I admit somebody, somewhere in a boat on a sea, may be shocked at the sight of a Manta ray fish jumping up out of the water, perhaps as high as ten feet above the surface. But I object to the conjecture of Mr. Drinnon, that such appearances have caused “many” of the reported sightings of living pterosaurs.

He says nothing about how he has selected the sightings; he mentions nothing that suggests he ever had any specific idea about any selection process. To gain any significant confidence in his jumping-fish conjecture, one must dive into ones imagination to search down into the depths of murky possibilities, while ignoring the clear images that live up above, in the real world; I suggest examining all the relevant details in actual eyewitness reports.

In reading two of Mr. Drinnon’s blog posts (both mentioning the fish-misidentification possibility for living pterosaur sightings), I have seen nothing that gives any hint that he has read any edition of any of my three nonfiction books on sightings of modern pterosaurs. I also doubt that he has read my scientific paper published on that subject. It seems that he has read at least one of my blog posts, probably at least two; but I have written over a thousand posts and web pages over the past nine years. I suggest that skeptics in general should read more than one or two online posts before writing much criticism of the concept of modern pterosaurs.

In a reply-comment in a recent post by Mr. Drinnon, he said, “The wingspan of a ptersaur [sic] like Pteranodon (the one that is theoretically most like the reports) . . .” But for years my writings have made it clear that the great majority of sightings of apparent pterosaurs suggest the Rhamphorhynchoid type, NOT the Pterodactyloid type. The Pteranodon is the short-tailed variety, not the long-tailed. But he seems so focused on the standard-model ideas that he refuses to consider the possibility that an extant pterosaur could be a Rhamphorhynchoid.

I don’t object to the use of real scientific criticism; but I do object to the use of a straw man argument. Since Mr. Drinnon has mentioned a Pterodactyloid pterosaur, as if it were typical in modern sightings, consider some examples that he does not mention:

1. Central New Britain sightings by three or four eyewitnesses, over a period of many months—those were flights high above a jungle canyon or valley, far inland from the sea, many miles away from the sea. No Manta ray was involved. (Read the nonfiction book Searching for Ropens, second edition).
2. Desert in Southern California—that flight was very high above the desert, many miles away from the ocean. No jumping fish was involved. (Read the latest edition of the nonfiction book Live Pterosaurs in America)

But why examine those few sightings of short-tailed pterosaurs? Let’s look deeper into remarks by Mr. Drinnon in relation to the common sightings, those that were obviously Rhamphorhynchoids or at least could have been long-tailed pterosaurs.

Hair Before on Pterosaur

Consider fossils of pterosaurs. At least some species show evidence of hair, at least on some parts of their bodies. Some fossils leave little room for doubt; Sordes Pilosus is an example. But Mr. Drinnon takes this concept too far, trying to pin hair onto all parts of the bodies of all pterosaurs, including any that might still be living on this planet.

He mentions that pterosaurs (meaning those that left fossils that have been discovered and examined by paleontologists) had “fine hair or fur.” He uses that idea as if it repudiates descriptions in reports that I have received. Since he seems to have neglected reading my books, I quote from the third edition of Live Pterosaurs in America:

“They were huge! [Their feet] wrapped around a 2”x6” plank; I just couldn’t believe it! [Their] heads I would have to say it was maybe 4 ft long with the beak. . . . a brown body color that looked like hair . . .” (page 62)

“the end of the tail had a ’tuft of hair‘.” (page 126)

Some eyewitnesses do indeed report the presence or possibility of hair.

Now for quoting from my ebook Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea:

“The body also still appeared leathery, though textured as though possibly covered with fine hair or small scales . . .” [Perth sighting of 1997]

Also from my nonfiction Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea is a report that seems, on the surface, to confirm Mr. Drinnon’s objection to the lack of hair in eyewitness’s descriptions. I admit that there was a reference to lack of hair in this particular sighting a few years ago. It was off the coast of Umboi Island where several native eyewitnesses saw a ropen in the sea over a reef:

“. . . It was floating 10 meters away from the boat and its color [probably referring only to the tail] was brownish-dark without any form of hair.”

