big-names who support(ed) aquatic mammals

A

Anonymous

Guest
I've seen many cryptozoology *enthusiasts* like myself say that the undulating, psychrophilic megaserpents and four-paddled longnecks that are reported as "lake monsters" would be reported more often if they were mammals. Sure, a cryptid doesn't become real until the day that any skeptic can be promised an opportunity to examine the body of a specimen for themself, but were talking an increase in SOFT evidence.

My question is: Why have so many big-names in cryptozoology like A. C. Oudemans, Bernard Heuvelmans, Peter Costello, and Roy Mackal not only admitted that these monsters not only COULD turn out to be mammals, but actually propose that this is the most likely outcome?
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
25
Points
69
caddy comes to mind..

but still mammal or fish/reptile..still need too bag one of these unknowns (any type) to get the ball rolling.
 

marion

Ungnoing.
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
252
Points
94
Certainly must be possible , there must have been lots of strange shaped proto whales and suchlike , these lake monsters could have evolved from or be relics of them .
 
Top