"Adahmeve" means marriage between a man and a woman

“No New Evidence” for Living Pterosaurs?

Posted on Posted in Reply to Skeptics, U.S.A. Sightings

I’ve just been notified of a post on “Doubtful News” in which I am accused of deceiving people and then admitting the deceit. What nonsense! For the moment, set aside the “sock puppet” accusation, reference to the self-publishing of one of my books, and my religious beliefs; just look at what’s in the third sentence of that post:

“… the same stories get recirculated repeatedly to make up for no new evidence …”

I continue to receive eyewitness reports of apparent living pterosaurs, as I have for the past eleven years. The following are some of the more recent emails:

West Virginia, October of 2014

Ricky Kearns and family members witnessed a large flying creature at night, and it had wings that were glowing. This was in Point Pleasant, although Ricky mentioned to me that what he saw did not look like what the Mothman is reported to look like. Nevertheless, there may be a relationship with some sightings of what has been labeled “Mothman.”

Notice that this is not a repeated sighting report. The flying creature appeared on a night in October of 2014 and was immediately reported to cryptozoologists who specialize in modern-pterosaur accounts. It has limited resemblance, in the details, with other records in previous sightings, yet the glowing wings suggest a connection with ropen sightings.

Ricky reported, “. . . I’m still bugged by all this [trying to learn what he saw]. . . . having the Mothman and festivals and stuff being the only tourist attraction for my small community, it’s hard to tell. But it was way high up, definitely bioluminescent, a light orange.”

Minnesota, reported in early November of 2014

The sighting itself was about twenty years ago; eyewitnesses sometimes don’t report an encounter until years later. Here’s a bit of the email:

I don’t want to sound crazy, and I know you will keep an open mind about it, but it still seems crazy after 20 years. . . .  In 1995 I had a very close encounter with something similar to a Pterosaur in southern Minnesota. The day started off as a normal summer day for us kids. My older brother went out fishing early in the morning and came home about noon, but for some reason I decided to try to one up him that day.

. . . I headed down to “my” fishing spot. After several small fish and a decent sized bass I decided to call it a day. . . . I decided to head back home there was an outcropping or a cave (you could honestly classify it as either it was either a shallow cave or a deep outcropping) on my way back home and as I got near it I heard something . . .

I got within 15 feet of the mouth of the cave I see this beautiful burgundy thing standing near the opening. It was smooth with no feathers, and a large horn out of the back of it’s head. I could see that as it was pulling meat off of a fish it’s beak was making the tapping noise I heard.

Why does that “Doubtful News” bog post say “no new evidence?” I got up early this morning, as usual, and before 6:00 a.m. I had found three separate online sighting evidences: Florida, Illinois, and Minnesota (not the report mentioned above about a boy who had seen a flying creature in something like a cave in Minnesota but another sighting in that state). I had no previous knowledge of any of those three encounters with apparent pterosaurs; each of the three reports was completely new to me.

Dubious “Doubtful News” Post

That post by someone calling herself “idoubtit” quotes Donald Prothero, who wrote the post “Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets.” I found many errors in Prothero’s accusations. He said,  “Whitcomb admitted the deception in July, 2014.” I’m glad he included a link for that sentence; if only every reader would click on that link and read my own words! It’s my explanation for why I was HONEST, not an admission of dishonesty. I explained why I used two pseudonyms in a minority of my online writings. Reading only that skeptic’s post—that can easily lead readers into thinking I tried to deceive people. It was, in reality, the only way I could find to emphasize the eyewitness testimonies, for my name was already becoming a target for mud-slinging in 2005, after my expedition in Papua New Guinea. Perhaps I made a mistake in using two pseudonyms for several years, but then it would be an honest mistake. The point about honesty is leading people to the truth, not in technical definitions of sock puppet and pen name; the point about dishonesty is leading people away from the truth, even when a few accurate statements may be inserted.

In other words, Donald Prothero properly linked to the relevant web page where I explained my use of pseudonyms, yet he proclaimed the opposite of what I thought I had clearly stated. Why become overly focused on the possibility that a person one disagrees with is a liar?

I am not accusing idoubtit or Donald Prothero of intentionally deceiving their readers; it’s quite likely that those two were somehow deceived themselves. Please read the words of the more credible eyewitnesses, for the truth will eventually come to light, regardless of what some skeptics say about my honesty and my religious beliefs.

.

###

.

Ropen book, non-fiction, by Whitcomb

Cross-genre: cryptozoology, true-life adventure, spiritual, inspirational

.

.

Cover, back and front, of Live Pterosaurs in America - nonfiction book

Pure cryptozoology and more compact than Searching for Ropens and Finding God

.

One comment on ““No New Evidence” for Living Pterosaurs?

  1. Pingback: Why the Ropen is Real » Cryptid Eyewitness