image_pdfimage_print

Origin of Reports of Ropen Pterosaurs

Perosaur Sketch by Eskin Kuhn

Where do reports of ropens come from? If anyone believed the bulverism of several online writers—careless critics—in late-2014, I (Jonathan Whitcomb) may appear to be the source of almost all accounts of those long-tailed featherless flying creatures. That would be a distorted view of reality. Let’s begin with a sighting in New Guinea.

July 7th is the birthday of the late Duane Hodgkinson, who probably first reported his “pterodactyl” encounter before I was born. That by itself should demonstrate that those skeptics were off the mark about me: I am not the originator of reports of ropens. I have been more like an investigative reporter, interviewing eyewitnesses and reporting my findings; I have not been a story teller, promoting rumors or the less-credible accounts. I concentrate on the more-credible accounts.

By the way, Hodgkinson would have been ninety yesterday. He passed away last year.

Duane Hodgkinson, of Livingston, Montana - eyewitness of a giant ropen

World War II eyewitness of a huge ropen

A Huge Ropen-Pterodactyl

Two American soldiers, in New Guinea in 1944, were hiking into the jungle west of Finschhafen, when they were shocked to see a huge creature fly into the air, not more than 100 feet from the soldiers. Duane Hodgkinson estimated the tail of the “pterodactyl” was “at least ten or fifteen feet.”

But what caught the attention of Hodgkinson, more than the tail, was the horn-like structure coming out the back of the creature’s head, a long appendage that was parallel to the long neck. That was surely at least part of what caused that soldier to think of the word “pterodactyl.”

After World War II, Hodgkinson became a pilot and he eventually owned a Piper Tri-Pacer. During his interview with the cryptozoologist Garth Guessman, in 2005, he estimated the creature’s wingspan as being similar to that of a Tri-Pacer, meaning about 29 feet. That size may be ridiculed by some skeptics, but other sightings have been reported in the southwest Pacific, and some of the eyewitnesses give even bigger estimates of wingspan.

Two Ropens in Cuba in 1971

I (Jonathan Whitcomb) also did not invent the sighting of Eskin Kuhn, a U.S. Marine who was stationed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1971. That was three decades before I began writing about such encounters with ropens.

Eskin Kuhn, U. S. Marine at Gitmo, Cuba
Eskin Kuhn at Guantanamo Bay, 1971

The eyewitness at around the time of the sighting in Cuba

I have often written about this encounter in 1971. But I was not the first person to write about the sighting. Some skeptics may assume that because I have written more books and web pages than anyone else, on the subject of modern pterosaurs, that I am the originator of the idea that the ropen is a living pterosaur or that I am behind most of the stories. Not so. I became actively involved in 2003, when I produced a short documentary called Searching for Ropen. Yet others had been investigating sighting reports of these flying creatures years before then.

Long-Tailed Dragons in History

For countless generations, people from around the world have reported flying dragons. By whatever name was used, in various languages, the common word in English was dragon. Only in more recent generations have we come to know of words like pterodactyl or pterosaur. Even more recently the word ropen has become known in the United States.

How deeply has the dragon idea been seated in our human cultures! The concept of a large featherless long-tailed flying creature is ancient. So what’s the difference between the dragon of past generations and the ropen of today? The flying creature that is seen to glow sometimes, as it flies at night, is now called ropen. But the glow is now called bioluminescence, not “fire-breathing.”

###

.

The Ropen as a Rhamphorhynchoid

What is a Rhamphorhynchoid, also called a basal pterosaur? A definition by a non-scientist could be “a long-tailed pterodactyl.” . . . In truth, “science” has never proven that all species of pterosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.

Ropen of Umboi Island, PNG

The ropen sighting  involved seven boys. They ran home in terror after  this sighting. Wesley, the brother of Gideon,   described the ropen to me and I was able to video-  tape his answers. Likewise, another of the witnesses,  Mesa, told me that he saw the ropen at that time.

