I decided to do my research paper on the Loch Ness Monster, but more specifically discuss how and why it's a fallacy. I basically want to give a few general but very informative reasons on why the legend is just that, a legend and not true by any means. So far with my research on different websites and articles I have found that the evidence for the monster being a complete hoax significantly outweighs the evidence for it being a legitimate cryptid. The three most important points that I state for it being fake are: off colour eye-witness accounts, fraudulent images or video recording of the “monster”, and lastly but possibly the most important reason, the application of science to the whole scenario. Science in particular meaning points like evolution, how the monster couldn't possibly survive for almost 1,450 years by itself in a lake, and how the pre-historic creature that believers state it to be (a plesiosaurus) was not even remotely native to anywhere near or around Scotland when it was believed to exist many millions of years ago. I believe the images and stories that the witnesses have made of seeing the monster are so ridiculous that they turn out in fact to be quite comical. For instance, one of the most famous images was captured back in the early 1930's when a doctor from London snapped what appeared to be a picture of the monster. For the longest time it was thought to be the most vital of evidence for the existence of the monster until one day when he was dying he admitted to the world that it was bogus. It's from stories and scientific evidence like this that can only point to the Loch Ness Monster being just a myth.
My comment for Donovan: Your paper sounds really interesting. Being a huge Yankee fan I constantly come across people who criticise them for spending so much money and how a salary cap would prevent them from being too successful and some how solve all of the MLB's problems. It's great to hear that someone else thinks that a salary cap would be a terrible idea for baseball.
