Bigfoot more plausible?

[Quinlan]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1984424

So researchers recently discovered 125,000 western lowland gorillas in an 47,000-square-kilometer area in the Congo. This means that the estimated population doubled overnight.

This made me wonder, if that massive amount of gorillas (a well known species) can go unnoticed right under the noses of researchers, would it really be that surprising if small breeding groups of sasquatch were also going unnoticed in the deepest, darkest, most remote parts of North America? (especially since bigfoot's are probably quite solitary which makes their discovery even more difficult than gorillas travelling/living in groups).

 

[Shai Gar]

what ever made it implausable?'

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

 

[Satya]

Bigfoot is a hoax. :mrgreen:

 

[sumone]

Is not! :mrgreen:

 

[alcyone]

Does this mean that Nessie doesn't exist either?

 

[Satya]

Does this mean that Nessie doesn't exist either?

She is more probable that Bigfoot.

 

[Quinlan]

How so?

 

[TheLastMohican]

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.

 

[Satya]

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.

 

[Quinlan]

Couldn't have put it better myself DOY.

Also take into account that Nessie is apparently isolated in one lake and bigfoot has an entire continent to hide in. So any searches of Nessie's habitat will be much more thorough than Bigfoot's. There is very little food available in the Loch for anything bigger than a Sturgeon whereas there is plenty of wilderness for an ape to survive in North America.

Also if Bigfoot is real, then it would likely be our closest relative and therefore have near human intelligence, it would have keener senses than ours living its life out in the wild, so it would most likely know a human was around well before the Human saw it.

So near human intelligence + strong senses + strong survival skills + massive areas of very remote wilderness = Almost impossible to find if it does exist.

 

[Quinlan]

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.

So hiding in water (which can be scanned by sonar) > Hiding in dense and remote forest?

 

[Satya]

So hiding in water (which can be scanned by sonar) > Hiding in dense and remote forest?

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

 

[TheLastMohican]

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:

 

[Satya]

Um...:Shocked:

Well I guess that isn't always true.

Sound waves travel differently through fish than through water because a fish's air-filled swim bladder has a different density than seawater. This density difference allows the detection of schools of fish by using reflected sound. Acoustic technology is especially well suited for underwater applications since sound travels farther and faster underwater than in air. Today, commercial fishing vessels rely almost completely on acoustic sonar and sounders to detect fish. Fishermen also use active sonar and echo sounder technology to determine water depth, bottom contour, and bottom composition.

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

 

[TheLastMohican]

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

Wouldn't Nessie have lungs?

 

[Satya]

Wouldn't Nessie have lungs?

Assuming she would be amphibian.

Not as likely if she had gills.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Assuming she would be amphibian.

Not as likely if she had gills.

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

 

[Quinlan]

Sharks don't have swim bladders but I'm pretty sure they get picked up by sonar.

 

[Satya]

Sharks don't have swim bladders but I'm pretty sure they get picked up by sonar.

I'm right and you are wrong!

 

[Lurker]

*off topic monkey war moved here*