The most recent California pterosaur sighting report that I have received is from a flyover of Interstate-5, on May 13, 2013, just southeast of Griffith Park. It was south of Los Feliz (at the I-5), in Los Angeles, just a mile and a half south of where another eyewitness observed three “dragons” flying over the same freeway, two months earlier. That stretch of highway runs very close to the Los Angeles River channel. I feel that neither of those factors is a coincidence.

North^

Eastern side of Griffith Park (Silver Lake Reservoir is on lower right)

.

In the above satellite image, the I-5 runs right next to the Los Angeles River channel, on the east side of Griffith Park. They run about north-south here, with the large hills and golf course of Griffith Park visible clearly. Another freeway runs east-west near the northern boundary of the park, near the top of the photo. By the way, this area is just north of Dodger Stadium (baseball).

Before getting into the more recent sighting (May 13th), consider the three “dragons” observed nearby, on March 3rd.

.

March 3rd sighting location (three “dragons”)

.

The red arrow, above, shows the direction of flight for the three creatures that the eyewitness called “dragons.”

First Griffith Park Sighting of Early 2013

I name this anonymous lady “CGP.” At about 6:10 a.m., on March 3, 2013, the sky was well lit, although the sun had not quite come up. As CGP was driving north on the I-5, at around the Colorado interchange (just south of State Route 134 freeway), she saw three “dragons” and later reported to me:

“They appeared to be several feet long, with a head:body:tail ratio that was certainly not that of a bird. Their wings were long, angular and pointed and their tails had triangular points. . . . They were flying southeast in a triangular formation.”

I later drew an arrow pointing south (see the satellite map above) because of the following words of CGP:

“All three were flying straight at me, opposite the flow of traffic, along the freeway. I guess they were going slightly more in the direction of Griffith Park than Glendale, but they flew directly over my car (or I drove under them).”

.

May 13th sighting location (one “pterosaur”)

.

Second Griffith Park Sighting of Early 2013

The eyewitness of a “pterosaur” sighting on May 13th has agreed for her name to be revealed: Devin Rhodriquez. The traffic on the northbound I-5 at about 4:00 p.m. was congested, about 30 m.p.h., when Devin saw the creature. She told me (standard capitalization corrections):

“I’m almost positive what I saw fly over the freeway in Los Angeles WAS NOT a bird of any kind. [It] matches the exact descriptions of a pterosaur except for the tail. I didn’t actually look for a tail [She did not notice its presence or absence]. I was too in shock by the head crest and the wings. I’d love to find out if what I saw could be a pterosaur.”

I realize that some skeptic may object to the lack of observational powers of the eyewitness, regarding a tail of lack thereof. But this kind of imperfection in observation is actually quite common, a natural human tendency to focus on a detail to the blindness of surrounding details. I have received pterosaur sighting reports from other eyewitnesses, reports that make it clear that the person had not memory of the presence or absence of a tail. And psychologists are well aware of this human weakness in vision.

Consider what Devin did notice:

“I did see its head crest and the membranous charcoal gray/teal undertone skin. No feathers, & the wings were pointed and never flapped. It glided through the air with its wings in an arched position.”

Comparing the two Sightings

The creatures were flying in very different directions in these two sightings, and the times of day varied greatly as well: The first was at 6:10 a.m. the second, 4:00 p.m. The two eyewitnesses noticed different details: The first saw long thin tails on three “dragons;” the second, a head crest and a lack of feathers.

What did the flying creatures have in common? The sightings were only a mile and a half apart, separated in time by ten weeks. Both eyewitnesses were driving north on the I-5 freeway, just east of Griffith Park in Los Angeles. All the creatures were soaring or gliding over that freeway.

