The original comments on this question (Am I, Jonathan Whitcomb, a “pterodactyl expert?”) were on a forum discussion thread on cryptozoology.com (about Dec 30, 2010 to Jan 1, 2011). I neither participated in that discussion nor badgered anybody to bring up the subject. Since most of those comments were very negative about me, and that page has become prominent online, I have replied to various aspects of it and will continue here with replies to some of the words of “ape man.” My critics are experts at writing bulverisms. (For general info on me, see the media page: Jonathan Whitcomb, subtitled “Pterosaur Expert.”)

A double misspelling of my first name (“Johnathon”) does not necessarily mean that “ape man” has been careless in his reading of my writings on the subject of apparent living pterosaurs (AKA “pterodactyls”), but other evidences suggest he has been careless indeed.

Criticism on “solitary” expert qualification

“Do you know what Johnathon Whitcomb’s solitary expert qualifications are? The expert qualifications listed in his book and on every creationist website? Here you go:

Jonathan D. Whitcomb, certified court videographer”

Answer

None of my writings even hint that my sole qualification as an expert is in my certification as a forensic videographer. I have mentioned how my experiences interviewing accident victims while videotaping them (for attorney firms) helped prepare me to interview native eyewitnesses on Umboi Island while I videotaped them. But communicating with eyewitnesses—that in itself has helped me to learn how to get to the relevant truth about apparent pterosaurs that are observed by people around the world.

What does “ape man” mean by “on every creationist website?” He seems oblivious to at least the vast majority of my online writings, for perhaps only about 1%-2% of them are about the Biblical-creationist relevance to reports of modern living pterosaurs. Is it possible that “ape man” has read most of my web pages and blog posts, which number over a thousand? Hardly likely. If he has read anything, it seems much more likely to have been from searching for creationist pages on living pterosaurs (I have written at least a few). But he seems to have read little, if anything, written by me.

The singular “book” suggests even more that he has read little if anything of my writings, for I have written more than one book. I would suggest to “ape man” that he keep an open mind about what it may take for a person to become an expert at something.

Criticism on “Minimal Research”

“He is a CREATIONIST who did minimal research about legendary creatures and fossil flying reptiles, then tried to mash them together.”

Answer

What is “ape man” talking about? One of my books? A blog post? A traditional web page? My scientific paper (published in a peer-reviewed journal of science)? Which one?

What research has “ape man” done? Why does he not quote something that I have written? As it is, I have no idea what he means. My best guess is that he has imagined many negative things about me and my writings and has written from his imagination.

Criticism on no Credentials

“Johnathon Whitcomb does not have any credentials that make him an expert on prehistoric creatures, not professionally nor academically.”

Answer

Mr. “ape man” seems to have forgotten where he is: commenting on a forum thread of cryptozoology-dot-com. The particular sub-topic is “prehistoric survivors,” under “cryptids.” Obviously that means sightings of apparent ancient animals like pterosaurs. Need I mention that there may be no paleontologist in the world, regardless of PhD’s, who is anything like an expert in sightings of apparent modern pterosaurs? To take this one more step, there may be no scientist, no professor, no paleontologist in the world who has as much experience with sightings of apparent living pterosaurs than I have.

To the best of my knowledge, I have written more original material on sightings of apparent pterosaurs (and the possibility of modern pterosaurs and related subjects) than all other cryptozoologists, all other paleontologists, and all other professors (of all branches of science) in all the world, put together, during the past eight years. Some of my writings have elicited technical corrections from those who are open minded to the possibility of modern pterosaurs; I am grateful for their suggestions. But it seems strange to me that “ape man” seems to believe that I am the least qualified person in the world.

###

“Pterodactyl Expert“

My lack of qualifications in paleontology is irrelevant in cryptozoology. I do not examine fossils of pterodactyls, I examine eyewitness testimony.

Bulverism

I once heard a Sunday school teacher say something like this: “A person who is damned is like a river that is dammed. When someone is spiritually hindered, that person has allowed a blockage to form, a blockage to progress.” I think we need to keep communications open, without fear. Bulverism blocks communication; that blockage needs to be cleared away.

