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.

 

Cryptid odds of existence

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
The possibility of birds or insects or other small mammals thought to be extinct or non existant existing today, odds wise, is pretty good in my opinion. The thought of Bigfoot or any other large creature existing today seems unlikely unless it's living in the Congo region.

Most oceanic cryptids i think are more likely than land ones. Anything dating back to the prehistoric times could easily still be lurking in the depths of the oceans. I'll list a few cryptids and put my percentage of possiblity of existing today after it. Feel free to add your own:

Bigfoot: 2%
Nessie or Champ: 1%
Thunderbird: 10%
Megaladon Shark: 20%
Mokele-mbembe: 30%
Crazy Uncle Harry In Dem Woods: 50%




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I would give the Sasquatch or "Wood Ape"
a higher chance since the woods in Canada and the North West US are very very vast. Also we have a real creature that matchs the description living along side humans Gigantapithicus that people cant reallt explain why it died out. Also you should give the Yeti its own percentage since its on the other side of the world and not desribed exactly the same as Sasquatch most of the time its much smaller .

Also we have found large animals as late as 1994 in forests of the Annamite Mountains that border Laos (Lao People's Democratic Republic) and Vietnam. That deer like thing I cant remember the name off hand.

Canada for example has alot more wilderness then Laos


My list would be like this

Nessie 1%
Bigfoot 20%
Yeti 21%
Chupacabra 18%
Tasmanian Tiger 50%
Kraken 100%



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I was just wondering what the percentages are based upon? "Random" numbers based on personal opinion or is it in comparison with something else? Are they being comapred to each other or viewed on their own? Just wondering because stating that something has a 10% (or whatever) chance of existing or being real feels a bit broad... Am I being to technical again... Grrr...


Oh, and what exactly is "Crazy Uncle Harry In Dem Woods"? Sounds like a distant relative of mine...



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
You can check out what Cryptic Odds are as discussed by J. Richard Greenwell of the International Society of Cryptozoology. Cryptic Odds Here
1. Bigfoot (sasquatch)
2. Yeren (wildman)
3. Almas
4. Yeti
He ranks and reviews the 4 most well known of Bigfoot-type creatures.
Hope this helps. I do agree youre 2% for Bigfoot is low. 40% of the new discovery of plants and criiters have happenened in the past century. Surely we have not found them all yet.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nessie 1%
Bigfoot 20%
Yeti 21%
Chupacabra 18%
Tasmanian Tiger 50%
Kraken 100%


I'd bet the house that Bigfoot/Yeti is real. The whole Manitoba/Current Affair/blurred video fiasco told me that there is most definitely a coverup still ongoing to this day. I've seen videos of both Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman that were more than convincing.

Dude, the Kraken doesn't exist. Everyone knows that Harry Hamlin killed it long ago.

Peace


[edit on 8-11-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
I was just wondering what the percentages are based upon? "Random" numbers based on personal opinion or is it in comparison with something else?


For me it was just random numbers based on personal opinion
Evidence I have personally seen for each case and so forth. Seeing that a Kraken (Giant squid) washed up on shore more then a few times already I gave it 100%
I still consider the Giant squid a Cryptiod well a proven one.

It would be interesting to see if someone could get much more scientific odds with a much more indepth study. Heck I would like to see the Vegas odd maker numbers they seem to be pretty good when they study subject



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Nessie 1%
Bigfoot 20%
Yeti 21%
Chupacabra 18%
Tasmanian Tiger 50%
Kraken 100%

Considering the real Kraken is described as a kilometer sized beast with hundreds of arms, I'm more inclined to believe that Nessie exist.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Considering the real Kraken is described as a kilometer sized beast with hundreds of arms, I'm more inclined to believe that Nessie exist.


Why thats a interesting description of the Kraken a "kilometer" seeing that the story of it pre-dates the metric system. Its primarily depicted as a large octopus-like creature.