A Modern Pterosaur Called “Ropen”

“Live Pterosaurs in America” proves this is  not a mystery confined to remote tropical  rain forests in Papua New Guinea. Ropens  continue to shock eyewitnesses around the  world.

Bioluminescent Ropen of Papua New Guinea

A lady describes how the glowing ropen flew over Lab Lab Village (Umboi Island, PNG), one night. (Interview by Carl Baugh, about 1994)

Flying Fox Bat or the Ropens?

And those larger featherless flyers with long tails are also reported to catch fish, making them even  less like fruit bats. Searching for Ropens and Finding God, fourth edition, reveals why the ropen of  Umboi Island, and some other locations, differs from the fruit bats known as flying foxes.

.

_________________________________________________________

non-fiction 360-page paperback "Searching for Ropens and Finding God"

Nonfiction cryptid book Searching for Ropens and Finding God

From the Amazon page for this cryptozoology book by Whitcomb:

It soars above disputes about religion, revealing why an official discovery of an extraordinary animal has been delayed for so long. Above all, this explores human experience: eyewitnesses and those who interviewed them.

.

Neutron Capture in Carbon-Dated Dinosaur Bones? That’s Way Too Awkward

humor - hug feels awkward between two T-Rex friends

hug feels awkward between two T-Rex friends

Awkward Explanation for Carbon-14 Dated Dinosaurs

Some scientists are feeling awkward trying to get their hands around a T-Rex type dinosaur that appears much younger than it “should be.” The Allosaurus remains in question were excavated in 1989 in Colorado. This type of large theropod dinosaur was supposed to have lived 150-155 million years ago, according to popular theory, during the late Jurassic period. The carbon dating of this monster, however, has those scientists running for cover, trying to find an explanation. One suggestion is neutron capture.

That might look plausible, if it were just one dinosaur buried near some uranium deposit. But carbon-14 dating has been done on quite a few dinosaur fossils excavated in North America, with EVERY piece of EVERY dinosaur bone found to have that radioactive isotope of carbon. It is practically impossible that every one of those fossils (excavated from Alaska, Colorado, Texas, and Montana) just happened to be buried next to uranium. Other problems also eliminate the neutron-capture speculation: See Carbon-14 and Dinosaur Bones. Let’s look at another angle to this young-dinosaur “problem.”

Indoctrination: Dinosaurs Died out “Millions of Years ago”—Really?

Consider these words from the nonfiction book Searching for Ropens and Finding God (fourth edition, available from online book sellers):

Four years before George Washington was elected to his first term in the United States, Cosimo Collini made the first pterosaur-fossil examination in Europe. Nobody knew anything about radiometric dating in 1784, not even Benjamin Franklin, but Mr. Collini recognized something special about this creature.

What Collini did not recognize was this this general kind of flying creature might not be extinct. He had no personal experience with any living animal like it, and so he just assumed the fossil was of a type of animal that was completely extinct.

In other words, he jumped to a general conclusion about ALL SPECIES of that general kind of animal. If he had done even a little research into reports of flying dragons, he may have come to a different conclusion about the universal extinction of pterosaurs, but maybe that would have appeared too unscientific, even back then. What educated person would use the ancient word dragon?

That also applies to dinosaur discoveries in the 19th century. Almost everybody just assumed they were finding fossils from very ancient kinds of creatures. That assumption has continued into recent decades, BEFORE any carbon-14 testing was done on dinosaur bones. It’s now time for us to take a closer look, for the widespread belief in ancient dinosaur extinctions comes from Western indoctrination.

Conclusion

Forget about groundless speculation about neutron capture creating carbon-14 isotopes in dinosaur bones across North America. It’s time we asked biologists in museums and in universities to submit dinosaur and pterosaur fossils for carbon-14 radiometric testing. Let us be brave with whatever truth we discover.

###

.

Radiocarbon conference presentation censored

A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore . . . they gave 14C [carbon-14] dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens.