The color descriptions caught my attention. CGP said, “They appeared light in color—white, gray or light green.” Devin said the “pterosaur” had ”membranous charcoal gray/teal undertone skin.” Technically, teal is a medium-dark bluish green, but the different times of day (with very different colors of light from the sky) might be sufficient to connect that darker blue-green with the lighter green, provided we remember that eyewitness perception may cause the same object to be described slightly differently in color. In addition, both eyewitnesses used the word “gray” in their color descriptions. I know that “white” seems too far off when compared with “charcoal,” but we also need to be aware that the two eyewitnesses may not have noticed the exact same parts of the flying creatures’ bodies when they were impressed with color. Overall, the color descriptions neither greatly support nor repudiate the idea that these two sightings involved the same species. With all that said, we may have a case of three light-colored males and one darker colored female.

Both eyewitnesses assured me that they were observing non-birds. CGP said, “a head:body:tail ratio that was certainly not that of a bird.” Devin said, “I’m almost positive what I saw fly over the freeway in Los Angeles WAS NOT a bird of any kind.”

I suggest these four flying creatures are all California Ropens, and that they sometimes fly along the Los Angeles River at night. Many eyewitnesses have noticed them, with various degrees of comprehension but only a tiny fraction of those people have contacted any cryptozoologist.

###

.

Dragon Pterosaurs in Southern California

The eyewitness of the “Griffith Park dragons” first thought she was observing three non-living things flying over her car [March 3, 2013 sighting] . . .She assumed it was some kind of stunt, perhaps with kites, for the three “dragons” looked nothing like birds. When she saw the tails move slightly, she realized that they were alive.

.

What do scientists think about pterosaur sighting reports? Many of them have probably never heard about any relevant research. We need to remember that searching for live “pterodactyls” is still within the realm of cryptozoology, for we don’t yet have any living or recently-deceased animal to examine. For now, let’s see what one biology professor has done in searching for a bioluminescent living pterosaur and then consider the origin of the extinction idea and then see what scientific analysis has been done on recent data from pterosaur sightings.

.

Bioluminescent Flying Creatures in Washington State

From the third edition of my book Live Pterosaurs in America:

Late in 2007, I received an email from Peter Beach, a biology professor . . .

“I went on a short trip to the Yakima River this summer . . . because there was a [sighting]. We were unable to get a picture but we saw many . . . flashing lights. I would have assumed that [they] were fireflies but we [don’t] have them in Washington. One of the flashes took off from a big tree overhanging the river and made a kind of flashing coma turn. Many flashes were parallel to the river. . . .

. . . “Prime hunting grounds for fish-eating birds. Only these things fish at night with bioluminescence. At first I thought I was just seeing shooting stars, but they were all parallel to the river and close to the horizon. Next I noticed that when the cloud cover came in, I could still see the flashes. They were under the cloud cover. Whatever they are, I suggest that they are at least unknown to science, night flying, bioluminescent, flying creatures about the size of an eagle or big hawk . . .”

In August of 2008, I received another email from the professor:

“During the short expedition I led with the O’Donnells, mid-July [an expedition more recent than the one mentioned above], we saw three hours of bioluminescent ‘shooting stars.’ The last hour was the most interesting in that there were two light blasts about 200 ft. apart, about 50-100 ft., above the river. The blasts were followed by screeches from about a dozen or so agitated nighthawks in the general area. I think the Rhamphorhynchoids, if that is what they were, were feeding on the nighthawks as the nighthawks were feeding on the flying insects.”

.

Origin of Universal-Pterosaur-Extinction Axiom

Many scientists take this axiom for granted, but pterosaur extinction, regarding every species, is clearly a basic assumption, not a proven fact. In the ebook Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea, I wrote:

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.

Since 1784, universal-pterosaur-extinction has been taken for granted, as the years turned into decades, throughout the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century. The breadth of this assumption expanded, from generations of regurgitated proclamations, but the depth has always been shallow, with no real evidence of any kind.

I know that some paleontologist will point to fossils as if their specimens prove the extinction of all species of pterosaurs that ever lived upon the earth. Nonsense! Not only are new species or organisms being discovered in fossils but new species are also being discovered in living creatures. Regarding pterosaurs, nobody, not even a paleontologist with a university diploma, can reasonably display their fossils as if that display were proof of extinction for species for countless species for which we have no fossils.

.