But that description needs to be taken in context. I don’t recall asking the eyewitness about hair (or lack thereof) in our email communications; I rarely ask any question about hair in brief interviews. Why did he bring up the subject of hair? I suggest he mentioned the lack of any appearance of hair (probably referring to part of the tail) because of the tradition on Umboi Island: The ropen is said to have hair. This presence of hair on the ropen is not just something I learned from watching videotaped interviews with natives of Umboi: I encountered this “hair” idea during my own expedition on that island in 2004. I heard it during my face-to-face interviewing on Umboi Island.

Hair Objection – a Simple Refutation

I don’t recall reading anything, by a paleontologist, suggesting that no species of pterosaur was hairless. Even if all those known from fossils did have hair, why should all modern pterosaurs have hair? Why should Mr. Drinnon insist on that point? He gives no reason for that position.

Another Objection to Lack of Hair

How often do we see no hair on the arms of humans on a sunny beach! From a distance of more than fifteen yards, how could we see any hair on human arms, except maybe a man having light skin but dark arm hair? For most humans, that’s too far away to see that human hair. But how many sightings of apparent pterosaurs are from a distance of more than fifteen yards!

I suggest that skeptics look deeper into this phenomenon of cryptozoology before throwing out simplistic criticisms.

Kuhn saw two pterosaurs in Cuba, in 1971

In the above reproduction of the sketch of two pterosaurs in Cuba, the tail vane shows nothing suggesting hair. But Mr. Kuhn did mention to me that possibility of hair at the tail end, and he believes that his original sketch shows that hairy appearance.

.

Hornbill Birds and a Live Pterosaur

The skeptic mentions both the 1944 sighting by Duane Hodgkinson and the 1971 sighting by Brian Hennessy. . . . consider the . . . descriptions of the flying creature seen by Hodgkinson (DH) and Hennessy (BH) . . .

Pterosaurs Across the Pacific

Those few sighting that were of creatures over the sea—some of them involved long periods of flight, far longer than the few seconds it takes for a Manta ray fish to jump out of the sea and fall back into the water.

Jumping Manta Ray

How desperate is the critic of living pterosaur reports, the skeptic who suggests people are observing large fish that jump up above the surface of the sea!

Some time ago, a well known cryptozoologist attributed many sightings of live pterosaurs to a news frenzy. I don’t recall the details, so I won’t mention the name of the cryptozoologist. But it was around the mid-1970′s and perhaps into the early 1980′s, in Texas.

Newspapers in Eastern Texas were often reporting the encounters people were having with winged creatures, and some people assumed that all of the reports were from sightings of live pterosaurs. But a few persons (perhaps more than a few) may have reacted to the news reports by letting their imaginations cause distortions. Not all winged creatures that may surprise us at night are unclassified flying creatures; some of them are just too deep in the dark to be recognized. A few birds may have played a part, after everybody had become excited about the news reports.

I don’t mean to imply that none of the sightings in Eastern Texas, three decades ago, were from encounters with live pterosaurs; I believe that some of them were just that. But some persons may have become overly excited because of numerous local news reports.

Skepticism

Since that excitement in Texas, the cryptozoologist who doubted living pterosaurs in Texas became doubtful of all similar reports. He accepted the standard model of universal pterosaur extinction and suspected that the late-twentieth-century and early-twenty-first-century cryptozoological investigations were misguided religious excersizes, not worthy of scientific examination.

Recent Sightings

But recent sighting reports that I have received were not from any particular region: I receive emails from around the world. Almost without exception, the eyewitnesses were not looking for living pterosaurs in their areas; they were shocked to see what they had never imagined was possible to see.

Let’s now consider some of the recent reports that I have received by email and by blog-post comment.

.

