Which is the most likely to exist or have existed, the abominable snowman, Sasquatch of the loch ness monster?

Yeah they all almost for sure don’t exist but if someone from the future told you they proved the existence of one, which would be the most plausible?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 months ago

    Loch ness. While there is lots of "videos" The loch ness, (if real) would have been a pleaseasourus (I cantspell dinosours) And that has clearly existed.

  • Anonymous
    4 months ago

    Sasquatch is the most likely and has the most evidence.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    4 months ago

    The Yeti is described as at least 4 creatures, a bear, a large monkey, a small hairy hominid like the Orang Pendek and the bestial large hairy hominid (the ABSM).  The Yeti is quite small compared to a giant that Tibetans and those in western China call the Yeren and other names.  To us a Yeti is big, maybe up to 7 feet based on reports but bigfoot are even bigger.  That giant creature in Asia (Dzu-Teh, Yeren, Tok, etc) is identical to bigfoot and is said to be like a human and quite smart.  Loch Ness is almost certainly mistaken identity IMO.  The commonly shown picture was a fake and most reports are humps or similar.  It may be real, but it isn't a real plesiosaur, more likely a real log or a real fish or real waves.  Bigfoot has by far the best evidence.  I suspect Yeti is real but extraordinarily rare and maybe already extinct.  

    Almas, Yeren, Bigfoot, Orang Pendek and maybe a couple more probably survive to present IMO.  Almas or Almasti are reported to be like very large Neanderthals.  Yetis have a long history and their descriptions vary from Bigfoot consistently, yet the Dzu -Teh type, and Bigfoot are also consistently reported.  Even their footprints are remarkably consistent and different from Yeti.  A bigfoot foot looks similar to humans but it has features such as an elongated heel and a flexible foot with mid-tarsal break giving it flexibility.  I can't go into it detail here but just that line of evidence is amazing and consistent.  There have been fakes but those are easily separated from those that would be extremely hard to fake. I  have gone looking for evidence myself on many occasions and found some footprints very near where the famous film was made.  Finding random footprints in places that noone would likely see them is interesting for sure.  The prints I saw were in snow and with a stride length nearly double mine.  

    I think with the recent discoveries of relatively recent small hominids in Indonesia, the Homo floresiensis, you'd have to say Orang Pendek is most likely, then bigfoot, then Yeti, then Yeren, then Almas, then low on the list is Nessie.   

    Dubbs is mistaken.  Bigfoot is most commonly described as reddish brown but it seems younger ones are more often black.  Light brown or blond is sometimes reported and even white ones aren't unheard of.  Those colors are pretty consistent with Yeti too.  I don't know of a reported Yeti that was white.  That is Hollywood.  Yetis are believed to live in the snows way up in the mountains but apparently visit there.  They live in the uninhabited and almost impenetrable forests in the valleys.  Almasty Neanderthal types are reported in the Caucasus.  When you get to eastern Asia, the very large bigfoot types are more common as you'd expect if bigfoot came here from Asia.  

  • 4 months ago

    The Abominable Snowman, since the population of humans in the Himalayas is small. There is less of a chance they got pushed to extinction.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Dubbs
    Lv 6
    4 months ago

    The Loch Ness monster is plesiosaur and those did exist at one point. But is it still the Loch Ness monster if it's not in Lake Loch Ness? That's a technical argument.

    Just the same, I believe in Sasquatch. The Abominable Snowman IS actually a Sasquatch,  but this again, comes down to location. They're more commonly called Yetis and are more often sighted in the Pamir and Caucus mountains in Asia.

    Sasquatch has been sighted numerous times all over the US and Canada, but the most common sightings occur in British Columbia. The difference between Sasquatch and their Asian cousins is their color. The altitude of all those mountain regions are covered with snow, so the Yetis (Abominable Snowmen) have white hair, as opposed to the brown and black hair of the Sasquatch to fit in with the mountains and rocks. Evolutionarily speaking,  these guys are built like tanks to survive the harsh mountainous terrains.

    Not so commonly seen or heard of as Sasquatch, there is an evolutionary link that connects them to us as well as other primates. They're known as Almas, occasionally seen in Asia in valleys and woods between mountains. They're covered with the same dark course hair as apes and Sasquatch, but they're much more human in size and shape. However due to the rarity of their sightings, Sasquatch is generally given the title of "Missing Link."

    It may also interest you to know that there are indeed other sightings of Irish Sea Monsters. Though these are nowhere near as famous as Nessie. There are lakes, bogs and Loughs all over Ireland with reports of strange unidentifiable sea creatures that don't even resemble Nessie. None of these loughs are even close in size to Loch Ness, nor are there many roads that curve around them, which would explain the absence of widespread reports. Just the same, it's unusual on how many reports there have been of different creatures. 1 unidentifiable creature is understandable,  but out of the reports I've read, you'd figure somebody would've found one by now.

  • 4 months ago

    Bigfoot and Yeti are far more plausible.  Loch Ness isn't a small lake, but it's not big enough to support a species of large Nessie critters.

    It's funny you ask, because one of the world's leading primatologists said she doesn't believe Bigfeet exist, but has seen proof that they could.  Her name is Dr. Goodall, you may have heard of her.

    She pointed out that large apes are perfectly at home on wooded hillsides and mountains, and are experts at hiding.  All they need is food, a place to sleep and water, all of which can be found everywhere a Bigfoot / Yeti sighting has been reported.  

    She also noted that, as fun as they folklore is, she can't believe in a species that has left absolutely no credible evidence of its existence.  Just a couple of footprints that don't go anywhere and a few grainy images captured on (evidently) the world's cheapest cameras and... that's it.  No hair samples, no dead bodies or even parts, not even poop.

  • Anonymous
    4 months ago

    About the same as trying to guess which one: Jesus, Thor or Ra was real.

  • JASON
    Lv 6
    4 months ago

    They're all more likely to exist than gods, and I doubt any of those exist either.

  • 4 months ago

    Loch Ness is neither large enough nor productive enough to support even a single large aquatic predator - much less a breeding population.

    Of the other two, the environment for Sasquatch is by far the most likely to be able to support a breeding population of large bipeds.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.