Statistics on Credible Pterosaur Sightings

Long tails dominate. Of those eyewitnesses who specified tail length or the presence or absence of a long tail, 95% reported a long tail. This alone discredits any skeptic’s insinuation that the sightings are mostly hoaxes, for few, if any, hoaxers would report a long-tailed pterosaur. Films and television have given us images of pterosaurs without long tails, with few exceptions. Hoaxers would not likely report something contrary to what is commonly seen in film or on television.

Overall statistics for wingspan estimates also count against any major hoax involvement. For those eyewitnesses who made estimates of wingspan, 31% (23 out of 74) reported sizes greater than seven feet but less than fifteen feet. If many hoaxes were involved, this range (7-15 feet, non-inclusive) would have been much less . . . [7-15 feet is much too big for Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs but too small for a hoaxer to use to shock anybody or to convince many persons that a non-bird was reported.]

. . . Of all the sighting reports compiled into the database by the end of 2012, those in which eyewitnesses were sure of the lack of any feathers was 21% but those eyewitnesses who thought it only probable (that there were no feathers) was 25%. . . . If hoaxes played a major role in the sighting reports, an insistence on lack of feathers would dominate. This is the opposite of what the overall data shows for this characteristic. Eyewitnesses who are positive about featherlessness are outnumbered by those who are not positive about it. . . .

From these three factors, we see that no hoax or hoaxes played any significant role in the 128 reports analyzed.

.

Live Pterosaurs and Science

This goes into details about scientific analysis of wingspan estimates.

.

###

Nonfiction cryptozoology book; paperback; third edition

How are sightings in the United States related to those in the southwest Pacific? How do some apparent nocturnal pterosaurs pertain to bats, and how are bats irrelevant? How could modern living pterosaurs have escaped scientific notice? These mysteries have slept in the dark, beyond the knowledge of almost all Americans, even beyond our wildest dreams (although the reality of some pterosaurs is a living nightmare to some bats). These mysteries have slept . . . until now. [From the Title page of Live Pterosaurs in America, third edition]

.

We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions when an eyewitness reports a sighting with one or more of the following words:

• Giant prehistoric bird
• Huge bird without feathers
• Large dinosaur bird
• Big Thunderbird

If some reports of large flying creatures come from sightings of modern pterosaurs—I proclaim, in a number of blogs and books, that they do—why is that word  used by some eyewitnesses: “bird?” That word comes to mind because birds commonly fly overhead, during the daylight when we notice things in the sky, far more commonly than we notice bats. “Bird” flies out of one’s mouth naturally, for it’s not so shocking to hear. But how unnatural-sounding to tell a friend, “I just saw a giant pterodactyl fly over my backyard!” Your friend might ask what you’ve been putting into your mouth.

.

Be Open-Minded with Pterosaur Sighting Reports

When somebody sees a living pterosaur, the eyewitness is almost always totally unprepared. Often people will report to me the shock of an encounter, which can be an extreme cultural shock. Questioning ones own sanity is common. Trying to imagine a trick of the light (or some other misidentification possibility) is also common. In a pterosaur sighting, the person had no desire to see a modern version of what was assumed extinct, almost without exception in Western countries. (In a third-world country, an eyewitness may simply be shocked at being so unlucky: encountering a monster that he already believed in.) Hardly anybody, in any country, ever looks up to the sky hoping to see something that might prove personal insanity.

We need to be careful not to assume that personal beliefs or perspective contributed much to the descriptions that are given to us. I receive sighting reports from around the world; eyewitnesses of differing cultures and beliefs and religions report similar details, often including a long tail with a structure at the tail-end (a “diamond” or something suggesting a Rhamphorhynchoid tail vane). Words may vary but the basic meanings of those words make a pterosaur interpretation obvious.

By the way, most of the sighting reports that I have received over the past few years have been from the United States.

.