Radiometric Dating of Recent Dinosaur Bones—Censored

After the conference, those two [chairpersons] gave no warning that everything by that group would be removed from the official website, leaving no trace that the presentation had ever taken place

Scientific Testing of Dinosaur Bones—Carbon-14 Methods

A lecture was given in a geology conference in Singapore, in 2012, with carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils the subject. All the bones were found to have that isotope of carbon, a shocking finding, but there it is . . .

.

Are Pterosaurs “Still Dead?”

Jonathan David Whitcomb, at home in Long Beach, California

Last year, three persons ridiculed me, Jonathan Whitcomb, in three online posts, each one depending on an earlier post or web page with similar disdain for the concept of modern pterosaurs. But it was more than simple ridicule: I consider it libel. Let’s examine the most recent criticism (Nov 24th: “This just in: Pterosaurs are STILL dead, maybe even more so”), which is the most dependent on previous online publications.

I consider much of these criticisms to be bulverism, which involves changing the subject by trying to point out another person’s weakness. I would be happy to write only about the concept of modern pterosaurs, but the accusations against me need to be addressed. I feel sure that honesty is always important, and even just an insinuation of dishonesty needs to be examined.

Post by “Idoubtit”

This young lady goes by the name of “idoubtit.” Is that her real name? I doubt it, but I found it amusing that the origin of the criticism that resulted in her writing a post about me was this: I used two pen names in some of my online writings, for a limited time.

I do not accuse any of the following of dishonesty, for I can’t see into their hearts:

  1. idoubtit (writer on Doubtful News blog)
  2. Donald Prothero (real name of a paleontologist)
  3. Paul Zachary Myers (real name of an associate professor of biology)
  4. Owosso Harpist (a man or woman who plays the harp)

Yet three of the four posts that I have examined contain words like “deception” and “lies,” and three of them are mostly about me or my ideas. If any of them had some kind of talent for discerning my motivations, they failed to reveal that talent in their writings.

The post by idoubtit was apparently written after she had read the post by Dr. Prothero, who apparently had first read the post by Professor Myers. Prothero also cited the post by Owosso Harpist (apparently the creator of the site “stupid dinosaur lies”), so he may have been influenced by both of them before he wrote his post “Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets.” I also found it amusing that Dr. Prothero said, near the end of his post, “So beware of citing stuff off the internet.”

Let’s now consider the post by idoubtit, “This just in: Pterosaurs are STILL dead, maybe even more so.”

Avoiding Continuous Libel

To her credit, idoubtit refrained from repeating the word “deception” in her reply to my reply to her post. I explained how I had been honest in my online writings and she changed the subject (rather than apologize or admit I just might have been honest). She then questioned why I was pursuing a “dead end.”

I noticed something similar in Dr. Prothero’s replies to my replies to his post: He refrained from repeating the word “deception.” In fact, he did not even reply to my comment about my own honesty; he replied to my comments about the concept of modern pterosaurs only briefly: displaying the URL’s of sites I consider libelous against me.

Are Creationists Liars?

Her post is mostly about me, but she implies that I am one of a number of creationists, and there she finds fault: Idoubtit admits creationists may be nice people but she then says that they are “deliberately deceiving people to undermine science.” That does not sound very nice to me.

I have far more experience, over the past eleven years in particular, in working with and communicating with Biblical creationists who actively support these living-pterosaur investigations. I have found them to be honest in their writings and lectures, regardless of how vehemently our critics dispute our concepts.

Remember, when I proclaimed my personal honesty, in a comment under her post, that idoubtit stepped back from any accusation against me regarding honesty. She then said nothing about deception. But unfortunately she failed to make any modification to her accusation in the body of her post.

Conclusion

This post by idoubtit strongly suggests to me that this young lady is extremely ignorant of what is actually happening in living-pterosaur investigations. If she had read only 1% of my online writings, even just choosing them at random rather than looking for something to criticize, she would have been far better informed. She would have done better if she had avoided bulverism.

Communicate with Jonathan D. Whitcomb

###

.

