The expanded and improved third edition of my first book will be retitled: Searching for Ropens and Finding God. From the first edition, this has been a cross genre, a spiritual true-life-adventure cryptozoology book. The new title makes that fact more clear: This is about more than just modern pterosaurs.

Lake Pung Ropen Sighting

The following is taken from the May 14, 2013, version of the editing of the second chapter. It involves Gideon Koro’s first videotaped interview on Umboi Island:

Gideon’s testimony overshadowed the others. He was one of seven boys who saw a giant ropen, around 1994, flying over a crater lake; the boys ran down off the mountain, terrified. Within few months, Gideon answered questions in front of a video camcorder, nervously. He described the ropen as skinny, and the size as “house to house” (referring to nearby huts). One of the two interviewers, Baptist missionary Jim Blume, interpreted: “about twenty feet.” But he misunderstood.

The number of creatures then became confused with size. As Jim Blume was interpreting and estimating the wingspan, it sounded like Gideon mentioned additional “smaller ones.” The interpreters then questioned him about “how many” (meaning the number of creatures), and Gideon answered, “ten or twenty.”

I would discover, after interviewing Gideon myself in 2004, that he did not mean that there were ten or twenty ropens; he was probably adjusting, during the first interview, his size-estimate for the one ropen he encountered. But I would conclude, in 2007, that the median of ten and twenty—fifteen—was the approximate overall length or wingspan of that ropen, in meters, consistent with his estimate of wing-size during my interview with Gideon in 2004: seven meters.

We need to understand that Gideon thinks in meters rather than feet. When the subject was the size of the ropen observed by those seven boys, Jim Blume said “twenty.” Gideon then said something that was interpreted as “smaller ones.” What he meant, I believe, is this: The length or wingspan (probably similar in size) could have been smaller than twenty meters, less than sixty-six feet.

By the way, my memory of villages on Umboi Island may be instructive. I believe many of the huts are in the neighborhood of fifteen meters apart, which is what I believe Gideon meant when he estimated the size of the ropen with the words “house-to-house.” The interpreter may have thought about house length.

.

Publication of Searching for Ropens and Finding God

I hope this third edition will be completed and published by the end of summer.

###

.

A related book but in pure cryptozoology genre:

Live Pterosaurs in America, third edition, by Jonathan David Whitcomb

This book about modern living pterosaurs is available now, in contrast to Searching for Ropens and Finding God (which will not be published until around September of 2013). From the middle of the introduction, we read:

If this book does nothing more than comfort the eyewitnesses of strange creatures, I would be grateful; but there’s much more. We need to understand why we believe what we believe. When I first began researching these eyewitness sightings, years ago, I mentioned a word to a kindergartner: “pterosaurs;” he said, “A comet.” Years later, while writing this book, I mentioned my work to a second-grader; she said, “Who will buy your book? Crazy people?” I think better of you. And I think, because of what she and many others have told me, that we must understand indoctrination, for it influences our beliefs; the extent of that influence discomforts me.

Purchase your own copy of Live Pterosaurs in America — available now.

I don’t usually make a lengthy post, in this blog, on a negative review of one of my books (the book now in question is Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea, Kindle ebook, by Jonathan Whitcomb). But the recent Amazon review by “WS” deserves a response for much of it is patently false and much is distorted or misleading. Here’s a screen shot of the review:

.

.

“More religion than investigation”?

Perhaps 1% of the book mentions two missionaries (one in Africa and another in Papua New Guinea) and a few creationist explorers and how the Biblical creationist perspective made it easier for them to search for living pterosaurs. But that 1% of the book gives no details about any religious beliefs nor does it promote any religion of those men. Their involvement is just a matter of record.

Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea (LPAPNG) does give many details about sightings of apparent pterosaurs and expeditions to search for the flying creatures and interview eyewitnesses. It also investigates why it is so difficult for Australians to report their encounters. Why doubt that LPAPNG is a cryptozoology book or believe it is “more religion than investigation?” Perhaps WS allows only skeptical investigators to count and considers creationist investigators to be incapable of any genuine investigation. But why does WS not give any details or explain what is meant by the title “More religion than investigation?”

