U.S.A. Sightings | Live Pterosaur

September 22, 2017September 22, 2017

Apparent Pterosaur in Pennsylvania

green forest and ferns by a narrow trail in Pennsylvania

A few days ago, I got an email from an eyewitness of an apparent pterosaur that was observed flying over a neighborhood near Philadelphia. It was hardly the first time that I had received an eyewitness report from Pennsylvania, over the past 14 years, yet we need to see the big picture: sightings of apparent pterosaurs not only in that state but in surrounding states.

American States Bordering on Pennsylvania

New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
West Virginia
Ohio

About 25 eyewitness reports, possibly more, have been sent to me, mostly in recent years, from those six U.S. states. Many more sightings come from other states in that general area of the country. In other words, encounters with apparent pterosaurs, aka “pterodactyls,” are not at all restricted to the state of Pennsylvania.

Sighting of an Apparent Living Pterosaur Near Philadelphia

Here’s most of the first email I got from Tom Dura, who allowed his real name to be revealed. I’ve taken the liberty of adding paragraphing to his email:

My name is Tom. I’m from Philadelphia but do landscaping work in the surrounding suburbs.

I do landscaping work in the area of Gladwyne about once a week. The properties there are very large with lots of space between big houses. It is mostly a vast wooded area. Last Saturday (September 9, 2017) my fellow worker and I had finished eating lunch on the front steps of the house and I went back down to the street (Country Club Lane) to put our leftovers into the car.

I saw a strange dinosaur/birdlike creature flying above. At first it was silhouetted against the sky but I clearly saw a long skinny tail that ended in an outcropping. Silhouetted as it was, I described this outcropping, at the time, as a knob or bulbous shape at the end of the tail. The tail trailed behind the creature as it flew.

It then was obscured by some trees but I continued to watch it’s projected path. It was pretty much travelling in a straight line. It re-emerged on the other side of the trees and I again saw the long tail with the “knob” on the end.

Then, at one point, it caught the light in such away that it was no longer silhouetted. The sun must have come out from some clouds. As it traveled away to my left I saw it’s dorsal side. It was a somewhat tan or golden color, and, because it was such a uniform color, it appeared not necessarily to have feathers but possibly just a covering of skin or maybe very small scales. I told Stephen, my coworker, that I thought I saw a pterodactyl. . . .

When I described the tail to Stephen, he said, “You mean something like a lion’s tail.” I realized that he described it very well with those words.

The next night I did a search on the computer for “birds that look like pterodactyls”. . . . I found four flying reptile
dinosaurs, or pterosaurs, all of which look surprisingly like what I saw. They are described as being in about the same size range, too. I would guess the wing span was about four feet but I can only guess at that since, when something is up in the sky, it’s hard to reference it to other objects.

The four pterosaurs that resemble the creature I saw are the rhamphorhinchus, eudimorphodon, scaphognathus and the dimorphodon. [correct spellings are Rhamphorhynchus, Eudimorphodon, Scaphognathus, and Dimorphodon] The last of these is only speculated to have the “knob” at the end of the tail although no fossils have actually been found with it. The other three are known to have the outcropping. The outcropping, in any of these, is actually a diamond shaped flap called a “vane”.

I found that there have been many sightings of possible pterosaurs. Some people describe them as a large bat like creature (not everyone mentions a long tail . . .) The pterosaurs that I named, and the one’s that have been sighted by others, are bat like in that they don’t have feathers . . .

They are NOT bat like in that they do not flap their wings quickly but have more of a gliding motion to their flight (like my creature). I have to be honest in saying that I did not see hands or fingers but there was so much for me to observe in a fairly short amount of time that I mostly noticed the tail.

The shape of the head also escapes me now if I should have to describe it. My very first impression, the moment I spotted it, was not so much that it was a bat or bird but rather a birdlike dinosaur.

I feel so strongly about what I have seen that I sense that I should report it to somebody, somewhere. I am glad that I have been able to put this in writing while the incident is still fresh. I am happy to have this information shared with anyone. If someone has another explanation (other than that I saw a pterosaur) I will gladly listen.

If there is a large bird in the Gladwyn area with a tail like that, etc., I will consider myself informed and not argue. So far, my research doesn’t indicate that but I’m not a bird expert, etc. . . . Thanks, so much. I wish you all the best with everything you are doing.

I answered him:

Thank you, Tom, for telling me about your sighting.

To be sure that I understand which neighborhood this is, could it be Country Club Road (rather than “Lane”), which is about half a mile from the Schuyikill River? When I look on a map, that road is near Lafayette Road and Conshohocken State Road. Is that the neighborhood? [Jonathan Whitcomb]

Mr. Dura replied:

Yes. It’s Country Club Road (rather than Lane) and it’s just up the hill from Conshohocken State Road. It’s very close to the Schuylkill River. I was back there again today and kept looking up to the sky in hopes I would see the pterosaur again.