Examples of Descriptions in Pterosaur Sighting Reports

Received early in 2011:

My friend told me that she was walking with her cousin, when she looked up, she saw a very large “bird” that was circling above them and slowly descending. She turned to her cousin and asked, “Do you see that? Or am I seeing things?” Her cousin responded, “Yea, I see it. What the heck is it?” As it got closer, she could only describe it as a Pterodactyl.

Namibia, Africa, 2011

I saw a large bird gliding, moving its wings very, very slowly, very much as we see raptors or eagles do when they circle in the air scanning the land for prey. I paid attention to the wings as it would allow for identification – but this bird did not have any feathers, at least not any spread primary feathers (as eagles often show). It looked more like a large bat with distinctly brightly coloured (yellow-brown, orange?) protrusions, where birds have carpal joints (like some ‘spur-winged birds’).

Arkansas, 2012

I saw a pre-historic bird here in central Arkansas back this past spring. As I was driving over a small bridge with a creek underneath it flew up from under the bridge beside my truck and flew up above my truck and out and over a field. . . . [It] had no feathers and it was grey skinned with pink undertones.

.

What do all three of the above report-excerpts have in common? Each has the word “bird” and each includes either an indication of lack of feathers or the word “pterodactyl.” In other words, eyewitnesses often use the word “bird” in a general sense, not meaning a feathered flying creature.

.

Hornbill Birds and a Live Pterosaur

In a recent post, “Ropens, Pterosaurian Sightings And Manta Rays,” a skeptic of the possibility of living pterosaurs gave half a sentence to the subject of Hornbill birds as the cause of sighting reports of live pterosaurs (misidentification conjecture).

Pterosaur Sightings and Photos

Despite the canoe-like wings, photo #3 is the most credible of these three, by far, believe it or not. My intention, however, is not to force this into an all-or-nothing, sure-thing-or-fake, judgment.

.

A critical support for the concept of modern living pterosaurs is the accumulation of sighting reports of those flying creatures. Direct eyewitness testimony of a pterosaur sighting is essential, even if we have to wait many years for photographic evidence.

My associates and I hope that our efforts will someday directly yield photographic evidence and even the capture of one or more of these flying creatures; but for the moment, let’s consider photos that have already been held up as images of possible pterosaurs, notwithstanding my associates and I are not among those who have contributed photographs. (I’m leaving out photos of flying lights, for little or no form or features have been revealed in them.)

Several photos of an apparent “pterodactyl” or Pteranodon are found floating around the internet. Let’s look at three of them, beginning our examinations with a photo of the most questionable of three possible pterosaurs:

Photo #1: Consider why this is probably nothing like a ropen

I found this on a web site that refers to this photo as a ropen in Papua New Guinea; but it looks familiar to me. I propose two perspectives, beginning with a direct examination.

Face value of photo #1

I presume somebody thought that the left side of the object in the sky was of a head on the end of a long neck. I can see that, although by itself it does not convince me that this is a flying creature. I can imagine a bit of the far wing showing on top of what could be the near wing. That apparent tail, however, presents a problem. It’s too fat and turned up far too much. Overall, this could very well be something non-living, something very unlike any flying creature and unrelated to any pterosaur sighting.

My memory and photo #1

This looks much like a photo I received years ago. Somebody (I believe it was a lady) sent me a photo that was taken while she was traveling back east somewhere, I think it was in New England. She took the photo through the window of the vehicle in which she was traveling, but she did not see anything in the sky—not before, during , or immediately after snapping the shot. The object in the sky was not noticed until after she looked at the photo.

In other words, if this photo #1 is the one I remember, it was not recorded in Papua New Guinea but in the eastern United States, and nobody saw any flying creature at the time it was recorded. If could be just a leave blowing in the wind. Case closed.

The next two are related, for #2 appears to be a recent hoax that took photo #3 as a model:

.

Photo #2: Imitation of an older photograph

Reputation of photo #2

From what I have read on one post, this is an acknowledged fake by the creators, not necessarily with any Photoshop work but by using Civil War reenactors and a cheap construction to look like a large winged creature, a hoax in more recent years. It is said to have been created for the fourth TV episode (“Coelacanth This!”) of FreakyLinks, which was produced by Haxan (producers of the “Blair Witch Project”) and possibly for one other episode of FreakyLinks.