Kona, Hawaii, (Big Island); about 2008 — report rec’d in fall of 2012

“Between 3-4 foot wingspan; sharp, long beak; featherless wings”

.

Vandalia, Ohio, area; about 1989 — report rec’d in Oct-2012

“I saw a pterodactyl up across the river on a tree branch.”

.

Near Tucson, Arizona; about late-2011 — report rec’d early Nov-2012

“I have seen one of these creatures under a bridge”

.

Alabama; 2010 — report rec’d in fall of 2012

“Its wingspan was probably between 8-10 feet.”

.

Washington State; Oct-2012 — report rec’d in Oct-2012

“I know pelicans and this was much larger . . . and appeared to have little to no feathers. Freaky!!!!”

.

Birmingham area of England; June-2012 — report rec’d in July-2012

“dark, black even. No visible flapping of wings.”

The above sighting reports are a representative sampling, received from the summer to the fall of 2012. Like other periods of time from early 2004 until the present, there seems to be no relationship between where a sighting took place and when it was reported. In addition, I don’t remember ever noticing any relationship, during the past nine years, between sighting location and sighting date. No local news coverage had any influence on any eyewitness objectiveness, to the best of my knowledge (regardless of what happened in Texas, years before I began my investigations).

.

Pterosaur News

This Houston Chronicle [TX newspaper] article deserves attention, although I had previously written about it briefly on this blog.

Flying Pterosaur, not a Leaping Ray

Mr. Drinnon insists that any extant pterosaur on this planet must resemble pterosaurs known from fossils that have been discovered and that any deviation in appearance means the creature observed cannot be that type of flying creature.

Pterosaurs Across the Pacific

What could prevent such huge flying creatures from eventually expanding their habitat across the planet?

Introduction

A recent post by Dale Drinnon brought up an old suggestion that sightings of giant long-tailed pterosaurs may be misidentifications of large Manta rays (a type of fish) that leap out of the sea. Let’s examine this idea in more detail than is seen in Drinnon’s brief commentary.

First we consider the limitations of his suggestion: “. . . many of these sightings are actually of Manta rays leaping above the surface.” He does not imply that all sightings of modern pterosaurs are from this kind of misidentification, only “many” of them.

But what sightings does he refer to? He mentions only one: a 2008 sighting of two “pterodactyls” in the Philippines. It seems Drinnon was attracted to the part of the report that referred to the fishermen who told the “pterodactyl” eyewitness that they had seen this kind of flying creature. But even in that case, I doubt that the fisherman was referring to the fish that we call “Manta ray.” The critical point is that the man who witnessed the sighting of two apparent pterosaurs was in a CITY, not in a boat. And he saw two of the creatures flying together. That eliminates that sighting regarding Manta rays that leap out of the sea: It was not a misidentification of a fish. Drinnon, it seems, was unaware of the larger report when he quoted a portion of the original (the fishermen had limited relevance to the sighting in question).

Wing Shape

He mentions “broad diamond-shaped wings,” as if eyewitnesses have reported that feature. I don’t recall even one eyewitness using the word “diamond” when referring to wings. Many sighting reports (in which a tail is mentioned) include the word “diamond” or “triangle” (or a similar word) when referring to the END OF THE TAIL. That in itself eliminates the Manta ray fish from consideration.

Consider the detailed survey form given to eyewitnesses on Umboi Island (by Garth Guessman and David Woetzel) during the second ropen expedition of 2004: the page with thirty-four silhouette images of birds, bats, and pterosaurs. Only two eyewitnesses, if I’m not mistaken, had a clear-enough view of the ropen to accurately respond to this questionnaire page: Jonathan Ragu and Jonah Jim. They both chose, from among the thirty-four choices, the same image: Sordes Pilosus:

If we consider only the depth of the wings (front-to-back) nearer the body of the creature, this may be the best correlation with the fins of the Manta ray fish. But when we examine details, the flying-fish idea is shot down.

