Bigfoot more plausible?

what ever made it implausable?'

as i recall the platypus was laughed out of the scientific circles as a hoax...

 

Bigfoot is a hoax. :mrgreen:

 

Is not! :mrgreen:

 

Does this mean that Nessie doesn't exist either?

 

She is more probable that Bigfoot.

 

I ask also: how so?
Dating back to 565, Nessie has been reported with wildly different appearances, and the inconsistent descriptions suddenly consolidated into a dinosaur-like form after the first discovery of an Apatosuarus skeleton. A few of the most intriguing sightings were conclusively attributed to sturgeons (one of which was shot in the water by a woman who thought it was Nessie). Active imaginations can provide almost all sightings. I recall a documentary in which a group of researchers sent a log floating out into the lake, and collected several supposed sightings of Nessie that were actually sightings of the log bobbing vertically (it was being controlled a cable, so as to appear like a neck from a distance). Of course, the sightings and their complementary sketches including imagined heads. Put together with the lack of convincing photographs or footage, this database is not terribly persuasive.

Bigfoot, on other hand, has had remarkable consistency in its descriptions, and the Patterson-Gimlin film remains a powerful piece of evidence. (There are a few details that apparently rule out the possibility of it being footage of a man in a suit, such as the gait, muscle movement, irregularities of the fur, and the breadth of the shoulders.) There is a growing collection of footprints that have been analyzed, and Jeffrey Meldrum is very good at identifying the fakes. His studies have produced a large number of samples that could not be faked using special shoes. He also has found a percentage of defects and variations in the footprints that would be expected in the natural population. It all points to a small and as-of-yet-undiscovered population of bipedal apes. Indeed, I often wonder: is that so weird a hypothesis? The only reason it is scoffed at is because people apply some unjustified superstitious quality to the idea, as if a species that has not been captured retains a supernatural status. Come on, it's just an endangered species. We have plenty of them already.

 

They are both very improbable, but if one were to exist, then I think the one that can hide underwater is more likely to exist.

 

Sonar is not a very effective means of locating marine life. Don't forget that most living things are composed of 70-90% water.

 

Um...:Shocked:

 

Well I guess that isn't always true.

But maybe Nessie doesn't have an air-filled swim bladder.

 

Wouldn't Nessie have lungs?

 

Assuming she would be amphibian.

Not as likely if she had gills.

 

I am dubious about the implication that sharks are invisible to sonar.

 

I'm right and you are wrong!

 

*off topic monkey war moved here*