Face Value of photo #2

I’ve had only limited experience examining genuine photos of Civil War soldiers, but I’ll submit my observations. It’s unusual, though not rare, for a Civil War soldier posing for a photograph to fold his arms across his chest. In this photo, however, two soldiers in a row do just that, making it more strange. In addition, these look like ordinary soldiers, not colonels or generals, so we should expect thin young men, and the one on the left looks to me like he’s too big around the middle: more like a Civil War reenactor soldier in the twentieth century.

Now look at the “creature” at their feet. The wings look more like fabric than flesh, and the head is difficult to make out. I don’t say it’s impossible for a large recently-deceased featherless flying creature to look like that, just that it looks more like an imitation of one.

Unless somebody can come up with some dramatic evidence to the contrary, the combination of rotten reputation and questionable appearance shoots this doctored up photograph right through the heart, although it takes just a little while to finally die.

.

Photo #3: Maybe the original photo of Civil War soldiers with a dead “pterodactyl” (click on it for more detail)

This may be the photograph that some people report being in a “believe it or not” kind of publication in the mid-twentieth century. According to one story, the photograph was taken near Vicksburg, Mississippi, in 1864. Setting aside the question of authenticity and possible fraud or lack thereof, this appears to have been used as a model for the photo #2 hoax.

I think I’m one of the eyewitnesses . . . I mean I myself may have seen this photo in an old book. But memory can play tricks on us, so I don’t place great emphasis on that; I’ll need to do more research.

Despite the canoe-like wings, photo #3 is the most credible of these three, by far, believe it or not. My intention, however, is not to force this into an all-or-nothing, sure-thing-or-fake, judgment. Assign it whatever credibility you like, after considering the following. (And don’t forget to click on photo #3 when necessary, to get a closer view. Please take your time on this.)

Overall appearance

Overexposure of the tree on the right (photo #3) impresses me; it’s common in Civil War era photography. Compare it with the unquestionably genuine photo below:

Genuine photograph, maybe around the mid-19th century

In the above photograph, look past the old men and past the carriage. Notice the grass that’s pure white. I believe that patch of ground was in sunlight during the photo session, making it over-exposed in the extreme. Photo #3 is far more impressive in this overexposure appearance than photo #2.

Now click on #3 and notice the faces of the soldiers. This clear focus is common in Civil War photography. Even in a far shot of many persons, individuals can often be recognized because of sharp focus. When I blew up photo #2, however, the men were out of focus, probably done on purpose to try to make it look like an old photo.

To construe a canoe (but see also Addendum #1 at bottom of post)

Whenever I see this photo (#3), I think of a canoe. Sceptics probably think the same thing, for those long wings give that canoe-impression. But looking deeper brings up some serious questions.

Just what kind of canoe is that in photo #3? Search Google with “canoe images” and compare. From what I’ve seen, nothing else comes close to it: Partial side-views of real canoes show nothing even remotely like the sharp point at the right of photo #3. Why would any canoe be constructed so long, narrow, and low, and with such a sharp point? If anybody knows of such a canoe, please let me know. I would hate to be a swimmer having an accident with that kind of canoe.

The point is simple: If that long thing is not a canoe, it’s a non-canoe, and our mental processes that bring up “canoe” are irrelevant.

.

Canoes on Lake Louise (but see also Addendum #1)

A skeptic might point out that if those wings are not canoes, they look very poor aerodynamically. That’s true. But dead creatures don’t fly, and that curving of the wings might have come from the effects of death.

Wings of the Flying Creature

A skeptic might dismiss photo #3 because the wings are too pointed to be the wings of a Pteranodon. Well, the wings of that type of pterosaur were indeed quite pointed, even if not as much, perhaps, as what is shown in this photo. But why must a huge recently-deceased creature in recent centuries be precisely like a Pteranodon in every way? (We’ll return to the Pteranodon interpretation later.)