“One or two Intriguing Reports”?

Of the many pterosaur sighting reports investigated in this Kindle book, four of them are labeled “key” sightings. Each of those four is given a chapter of its own:

• “The Finschhafen Pterodactyl”
• “The Bougainville Creature”
• “The Lake Pung Encounter”
• “The Perth Creature”

Consider WS’s declaration: “The book really consists of one or two intriguing reports . . .” Without the word “intriguing,” that statement is patently false. With the word, WS is declaring his opinion or his personal interest in a small portion of the sighting reports. But WS’s statement can be misleading, for no mention is made about the many sighting reports investigated in the book, the many reports that he personally does not find intriguing.

Just Vague Lights?

WS mentioned “some vague sightings of lights in the night sky” but drops the subject. Consider what WS failed mentioning:

Jonah Jim saw the creature in 2001, between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., as it flew about 500-550 feet overhead, in the general direction of Lake Pung. The tail was glowing blue.

He estimated the size: The wingspan was six or seven meters and the tail length was three meters or a little less. . . .

Jonah Jim was shown the same pages of silhouettes shown to Jonathan Ragu. From among those thirty-four images, he chose #13, the Sordes Pilosus, the same Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur chosen by Ragu.

That nine-foot-long tail that was glowing blue, flying toward Lake Pung, about 500-550 feet high, connected to an apparent Sordes Pilosus Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur having a wingspan of about twenty feet—that does not sound vague to me. Why fail to mention that light?

“Antiscience Rhetoric”?

WS said that much of the book contains ”the author’s antiscience rhetoric.” If that were the case, it would be easy to find some of it to quote. Let’s examine some of what the book actually contains:

The first discovery of a pterosaur fossil by a Western scientist, in 1784, was decades before Charles Darwin began writing about his ideas on extinctions and evolution. Before Darwin, Western scientists had assumed that all species of pterosaurs were extinct for a simple reason: Those who discovered the fossils had no experience with any similar animal that was living.

Also important, probably no scientist at that time had considered that a few species of pterosaurs might still be alive, rarely seen because they’re both uncommon and nocturnal. Today, some cryptozoologists believe that one or more of their species are indeed uncommon and nocturnal—and still alive. [from early in the first chapter]

Does the above sound like “antiscience rhetoric?” What’s wrong with considering the possibility that a few scientists in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century might not be 100% correct about universal pterosaur extinction?

For “ancient” creatures assumed extinct, post-Darwin scientists were incapable of accepting anything short of an official scientific discovery. But nothing happened. How could living pterosaurs remain hidden, considering all the various scientific discoveries in the twentieth century? It was simple. The uncommon nocturnal flying creatures found it easy to remain hidden: Nobody was looking for them. [from the middle of the first chapter]

Where is the “antiscience rhetoric” in the above paragraph? What is unscientific about the idea that scientists after Darwin were not looking for living pterosaurs?

By the middle of the twentieth century, school teachings had cemented the ancient-extinction idea into Western culture, so dinosaurs and pterosaurs were portrayed as living only in science fiction and dragons only in fantasy. [further into chapter one]

Do you notice any “antiscience rhetoric” in the above sentence? I see nothing unscientific in the statement.

Assumptions About Extinctions

It seems to me that WS became upset that my book appeared threatening to the credibility of generations of assumptions about extinctions. I suggest we take an open mind to the definition of “science” rather than think it equates with such a narrow point of view as the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs.

###

More Religion than Investigation?

This dismantles criticisms, by WS, of the cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea.

.

Non-fiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea

From the end of the book:

What dictionary defines “pterosaur” without the word “extinct?” There lies the first problem, in Western society, for Australians and Americans are raised from young childhood to believe in the extinction of all species of pterosaurs and dinosaurs, without compromise, and what is the explanation? “Science.”

How do flying dragons relate to pterosaurs? Old stories and ancient history—those contain the word “dragon,” and some of the accounts involve large creatures that fly, and sometimes those flying creatures resemble pterosaurs, at least to some extent.

