I enjoy this sort of article like I enjoy the writings of Erich Von Daniken. As with Daniken, I don't know enough about the subject, nor the reporters sources to feel very confident about the conclusions; regardless it's certainly a fun read.
One source I see referenced a lot is the poorly reviewed book The Woman's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0062509233/102-3739115-7141716?v=glance .
I have not read the book and could easily believe that a lot of reviewers have raised objections based not so much on its fact as its ideas, but seeing it as a primary source raises some suspicion. I certainly don’t doubt the author’s motives but I do wonder about their scholarship. Even with deep scholastic knowledge on the subject this sort of thesis is difficult to defend. It’s really just a lot of speculation.

Im sure all stuff of this type all began with bored artists, and beautiful women, of course.

just check out www.save-the-mermaids.com ( http://web.mac.com/regados/iWeb/Site/MWM%20Home.html if the other link is not working) and get a FREE! mermorphing!

cheers to all!!

R