It does make interesting points but makes all the same old mistakes. His graphics are amusing, but undermines his point. Any suggestion of a conspiracy undermines his point. Slagging off other individuals for their a very rigorous approach is petty and unnecessary for the support of other evidence (especially a man with cancer, that seems mean).
He still uses to much conjecture. I don't, for example, care much if a marine biologist thinks lusca is real. Where is said biologist's evidence?
Why not keep it factual and keep to the scientific method? For example, did the lad in Monmouth have his wounds examined by an expert? Were there tracks or evidence at the site of the attack? Same with the chap in the garden? Lets see those things laid out properly.
The lusca as an octopus is an intriguing theory, I like it and the bit of a big dead octopus is interesting. But why beg a marine biologist to sterilise an octopus to see what happens and then in the next sentence treat the growth after sterility as a hard fact?
If you want to be taken seriously, deal with the subject matter using a scientific method and document, reference, explore other possibilities (so for example: Did the group of young people, simply whang their 'friend' on the head, tie rocks to his feet and chuck him in the hole? Did the Monmouth boy make it up?).
Do the job properly. Could even list references and sources at the end (new stories of disappearances, link to the stories, link to the report on the dead octopus and so on). It would still be a theory or conjecture, but at least one presented in a methodical way. It's reasonable (and in line with say, experiments written up for dissertations) such a video with enough information to allow someone else to follow the same trial.
My conjecture is that the approach taken by most cryptozoologists does them far more harm than the 'lack of evidence'.