Peter Wellnhofer works at the Bavarian State Collection for Palaeontology and Geology in Munich, a research institute. He is recognized as the foremost pterosaur-fossil expert in the world. I mention this to illustrate the depth of the pterosaur-extinction assumption, that it is not confined to common paleontologists. It seems like all of them assume universal extinction.

I also mention Peter Wellnhofer because of what he wrote in his book, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs, regarding old records about flying dragons. I am fortunate to own a copy of his book.

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs

Published by Salamander Books, Ltd., in 1991

Large hardback, 192 pages

In general I highly recommend this book as a reference to fossil discoveries of pterosaurs and what has been learned about these amazing flying creatures of the past. I do not, however, feel any need to adopt his assumption about universal extinction of pterosaurs or to adopt his assumption about many millions of years of age for the fossils.

Today I read an interesting proposition in this paleontology book:

“Dragons of the Myths”

If we pursue the history of the investigation of pterosaurs, the flying saurians of prehistoric times, there is a natural link in our minds with the myths and legends of dragons. . . .

For 16th and 17th century scholars dragons were still a reality. For example, in the Schlanganbuch (Snake Book) by the famous Swiss naturalist and town doctor Conrad Gessner, dating from 1589, there is a chapter called “Von den Tracken,” in which he describes and illustrates various dragons.

He also describes a battle between a Swiss called Winkelreid  and a dragon which took place near the Swiss village of Wyler. The scholarly Jesuit father Athanasius Kircher provided a picture of this fight in his great work on natural history Mundus Subterraneus (The World Below the Earth) in 1678. According to this the dragon had a long neck and tail, four legs, and wings.

The Viennese paleontologist Othenio Abel suggested in this context that the drawing could have been based on fossil reptile finds, possibly long necked plesiosaurs from the Jurassic strata of Wurttemberg.

At a time when even naturalists believed in fabulous creatures and monsters, the discovery of fossil bones and remains of skeletons in caves must have reinforced ideas of dragons. Old names like Dragon’s Cave, Dragon’s Rock, or Dragon’s Stone still occur on modern maps.

I agree with Wellnhofer that we naturally have a tendency to connect pterosaur fossils with dragon legends. But unless he neglected to mention important evidence, he is speculating about fossil discoveries reinforcing belief in dragon stories. Even if there is some truth to that, it would not explain the dragon stories themselves.

He mentions a few geographic names that might have been related to ancient fossil discoveries, but he mentioned nothing about the many geographic names that contain nothing like “rock” or “stone” but do contain references to encounters with living creatures.

Wellnhofer also mentioned nothing about reports of strange flying creatures much earlier in history than the 16th and 17th centuries and more recently, such as from 1890 to the present. Those many accounts could have taken up many pages of his book, rather than just the few paragraphs that he chose to dedicate to dragons.

But writing extensively about sightings of pterosaur-like flying creatures would be expected of a nonfiction cryptozoology book, not a paleontology book. Nevertheless, this line of thinking brings up a question: Was Wellnhofer’s choices (in writing these few paragraphs about dragons) greatly influenced by the dogma of universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs? Since the book in general appears to have been written entirely within that paradigm, I suggest those few paragraphs were also written within it. Anyone desiring to gain much knowledge and understanding of dragon legends, and how they might relate to extant pterosaurs, needs to research in other books.

If significant truth lives in even just one of the old legends or stories of flying dragons, the intelligent and objective researcher will need to search further than in the brief writings of those who assume modern flying dragons could never have existed. My advice? Search!

.

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Pterosaurs, by Peter Wellnhofer

.

Pterosaurs, or Flying Dragons, in California

News headlines in an 1891 newspaper included:

PTERODACTYLS

Sport Gunning for Dragons Near Fresno

Two Screaming Dragons Snap Their Jaws . . .

.

Cooler weather does not mean pterosaur sightings come to a halt, for they continue. This past Wednesday, January 2, 2013, I received an email from an eyewitness in Missouri. The sighting was not old: “about 45 minutes ago.”

.

