It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The World Of Hogwarts Is Real

page: 7
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarsisreal

But how about genocidal leaders like Stalin, Hitler, The North Korean President and others? How would they react to the wizard community?


Same as Luke Skywalker.
So you tell us, StarWarsIsReal.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by reggin
 


Well Hitler is well known for his occult activties, Stalin and the Soviet Union is well known for his Psychic Research etc so that kind of magical in a way


edit on 13-4-2012 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Here is a thread that closely follows. Ignore the repeated comments that far flung "is it real or is it fantasy" is for "nutters".


www.abovetopsecret.com...#



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
reply to post by reggin
 


Well Hitler is well known for his occult activties, Stalin and the Soviet Union is well known for his Psychic Research etc so that kind of magical in a way


edit on 13-4-2012 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)


Hitler may well have been approached by Wizards when he became the head of Germany. The insanity that followed may very well have been his inability to cope with the new knowledge he had acquired and his need to purify the 'Aryan' race could very well have been his way of rooting all anyone that wasn't 'aryan', including Wizards.

Stalin may or may not have been approached by Wizards, as they may have been scared off after their dealings with Hitler. Stalin's understandings of Hitler's interests in psychic research may not have been influenced by Wizards at all, but in the latent abilities of people with magical ancestors, like centaurs or elves.

I doubt Wizards would concern themselves with North Korea much, as their leadership is hardly known for truthfulness on the world stage. Even if N. Korea came out and said they had Wizards or ETs or the bones of Jesus, I doubt anyone would seriously pay them much mind.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PulsusMeusGallo
Here is a thread that closely follows. Ignore the repeated comments that far flung "is it real or is it fantasy" is for "nutters".


www.abovetopsecret.com...#


Timothy Zell is most likely someone that is a showman. I do not actually believe that he has any magical powers of his own, but weather, is a groupie, like someone wearing a football jersey to a sports bar.. it doesn't make you a wide receiver.

EDIT:

Thanks for the link to your thread! I loved it. Definitely worth the read.
edit on 13-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Just thought I'd add this here...
I am currently on pottermore and I unlocked J.K Rowlings thoughts on Nicolas Flamel




Nicolas Flamel was a real person. I read about him in my early twenties when I came across one of the versions of his life story. It told how he had bought a mysterious book called The Book of Abraham the Jew, which was full of strange symbols and which Flamel realised were instructions on alchemy. The story went that he subsequently made it his life's work to produce the Philosopher's Stone.

The real Flamel was a wealthy businessman and a noted philanthropist. There are streets in Paris named after him and his wife, Perenelle.

I remember having a highly detailed and exceptionally vivid dream about Flamel, several months into the writing of Philosopher's Stone, which was like a renaissance painting come to life. Flamel was leading me around his cluttered laboratory, which was bathed in golden light, and showing me exactly how to make the Stone (I wish I could remember how to do it).


Just thought it was interesting that she had this vivid dream.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Very interesting theory and defiantly a fun read.

There are some flaws and inconsistencies in your essay though.

If your premise is that magic is real, which I will be honest I hope it is, your basis for this being the Potter-verse seems a bit shaky right off the bat.
The world of Hogwarts as put forth in the book is pure magic with no grounding or binding reason other than magic for the sake of magic.
If magic were real their would be reasons, IE magic is an energy that some can use to do work.
Work being any action upon the system, if done within the system say boil water a small amount of energy would be needed.
Work done against the system say negating an objects mass to make it fly would require more energy.
Now it could be the WoH(world of Hogwarts from here on) as shown in the books is lacking much detail.
For instance words can have power due to the energy of the words the vibrations etc... that could explain how spells work.
In the WoH via the book you just say spells and wave a wand and the magic knows what to do.
That makes no sense unless magic itself had some sentience which is a whole separate bag of worms.

I would put forth that your essay would be more convincing if you referenced other works of fiction that explain the fundamental laws of magic better.
Just a suggestion.

Your premise that Wizards are protecting us as a unified front is shaky.
You state that Wizards can be born to non magical families so Wizards are in fact human.
If they are human there is no way they would have a united peaceful front for generations upon generations.
You mention bad Wizards, and say that is now rare.
How would a subset of humans not have the same characteristics of the larger set?
That just wouldn't happen.

