|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|
What do you think is more likely to exist, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster?
I believe that the Loch Ness Monster would be the more likely since there are things deep in the water that I'm sure we haven't even explored and probably never will. I can't say for sure, but that seems the most likely to me. It's not really too hard to find something on the ground, but in the water there are things that will always be a mystery.
I read one of cryptid hubs http://cryptid.hubpages.com/ on Bigfoot and became sure that this animal may exist because of the fact that there are chimps from Africa that, are five feet tall, walk sometimes on two feet and are known to eat lions so there could be a Bigfoot living in some forest or woods.
The 1967 Patterson film has been all but proven to be a 7+ hairy biped now in 2012. The Native American stories go way back in time concerning them, excellent evidence collected over the years- and yes there have been some hoaxes, doesn't take away from the legit stuff though. Some amazing evidence has recently been taken by law enforcement in the Georgia foot hills at night. It shows a tall hairy biped crossing the road from a dead stop at Olympic speed- more evidence there- no one's laughing in N Georgia unless they're a kook.- Nessie has been picked up on sonar, thousands of witnesses over time, some underwater pics even show huge flippers etc etc. Anyone with an open mind who thoroughly researches either enigma can only say they both exist. The Hairy Bipeds in particular need to be pondered on from out-side the mundane box.
Bigfoot. More chances of it migrating, a larger area of it calling home. Plus there are more sightings in a shorter period of time.
Finding that the Loch Ness monster (although that is such an inappropriate name for such a cute felow, judging by the photographs at least) exists may be difficult, but I think that it is credible that it may exist; given the fact that the lake has a lot of unknown things to be explored.
As for the Yeti, I am no expert on it and hence, am not saying anything. It'd be cool though, if it was found to be existing!
I think perhaps bigfoot. I live in the mountains and people tell me that there are deer and bears all over the place around here and I've seen absolutely zero in my yard. I see the footprints in the snow, but never the animal. It's on the same general idea....lots of evidence but no animal............yet.
I do not believe that the Loch Ness Monster really exists because I have read articles, in which the writers had researched the claims of people seeing it, and found them all to be fake. Maybe there is a Big Foot, who knows, but so far no one has been able to really prove it....but I guess it could be!
I vote for Bigfoot, because the sightings have been reported in many countries, usually in remote, forested areas in places with cold climates. There were, and probably still are, undiscovered homo sapiens tribes in the South American rainforest, so why shouldn't there be remnants of another human-type species somewhere?
As for Nessie, there are many things in the deep ocean we haven't yet discovered, but the loch is a deep lake and there is no current access to the sea. There would have to be a breeding colony in the loch, quite a few Nessies, and you would think the latest technology would have spotted one or two. However, it would be fun if it turned out to be true.
I think the probability of either one existing is about equal, i.e. both are unlikely to exist. And if we ever find one of the two, we will be able to find the other with today's technology.
by Dennis Pace7 years ago
The Loch Ness MonsterAn atheist was spending a quiet day fishing when suddenly the Loch Ness monster attacked his boat. In one easy flip, the beast tossed him and his boat at least a hundred feet into the air. It then...
by ryankett7 years ago
Despite having no conclusive evidence, then does that mean that you also believe in:The YetiBigfootThe Loch Ness MonsterChupacabraUFO'sAnd does not believing in these things make me in some way inferior? Because, whilst...
by ALFRED FOX5 years ago
Does the Loch Ness monster exist?
by Kenna McHugh21 months ago
Has the Loch Ness Monster finally been proven with new photo?Amateur photographer Ian Bremner, 58, was driving around the Highlands in search of red deer - but stumbled instead across the remarkable sight of what...
by Silver Poet8 years ago
Is the Loch Ness Monster really a plesiosaurus that survived Noah's flood?
by mintinfo6 years ago
Which is more likely to exist, God or extra-terrestrials?I do not believe in either but lately there seems to be more evidence for ETs. Share your answer and why.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.