Thats pretty much a giant squid which was clearly what the Kraken stories are about and was proved to exist in 1878.. Sure people may have pulled the old "fish story" with it and make it seem bigger then it really was but they did the same thing before the proved the Gorilla existed. Before it was proven they were reports of them doing crazy stuff like fighting elephants with trees and kidnapping native women stuff we know is not true today.

[edit on 8-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I thought the same as Gemwolf, wondering where the numbers came from exactly.

I'm not going to place bets on specific creatures, but I will go on record and say:

% Chance that there is an animal out there we have not yet discovered: 100%



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
In terms of what the percentages should be derived from, there are a number of pertinent factors which, when considered together, can give us a sense of a given cryptid's chances of actually existing and being found. The first of these is clearly

Environment

Environment is perhaps the most crucial factor in determining the odds of a cryptid’s existence, as well as the likelihood that it will be eventually discovered. To illustrate this point, consider the Loch Ness Monster. A common theory put forward by sceptics to discount the existence of Nessie is the fact that Loch Ness itself is a restricted environment. Not being open to the sea, there are only a limited number of places in which the Monster could conceivably hide in the Loch. Theoretically, a cryptid living in a closed environment should be easier to discover than one living in an open environment, such as the open ocean. This was the reasoning behind a BBC expedition in July 2003, which employed satellite navigation technology in conjunction with 600 sonar sensors to “sweep” the entire length of Loch Ness in an unsuccessful attempt to locate the monster (Reference - BBC). Supporters of Nessie argue in turn that unknown caves might exist below the Loch’s surface which enable the creature to remain hidden from public view for much of the time. Despite this argument, it is not unreasonable to argue that a large cryptid, living in an enclosed space, should prove easier to find than one which is supposed to exist in an open space. A more confined space means less room to hide and a subsequent greater likelihood of the cryptid being found.

In contrast, Bigfoot and his many cousins are supposed to exist across an impossibly wide area. Whilst Nessie’s abode is specifically Loch Ness itself, Bigfoot’s might be something as general as “the continental United States”, whilst the Yeti’s might be “the Himalayas”. With such enormous areas in which to roam, there is less chance of these cryptids being discovered. Furthermore, there is less chance that a cryptid which exists in a vast, open environment will be encountered by human beings than one which exists in a closed environment. Added to this is the fact that those environments which are considered home to enigmatic cryptids, such as the forested areas of America or the depths of the ocean, are visited only occasionally by humans, making chance encounters with cryptids extremely unlikely. Simply put, the greater expanse covered by a given cryptid’s environment, the more chance that cryptid has of remaining undiscovered by humans. It is no coincidence that those cryptids who remain undiscovered are said to exist in large, unspecified environments (Mokele Mbembe, for example, who is supposed to exist somewhere within the depths of the Congo).

Eyewitness Reports

The next factor to consider is the availability and validity of eyewitness reports. Whilst this factor may itself be related to environment, it can be generally assumed that those cryptids with a large volume of eyewitness sightings are more likely to exist than those with few eyewitness accounts. If one person describes an unknown creature, their account may be attributable to any number of factors. However, if hundreds or thousands of people report seeing creatures which appear similar in many of their basic features, then it is more reasonable to assume that they are describing a legitimate creature which is simply unknown to biology at present.

For this reason, cryptids such as Bigfoot, which have thousands upon thousands of eyewitness reports, in which they are relatively uniformly described, with similar attributes, are more likely to actually exist than cryptids such as the Mongolian Death Worm, which has a significantly lower number of eyewitness accounts.

Furthermore, a cryptid is more likely to be considered real if eyewitness accounts are uniform across a number of distinct regions. Using the example of Bigfoot again, we can see that accounts of Bigfoot from the United States are fairly similar to accounts of the Himalayan Yeti, many thousands of kilometres away. Thus, it is more likely in this case that people are seeing a cryptid which genuinely represents an unknown species of creature.

