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?
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?