You mention that Wizards are protecting us from the magical creatures, but also say Wizards are protecting the creatures from us.
Which is it, if we can harm some species then we have reached the point that we could at least deal with those species.
Not to mention there are global conservation efforts so we would protect that which needs protection and harm that which would harm us.
You give humans far to little credit in this regard.

You touch base on various non WoH fiction as a basis for your proof that some information is slowly leaking.
The worlds you mention, and countless others often have mutually exclusive properties.
There are also other worlds of fiction that have more similarities between them than the do with WoH.
This is why I suggest you use another more encompassing world, than WoH or switch to a generic nondescript world and reference many more sources equally.

I do like the info you bring forth on plants and animals as literature both fiction and non fiction are dotted with plants and animals we can not see, or haven't seen in ages.
The Nazca lines for instance show a spider with one leg longer than the others and for years scientists said the drawing was wrong.
Turns out there is a tiny spider that while mating extends an extra segment from just one leg for balance.

Going backwards the WoH does not say Wizards can't use technology, rather they don't need to.
If you can say a few words and the house cleans itself you don't need electricity or a vacuum cleaner.
Other worlds do say magic and technology don't mix for various reasons.
Another reason to drop the WoH and go with a more generic world.
I would say though that even if Wizards and technology don't mix they could find a way to monitor the media and internet.
There are reasons tech and magic don't mix well but they can be over come especially if protecting the balance were an issue.
Unless of course they want information to disseminate slowly.

There are others, but my point is simple.
There are ways to strengthen your argument which can only serve to help your cause in the end.

I do hope you are right though that magic is real, and I hope that we all can learn some of it sooner than later.
Until then I will stick to my Physics and Engineering as they let me understand what's in front of me and how to manipulate it.

Plus if magic is ever real, I think knowing the nature of the physical world would better allow me to alter it via magic.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Your entire concept supposes that 'magic' works on the same laws of physics that we as non-magical beings must adhere. If that were the case, magic would be nothing more than advanced technology, and we would be able to achieve it someday simply by progressing to that level of technological understanding, and this simply isn't the case.

Magic, and magical technology for that matter, is a completely separate form of force. Think of it in regards to the primary colors of light. If Red indicates what we know of physics, Blue would indicate Magic. If we work within the Red light of physics, we can never make a Blue light. We can make a Purple light, but only with elements of magic that would be given to us by the Blue.

I do not believe that their are any within out non-magical world that have the capacity to understand the laws of magic. It would be like trying to describe "up" to a flatlander. Carl Sagan does a very good job explaining this concept, and I will not try to improve upon his thoughts.



Wizards could very well be mutated humans. Just as man evolved from his ancestors, Wizards could have a mutation that allows them to interact with a different manifestation of reality. Depending on whether or not the mutated gene for magic use is recessive or dominant could mean the difference between single generation spontaneous magic use and a family of magic-users.

It is not rare for wizards to be bad, it is rare for those bad wizards to break free of the efforts of the law abiding wizards to affect change that non-magical humans could see.


Sometimes Evil Wizards bent on harming others are able to break through the magical defenses of the Wizarding Council and affect changes in our world. This is something that happens rarely anymore, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for Wizards to remain secret during our Information Age.


Protecting us for magical creatures and protecting the magical creatures from us are not mutually exclusive exercises. In a zoo, the lambs and tigers both have fences. There are varying levels of threats. I think I might be able to deal with an infestation of gnomes, but I doubt that I would be able to handle a dragon.. or a lich.

Besides, once the wizards allow even one of these magical creatures to be known, magic becomes a known force in the world again, and their task to conceal themselves becomes harder. Humans have a hard time conserving the non-magical animals that are endangered worldwide. I would imagine the Wizards can see this as well.

The speculative fiction of "WoH" is just that, speculative fiction. There is no "proof" in any single document, but their is evidence in the entire body of writing. Hogwarts was used as the most recent incarnation of the concept of magic being real. The world of Hogwarts, is the world of magic. I could continue to muddy the waters with other lesser known works of speculative fiction, and maybe I will in future threads, but as an opener to the concept, it is more accessable for all if I use something readily available and in the public consciousness.