Similarity to Known Creatures

Most creatures which are discovered are variants on known creatures. Although new species are being discovered every day, they are typically new species of insect, or bird, or other known orders of animal. It is rarer that an entirely unknown animal species is discovered. For this reason, it is reasonable to assume that a cryptid has more chance of existing if it represents a variant on some type of known creature. Under this theory, a Thunderbird, which is essentially an extremely large bird, is more likely to exist in some form than the Chupacabra, which appears to be a unique form of creature with no obvious parallels amongst known animals. In the same way, Bigfoot, which is essentially a variant of the ape species, is more likely to exist than the Jersey Devil, which again appears to be a unique creature in its own right.

Similarly, a creature which is a variant of, or member of, a species which has long been extinct is less likely to exist than one which is a variant of or member of a species which has only recently become extinct. Thus, the Tasmanian Tiger is more likely to exist than a living Plesiosaur. However, its is important to note that exceptions to this rule can indeed occur. Take the Coelacanth, for example, a fish believed extinct since the days of the dinosaurs, until it was discovered off the east coast of South Africa in 1938.

Despite this, it is logical to assume that a creature which has been extinct for millions of years is less likely to currently exist than a creature which has only been extinct for decades.

Devising A System

When we consider these three crucial elements in determining the likelihood of a cryptid’s existence and potential for discovery, we find ourselves better able to quantify this potential. To illustrate this in a very basic way, I have devised a system which ranks each creature on a scale from 1 to 10 in each critical area. To demonstrate this, I shall begin with Bigfoot:

Bigfoot

Environment: 8 (Where 1 is a small, enclosed environment such as a small pond and 10 is a vast, largely unexplored area such as the bottom of the ocean).

A vast, often unexplored environment which is occasionally visited by human beings and which provides a myriad of hiding places and a wide area in which to remain undisturbed.

Eyewitness Reports: 9 (Where 1 represents a handful of eyewitness reports which are questionable in their authenticity and 10 represents tens or hundereds of thousands of credible eyewitness accounts).

Many thousands of people have reported seeing Bigfoot, and their reports are very often uniform in their description (although it is pertinent to point out that this may reflect perception rather than observation). Furthermore, similar reports are found in equal numbers in distinct environments across the globe.

Similarity to Known Creatures: 7 (Where 1 indicates a wholly unique creature bearing no resemblance to any type of known animal and 10 represents a known, recently extinct species such as the Tasmanian Tiger).

Often said to be the missing link between Man and Ape, Bigfoot clearly resembles known species of ape in descriptions. His similarity to another known creature – humans – adds to his score in this area. He loses points, however, for being noticeably distinct from either species.

Average: 8

If we extrapolate this, we can presume that Bigfoot has an 80% likelihood of existing and being discovered eventually. Whilst there are any number of other factors which might complicate this admittedly simple system (and please feel free to add some of your own), it does help to demonstrate that considering a few important factors can help us to approach the possibility of a cryptid’s existence from a more quantifiable position.

Now, who wants to do the numbers for Nessie or Mokele Mbembe?

[edit on 9/11/05 by Jeremiah25]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   


You have voted Jeremiah25 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month


Really great job Jeremiah25
I might have given Bigfoot a extra point or two in Similarity to Known Creatures, mainly because of Gigantopithecus a 9-10ft ape that lived along side humans in the past. Plus scientist dont know why it went extinct

I will give Nessie a try

Environment: 3
The Loch Ness is about 23 miles long 1 mile wide (21.78 square miles) and a depth of almost 800 feet. Thats really not that big for a breeding population of large animals. It also loses Enviroment points for not having a large food supply for a lake of its size theres really not a lot of fish in Loch Ness.

Eyewitness Reports: 9
This I believe is the main support for the creature's existence the thousands of eyewitness accounts. So it gets high points in that area.