I told Stephen, my coworker, to do the same but we had no luck. I suppose this sort of thing is a once-in-a-lifetime experience and it might be expecting a bit much to hope it can be repeated. Nevertheless, I have gotten into the habit of looking at the sky any time I am anywhere near there.

I told a few trustworthy friends . . . about it. One said that if a pterosaur was flying around in that area more people would spot it. Perhaps others have spotted it and even reported it. I would like to know if you have any information like that. I also know that some creatures are possibly just very elusive by nature. Also, not everyone who spots something like that will care to tell anyone. I am glad you are collecting information and investigating. I wouldn’t have known about your work until this happened to me and I started to do research. Thanks, so much, and all the best with everything.
Sincerely, Tom Dura

I replied:

Thank you, Tom

It could be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but not necessarily. If a ropen (modern long-tailed pterosaur) flies in the same area at the same time of day, which happens on occasion though not commonly, then a vigilant eyewitness may see it again. Keep looking up.

I have quite a few sighting reports, over many years, from Pennsylvania.

Susquehanna County

Bucks County (your general part of PA)

Westmoreland County

near Pittsburgh

Pottstown, Montgomery County (mid-2016)

Clearfield County

I have also received many eyewitness reports from states neighboring PA.

Please let me know if you hear about anyone else who has seen one or if you are fortunate enough to see it again.

Thank you [Jonathan Whitcomb]

For a continuation of these email communications, see:

Ropen Sighting in Pennsylvania

A forest trail in Pennsylvania

###

Living Pterosaurs

An investigation by the cryptozoologist and forensic videographer Jonathan David Whitcomb and the work of his associates

Pennsylvania Pterosaurs

. . . We also need to keep in mind the concept that when one eyewitness reports to me a sighting (of an apparent pterosaur) in a particular area, there were quite likely other eyewitnesses who had similar sightings but never contacted me, for various reasons.

LDS Author Jonathan Whitcomb

“Not all of my books and online publications are about eyewitness reports of apparent pterosaurs, but most of them are. . . .”

Nonfiction Books by Mormons

It certainly sounds like a book on religion, and it can strengthen faith in readers who already have some faith in God. Yet this nonfiction [Searching for Ropens and Finding God, by the LDS author Jonathan Whitcomb] is mostly about cryptozoology, in particular eyewitness accounts of featherless flying creatures that the author is sure are non-extinct pterosaurs.

Living pterosaurs in Ohio

Last month I got an email from a man who lives in Gahanna, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus. He and his teenaged son were driving near their home at 6:45 p.m. on December 19, 2016, when a large creature flew over their car . . .

June 27, 2017

“Big Bird” in Draper, Utah

field with trees - ropen sightings were near here in Draper, Utah

By the modern-pterosaur author Jonathan D. Whitcomb

On June 26, 2017, my wife and I met with several eyewitnesses in a neighborhood of Draper, Utah, (in the southern part of the Salt Lake Valley) a few miles west of the Wasatch Mountains. Each of the four persons we talked with lived within about 300 yards of each other and a little south of the Swire Coca Cola complex, which is in northwestern Draper. These four wish to be anonymous, at least for now.

The flying creature involved, which may be more than one animal, appears to be an American Hammerhead Ropen. Some of the words that came to the minds of eyewitnesses, after the sightings in this neighborhood, were these:

dragon
hammer (shape of the head with a crest)
big bird

Bioluminescence appears to be involved, as in many ropen sightings worldwide. The June 21st sighting seems to be not an isolated encounter but part of a general flight pattern in Western Draper. Consider some of what each of these four persons told me and my wife.

Eyewitness-A

Between 35 and 55 years old, she is the mother of two children who also have had some kind of encounter with the flying creature at some time within the past few months, either seeing or hearing it. I gave her a copy of my recent nonfiction cryptozoology book, Modern Pterosaurs (about the Civil War photograph of an apparent Pteranodon that was living in the 19th century).

At about 11:00 p.m. on June 21, 2017, she saw the strange thing fly over her house. She was baffled, unable to come up with a sensible-sounding explanation. It reminded her of what her children had seen with her in movies: not something that is supposed to be still alive.

She might have dismissed it as some kind of drone aircraft, except that it was flapping its wings. She was struck by the lack of feathers and lack of hair on the tan-colored creature, which flew about 50 feet above the ground, over her backyard. She later searched online and found what looked very much like her “big bird.”

Perosaur Sketch by Eskin Kuhn — Kuhn saw two pterosaurs in Cuba, in 1971

The above sketch was seen by Eyewitness-A, after her sighting. It’s very much like what she had seen.

