A "lot" of them? If you can name more than *two* from the entire history of paleontology, I'll be impressed. Constrast that to the literally multiple *thousands* of legitimate transitional fossils which have been found.
But creationists don't like talking about *those*, do they? Instead they just try to give the false and misleading impression that "many, perhaps all" transitional fossils are in some way suspect. You know, by darkly "supposing" about whether the countless examples of fossil evidence might just "years later" be found to be fraudulant like "a lot of others" (number unspecified).
Last time I checked, two or so does count as "a lot". But then I've come to realize that creationists often have a different grasp of number and proportion from the rest of us.