Similarity to Known Creatures:4
Nessie is most often described much like a creature that really lived the Plesiosaur. But there is some major problems with this theory first that it went extinct a really long time ago some 65 million years ago. Thats a really long time. Second Plesiosaur needed to breath air, approximately every 20 minutes it would need to surface for more air. We would be seeing them pop to the surface all the time if it was a Plesiosaur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here Im going to add one factor of my own. Physical evidence for the animal such as video, photos, foot prints, hair or dung samples. (1-10 ) 1 would be no physical evidence what so ever and 10 would be something rock solid like DNA evidence or bones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Evidence: 2
Nessie has a large absence of physical evidence with the debunking of the Surgeon's photo. There are some pictures and video of "strange things" in the water but nothing that you can look at and say man that really looks like a undiscovered animal like with the Surgeon's photo.

Average: 4.5

The best evidence for Nessie is in Eyewitness Reports which can be notoriously unreliable. I think people are not making it up and they are really seeing something, Perhaps a giant eel or something but I think the chance of something like Nessie is pretty low.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by merka

Considering the real Kraken is described as a kilometer sized beast with hundreds of arms, I'm more inclined to believe that Nessie exist.


Why thats a interesting description of the Kraken a "kilometer" seeing that the story of it pre-dates the metric system. Its primarily depicted as a large octopus-like creature.

The earliest stories describe it as the size of an island. Though I admit, I was wrong in the "kilometer" part. It was as 1.5 miles one guy described it, not kilometers


Now the giant squid, there's another matter we can discuss all day...



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka


Now the giant squid, there's another matter we can discuss all day...


Im conviced they are one in the same.

The oldest stories claim they are as big as small Islands but in my opinion thats because these stories had the longest time inflate the size of what those people really saw. People do this even today when talking about that big fish they caught ever time they tell the story it seems to get alittle bigger.




Pen and wash drawing by malacologist Pierre Denys de Montfort, 1801 from the descriptions of French sailors reportedly attacked by such a creature off the coast of Angola.

Clearly not the size of a Island and not too far off from the real 60ft length of Giant squids we have found.

The real-life kraken is in my opinion and many others the Giant squid.


link



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Average: 4.5

The best evidence for Nessie is in Eyewitness Reports which can be notoriously unreliable. I think people are not making it up and they are really seeing something, Perhaps a giant eel or something but I think the chance of something like Nessie is pretty low.


Nice work.
Physical Evidence, even in the form of photographs and video, is definitely another factor that should be considered in determining a cryptid's potential for existence and discovery. I also think you did a great job in pointing out how one factor can unrealistically skew the results in favour of a cryptid's existence. When, as is the case with Nessie, the positive results are centered almost solely around eyewitness accounts, caution needs to be exercised in determining the plausability of your results.

As for the Kraken, I agree that it is likely to be a result of sightings of giant squids coming to the surface which have been subsequently exaggerated over time. I have heard a number of stories which describe sea creatures as big as islands. One in particular, which for the life of me I cannot find a link for, describes a giant turtle so massive that it supported an entire ecosystem on its back - trees, jungle, the lot. It is not difficult to hypothesise that sailors, upon seeing a giant squid during their travels, exaggerated its features somewhat by the time they reached port.

Having said that, there is still much we do not know about the depths of the ocean. Take the famous bloop recording, which seems to indicate an organic creature of impossible size. Although open to debate, the bloop recording does serve to caution us against making too many assumptions in our search for the cryptids of the deep.


Olo

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Personally, in my very unscientific opinion, I think there is a very high liklihood of creatures we know ONCE existed, but beleive to have gone extinct, to be discovered to still exist. Especially ocean animals. The Coelacanth comes to mind immediatly. I find it very hard to believe that another currently deemed extinct creature will *not* make it's way into the public's eyes at some point.

I think it's just as likely for a new primate to be discovered, as it is for any other type of large land mammal, such as bear, deer, etc. Somewhere remote in Indonesia, or Sumatra comes to mind. However, I personally find the existence of a North American ape to be much less likely. The discovery of Homo Floreinsis definitely makes the hypothesis of a small hominid surviving until the present, or near present far more plausable.

Regardless of what previosly unknown creature is discovered, I think it will come from an unexpected direction. In my opinion, it won't come from research into tourist trap monsters, such as nessie, champ, bigfoot, chupacabra, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join