Eyewitness-B

This twelve-year-old boy was on his back in his backyard in western Draper, Utah, on a warm night in mid-June of 2017, when the huge creature flew overhead. He later learned that his uncle, who lives nearby, had also seen the same animal flying over that same neighborhood, earlier in the year.

The boy told me (Jonathan Whitcomb) that the flying creature had a head that reminded him of a hammer. After he drew a sketch, I realized he was referring, at least in part, to the angle of the head crest. This led me to conclude that he had seen an American Hammerhead Ropen, similar to what was seen by Patty Carson in Cuba in 1965 and probably by Eskin Kuhn (also in Cuba) in 1971.

Eyewitness-C

This man lives in the same neighborhood as the first two eyewitnesses mentioned above (A and B). It flew over his backyard three times in one night, early in 2017, appearing to be searching for something. I believe it was hunting, for many family pets are kept in backyards in this neighborhood.

He described a glowing outline of the animal, suggesting to me that the flying creature was bioluminescent. It was flying too high to have been lit up from ground lighting.

Hearing a Screech

I talked with a teenage girl who also lives in this neighborhood. She heard what she believes were the sounds of a cat being attacked in the large yard next to her backyard. But the cat cry was quickly cut short as the girl heard a terrifying screech, a sound she compared with the screech of a velociraptor from a movie. She was sure that the sound was not from a raccoon. She also compared it with a girl screaming very loudly.

###

Big bird-like animal in Hawaii

I am glad to find this website that shows others have seen something similar to what we saw– we thought we saw a pterodactyl on the Big Island of Hawaii!

Ropen critic and the Ptp photograph

One skeptic, writing a very long online article, mentions what I have written about related words in some of the many village languages in Papua New Guinea. He says that “ropen” means bird in one language but fruit bat in another. He then writes, “Well, there you have it,” as if it supports his declaration that a significant number of sightings of apparent pterosaurs in that area of the world could be from misidentified birds or bats. But he misses the point . . .

Objectivity and bias with the Civil War pterosaur photograph

. . . he [the critic] seems to have fallen into a severe combination of bias issues including both confirmation bias and belief perseverance, regarding his ideas about the old photo that is now known as “Ptp.”

Civil War Soldiers and a Monster Pterodactyl

Before giving a brief history of our investigations of this old photograph, I present a recent discovery related to the source of what we now call “Ptp,” what some people would call the “Civil War” Pteranodon photo.

Apparent Civil War era photograph

In January of 2017, the physicist Cliff Paiva and I agreed that the old photograph now called Ptp has a genuine image of a modern pterosaur. Since January, we have found additional evidence for its authenticity, which is what should be expected for something that is genuine rather than a hoax.

June 10, 2017

Living Pterosaurs and Skepticism

apparently very old photograph of soldiers with a recently deceased pterosaur -The scientist Clifford Paiva has pointed out that the wings are folded, AKA inverted, consistent with pterosaur wings

By modern-pterosaur expert Jonathan Whitcomb

I hate to think what life would have been like, for me and my associates, for these many years, if we had never encountered any skeptical remarks or any criticisms of any kind regarding our investigations of reports of encounters with apparent modern pterosaurs. We could have fallen into carelessness in many aspects of our work, for some skepticism can be healthy. Yet people need to be careful when they criticize or put words to their doubts. I think there’s a difference between scientific skepticism and other kinds.

This is a partial response to some of what has been written by Glen Kuban. I begin by addressing a couple of concerns that Kuban has had about publicity for the Ptp photo (that which shows an apparent modern pterosaur). I’ll then mention four concerns I have about some of the problems I see in his online publication “Living Pterosaurs.”

The Ptp “Civil War” photograph

Not all of Kuban’s writings are on his long online article “Living Pterosaurs (Pterodactyls)?”, and we’ll now look at two concerns that he has written about in some of what I’ve recently read outside that online publication.

You say the photo was “published” by Underwood and Underwood, but give no citation or information on where it was published . . .

That’s a good point. Yet I was not trying to be misleading in leaving out where I found the Ptp version that has a border. It was only eight days ago that I noticed “Underwood & Underwood” on the left side of the border of the photograph and I became so excited that I began writing about the discovery right away. I then spent day after day researching possible leads for more information, hoping to find out what book had been published with that early version of the photo. That’s where I made a mistake, a time-consuming blunder.

I had assumed that I would be able to quickly locate the online source, but I neglected to consider that I had spent hours in my original online searching before I found that photo with a border. (I was not expecting to find a version of Ptp with an old cardboard border around it; I was just looking for some early source for some kind of publication.)

