The best argument for Bigfoot is that pranksters creating hundreds and hundreds of fake footprint events, some made where they might not be discovered at all, seems illogical. It is illogical, but the best argument against Bigfoot is that we don't have much better evidence by now.
Some tracks are impressive, like the famous Bossburg "Cripplefoot" prints. If hoaxer Ivan Marx was really behind those, he put a lot of effort into making elaborate fake feet and leaving over a thousand prints with them. Some can be explained. The London trackway - humanlike 14" prints with a 47" stride - got some early endorsements from major Bigfooters. I did an experiment on muddy ground like that mentioned in the report. I am 6-3” (I was 6-4 before my back screwed up) with long legs (inseam 36). I was able, barefoot, to make 13" tracks 47" apart heel to heel. Now that's on level ground, and I had to stretch as far as I could, but this indicates to me that a human just a fraction taller and larger-footed could have done it. I couldn't have made 122 tracks at that stride in mud, but I'm inflexible and not in the best of shape. This is just one data point, but it puts the tracks within the human range in my mind. Bigfooters have told me that "human" is now the generally accepted explanation.
If Bigfoot proved real.. hmmm. The footprint evidence to me is ambiguous on the "man vs. ape" question because the feet wouldn’t look like the feet of any ape species we know anyway: they’d have to evolve somewhat to carry such a huge body around bipedally, plus there are many types of tracks even if you throw out the ones with other than five toes. A lot of researchers like Asia's Gigantopithecus blacki as either Bigfoot itself or an ancestor, which has some logic to it as this is the only ape known from the fossil record big enough to fit almost every report and idea of sasquatch. We have only teeth and jaws and thus no idea what the feet looked like. It is generally presumed to be an orangutan-like quadruped, but you can't say definitively it never walked on two legs, or that it could not have spun off a habitually bipedal descendant.
The most famous piece of evidence put forth for Bigfoot, remains, after all these years, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. I go with Dr. John Napier, the eminent primatologist who thought it likely sasquatch was a real animal, but that the filmed subject showed a mix of human and ape characteristics that wasn't believable.
If it was a man in a suit, though, I'd still like to know who made the damned thing.
I don't think it's a (relatively) cheap mail-order costume and I don't think it's a horsehide home-made job (the two theories Greg Long tried and failed to mesh into something believable in his book The Making of Bigfoot.) There's no detail that screams "fake" unless you count my general impression that the back of the lower legs look pantlike. Someone put skill, effort, and money into this. While the film rights were valuable, I wonder if the hoaxer went to the trouble because he thought the effort would bring in a lot more value than it ended up doing. I never met Roger Patterson and haven't met Bob Gimlin, but I can't help thinking that Patterson was in on the hoax. I considered the idea that the hoaxer was a third party working through a local contact (like Al Hodgson, the store owner who told them of a nearby track find, or Bob Heironimus, who loaned Gimlin his horse) who knew P and G were looking and tipped them off to a likely location, but I can't really make that work in my head because the guy in the suit needed to be a reckless idiot, as he stood a fair chance of being shot if the two men - or someone else coming across the location which was remote but not unvisited - had decided they needed the specimen. Indeed, Patterson and Gimlin both said, years later, they wished they had shot it. While Patterson was a very interested Bigfoot-hunter (I have a copy somewhere of this self-published 1966 book), Gimlin was a less-interested companion who might have been innocent of the whole thing. But on balance, these days I write the whole affair off as a hoax.
Patterson-Gimlin frame 352 (public domain)
Back to the question of what Bigfoot is, assuming it’s real: I used to like Giganto, too, based on the size factor: we don’t have any other apes nearly that size as suspects, and none of our human ancestors, despite some speculative interpretations of creatures like Paranthropus (aka Australopithecus) robustus, its cousin P. boiesi, or the invalid Homo gardarensis, comes close to being 7 feet or more in height. (I think it’s safe to lop off the top end of Bigfoot height estimates based on the uncertainty of a startled eyewitness’ getting the height just right, but even if you assume the biggest estimates are in error, I think you need at least a 7-footer, and clearly it’s broad-shouldered and large in the frame.) Despite the unsuitability of human ancestors, though, I’ve come to think they are perhaps preferable to Giganto. We have no evidence Giganto (or any large ape) ever made it north of the bamboo forests in what is now China, whereas we do have direct evidence of one human species making itself at home in cold climates and then making the trip all the way to North America. (See this article for a good anti-Giganto argument.) Plus, as humans evolved, we became more habitually bipedal, while the apes produced knuckle-walking or fist-walking large species. What offshoot of the human branch produced a hairy and apparently rather dim (no good evidence of fire-making, sophisticated tools, etc.) 7-foot species? Again, I think the answer is “none:” I just find it slightly less incredible than a giant ape.
Nessie evidence is a little like Bigfoot minus the tracks. There are some odd sonar traces, and I still haven't completely filed away Tim Dinsdale's film: it might be a boat, but it looks like it submerges at one point. The rest of the filmed evidence doesn't grab me the way is used to.
This came to mind due to a FaceBook thread on the "giant eel" idea. While this occasioned Steve Alten's best 'creature" novel, it's never been proven 20-30-foot conger (or other type) eels exist anywhere. Still, if we assume for a moment there's a large unidentified animal species which inhabits Loch Ness for part or all of its lifecycle, the eel idea has its charms. Nessies are not airbreathers: we'd have more and better pictures. Invertebrates are out based on size. That leaves fish. I can imagine a giant conger, with its relatively thin forebody, lumpy midsection, and observed unusual behavior (as Maurice Burton wrote, it can zoom around with head and forebody out of water or (seemingly pointlessly) undulate on its side at the surface) a decent candidate. Ness expert Dick Raynor points out an eel doesn't match most of the known photos, but I don't think much of any of the photo evidence these days. A giant conger could look at times like a swimming lump or a raised head/neck (even if that "neck" was sometimes the tail). I think eels could look a little more Nessie-ish than the other main fish candidates, the sturgeon or the wels catfish. It's not so much a great solution as the only one I can sort of imagine.
As I said in the title, these are random notes. They don’t really lead anywhere, except to my usual comment when I doubt cryptozoological creatures’ existence: I hope I’m wrong.