Hellbender

I am speaking speculatively. I don't know anything for certain about aliens, nor do I believe we have ever had any contact with a sentient extraterrestrial species. So I can't pass certain judgement on their behavior. I said "for starters" because their differences with humans is a given, they are aliens, right?

Read YT2095's post again. They aren't physically the monsters, but gas and floating logs and other natural phenomena are the explanation for what people seem to be seeing. Also read my post above. Extensive sonar scans and a diver walking on the bottom of the loch for 12 days revealed nothing out of the ordinary in Loch Ness.

well for starters, they are aliens and hence different than us.

thats the only use I could see for it, but that is a very good use. Although I think we should only clone animals that are nearly-extinct becasue of some sort of human intervention.

no, the conclusion is that this is what the monsters are.

I found the link about the Diver. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/world/main577386.shtml Its interesting, i couldn't imagine how lonely it could have been down there. If it were me, I would have brought a game boy.

I liked to make study sheets, writing down the terms and their definitions and the like. It helped me memorize the stuff better. I did good in high school bio becasue I loved the class, but this helped me as well. Also you can go to sites that have trivia(http://www.funtrivia.com) quizzes and take short bio quizzes, or check out the general bio forum on this site. Hope this helps! Good luck Hellbender

i was once a lukewarm believer in the loch ness monster, but not as a plesiosaur. Recent sonar tests (I will try hard to find where I read about it) that scoured the entire lake found nothing out of the ordinary, but they did gather a lot of information of the loch's bottom. A little bit around the same time, a diver walked the entire bottom of the loch wearing an old navy-style diving suit, as part of a cancer fundraiser. He saw nothing out of the ordinary either. Although many people will still be unsure, thats enough evidence for me to snap my notebook shut on nessie. I don't think monsters like nessie and other water monsters (google "ogopogo", "champ", "chessie") are impossible, but a carcass would be nice.

LOL me too. Welcome to the site, by the way.

lol, ophiolite.

Thats pretty cool. Is it a really good band or something? Ps Where in NY are you from?

For everyone out there who thinks there is a global conspiracy: we are joking.

oh its alright. N/M

There was an article on AOL news today (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050226073809990007) about how embarassed the creator and star of a short flash video called "Numa Numa", which features a 19 year old kid singing and dancing (like a lunatic) to a Romanian Pop song. The article definitely gives it a pitying, "is not fair" slant to this account. It fails to really define, however, that he willfully put this ridiculous and embrarassing video online himself. Although I feel bad for him, I am kind of inclined to think he has no right to be upset. What do you think? Here's a quote: Um yeah, the internet is widely accessable. Any one who makes a silly video and posts it online does so with the full knowledge of this fact. I dare say they bring the embarassment on themselves. What do they expect to happen? I'm interested in everyone's opinion, not necessarily about this video, but on if it the the worldwide web's fault or the maker of any silly, potentially embarassing movie.

I never said I didn't buy it, just that it was kinda strange, but quite interesting.

but I like essays...

exactly. All have failed such testing, or would fail, that is problem #1 in trying to test psychic mechanisms.

yeah really, I'm in! Lets suppress all the "truth" creation science has been finding so we can RULE THE WORLD!

Wow I thought it meant out in the wild, not in captivity. Its still quite interesting though, but I am not surprised.

I liked Bill Nye in my younger years. Never saw Mr. Wizard though. The Discovery Channel was also good here in the U.S. before it was all about "OC Choppers" and interior design shows (this fact really chafes me). Nowadays I just watch the Science Channel and National Geographic, not much selling out there.

I don't really remember. I do remember reading lots of books about animals, and especially dinosaurs since I could read. I would start studying a particular clade of animals and when I learned all I could I would move on to another clade. I read lots of field guides and national geographics, whatever I could get my hads on. After high school I became more and more interested in not just animals, but biology and evolution, especially. In college I have taken classes in psychology and biological anthropology, both of which are informative, interesting topics. I guess just having the resources around, a respect of the scientific method and the desire to make sense of the world is probably what led my interest from day 1.

true, but again, you can't blame fossils for not forming. One must admit that our account of hominid evolution is good, real good compared to our account of lots of other animals.

To keep this thread going, I will post some links, all from the JREF commentary archive: http://www.randi.org/jr/092404from.html Account of telekinesis, first two articles http://www.randi.org/jr/082903.html Uri Geller's family vacation, about a quarter down the page http://www.randi.org/jr/111403.html Pet Psychic(!) Goofs, second to last article on page Enjoy!