Most believable?

[kukalakana]

Question: Okay, setting aside the issue of skeptics and believers, and so on -- I thought this would make an interesting discussion. Of all the events, sightings, phenomena (I have a pet peeve about people mixing up "phenomena"[pl.] and "phenomenon"[sing.] btw!) and legends, which do you think is most likely to be true? And why??

I'm going to start with: Bigfoot.
Why? We know from the fossil record that there have been hominid apes in the past (Examples might be Austrolopithecus Afarensis, Peranthropus Boisiae--sp?, Homo Habilis, and recently the diminutive "Hobbit" hominids that have been unearthed in S.E. Indonesia.) Also, the Bigfoot legend has variations worldwide, whether Yetis of Asia, Yowies and Bunyips in Australia, or Sasquatch--sp? in America. Finally, there is the point that new species are being discovered (and rediscovered) regularly. Before Europeans first encountered them for real, gorillas were considered to be based on local folklore.

While I don't believe entirely that it is true, and I don't believe for one second that they would ever come up to my door and ask to borrow some sugar for their tea, I would say that Bigfoot -- or a variation thereof -- is one of the more likely. Also Orang-pandek, an orangutan like hominid ape said to live in the jungles of Indonesia, for the same reasons.

How about you?
But remember -- this discussion is intended to be fun.

 

[Ron Collins]

In my estimation Bigfoot (et al.) is the most plausible of the crypto's. Like many, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to the high probability of their existence. Dermal ridges that are distinctly primate, reported behavior, typical shyness, and the ridiculous number of footprint casts that have been made. The foot prints themselves show distinct mechanical differences in foot function from that of humans. Hoaxers are out there. But, I cant fathom of hoaxers trouncing through the mud in far remote places on the off chance someone might notice the prints.

Food is plentiful. Habitats are vast and largely unsettled. The creatures seem to prefer to be nocturnal. But, man is fairly prolific so encounters happen. I think, given the evidence already collected, the case for Bigfoots existence is mounting and its habits are being mapped. I think it only a matter of time before definitive proof is obtained.

Loch Ness or other lake monsters -- Nope. Not enough food in the Loch to support a community of animals that size.
Mokele mBembe -- Possible but highly unlikely.
Pterodactyls -- Nope. Too big to have gone unnoticed. The open air offers little refuge. So we would have seen it.

 

[Simone_m]

Ghosts. I worked an overnight security guard nightwatchperson gig on a haunted house property.
And one of those invisible critters left his handprints all over the inside of my windshield in my locked and nearby vehicle. Oh Yes They Can!!!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Ghosts are a very interesting subject are they sleep paralysis, electronic plasma images of some time dysfunctions or dimensions overlapping? A friend of mine who lived in County Cork many years ago told me of a story of him and his wife driving past a graveyard and a lady in a red dress jumped out in front of the car both screamed with fright and my friend got out of the car to talked to the lady she was crying. He asked her if she needed any help and offered a lift to her home. Anyway he drove off with her in the backseat and turned the corner as he looked back through the mirror she was gone. He told the story to locals who explained she had been run down in front of the graveyard during the twenties . She was going home from working in the workhouse after her night shift.:question:

 

[Terjarv]

I would say Bigfoot in a physical sense is highly unlikely. I think we would have found some remnant of the beast. Think about how many people go hunting in the areas where this crypto is typically sighted and how commonly it is NOT reported. If Bigfoot is real, it is not a physical entity but something else. Some of the sightings are certainly large bears, but that certainly can't explain all of them. I was always interested in the high strangeness aspects of the sightings.

If we find anymore large cryptos it won't be in the woods, but the oceans! The last frontier is where our knowledge is severely lacking...the bottom of the ocean. The classic example is the coelacanth, discovered recently and thought to be extinct for millions of years. I wouldn't be suprised if we find some giants squids and other massive cryptos at the bottom of our oceans. We really have no idea whats down there...look at the thermal vent ecosystems we discovered in the last decade, what a shock that was!

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 PM ----------

Loch Ness or other lake monsters -- Nope. Not enough food in the Loch to support a community of animals that size.
.

Loch Ness Monster = Eels and dead trees!

 

[Brad]

I think the Yeti around Bhutan or the Himalayas in general is the most believable. While there are many things that lead me to be very unsure about an American Bigfoot, the region there seems sparsely populated and full of enough wilderness to support something of the sort. It also seems easy to believe that similarly undiscovered animals live in parts of Malaysia, Indonesia, or in the depths of the ocean.

The mention of ghosts brings us to another interesting phenomenon, too. It is one of those things that doesn't quite makes sense to me on one hand, but on the other I have heard of encounters from many people I know. So I think it can fit well into the believable category, depending on how you look at it. There definitely seems to be something there, in my opinion, though more to do with the way the brain works than with the traditional ideas of ghosts.

Extraterrestrial life seems to be the easiest to believe in, but having it visit us is much harder to agree with. I think repeated phenomena of this sort is much less believable. It's very high on the potential for awesome list though.

 

[kukalakana]

I wouldn't be suprised if we find some giants squids and other massive cryptos at the bottom of our oceans.

There is a colossal squid specimen (larger than giant, and a deep-sea dweller but more able to traverse towards the upper levels of the ocean -- although it still can't survive for long with the lower pressure.) at Te Papa Tongarewa museum in Wellington. I agree that the deep oceans remain largely unexplored and mysterious.

I am also fairly skeptical about the bigfoot sightings, and agree that it is unlikely. (But possible...) People also claim to have seen living thylacines in the forests of Tasmania and Indonesia, and mooses in Fiordland (SW New Zealand) although both of these are also unsubstantiated as there is little to no physical evidence. While not discounting the possibility of cross-dimensional or some kind of pseudo-corporeal ... something, the evidence I have encountered thus far in life would overwhelmingly support a more traditionally biological explanation. If indeed, an explanation exists.

Regarding Loch Ness Monster, I don't know a lot about the dimensions of the Loch, but if I'm not mistaken most representations of "Nessie" have been of a pleisiosaur like creature (Cretaceous era, correct??~~ I love the Primeval show and wouldn't it be super cool if it were real... lol.) Actually the problem I see is not that (I kid, really.) but how a creature of such a size would be able to sustain a significant enough population in this kind of enclosed habitat.

 

[trainedobserver]

Unidentified Flying Objects. Multisensor data along with reports from reliable witnesses such as pilots, astronauts, and law enforcement make a compelling argument for the existence of artificial intelligently controlled objects (most likely machines) operating in the Earth's atmosphere with performance characteristics that exceed known human technological development. The origin, nature, and purpose of these objects is entirely unknown. I am of the opinion that no hypothesis yet proposed adequately explains the percentage of true U.F.O. (objects defying prosaic explanation) reports throughout history. As in all things one explanation probably does not fit all of those cases, rarefied as they may be.

If these true U.F.O.s are the evidence for some other civilization, human or non-human, then it is a very grave matter. The reason being this has been happening for a long time and I think we can assume one of two things. Either they don't really care about human beings and are more interested in the Earth's resources or they long ago penetrated human society and have been influencing our perception of their presence as a matter of course.

I guess I'm saying I'm not convinced all U.F.O.s can be prosaically explained and the implications of that should not be described as exciting as much as terrifying.