The likelyhood of something being a hoax.

Check out this site. They've put numerous phenomena and the chance of them being a hoax. 100% means 100% sure that it is a hoax.

www.bighoax.com...

The first 20:

Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967) 25 % HOAX
Loch Ness Surgeon's Photo (1934) 87 % HOAX
Alien Autopsy Footage (1995) 98 % HOAX
Roswell Flying Saucer Crash (1947) 55 % HOAX
Saucer Crash at San Agustin (1947) 55 % HOAX
Chupacabras (1996) 65 % HOAX
Sea Serpents (1800-2000) 50 % HOAX
Face On Mars (1976, 2000) 65 % HOAX
Giant Squid and Octopi (1700-2000) .01 % HOAX
Eastern Cougar (1960-2000) 8 % HOAX
Bigfoot in Ohio (1970-2000) 25 % HOAX
Bigfoot in Eastern Ohio (1980-2000) 25 % HOAX
Bigfoot in Northwest (1900-2000) 25 % HOAX
Flying Saucers Under US Command (2000) 35 % HOAX
Ghosts (1800-2000) 10 % HOAX
Psychics (1980-2000) 78 % HOAX
Nostradamus (2000-2025) 25 % HOAX
Gordon Michael Scallion (1990-2000) 90 % HOAX
Art Bell (1995-2000) 25 % HOAX
Cedrik's Nicole Simpson Ghost Photo (1995) 93 % HOAX

This is a good one!!!

Boston Red Sox Win World Series (2000-2025) 95 % HOAX

And check these out:

Shroud of Turin (1200-2000) 5 % HOAX
Noah's Ark (500 BC - 2000) 2 % HOAX
Area 51 (1949-2000) 2 % HOAX
Disclosure of UFO's by US Government (2000-2025) 25 % HOAX
Atlantis (350 BC - 2000) 21 % HOAX
Alien Base at Dulce, NM (1989-2000) 80 % HOAX
Mermaids (1600-2000) 99 % HOAX
Unidentified Submarine Objects (1880-2000) 25 % HOAX
Billy Meier UFO Films/Photos (1976) 38 % HOAX
Ghost Ships (1800-2000) 94 % HOAX
Crop Circles (1980-2000) 91 % HOAX
Civil War Ghosts (1865-2000) 25 % HOAX
Out-Of-Body Experience (1980-2000) 35 % HOAX
Near-Death Experience (1950-2000) 41 % HOAX
Spontaneous Human Combustion (1940-2000) 63 % HOAX

I wonder what they base those percentages on...

they're interesting, but i think the statistic on Psychics is incorrect. I beleive in psychics.

Mm, those are interesting. I think I few figures need to be raised a bit, but then again I'm just a 'non-believer'

Alien Base at Dulce, NM (1989-2000) 80 % HOAX

WHY ARE A LOT OF THE ALIEN CONPIRACIES IN NM?!

Ok, thats my rant for today

Nostradamus would rank as a near 100% hoax. Why people believe in his extremely vague "prophecies" is beyond me.

Plus there's this:

1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition of Nostradamus
Is it real or an early forgery?

1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition - Is it Authentic?

The famous 1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition of Nostradamus is one of the early editions of Nostradamus analyzed in "1566 Edition Princeps - The Authorized Prophecies of Nostradamus". It is available at 1eBooks

The author of that work is the founder and current chairman of Authentigraph. He is an expert in authenticating printed material.

He has authored over 30 books himself and several deal with authenticating printed collectibles.

The famous 1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition of Nostradamus is to put it simply a FAKE! The reasons are numerous.

There are many known examples of pre-1568 Editions of other works by Benoist Rigaud, and they all have a consistant similarity in the title page that any experienced authenticator would notice almost instantly.

In other pre-1568 Benoist Rigaud Editions the name of the printer Benoist Rigaud is always a mixture of capital and lower case letters.

The 1568 forgery uses all capital letters for the name Benoist Rigaud (BENOIST RIGAVD).

Other pre-1568 Benoist Rigaud Editions used Old French Garamond Capital Letters for LYON. The Y in the 1568 FAKE is not Garamond type.

Other pre-1568 Benoist Rigaud Editions used very detailed woodcuts, the woodcut in the 1568 FAKE is primitive to put it mildly.

An analysis of the text in the 1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition contains many obvious mistakes that point to an early forgery as well. Punctuation and spelling in earlier Nostradamus editions has many obvious differences.

It is sad to say, but the famous 1568 Benoist Rigaud Edition of Nostradamus that most modern work connected to Nostradamus is based upon is a FAKE!

www.authentigraph.com...

Originally posted by outsidethemilkglass
they're interesting, but i think the statistic on Psychics is incorrect. I beleive in psychics.

I do too...But I think that the list means that 78% of psychics are charlatans. I would tend to agree due to this reason:
If a psychic really has any decent amount of power & accuracy, then why would they need to charge money to make a living at it? If they were *truly* psychic, then they could merely predict & win the lottery & be financially set for life...They would have no *need* to charge other people for using it. So it stands to reason...If you have to pay a "psychic" to predict your fortune, then they're very *unlikely* to be "psychic" at all.

I do too...But I think that the list means that 78% of psychics are charlatans. I would tend to agree due to this reason:
If a psychic really has any decent amount of power & accuracy, then why would they need to charge money to make a living at it? If they were *truly* psychic, then they could merely predict & win the lottery & be financially set for life...They would have no *need* to charge other people for using it. So it stands to reason...If you have to pay a "psychic" to predict your fortune, then they're very *unlikely* to be "psychic" at all.

Yes psychics that charge ask certain questions to make generalizations that are mmost definetly true using psychology. But true psychics are people who get random thoughts, visualizations and pictures and cannot always predict things.

I like this one

U.S.A. War with Iran (2000-2025) 5 % HOAX

it's interesting, and seeing that it's based on public opinion, it's even more interesting.