You are correct, WoH doesn't say Wizards cannot use technology. They have a hard time with electronic muggle technology, a near-inability, that is directly caused by them being wizards. Now, does this come from a lack of knowledgebased on culture? There is conflicting accounts, but in WoH, it is true, this inability can be overcome with knowledge. This is evidenced in multiple occasions with magical vehicles, for instance. Motorcycles, automobiles, trains, and the Knight Bus.

Thanks for your interest and participation in the thread.
edit on 22-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ucantcme
Just thought I'd add this here...
I am currently on pottermore and I unlocked J.K Rowlings thoughts on Nicolas Flamel




Nicolas Flamel was a real person. I read about him in my early twenties when I came across one of the versions of his life story. It told how he had bought a mysterious book called The Book of Abraham the Jew, which was full of strange symbols and which Flamel realised were instructions on alchemy. The story went that he subsequently made it his life's work to produce the Philosopher's Stone.

The real Flamel was a wealthy businessman and a noted philanthropist. There are streets in Paris named after him and his wife, Perenelle.

I remember having a highly detailed and exceptionally vivid dream about Flamel, several months into the writing of Philosopher's Stone, which was like a renaissance painting come to life. Flamel was leading me around his cluttered laboratory, which was bathed in golden light, and showing me exactly how to make the Stone (I wish I could remember how to do it).


Just thought it was interesting that she had this vivid dream.


It is interesting that the dream was so vivid save for the actual recipe for the stone. Perhaps her brain was not able to process the magical aspects of the stone, and as such, she was not able to hold the knowledge of its construction.

Great post, thanks for sharing.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


My concept does not mean that technology will one day be able to accomplish what magic can do.
I said it operates in one of 2 ways, within the laws of physics, or without the laws of physics.
I said magic that is acting within the laws of physics would use less magical energy, while magic that works without IE breaks the laws of physics would take more energy.
In your disclaimer at the end you reference Harry Dresden, if you have read The Dresden Files, Harry says magic that works within the laws of physics is easier than magic that works against it.
An example is how he uses his force magic in battles, he shapes the force like a wedge while on a motorcycle and uses the momentum of the motorcycle to aid the spell.
He says you could double or triple your muscle mass with a spell but your bones would break, again working within the laws of physics.

Fine you are saying it's not rare for Wizards to be bad, there would still be more sign of those bad Wizards in your scenario.
Statistically there should be just as many evil, or down right crazy Wizards as there are in the non magical group.
There should be wars among them too, I'm saying you need to find a way to account for the fact that we don't see the spill over from their mess.

As for the technology you are simply adding things to WoH that aren't there. It doesn't say they are unable to, it says they simply don't use it that often. If you can do something with magic you wouldn't use a mundane item to do the same thing as it is a waste of time and energy.
Could magic and tech not mix well yes, but you need to give better examples because the WoH is weak in those examples.
It is stronger put to say magic is an energy field and when not being controlled directly it increases the statistical probability of things going wrong, fuses blowing, wires crossing, gears freezing up.
In the center of a magical area where the magic is controlled and directed this would be fine, but on the edges of the spell there is a spill over of less controlled magic.

As for using WoH, it isn't the most recent magical world, it is simply the most known.
It is a weak construct to build the framework for your argument because it leaves too much unexplained.
Your argument would be stronger if you cite multiple sources.
Not only that, by citing only one source it almost comes off as if you wish WoH were real because you are just a fan with an avid imagination.
I know this isn't the case, but to some you are trying to convince this could be the case.
More references wouldn't muddy the water, if anything having one weak reference muddies the water.

I was trying to be helpful, point out areas in which your thesis is weak and could be improved upon.
I wasn't tarring your points down to negate them, I was doing so in the hopes that when you build them back up you make them stronger.
Thereby making it harder for someone else to tare down you ideas who is 100% opposed to them.
Instead of taking the critical advice and using it to strengthen your argument, you did what so many new to the world of academia do.
You attacked my points, trying to invalidate them as if I was debating your premise.
I wasn't the criticism I gave was meant to be constructive through a destructive method.
I wasn't trying to debate, I was trying to help.