Reports of living “pterodactyls” in Georgia . . . probably relate to sightings of some flying creatures in South Carolina and Florida, according to author Jonathan Whitcomb . . .

I noticed an Amazon review by a reader of the first edition of my Live Pterosaurs in America (published in mid-2009); he published his review on November 14, 2012, just two days ago. I understand how somebody might see an old link to a page on that early edition and purchase a copy without  knowing about the third edition, which is much longer (and improved). It costs only pennys more than the first. “Ashtar Command” was not very pleased with the book, and wrote his review apparently still ignorant of the third edition.

He admits being very sceptical about my book, although he does not explain why he purchased a book that he disbelieved from the beginning. He is not an “Amazon verified” purchaser of the book, although I see some evidence that he might have read most of it, perhaps all the book. But I see more evidence that he did not consider details carefully.

Near the end of his review, Ashtar Command says, “. . . it seems to be the only book available exclusively dealing with this (far out) subject. . . .” Where does he get that idea? I have written and published three nonfiction books on living pterosaurs, all of them available on Amazon:

1. Searching for Ropens (two editions)
2. Live Pterosaurs in America (three editions)
3. Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea (Kindle ebook)

In addition, I know of two other books (by McIsaac and Gerhard) that have significant content on reports of modern living pterosaurs. The book that Ashtar Command has read is neither the first nor the last book about extant pterosaurs. But I see other problems with his reasoning.

The following deserves a response:

“Others [of the sighting reports of apparent living pterosaurs] have a certain occult feel, as when one eye-witness reported a huge pterosaur in the middle of Suburbia, but nobody else noticed!”

Nothing in any edition of any of my books makes any suggestion that what one eyewitness has experienced could not have been observed by anybody else. What is so strange about this: An eyewitness is shocked to see an apparent living pterosaur and so she does not notice any other person (potential eyewitness) in the vicinity, in the very early morning?

What difference does it make that this skeptic has experienced an “occult” feeling? Some sightings have been with only one eyewitness, of course, but nothing in my writings suggest that nobody else could have been in those areas (at those times) and observed the same things.

I make it clear, in my books, that not all eyewitnesses come forward and report seeing what their culture demands must be impossible. It seems that Ashtar Command is unaware of the magnitude of the indoctrination that has caused him to disbelieve the experiences of many eyewitnesses.

But I see other problems:

“The creatures are biologically impossible.”

Surely he does not mean this in the usual sense, or he would disbelieve that paleontologists have fossils of pterosaurs. He probably means this in context with what he then writes:

“What do they eat? Where do they breed?”

Why focus on pterosaurs? Ask those questions for the Blue whale. Does asking those questions make that whale impossible? How dearly we need clear thinking!

I believe the pterosaur-food question was answered in the first edition of the book, the edition that the skeptic purchased. Since he gives no details, neither will I. The breeding and nesting habits of modern pterosaurs—that’s an interesting subject. I hope to learn about it someday, but asking that question does not make extant pterosaurs impossible.

The next question the skeptic asks is old:

“How come bird-watchers aren’t seeing them?”

Where does Ashtar Command get the idea that no bird watchers have ever observed an extant pterosaur? When he answers that question, I will answer his.

Whitcomb believes that the pterosaurs eat nightjars or bats, but shouldn’t this affect nightjar behaviour?

The Nighthawk is one kind of nightjar bird. It is mentioned in at least one or two editions of Live Pterosaurs in America, regarding the biology professor Peter Beach, who testified that the activities of apparent bioluminescent flying creatures (presumed pterosaurs) AFFECTED THE BEHAVIOR of Nighthawks. Why does this skeptic take the position that my book says the opposite of what it actually says?

Outdated first edition (get the third edition instead)

.

Second edition: better, but not the best (see below)

.

Expanded third edition of the nonfiction paperback Live Pterosaurs in America – Purchase this cryptozoology book on Amazon or other online book seller.

.

Live Pterosaurs in America

The reader, apparently, had no idea that newer editions are available, even though Amazon states clearly, “This is the first edition, before the expansions of newer editions.”