> "Giant squid citings however are rare." That's missing my question. Colossal squid sightings are rare, but "sea monsters" are sighted everywhere, all the ti

> "Giant squid citings however are rare." That's missing my question. Colossal squid sightings are rare, but "sea monsters" are sighted everywhere, all the time. And if we're expected to roll up the large bipeds (bigfoot, yeti, skunk ape, letiche, et al -- many of which with very distinct reported features) shouldn't we have rolled up "sea monsters" and dismissed the colossal squid until (almost literally) someone dropped it onto our faces? Granted, that isn't far from what happened, but shouldn't we have learned from that experience, rather than seek to codify the logic? > "we've actually had credible physical evidence of giant squid for quite some time." Accounts, but a dearth of specimen. Should someone discover the Orang Pendak tomorrow, surely hindsight will declare credible the records of the early 20th century dutch colonists. But as of this moment, it's far from generally accepted that these creatures exist, let alone that those accounts are actually credible. And the logic of this article is literally arguing that we ought to weigh the likelihood of Orange Pendak, based on whether other creatures on other continents, that just happen to be roughly the same shape, have any credible evidence.