AzurePhoenix

I'd have to disagree with this point of view on the grounds that you are indeed seeing the individual photons of light as they enter your eyes, but, like the pixels on your monitor, they come together to build the picture of the object. Again going to the laser pointer exmaple, say there was nothing impeding the beam, such as a vacuum (under the hypothetical assumption that your eyes functioned in one) the raw energy of the beam would still be visible as long as the light was pointed at, and thereby reaching your eyes.

all that damn acid

But indeed, eyesight consists of our sensory cells reacting directly to light photons. You are seeing the light alone, as it is by the time it reaches the world. The thing is, it lfows over anything and encompasses it so totally tat you're unlikely to see the raw beams or rays or whatever it is you seem to be expecting. Take a laser for example. Normally you don't se the beam, because it is focused in a direct, tight beam that never lets the light reach your eyes, but when you take it into a misty or dusty area, you can suddenly see the beam because the light is reflecting off of the matter in the air allowing it to reach your eyes. The matter is nothing more than the "canals" direct the "flow of water" so to speak. When other light reaches us carrying a picture, we see the light but the light is arranged in so that it happens to carry the image of the object. Perhaps if you explained what you happen to mean by "seeing light." As for the sound, sound is the transfe of energy from molecule to molecule. It just ahppens that our ears are "designed" that when this wave of what I'll call vibration reaches them, it registers it as what we call sound. In essence I guess, I really don't see what you're saying.

What with their openness and relatively easy access over the centuries, the curretn state could easily be explained with the evidence on hand. Even in hidden tombs, desecration and thieves have robbed us of virtual libraries of knowledge and mummies. And indeed, a sacrophagus was found in the kings chamber. Why wasn't it taken as well? Well, here we reach the matter of size; of course, you could raise the question that it seemed too short to hold a medium sized man in the typical burial position. Perhaps "Khufu" was simply short? Perhaps it was a rare oversight? Indeed, perhaps the pyramid was never put into use in the first place, it's original intention dismissed for some unknown reason. Could something more have taken place? Certainly, and I would be willing to accept or at least consider any theory put forward that might be based on any supporting evidence. So far, nothing comes out of the woodwork other than a lack of evidence, which all can find reasonable, likely explanations in the way I've described. The Sphinx is certainly an exception to why, who and when, and it's well known that it's age far exceeds the pyramids, and that it went through many changes. We'll never known what it's original makers were thinking, and I consider it one of the most truly mysterious of enigmas. But again, no evidence of anythin world-shattering in its history either.

And their tentacles can be much longer, some as much as a hundred plus feet, but most lions manes are smaller in size, they just have the potential of getting larger. Are they as massive though?

heh, I'm one of those mega-pessimists. I look at a strawberry or peanut and say "see that there? It might not hurt you or me, but somewhere, deep down, it has the heart of a potential killer"

I wonder what kinda atmosphere could something that size likely have?

Rich, you know full well that that can't be a dragon. It's clearly a wyvern.

Actually, we're fairly certain of the pyramids purpose, as a tomb for the kings, as well as a way to provide work for farmers during there off months in a sort of economical opportunity. What we don't know is largely a matter of it being far too old and lacking in certain records, though we are perfectly able to come up with perfectly likely ideas. If life exists on mars, it's likely buried in deep protected areas that we're unlikely to ever find. Even if life ever existed on Mars, evidence of it will be very hard to find. Second, even for an optimist like me, it's very hard for me to believe that if anything lived on Mars at one point, it could have reached such a high technological point without any evidence being left behind, especially with the notable LACK of technological debris in its orbit, which I would expect from somebody so advanced. ---edit--- especially stuff that still works Because they're too old to be sure without records. No different from building the idea of what happened from a crime scene using bits of evidence. We can build a good idea of what happened, but can never be sure. In the cases of the Pyramids and the Sphinx, what little we can't be sure of is overblown by people who want them to mean something more.

I read that though they typically aren't deadly, some people can have a particularly nasty and fatal reaction. Wiki, I think.

This is a very unusual way of seeing it. We don't really "see the rock" in a matter of speaking, what we are seeing is the light that bounced off the rock, which was simply altered in a way by this bouncing to carry with it the image of the rock, in the form of light entering the eyes. Bad terminology I know, but I'm reaching for the most rudimentary explanation this early in the morning, no matter how crude.

I've always thought this was particularly disheartening because the books, and many examples of fantasy literature nowadays, don't really portray witchcraft in any form but name only. It's more like the Jedi's Force than anything else, a natural and formulaic energy source, far closer to chemistry than the occult. That leads me to wonder if those who naysay it have actualy read them from a logical perspective (as close as they could get anyway).

Tsk tsk, can't you see? It's all a ploy laid down by satan to ensare your soul!

drain trees of their life giving sap! WHich he can use to....

Caffiene was actually in the original recipe, from the kola nuts. ----edit----- by the way, cocacola was made in the 1880's, but the methods for getting rid of the naturally occuring cocaine in the leaves was implemented before 1905, long before the sixties and seventies.

coca cola's recipe includes extracts or something from both the the kola nut and coca leaves, whihc is the source of cocaine. When it was first produced, the process of production left in the tiny amount of the drug-component actually found in the leaves, and coke's original purpose was as a medicinal drink rather than beverage anyway. Later on, when the drug laws took focus, Coke had two choices, remove coca from the recipe (which seems to be a core component in coke's unique goodness) or do a better job of removing the drug bits. They did the second. Wiki probably has a lot on the issue, more details and dates and figures and such. -----edit----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocacola#Early_years hmm, looks like there are still trace amounts in it

Godzilla is once again continuing his quest to destroy Tokyo and all those damned annoying lights

I heard that they test the product against the pansy weakling strains, you know, the ones that die if you so much as look at them? Of course, everyone knows how unreliable such rumors typically are.

they realized they'd all forgotten to have had their circumcisions performed befor the overdue penalties came into effect....

utilizes it's paraliquid matrix as a hibernation chamber for Pat Robinson in order to...

He became unfathomably rich, marry Paris Hilton (sorry dude), and....

imbued me with dancing visions of sugar-plums, or rather, as I was soon to discover...

Looks like a yam to me

Of course the bird slaughtered the nerd, ripping his head from his shoulders