This is not to illuminate the bioluminescent pterosaur of Marfa, Texas, or of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea. Indeed, that kind of glow actually hides the form and features of the flying creature that produces the light. Setting aside bioluminescence, we now consider why some night sightings have contributed to the credibility of the live-pterosaur investigations.

I recall part of a comment from a critic, some years ago, ridiculing the credibility of eyewitnesses who “misidentify” birds or bats at night. But he was only tossing out a generalization, assuming that all reported sightings (those encounters that serious invesigators publicize) all fit neatly into his mental image of a dark landscape where people imagine that birds and bats are pterosaurs. Science thrives on details of human experience, so let’s examine particular sightings.

Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaur in Sudan, Africa

In this sighting, the eyewitness could see details, for the flying creature was close and it was lit by a nearby porch light.

The boy was walking from one mud-brick hut to another, one night in 1988, carrying a tray of food for family members. . . . The boy froze as the creature stretched its wings and hopped right over his head, causing him to drop the metal tray of dishes.

Driving Near Kenton, Ohio

In the third edition of my book Live Pterosaurs in America, I mentioned a sighting near Kenton, Ohio.

At 11:15 p.m., she was driving near Kenton, Ohio, on Route 309. With clear sky and a still-full moon, the landscape was brightly lit. A creature swooped down—an obvious “pterodactyl”—gliding gracefully over the hood of her car. She watched it fly into some dense underbrush of trees. . . . “I could see almost the bones in its wings but I did NOT see feathers at all. None. . . . it was bright out . . . because of the full moon being high in the sky.”

Nocturnal Pterosaurs in San Diego

In this sighting in San Diego, California, the two flying creatures (witnessed by two men) were probably lit from both top and bottom: from the moon and from the city lights (although the eyewitness who reported the encounter to me mentioned only the lighting from the moon).

From the west came this dark object in the sky. It was right over us about, I say, 40 yards [high]. As it got closer we both yelled, “What the hell is that?” It looked like a huge bird. It was gliding . . . I began yelling at it . . .

That was a large flying creature at low altitude, perhaps coming within 140 feet of the eyewitnesses. The lighting was adequate for the two eyewitnesses to see the details that were later given to me.

To begin, I have never declared that, of all the reported sightings of apparent living pterosaurs, not one was a hoax. The following question is much better: “Did hoaxes play any significant role in these many reports?” That question can be answered decisively: “No.” It comes from careful analysis of the data of ninety-eight sighting reports, compiled in late-2011, and it confirms an earlier analysis.

Setting aside the wingspan-estimate statistics for the moment (perhaps a stronger disproof of the conjecture of a significant number of hoaxes), let’s consider the featherlessness concept, for we now have more sightings and more data to analyze. Why consider how sure eyewitnesses have been about the lack of feathers in the flying creatures? A hoaxer would have no reason to show doubt about the lack of feathers, for that would be essential to convince somebody that a pterosaur had been observed, therefore, if there were many hoaxers, we would expect a great majority of reports to include a sure conviction of featherlessness. Actual sightings, however, would be expected to have been in various visual conditions making it likely that a significant percentage of reports would indicate uncertainty about featherlessness. (Reports in which feathers were more likely than no-feathers were not considered possible pterosaurs sightings and were not included in this study of ninety-eight eyewitness sightings.)

Of those eyewitnesses giving some indication of the probability of the lack of feathers, 43.5% reported definitely-no-feathers and 56.5% reported only-probably-no-feathers. (Thirty-six of the overall ninety-eight reports gave no indication one way or the other.) This in itself is solid evidence that no significant number of hoaxes were involved in these ninety-eight reports.

Pterosaur Wingspan Estimates and no Hoax

If a significant number of hoaxers made some of these fifty-seven estimates, and a significant number of those hoaxers were trying to portray Rhamphorhynchoids, there would have been a steeper decline above seven feet. But in fact, 26% of reports involved wingspans estimated at 9-13 feet, completely out of line for this particular hoax conjecture.

