seem much much saner than the 9/11 CTs. --- Is it, perhaps, a parody of some specific thread? I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was.

2nd August 2007, 10:18 PM	#23
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Well that is more people than saw AA77 fly over the Pentagon, or who saw the WTC wired for demolition. Free Nessie!
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

2nd August 2007, 10:22 PM	#24
Brainache Nasty Brutish and Tall Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Knob Hill. Posts: 9,079	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Oh? Right, very well. But ... stop me if I'm wrong ... shouldn't a parody be more funny than the thing it's sending up? The "Nessie" people seem much much saner than the 9/11 CTs. --- Is it, perhaps, a parody of some specific thread? I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was. Not sure about the ostrich eggs, but the Nessie witnesses thing is a parody of Lyte Trip's "Pentacon" nonsense.
	__________________ Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

2nd August 2007, 10:43 PM	#25
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Viper Daimao Nessie ate my dingos! This thread has now officially become R rated.

2nd August 2007, 11:08 PM	#26
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,302	Does it count if i've seen "Champ"?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,302	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

2nd August 2007, 11:35 PM	#27
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I'm afraid I'm still a couple of Twoofers short of a joke. Also, if people are going to explain humor to me, what was the thing about bad grammar and ostrich eggs, I never found out what the joke was. It was someone in the R&P, with limited English skills (which is fine), and a head full of woo (which is somewhat less than desirable). Something about the Koran saying the world was an ostrich egg, and this was a miracle. Hokulele is still searching for her nest. And my dingo ate Nessie!
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

3rd August 2007, 06:13 AM	#28
Viper Daimao Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 498	Originally Posted by Pardalis http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...ffa8c15f95.gif This thread has now officially become R rated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingos_ate_my_baby

3rd August 2007, 06:43 AM	#29
Hyperviolet Damnum Fatale Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Glaschu Posts: 988	Originally Posted by JimBenArm Tell me, was it swimming to the North of the Citgo? Nessie was, without doubt, to the North of the Citgo. Though, i have to correct you Jim. She was not "swimming." Oh no, for that was a sleight of hand. She gracefully hovered over the water. As of yet, no one understands what purpose this illusion serves. However, we can deduce, at the very least, that ol' nessie is a crafty bugger.
	__________________ The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher.

3rd August 2007, 03:23 PM	#30
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 8,477	Originally Posted by Rolfe Oi!! You're not the only one you know. And next time there's a get-together, turn up, why don't you? Excuses such as being totally crippled, bedbound and unable to walk are clear obfuscation. You can start with Chillzero's birthday party a week on Saturday. Come on, you can't love Kilmarnock so much you never want to leave! I know. I've been there. Rolfe. One might suggest that being crippled, bedbound, and unable to walk are more qualifications to play for said burgh's football team!
	__________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

3rd August 2007, 04:45 PM	#31
fromdownunder Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,090	There is no Loch Ness. It's part of the plot. You just don't get it! Norm