So instead of reassessing your points, you counter mine.
Your original points are still weak, and now it will be harder for you to use my criticism to help.
If you are posing an academic thought which you are whether you think you are or not you will face two main attacks.
Those meant to destroy your thought and those meant to make it stronger by pointing out it's failings.
You need thicker skin, and you need to learn to tell the difference between constructive criticism, and destructive.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 



I extrapolated your concept to it's natural conclusion if Magic is Technology, by using Moore's Law. it is not exact, but I feel it's application is reasonable given the highly speculative nature of the premise.

Within or Without the Laws of Physics is a binary way of looking at it. It may be much wider than that. In Flatland, each time the apple hits the 2D plane, it looks as if it is merely a slice of apple. You and I both know that it is NOT actually a slice of apple, the apple is merely too tall to be seen on a 2D plane all at once, however the portion that exists in the 2D plane adheres to the rules of 2D space.

Magic could very well be like that. Magic could be a force that we simply cannot observe, but is still there. When Wizards observe and change it into observable phenomena, i.e. spells, they begin to follow the laws of the 3D space. Example. Visible light is emitted from a magic spells and we are able to see them. At the same time, it may appear that things are breaking the laws of physics when in fact, only the observable elements are, with the invisible (magical) components not subject to our spatial laws.


If there are millions of wizards, and thousands of them are bad, and hundreds of them are able to break through the magical defenses and mess with humans every year, that is pretty close to the amount of truly bizarre accounts of 'impossible' things that happen in any given year.

If my entire premise is the idea that Wizards remain hidden, wouldn't their wars remain hidden from us as well? What if even a small portion of naturally occurring disasters were actually the memory charmed after effects of magical skirmishes? Earthquakes, tornados, volcanos, freak lightning storms, wildfires. If even a thousandth of these are caused by wizarding wars, that evidences my position.

The argument you are using, and I believe it is what we are both actually talking about, is the "Law of Instrument" or "The Golden Hammer". If someone has a fantastic tool, they will tend to use it for as much as they can. The tool in this instance is Magic. Magic becomes the main tool of use by wizards, and as such, mundane technology eludes them. Because of this, they have an -inability- to use it. They can be taught, certainly, as is the case with Harry Potter and Hermione being able to use it unerringly, but it is not within the Wizarding culture to do so.

Point conceded. WoH is not the most recent, merely the most known. My original point still stands that it is still the most accessible and easily recognized of modern incarnations of this concept.

I have cited multiple sources. Christian Mythology, the Voynich Document, Hogwarts, and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, are amongst them. If this had been placed anywhere but Skunkworks I would have included a bibliography.

This is the extent that I will acknowledge your last paragraph. I am not interested in personal sniping. I made no personal remarks to you, or your theories, and I expect the same in return. If you are unable to simply present your ideas then please move along. I answered your points because my answers clarified my original premise, and cleared up misunderstandings on your part. If this is not the form of discourse you are looking for, again, I invite you to move along.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by Pigraphia
 

This is the extent that I will acknowledge your last paragraph. I am not interested in personal sniping. I made no personal remarks to you, or your theories, and I expect the same in return. If you are unable to simply present your ideas then please move along. I answered your points because my answers clarified my original premise, and cleared up misunderstandings on your part. If this is not the form of discourse you are looking for, again, I invite you to move along.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)


I'll address your last paragraph first as it is insulting that you would insinuate I have attacked you.
I have not lowered myself to personal snipes, I have attempted to aid you in strengthening your argument.
I informed you of the two types of criticisms you will face in order to prepare you.
I have neither personally attacked you or your theories(save advising you have thicker skin, which was done for your good)
If you find academic discussion to be too adversarial then you will constantly be hurt/offended by those countering your claims.
I am not even being adversarial, I was attempting to help you.
Your points have not clarified your original premise nor was there a misunderstanding on my part, they only shot holes in my suggestions.
My suggestions were not tearing down your premise.
They were suggestions on how to fortify your premise.
Upon reading your essay I saw a well intended foundation with a few potential weak points.
I pointed them out so that you could bring in extra pylons to strengthen your foundation.
Upon seeing the suggestions for reinforcement you tore them down and in the process made your original thesis weaker.
Invite me to move along? So are you only looking for 100% lock step agreement?
Seriously if you tell someone to "move along" when they were trying to help you what will happen when your theory comes under the eye of someone who actually wants to tear it down?
You are in fact not asking for any discourse at all if you tell helpful challengers to move along let alone someone harmful.
You do not want discourse, you want a soap box...