Hoax of Pterosaurs

With many eyewitnesses, with sightings in many American states, I have found something interesting about reports of featherless appearances. A hoax would be expected to include certainty of no-feathers, for why would a hoaxer want to leave any room for doubt? But the overall descriptions in the many sighting reports I have examined show something different: The definitely-no-feathers are out-numbered by the probably-no-feathers.

Of the fifty-seven sightings of apparent pterosaurs in which wingspan estimates were given (numerically, like “ten feet”), observed around the world and over many years, from the mid-twentieth century to the present, the graph shows longest wingspans to the right (every three feet, beginning with 3.25 feet; the furthest to the right, “p,” is 45.5 to 48.5 feet); the verticle indicating the number of sightings. It appears perfectly harmonious with the idea that at least most modern species experience growth throughout lifespan, with extremely large individuals being rare. The degree of rarity should be much greater than shown, for the largest modern pterosaurs should be noticed by eyewitnesses much more frequently than smaller ones; small pterosaurs can easily be ignored, for they often are not noticed as anything unusual enough to cause eyewitnesses to take a closer look and see that it is no bird.

The Hoax Potential and Pterosaur Wingspan

The peak, ten sightings, is at wingspan estimates between 3.25 feet and 6.25 feet. On the surface, this appears to clearly refute any possibility of a major hoax-influence, for why would hoaxers give such small “estimates” for the wingspan? Looking a little deeper, if hoaxers were trying to convince people that they had seen Rhamphorhynchoids, smaller wingspans would be more in harmony with fossils of those long-tailed pterosaurs. But looking even closer, we see something else.

Look at the raw data for the left and middle of the graph (wingspan in feet):

2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12.5 13 13 13 13 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 — According to standard ideas in paleontology (and that is mostly what is mentioned in Western media when it is mentioned at all), only a small percentage of Rhamphorhynchoids attained wingspans over eight feet. But the data on wingspan estimates does not show any sharp decline above six feet, more of a gentle downward slope (fewer eyewitness estimates) into sizes much larger than standard ideas about Rhamphorhynchoid fossil wingspans. If a significant number of hoaxers made some of these fifty-seven estimates, and a significant number of those hoaxers were trying to portray Rhamphorhynchoids, there would have been a steeper decline above seven feet. But in fact, 26% of reports involved wingspans estimated at 9-13 feet, completely out of line for this particular hoax conjecture.

Another Hoax Potential

Consider the most likely cause for someone to play a hoax. A jokester would likely want to shock somebody. What would be most shocking? Would it not be a huge wingspan? But if hoaxers were involved in this way, the data would not show a rather smooth transition from small wingspans into the giant ones. From a significant hoax factor of this kind, we would expect to see a peak at around 15-25 feet (around f, g, and h, on the above graph); but that is not at all what the data shows.

Pterosaur Wingspan, Recent Statistics, Absence of Hoaxes

But first we review this perspective: A number of species of pterosaurs (more than two) live in many areas of this planet, with at least most of them being at least mostly nocturnal and with some of them being witnessed by people in counties in which universal dinosaur and pterosaur extinction is taken for granted. These species include both Pterodactyloids and Rhamphorhynchoids.

Source of Data

I obtained the 98 reports from years of interviewing and research, accepting data from those reports that had both reasonable non-hoax credibility and reasonable potential for coming from actual sightings of living pterosaurs. In about two-thirds of those reports, I was at least somewhat involved; often I was the only interviewer. One example can be mentioned here:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pterosaur Sighting

“It was several years ago . . . approximately 5:00 A.M. . . . almost sure it was summer . . . in Philly. [My friend] was dropping me off, and parked. . . . . . about six blocks away . . . we saw something that made our jaws drop. We were like ‘what the h* is that thing?’ This thing didn’t seem to fly quickly. [Its] wingspan was huge. We’d figured at least 20 feet or so. It wasn’t flapping real hard like a sparrow or pigeon does. It almost seemed to sail. It came from the South, and appeared to be heading west [towards the Delaware River].” (From the nonfiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America – third edition)