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.

 

Let's be a bit realistic here....

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The topic of cryptozoology has always interested me since I was a child, but I've shied away from it due to the, and no offense is meant here, insanity that goes on within the crypto community.

So how about we throw some realism and science into the mix?

For example, the werewolf. Doesn't make any sense at all. Extreme morphological changes that include increase in mass simply cannot happen over short periods of time, they defy physics.

Let's make this the 'Cryptozoology As A Proper Science' thread!

How about we start by identifying which cryptids are the most scientifically possible?




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Bigfoot.

Without a doubt the most possible animals that we have not discovered yet.

More evidence than anything else as well.

Pred...



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


Let's not just talk about evidential reasons, let's talk about the hypothetical. Also, I'm always more surprised that we don't have more evidence for bigfoot these days, what with everyone have camera phones and all.

As for the hypothetical ones, what always got me was a habitat for bigfoot, where would it live where humans couldn't get to it routinely but still get enough exposure for us to capture images of it?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I've always been interested in this topic myself. I have never had any sort of first hand sighting or experience with unexplained creatures but I do have some advice to those who do and then tell everyone about it.

Let's face it, the science of cryptozoology has a bad name due to everyone flying off the handle as every decayed animal washes up on the shore similar to the montauk monster year or two ago. People need to take their time when they find something and make sure of the proper identity before running to the press.

This will only stop when the possibility of making tons of money, going on talk shows etc is taken away from those who make fantastic, un-verified claims. Believe me, I am eagerly awaiting the day when a 'bigfoot" or a yetti or a chupacabra is actually found.

[edit on 29/8/10 by AidanK]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The Mokele Mbembe. The jungles of Africa are a very good place for a monster to hide. Way better than a Scottish Loch or the American midwest.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
The Yeti, There may be something to that as well. I'm not sure what the consensus is on the Destination Truth DNA sample that returned unknown Ape DNA but if taken on face value it seems promising.

Surely Lake/Sea Monsters can still be a possibilty, even if they are known creatures there is the possibilty of not knowing enough.

Honestly there is probably loads of creatures that lie undiscovered, just because they are not the typical monster does not give them less of a crypto fascination.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by pazcat]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I'm happy with the responses here. I'm not just talking the stereotypical loch ness/yeti/etc, we can also talk about the possibilities presented by other undiscovered creatures. I would just hope that we keep this as scientifically minded as possible.

This is a really interesting subject and I'd hate to see it diminished by a lack of scientific rigor.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


That is what I was trying to do on the vampire thread. But apparently, your not allowed to talk about mythical creatures in the cryptozoology forum.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Might I interest you in the legend of the Congolese Giant Spider?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We concluded that scientifically speaking it was unlikely for the spider exist given the dimensions that were claimed. It was impossible for it to overcome the limitations of the exoskeletal stress it would experience.

Coupled with the lower oxygen levels it simple could not sustain itself. As it was believed to be Tarantula like in nature. Having said this, it is of course entirely possible that the spider exists, but that the tales of it's size have been highly exaggerated!

Other than shamelessly plugging my own thread, I agree with Bigfoot being the most possible.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


That is what I was trying to do on the vampire thread. But apparently, your not allowed to talk about mythical creatures in the cryptozoology forum.


Use the search function. The board gets flooded with Vampire post whenever a new Twilight movie comes out. You should post it in one of the thousands of threads that have already been started. Or, just reread those threads. I'm sure your questions have already been answered.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
We need to investigate the oceans more.
New species are always being found in there.

There so much room for undiscovered species to be hiding in there.

Im sure there are some big ones also.

Cheers



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I would have thought that the sea monster "loch ness" type animals are the ones that are most likely to exist because we already have evidence of such things in the fossil record, so the argument becomes "do these animals stillexist" rather then "do these animals exist"

[edit on 29-8-2010 by davespanners]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The most likely and possible is probably the Thylacine, although most don't consider it a cryptid.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Here's a thread discussing animals that are considered extinct, but may actually still be alive.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the Thylacine would fit into that category currently.

Cheers



[edit on 29-8-2010 by FoxMulder91]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
A few things...

One, supernatural powers simply don't exist. Nothing out there can "hypnotize" a person, or fly without some sort of wings or "make things happen." No old gypsy curses, no shapeshifting, no invisibility, that's all silly stuff.

Two. Eyes do not glow. They may on occasion reflect, but that requires a light source to hit the face. if you see someone claiming "all I saw was a pair of glowing red eyes" then they're making crap up.

Three. Chimerae are false. There is no "half-human, half-rabbit" monstrosity. While it's entirely possible for an organism to have features that superficially resemble those of another organism's, the "half and half and half" build-a-critter method simply doesn't function.

Four. if there's a local industry around it, then that might really be all that it is. People like making money, and if Chuckles the Swamp Monster will bring dollars to town, then chuckles the Swamp Monster is going to become a feature of the local mythology.

Five. "Prove it doesn't exist" is not a valid argument. never has been, never will be. The burden of proof lies on the claimant.

six. Odds are very good that an undiscovered organism will actually have been discovered and "lost" in the past, or that it will be known from the fossil record or at the very least, closely related to other known organisms. Nature can throw us surprises, but it's very unlikely we're going to discover a whole new Order of mammals at this point, for instance.

Seven. Evolution happens. It's been a hundred million years since sauropods were a dominant land animal. You're not going to find an apatasaurus anywhere, period. You might conceivably perhaps find a creature that shares an ancestor with the apatasaurs, but it's not going to be the same critter. Even the modern living fossils have noticeable morphological differences - and assuredly genetic differences - from their long-fossilized relatives.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Personally I've always believed bigfoot to be the most plausible. The idea that a hominid species might have lived until very recently, or still be around today, without our knowledge, was bolstered by the discovery of Homo Floresiensis. We're always discovering new things about our evolutionary ancestors so to me the concept of a fairly intelligent evolutionary relative hiding here in North America seems perfectly plausible.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need more science and skepticism, and more zoology, in Cryptozoology. And this board could use a lot less Werewolf and Vampire threads.


[edit on 29-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
nothing ever defy physics, our understanding of it is in its infancy stage. that is why we encounter situation where change defied physics pretty regularly.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DOADOA
 


yea, i was just going to say something along those lines...the concept of a werewolf defies our current view of physics. our understanding of science is constantly growing, changing, evolving. so i would never say that theres no way they could exist, because i dont know. i personally believe that anything and everything we could ever conceive in our consciousness can be possible. we just haven't figured it all out yet



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DOADOA
 


There are some laws of physics that remain unchanged, like the conservation of matter and energy. There's no way for someone to spontaneously gain mass, you have to consume large quantities of food for a period of time to gain mass because it needs an external source.

Saying that physics is 'changing all the time' is also entirely untrue, it's really the more theoretical aspects like quantum theory and sub-subatomic theories that change. Practical physics does not change at all. Our understanding of a falling object is the same as its been for a long time.

 


I'm personally fascinated by 'the bloop'. It's a piece of evidence that seems to be from a living thing but it would be bigger than a blue whale. But it lives in the sea, making it a lot more likely since we've got a large portion of the sea unexplored.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Lets not because tbh i hate ppl like you lol




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join