As to your new points which again do not help you as they only tear down support offered.
I was not now nor had I intended to debate you, I pointed out weak parts in your essay so that you may in fact make it stronger.
Instead of taking the constructive criticize you treat my advice as an attack on your thesis and try to defend it.
I proceed to tell you I am not debating you only trying to help and you again try to invalidate my points.

You invalidate them weakly by the way.

Your first argument(flatland) actually strengthens my position not yours.
I never said magic=high technology or advanced technology.
You are putting words in my mouth.
I said if magic is real it would operate on two levels, within physics and without.
Your premise of flat world actually reinforces my point.
For flat land to exist one must first recognize multiple levels of existence 2d, 3d, 4d(the level we live in as we move forward through time).
Now that there are multiple levels substitute magic in place of the apple.
In 3d/4d space the magic works in one of two ways, within the physics of 3d/4d, and without the physics.
What happens above or below IE 2D, 5D, in between is of no concern.
The only concern is with what we can see happening, because even if we were a magic user we would be unable to perceive the higher levels through which magic moves save the abstract.
We could construct theoretical models (as physicists do in theoretical studies), they would only be models.
We can say this model has never failed, but we can not be certain for sure because we can not test it.
So to say the model you chose to explain the possibility of magic is weak because it leaves much unexplained is valid.


Fine I accept the fact that some wars might be hidden completely, and even if not completely they could be natural disasters. That does not explain the video and audio evidence unless that too is faked, and faked in such a way that professionals can not see that it is faked. Impressive considering that you say tech and wizards don't mix. You actually made your argument stronger by pointing out that natural disasters could be a method of hiding. Though I still postulate that there are not enough disasters, if you take all the mundane human conflicts and say just half as many wizard conflicts occur there should be many many more natural disasters. Not to mention natural disasters are short lived much to short for full on wars.

Continued on next post.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Do not bother continuing.

I am ignoring everything you post from here on out, as you very clearly not only wish to be offended and insulted, but continue to wish to insult me.

Better luck next time.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Your Golden Hammer argument actually goes a long way to improving your theory, your use of the word inability is still not to right.
Not doing something is not an inability, rather a choice whether conscious or unconscious.
You did improve the theory on why wizards don't use technology though, it's because they don't need to.

You may have cited multiple sources, which I did notice.
I was simply pointing out that by citing one primary source with others as back ups you leave large targets for others to attack your theory.
I was simply suggesting a more even distribution of sources so your theory to stand up to assault.

I need to touch bases with your last paragraph again.
Do not take this as an insult or attack because it isn't, merely advice from someone trying to help you.
You have proposed a decent theory, and presented it well despite it's holes.
You need to learn to take criticism, good and bad.
When one presents a theory they will find that theory and sometimes themselves challenged.
Not all will be as polite as I was, they will actually use personal attacks, and be rude and tear down your theories with no remorse.
Whether you like it or not, you have entered into the academic field if only with one theory.
Academia is brutal, and if you attack advice when given freely you will find your theories torn down far more frequently, and with fewer and fewer supporters to help stem the tide.
As for your setting "rules for discourse" first your rules are not discourse they are in fact soap box preaching.
That aside, don't set rules for discourse, or chastise someone for criticizing you.
If they truly hate your theory, and you chastise them they will actually re-double their efforts to tear you down.
Others will see the attack and jump on the band wagon.
Once you chastise them(especially preemptively) they see blood in the water and they will tear you apart.

All that said I like your theory, I just wish it were stronger.
It's a shame you don't actually wish to make it stronger, it is almost as if you said your peace and when someone begins a polite discussion you stick your fingers in your ears, your head in the sand, and go la la la.

You put up an interesting theory, and you should be willing to take what comes with that.
All the good praise, and the bad criticism.
If you only wanted praise, and 100% lock step agreement you should have posted somewhere else.
ATS is not for the faint of heart, it is for those willing to take all comers.
Trust me, there are far more cruel persons on this board who would tear you apart.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Do not bother continuing.

I am ignoring everything you post from here on out, as you very clearly not only wish to be offended and insulted, but continue to wish to insult me.

Better luck next time.


I am not insulting you, I am trying to help you...

Can someone who reads this please explain to Furbs, that I am not insulting them.