1. Jonah Jim’s sighting was miles from the sea. The ropen was flying above the land.
2. Both Jonah Jim and Jonathan Ragu reported a glow coming from the flying creatures.
3. Ragu’s creature was flying too high to have been a fish: “Glowing brightly red and white from the head and trailing edges of the wings, it flew fast, at tree-top level.” (Searching for Ropens, second edition; emphasis added)
4. Jonah Jim’s creature “was flying between 500 and 550 feet high, coming from the sea” (SFR): too high.

Perhaps the image chosen by Ragu and Jonah Jim are the best evidence for the possibility of a Manta ray misidentification, regarding the shape of the wings or fins, but this is only superficial. I have trudged through the rain forest of Umboi Island, the same island where these two sightings took place, and can testify that “tree-top level” is much higher than the ten feet or so that a Manta ray can jump out of the water. And who suggests that Manta rays are bioluminescent? Anyway, nobody is suggesting that those fish can fly miles from the sea, over jungle canopy.

Tails of Pterosaurs and Manta Rays

Drinnon mentions a “long stringy rat-tail.” Where did he get that description? He give no example. Offhand, I don’t know of even one eyewitness who has mentioned anything like that when referring to the tail of the flying creature observed. That’s not trivial. In the past nine years, I have written three nonfiction books on living pterosaurs and one scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. I have questioned countless eyewitnesses from around the world (mostly from the continents of North America, Australia, Europe, and Africa), and I have received many answers. I don’t recall even one of those answers including the word “stringy” or “rat.”

Misidentification Pursuits

I don’t criticize persons for simply searching for an alternative explanation, including misidentification. Modern living pterosaurs—that concept shocks many people who live in Western society, who have been raised since early childhood with the paradigm of universal dinosaur and pterosaur extinction. But we need to dig deeper before proclaiming a particular misidentification conjecture has any merit. The jumping Manta ray fish quickly falls back into the depths, never attaining the distinction of flying over tropical forest tree canopies.

Pterosaur Bioluminescence and “Red Herrings”

. . . that critic seems to have neglected the necessary research, for the case for glowing pterosaurs, living in this modern age, actually appears significant.

Do expectations cause faulty comprehension, tainting eyewitness testimonies because people expect to see a live pterosaur? What about the uninvited pterosaur? My experience, over the past nine years examining eyewitness reports, shoots down that general hypothesis. With almost no exceptions, eyewitnesses of living pterosaurs had never dreamed of seeing such a creature until they encountered one.

I will not name the prominent cryptozoologist who has offered us the idea that people see what they want to see, for the cases he has investigated might, in some degree, relate to valid cases of such misidentification. I name the sightings that I have investigated, especially those in which an eyewitness has contacted me with a report. Almost nobody ever looks up into the sky expecting to see a “flying dinosaur.”

Brooklyn, New York, 2012

I saw something that I almost couldn’t believe and the pictures of pterodactyls are the only thing that comes close to what I saw last week. . . . Me and my cousin both saw it at 6:30 pm in the clear bright sky . . . We were both in shock.

Franklin, Georgia, USA, 2012

My two sons n I was traveling down Hwy 27 . . . around 8:15 or so in the morning . . . when I looked up n saw a flyin dinosaur . . . I was so shocked at what I was seein I started yelling . . .

Phoenix, Arizona, 2007

It had what looked like really old worn out leather wings and a thing coming out of the back of its head . . . I was stunned I reacted slowly but did run inside and get others to come out . . . but it was gone.

Phoenix, Arizona

.

Lakewood, California, 2012

The lady who saw the featherless long-tailed flying creature had never heared about sightings of living pterosaurs, before she had her own encounter. A “pterodactyl” or “dragon” was about the last thing in the world that she would have expected to see in her backyard.

Conclusion

How often an eyewitness tells me of the shock at seeing something that seems impossible to see. The problem lies in the Western dogma of universal extinctions of basic kinds of organisms, not in the eyesight or comprehension capabilities of the eyewitnesses.