Which is more believeable

[dreamr802]

Which is more believeable for you strange creatures like the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot...or ghosts? Me personally I lean more towards ghosts because in most cultures that I know about, there is always something mentioned with either ghosts or spirits roaming the earth. It's also hard for me to imagine random monsters at least how people have described them in books and whatnot.

[majika]

I know what you're getting at but I have a different take on it. Strange creatures exist and the reason they're so hyped about is because they're the last of their species. And that's why they're so hard to track because they're alone in this world. On the other hand, ghosts have a larger population. Ghosts dwell where people are and so that's why they're sensed more often.
________
VN2000

[sanju123]

I believe in what I see and which seems ethically and authentically right and believe. My vote is neither for any ghosts nor for the strangest of creatures.

[mistaken]

When I choose what's more believable does not mean that I believe in their existence. I will have to wait until the creature or the ghost is right in front of me to even consider their existence. If I have to choose now, I'd say the creatures are more believable. That's because a large part of our ocean or nature in general is unexplored.
________
XRV650

[chocoloco]

I haven't seen a ghost and I'd really want to. It's hard for me to accept the existence of ghosts when only a select few can attest to it. Two persons looking at the same spot should be able to see the same thing. I tend to suspect that one is lying or has overactive imagination.
________
home made vaporizer

[Simplyme]

Well ghosts are something that I know factually exist so I would have to go with ghosts. Strange mysterious creatures I've never seen or experienced first hand so to me they are just stories until I learn otherwise.

[lilbit]

I say ghosts because I have seen my dad after he died. I have never seen a strange monster type thing. I tend to be the kind of person that seeing is believeing.

[Brandbla8]

WEll I would have to say they both could be. When you think of it this way that there are many parts of this planet that has never been explored before. The come up with new species daily almost so who is to say that there could not be these creatures.

[Truthed]

I will go with ghosts as well, much more "believable evidence" in my opinion

[bubble]

I would opt for ghosts. Simply because if nessie, bigfoot etc did exist, surely someone would have gotten some real hard evidence by now of an actual living thing.