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Just so you know.
Not only have I star and flagged this, I sent a tweet to ATS recap in the hopes they would feature it in the video recap.
edit on 23-4-2012 by Pigraphia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterFister103
When I was younger and I read the Harry Potter books, I convinced myself that my parents were both secretly wizards, and the school would one day send me an owl to let me know I'd be attending.


Sadly it never panned out.


Don't worry MisterFister103 - ATS is secretly hogwarts - and I'm the OWL who is visiting you in this message to tell you that your parents and YOU and the whole world are beyond WIZARDS - YOU and EVERYONE are THE ALL POWERFUL "ONE" GOD - FOR REAL!



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Hmmph... what most of you don't know is that in Florida there exists a Universe that eerily matches the place described in the Rowlings' books... with ample parking, too.

I also experienced Spider-man there and other "fictional" characters ...and mere miles away Jesus and Romans cavort through biblical villages.

And I almost forgot the Magic Kingdom!

Florida is a weird place.
edit on 4/25/2012 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Furbs
 


Hmmph... what most of you don't know is that in Florida there exists a Universe that eerily matches the place described in the Rowlings' books... with ample parking, too.

I also experienced Spider-man there and other "fictional" characters ...and mere miles away Jesus and Romans cavort through biblical villages.

And I almost forgot the Magic Kingdom!

Florida is a weird place.
edit on 4/25/2012 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)


What you are describing are theme parks which use existing non-magical technologies, which most, if not all, in this thread are aware of.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
So you believe dragons exist, because in a book it says a dragon attacked a beach, but a family of wizards on vacation wiped EVERYONE'S memory (and apparently then slayed the dragon, because there is no mention of what then happens to the dragon in your post) but then the author, for some reason, is able to remember it?

Oh! He must be a wizard! Writing the very book that tells us wizards stop any other wizard from trying to reveal their identity! Clearly you don't see the hypocritical double-standard here.

Also - if mythical creatures exist - why do they only exist in the form of creatures that already exist? (i.e. Minotaur/Centaur = man + equine animal. Gryphon = Lion + Eagle. Dragon = Lizard + Wings. Fairy = Human + Bug. Giant = Big Human.)

Also, you ask "why don't more of the world know of bigfoot?" to which I reply, almost EVERY SINGLE culture IN THE ENTIRE WORLD has a bigfoot myth. There's actually a large number of people within the scientific and nature communities that say he could indeed exist, and that the world-wide sights are due to Gigantopithecus having evolved into several very recluse apes. As the years go on, more and more distinct photos are surfacing, and there actually HAVE been hair and fecal evidence found, but the public is slow to accept this. Other names of bigfoot, from other parts of the world, include... Momo, Yeti, Abominable Snowman, Yowie, Meh-Teh, Raksha, Kikomba, The Great Bear, Sasquatch, Himalayan Beast, and Skunk-Ape.

As for chupacabra, the reports of him range from a small rat-like dog with sharp teeth to a 2 1/2 foot tall homonid creature with spikes all over and a mosquito-sucker for a mouth, so a black-eyed human who flies with no wings and suicide-dives at cars, only to fly off after, seemingly unscathed. Almost none of the reports match, so just with is a chupacabra? Anything people are scarred of in Mexico, apparently.

As for the men-in-black.. Well.. All the research shows that they are men do not understand earth-culture and for that matter, barely understand language. They typically ask their subjects questions which don't make sense, and when they don't get answers they like, become very angry and threaten their subjects with non-threatening objects. Two known objects they've threatened people with include headphones and a spoon. Also, once they're done, they simply leave and the subject reports remembering it all, albeit it being very strange. If you think they're like the MIB from the Will Smith movies, you are drastically wrong.

In the great words of Arthur C. Clarke...

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Everything you've described can be explained by genetic modification and high-technology.

In conclusion, there are 4 much more likely scenarios...
1. Human technology from the future
2. Human-made or PERHAPS even other-specie/genus-made technology from the past
3. Government civilian-forbidden technology
4. Extra Terrastrials

Don't get mad at me, OP, I say this only because nearly everything we've thought of as impossible has been proven possible by science, and we continue to push the bar of "possible" further every single day.

If anything, you should be happy, because technology allows you to do what our ancestors would undoubtably see as magic themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join