A skeptic might ask why soil appears in the indented parts of those wings. Was somebody trying to hide something, trying to cover up a fraud by covering it with soil? Consider a more reasonable explanation. One or more soldiers had started to bury the huge creature by simply digging up nearby soil and throwing it onto the thing. Somebody then learned that a photographer was nearby, so the burial ceremony stopped, the creature was dragged to an open area (where there was better lighting), and a few soldiers gathered around for the photo session. But there’s an even more likely variation of that conjecture.

Notice what appears to be grass in the soil on those wings. What’s going on? When the burial started, what soil would have been used? At first the top-most soil, the shovel would catch, namely soil with grass. I suggest that’s where the soldiers came to a stop. After all, the sergeant never said to give the monster a decent burial, just bury it. Some time could have passed before somebody caught a photographer and the monster was dragged into an open area for a photo session; of course, considering the smell, they might have also dragged the photographer. But the point is this: Who cares if the monster looks monsterously dirty? Why bother to remove the soil from the wings? Think about it and consider if that may be a more reasonable explanation.

How old is the Photograph?

On the surface, it looks like a Civil War photo, which means mid-nineteenth century. What would a skeptic suggest? Perhaps it’s not from the Civil War era but more recently, in other words a hoax created after the Civil War. But that presents a few problems. When was the photo taken?

It’s reported to have been published between 1950 and 1970, which rules out Photoshop forgery, at least for the version of the photo that was published in that printing. I remember something like this photo, probably in a book from the Pasadena (California) public library around the late 1960′s, so let’s examine the following possibilities:

1. Hoax created between 1945 and 1970
2. Hoax created between 1941 and 1945
3. . . . between 1900 and 1941
4. . . . between 1865 and 1900

Regardless of when this photograph was taken, it was done with six men who look like Civil War soldiers, in uniforms and with rifles to match. If these men are imitating a Civil War scene, after 1865, they are making a convincing imitation. I have no doubt this photo (#3) was used as a model for the hoax of photo #2. The question is could #3 also be a hoax.

Here’s the problem with a hoax created between 1945 and 1970. I know that period well, having lived through most of those years. At that time, how could anyone find six men to creature such a hoax? Who would have sufficient motivation? Believe me, hardly one person on the planet would have both motivation and ability to create an elaborate hoax photo, with six apparent Civil War soldiers, that would portray a huge recently-deceased pterodactyl. The only reasonable explanation, for a hoax between 1945 and 1970, is that a film company was making a movie. But in that case, we would have a motion picture, not just one still image, and there would probably be nothing like a mystery to the photo. In addition, we would have nothing like a convincing overexposure of a tree on the right side of a still photo.

For 1941 to 1945, forget it. Everybody was too busy with everything related to World War II.

For 1900 to 1941, a number of problems jump out. We still have a lack of motivation for creating such a hoax, although that’s not as much of an issue. Who would have, and use, the needed resources for creating such a hoax? Some of those years were during the Depression, and some were during World War I, and between those times people were too busy partying.

But seriously, a major issue is technology. Consider the quality of special effects in movies before the Depression; if you’ve seen any special effects in a movie from the 1920′s you’ll understand. Who would be capable of creating a convincing still photo of what we are examining, even if such a person had any interest in doing so?

For 1865 to 1900, we could imagine the possibility of a hoax. In the nineteenth century in general, some newspapers increased circulation, on occasion, by printing a fantastic story that had little or no basis in fact. Old photographic equipment and Civil War uniforms—both were still easily available, surely. Let’s look at this possibility more closely.

In the first three decades following the end of the Civil War, an occasional newspaper article might have originated from questionable sources. But if you’ve ever read some of those old newspaper articles, you’d know that the writing quality was less than what we’re now used to. Look again at photo #3. To create a hoax like that would be quite an undertaking before 1900.

Why would any hoaxer at that time use six men dressed in Civil War uniforms? One man would be plenty, at most two; why go to the trouble of dressing up even three men? And why go to the trouble of finding rifles for six men? It’s too much.

