I would say almost all of them are invalid - it is pretty easy to see the strange ways that words rather than careful facts are used to shape the argument.
Here Mercedes Benz make some basic mistakes with self promotion disguised as "research".
Not to mention that air has 0.00133 the density of water and the fish has a similar density to water while the car vastly outweighs the air it is influencing.
Finally ... looking at the tapering nose of the fish ... does the car actually have much resemblance to the fish at all?
Maybe some spots, Mercedes?