Sightings of other assorted sea monsters are common, but the frequency of sea monster sightings is still not as concerning as the frequency of bigfoot sightings

Sightings of other assorted sea monsters are common, but the frequency of sea monster sightings is still not as concerning as the frequency of bigfoot sightings because we typically expect evidence of shit in the sea to be less forthcoming. This is the key takeaway from the article: not all improbabilities are made equal. Failure to find evidence in one case is not necessarily as damming as failure to find evidence in another case. Rolling up all "sea monsters" and all "other great apes" only makes sense if all of these "sea monsters" are said to be basically big tentacled squidy things... The reason we roll all those "other great ape" claims together is because, frankly, it is all the same shit. Hairy biped, grunts a lot, leaves no trace like a model boyscout, etc. Same story, different continent. > Accounts, but a dearth of specimen. No. We have had credible specimens of giant squid since the 1800s. This isn't in hindsight, they were quickly accepted at the time by the scientific community as credible.