Jonathan Whitcomb and Witnesses of Pterosaurs

So only about 25%-40% of what I call credible eyewitnesses of pterosaurs are even capable of talking to anybody about what they saw. And of those who are capable of it, I guess only about 20% maximum actually telephone or email a cryptozoologist. [More-recent estimates put the number of eyewitnesses, worldwide, in the millions.]

“Stupid Dinosaur Lies” or Truth?

The oldest online attack against the honesty of cryptozoologists who publicized their belief in living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea—that site may have originated as early as mid-2005 or as late as late-2008 . . . one original page on “Stupid Dinosaur Lies,” and it had at least five errors in one sentence.

Jonathan Whitcomb Interviewed by Dave Scott

“Yes, they are alive indeed. In fact, my associates and I believe there are more than one species in different parts of the world. It’s incredible but we’ll get into that: explain how that happened. Yeah, they are alive.”

.

front cover of the nonfiction 360-page book by Whitcomb

Fourth edition of the paperback Searching for Ropens and Finding God

The first paragraph of the introduction in this nonfiction:

Expect answers in this book: why my associates and I traveled to a remote tropical island to search for living pterosaurs and why only a few professors have given us any hope that they still live. What about adventures, with danger, failure, and success? Yes, expect those, but I hope my readers will discover more than adventure—a purpose in life—as worthy a purpose as I have found. This is no instruction manual for finding God, yet I suggest that the spiritual quest gives us the highest reward.

.

“Stupid Dinosaur Lies” or Truth?

Australia and Papua New Guinea stamps on passport for Jonathan Whitcomb

Within the past few weeks, at least two posts have accused me, Jonathan Whitcomb, of deceiving people. The second writer, “idoubtit,” seems to have been convinced by the first one, Dr. Donald Prothero, regarding my online writing behavior. But when Prothero responded to me, he appeared to reveal two sources for his conviction that I have used deception, and the earliest source is the site Stupid Dinosaur Lies, more recently relabeled “PaleoFairy Tales Exposed.” Let’s look into this more deeply.

The oldest online attack against the honesty of cryptozoologists who publicized their belief in living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea—that site may have originated as early as mid-2005 or as late as late-2008; I don’t recall. I do remember, and recorded in my file, one original page on Stupid Dinosaur Lies, and it had at least five errors in one sentence:

  1. Misspelling of my first name: “John” (should have been Jonathan)
  2. Misspelling of my surname: “Whittcomb” (should have been Whitcomb)
  3. Was I really sponsored by Carl Baugh? No.
  4. Did I really lead YEC creationists on an expedition? No.
  5. Was the expedition really in Africa? No.

That’s a lot of mistakes in one sentence, those errors of fact, and the truth can be verified. I do not imply that this sentence remained on that site for years, but it was similar to other declarations on the original site: full of errors. I have no interest, at least for the moment, in reading recent pages of that site. If the writer has recognized those errors and admitted them, then good for him (or her).

Let me make this plain: I am not accusing the originator of Stupid Dinosaur Lies of deception. I am defending the honesty of me and my associates. That ludicrous sentence with five errors does suggest the writer was more likely to have been careless than dishonest. But the accusations, direct or indirect, are against those of us who have traveled to Papua New Guinea to search for living pterosaurs and those who later reported what was found in eyewitness testimonies.

Whitcomb-Paina Expedition of 2004

I recognize that writers sometimes make mistakes with errors of fact; I myself am a writer, and the first edition of my first book included the misspelling of the surname of my interpreter on Umboi Island (correct is Paina). What you are now reading was published on December 11, 2014, but I made corrections 24 hours later, correcting errors in both English grammar and in statements of fact (“September 22nd” is correct for my arrival date in Papua New Guinea in 2004, as you will read below).

So why do I bring up one sentence written by a skeptic years ago? It’s in the nature of his accusation and the relevance to my expedition ten years ago. The error is far deeper than that one sentence with five mistakes.

