Can the Simulation Hypothesis help explain the ins and outs of cryptozoology? Crypotzoology itself is the investigation of anomalous animals that have been witnessed, yet which remain outside of the realm of normal zoology.
Cryptozoology is yet another example of [Con] "It can't be therefore it isn't" versus [Pro] "I know what I saw".
[Pro] The sightings of anomalous animals are geographically unique and pretty consistent.
[Con] These animals shouldn't / couldn't exist.
[Pro] But ordinary people with no ulterior motive have reported seeing them.
[Con] There are however no bodies and by now there should have been bodies found.
So why just plesiosaurs at Loch Ness? Why not other extinct 'marine' reptiles like the ichthyosaurus, or the tylosaurs or even the mosasaurs? And why just a very select few of Scotland's lochs are home to plesiosaurs? And why is a marine reptile in fresh water anyway?
In Africa there's the 'dinosaur' Mokele-mbembe. But why not the Dodo or Pink Elephants?
So why just huge hairy man-apes in the Pacific Northwest? Why not woolly mammoths or sabre-tooth cats?
In Australia we have the Yowie. But why not killer koalas or moas?
In the Himalayas you have the Yeti. Why not dragons or the wooly rhinoceros?
In Mexico / Latin America there's the Chupacabra. Why not unicorns or centaurs?
Then there's the Jersey Devil; Mothman; the Beast of Exmoor and on and on it goes. "It can't be therefore it isn't" versus "I know what I saw" is easily resolved as noted above by special effects technologies, like programmed software.