Consider what work would have been entailed in creating anything remotely like that huge creature. It’s out of all proportion to the quickly written sensational stories that we’re now considering, sensational articles in the nineteenth century. The two just don’t fit together: cheap writings and extraordinary photo hoaxing.

Now for another problem: Where is the newspaper article?

I’ve spent considerable time searching archives of old newspapers. It’s part of my occupation, my work in cryptozoology. (I have not limited the searching to words like “pterodactyl” or “pterosaur.”) I have found success in discovering old newspaper articles about apparent pterosaur sightings, including some in the nineteenth century. But I have not yet seen even one article similar to the story of Civil War soldiers who were photographed next to a huge recently-deceased flying creature. Why believe that such an article exists? I would be delighted if anyone else would like to research this; please let me know what you find.

I realize a skeptic could ask, “If the sighting had been real, why did the story not get into any newspaper?” I’ll tell you. It has to do with species. Humans in 1864 were the same species as we are. Why does no newpaper, that I know of, print any article about a significant pterosaur sighting that I publish in a news release, in the twenty-first century? I suggest it may be the same reason that a newspaper in 1864 would not print anything about a dead monster found by soldiers (or killed by them). Of course a convincing photograph would probably have made a huge difference, but what is the history of that photograph? Where did it go or where did it lay hidden? I hope somebody can do the research to discover those answers.

Could it have been a hoax during the Civil War?

We again have the problem with motivation and ability. Who would have both the desire and the means to contrive such an elaborate hoax photograph during the Civil War? It’s just too weird.

I know that a skeptic would wonder at that use of the expression “too weird,” when I promote the concept of modern living pterosaurs. But eyewitnesses of large pterosaur-like flying creatures have been reported to me for nine years now. To me, encountering a report of a huge pterosaur flying overhead is just part of my routine.

More evidence that the photograph is geniune

Look at the positions of the soldiers in photo #3. Notice how they’re spaced. Now see this:

The above drum and fife unit is posed together in a common form of positioning for photography.

The above group is shoulder to shoulder, to include all of them. Note that the main subject is the group of soldiers themselves. Compare it with the following:

The above group of Civil War soldiers are positioned according to the needs of the situation: around and on the big gun. This relates to the positioning seen in photo #3: appropriate to the needs of the situation.

The six soldiers in photo #3 are not lined up shoulder to shoulder, for the main subject is at their feet. The point? Something important is shown in this photo, something around which those six soldiers are positioned. In other words, this photo was not constructed from a Civil War photo of six soldiers posing as the main subject, manipulated by inserting a giant creature image onto the photograph.

So what am I suggesting? What we see at the feet of those six soldiers may be what it appears to be: a dead winged creature with a wingspan of twenty feet or more. I am open to other suggestions. What do you think?

Pteranodon interpretation and hoax possibility

This photograph shows an impressive head that looks like that of a Pteranodon, or at least somewhat like one. If this photo is an accurate version of the original, of a photograph recorded during the Civil War, we have substantial evidence for the recent existence of large living pterosaurs in North America. Why? In the middle of the nineteen century, scientists had no clear idea of how a Pteranodon head would appear, at least not as accurate an idea as we get from looking at that head in photo #3.

But I know of one other possibility, albeit a strange idea. Is it possible that the Pteranodon-like head alone was inserted into this photo? There still may be a hoax-explanation here. But then what was in the original photo? The third-from-the-left soldier has his foot on something. This requires additional investigation, but for now, it seems this photograph might, just might, be genuine.

.

Addendum #1

I have since learned that some dugout canoes have pointed ends. But what is shown in photo #3 still appears rather extreme in sharpness. Does anybody have any relevant information on this?

.

Live Pterosaurs in America, by Jonathan Whitcomb

From the third edition of this nonfiction book:

I realize that somebody may suggest the eyewitness saw only a model pterosaur; mechanical “pterodactyls” are common. Several details rule out this explanation. The size of the creature was estimated by its appearance when it flew over the road at low altitude; I doubt that he saw a 30-foot-long model. [2007 sighting in Southern California]

.