Let’s begin by establishing that I really did travel to Papua New Guinea.

Australia and Papua New Guinea stamps on passport

Passport page (Jonathan David Whitcomb) for Australia and Papua New Guinea

The following is to the best of my knowledge of what happened ten years ago.

The above image of a page in my passport shows a departure date from Australia: September 21, 2004. We boarded the plane in Cairns, AU, on that date, but we had to get off the plane before it took off, for the pilot was unhappy with a problem with the paperwork for the flight or paperwork for the plane. Although he had no doubt that the plane was safe, he went by the book and refused to fly it until the paperwork was corrected. We, the passengers, were taken off the plane and got a free night in a hotel in Cairns. We took off without further incident the next day, September 22nd. That explains the date of arrival in Papua New Guinea (it was a short flight).

Honesty of Jonathan Whitcomb, in the  past

The critical point is this: Skeptics who wrote online comments and pages that at least implied that I was less than honesty—those critics failed to see the landscape of the forest, instead focusing on a stain on the bark of one tree, a stain they assumed must be bird poop . . . so to speak.

I returned home to the United States convinced that the ropen is real and a modern Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur (I am still convinced of that). I wrote countless web pages and blog posts on the subject, which probably relates to why that skeptic created his own site: Stupid Dinosaur Lies.

Yet he probably failed to see a simple problem with his proclamations about dishonesty: I returned home to the United States declaring that I had seen nothing like a living pterosaur. I even failed to see the brief light that natives of Umboi Island have observed flying at night for so long.

Now please consider the problem with a “lie” accusation here:

  • Jonathan Whitcomb writes about the possibility of modern pterosaurs
  • He never saw anything like a living pterosaur on his expedition

Remember, this is not about my foolishness, which is irrelevant here; it’s about my honesty. If I had any desire to deceive anybody into believing in extant pterosaurs, I would have declared I had seen something flying over my head. I admitted that I had seen no animal that supported my belief. Therefore I was honest.

Honesty in the present

So how can my accusers respond to the above? Have I somehow become dishonest at some time in the past ten years? Do a Google search on “apparent pterosaur” (using those quote marks) and see what comes up: not many pages from skeptics who dispute the possibility that any pterosaur can be still living; most of the pages were written by me, with some of them obviously being written years ago and some of them more recently. In other words, my posts and pages dominate all others, when one searches online with “apparent pterosaur,” and that means the following:

I admit: a particular sighting may have come from something other than a pterosaur.

Does that look like a declaration of a liar who wants to deceive people into believing in modern pterosaurs? The point of modern pterosaurs is in the overall landscape of eyewitness testimonies: Many of them (not all) are from encounters with modern living pterosaurs, including large Rhamphorhynchoid ones.

###

.

Honesty in Reports of Modern Pterosaurs

The word deceive means to purposefully lead someone away from the truth. A word associated with it is lie: to say or write something deceitful. . . . A deceiver intends to lead someone away from truth; intention is a critical ingredient of the poison. Nobody can accidentally deceive anyone.

Dr. Prothero and “Fake Pterosaurs”

 I avoid linking to libelous pages, and this one includes “Whitcomb admitted the deception in July, 2014″ and links to one of my posts. Strange to tell, but that post of mine explains why I was NOT being dishonest in using pen names.

The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Big Truth

This same critic says that sightings are “made by natives . . . plagued by superstition,” but where is the evidence of any plague of superstition? . . . My own experience in Papua New Guinea has shown that this is not the case. Whatever superstitions the natives of Umboi have, they are not mentioned or implied when native eyewitnesses report what they have seen (almost without exception). This critic has explored what remote island, interviewed what native? Has this critic even read an original eyewitness report? If so, where is the evidence for relevant superstition?

Bulverism Revisited

An average reader who gets very far on that [libelous] site is unlikely to search out the actual words and deeds of living-pterosaur investigators. Why search for the writings of people who are both stupid and liars? But what if the critical mistake is in the one making accusations?

.