When one or two persons asked me about the source, earlier this week, I realized I had not written down the URL. I then spent over an hour in the same kind of online searching I had done the previous week. Unfortunately, I had also forgotten exactly what words I had used in my searching that led me to find the pterosaur-photo with the border. Fortunately, I then remembered that I had done a screen capture, and I was able to get the information that led to me finding it again.

Underwood & Underwood “published” this old photograph many decades ago

Before I give the URL’s for this photo with a border, we need to be clear about the word published. This is not my choice of wording but is what is printed on photograph’s border itself. Look at the above image, on the top-right. After the company name, it says, “Publishers.” What they meant was surely this: They were making copies of photographs and distributing them. They were not publishing books or magazines but apparently were using the word publishers differently. Kuban seems to have been confused by that word usage, a few days ago, but I trust he now understands it.

Here is one of the online sources: Civil War monster shot

Here’s another source, although it’s obviously related: Photo of a strange winged monster

I may have seen one more similar Pinterest sources, but those two URL’s should suffice for now.

Kuban has recently been concerned about my frequent use of the phrase “Civil War” when referring to Ptp. I believe, however, that most of those who carefully and thoroughly read a number of my writings on this subject will have little, if any, problem understanding the stand Paiva and I are taking.

We are keeping an open mind regarding exactly when the photo was taken, although Paiva and I are leaning towards the idea that it was slightly after the end of the Civil War.

Why do I often use the phrase “Civil War” in my writings? For one thing, that is how many readers think of it, for those soldiers are indeed dressed very much like soldiers of the American Civil War. Kuban seems to have become upset by what he feels are contradictions in my writings, because of the phrase “Civil War,” but I don’t know of any other person who has had any problem with this.

Four Concerns With “Living Pterosaurs”

Let’s now consider four potential weaknesses (out of many) in Kuban’s long online article, one of them minor:

Loren Coleman’s stand on Ptp: “Verdict: Photoshopping”
Whitcomb’s stand on the Freakylinks hoax photo (a minor point)
Out of focus: The Freakylinks fake photo is out of focus, not Ptp
Kuban says “dye or stain cloth wings” (or hide) over wooden wings?!

Loren Coleman’s “Civil War Dinos” in Cryptomundo (Feb 16, 2007)

Loren Coleman’s old “Photoshopping” statement is still relevant, even though support for that conjecture is fading. In the June 9, 2017 version of “Living Pterosaurs,” Kuban admits:

. . . if the photo was in the U & U collection, this probably rules out any Photoshopping, although it would still allow manual photo editing techniques.

In other words, Kuban himself has started to set aside the Photoshop conjecture, choosing instead to point to the possibility of physical photo editing and/or physical modeling. I’m glad that he is beginning to see some light in that direction, but he misses a critical point: People have rejected Ptp because of the Photoshop idea.

Kuban mentions “confirmation bias” 13 times on his web page, with one long section having that heading. Much of that section is about my religious beliefs, or at least what Kuban thinks they are. What reader of that section of his “Living Pterosaurs” article would guess that it would be possible for someone to reject the Ptp photograph because of confirmation bias? Look deeper and take everything in context.

Loren Coleman has a “photograph” at the top of his “Civil War Dinos” post and says, “. . . Civil War soldiers with a Triceratops,” meaning the apparent dinosaur was inserted onto an old photograph through Photoshop manipulation. I don’t know of anybody who disputes that.

But look right under the fake-dinosaur image and see the Ptp photograph. Notice what’s right under that: “Verdict: photoshopping.” Those are the only words of explanation for Ptp: “Verdict: photoshopping.” We can’t examine Coleman’s brain under a microscope, but to me this certainly looks like a case of confirmation bias.

If Glen Kuban were entirely objective, he could have noticed that and added it to his section “Confirmation Bias.” I suspect that he himself has become overly focused on my religious beliefs, falling into a confirmation bias himself.

Whitcomb’s Position on the Freakylinks Hoax Photo

The June 9, 2017, version of “Living Pterosaurs” includes the following in a section called “‘Civil War’ Photos:”

Two other so-called “Civil War” photographs have recently been the subject of much discussion on the web, largely due to active promotions by Jonathan Whitcomb.

That could be misleading, should a reader not go further into those paragraphs. I have never promoted the authenticity of the Freakylinks hoax photo. Only the Ptp “Civil War” photograph have I promoted as an authentic photo of a modern pterosaur. I believe Kuban understands this and did not intend any deception. It was just not the best wording.

What Photo is out of Focus?

In the most recent edition of Kuban’s “Living Pterosaurs” web page, he says the following about Ptp:

Others have pointed out the suspiciously blurry and grainy nature of the photo, compared to the sharp focus of most photos from the time.

In reality, the Freakylinks hoax photo is blurry, NOT Ptp. If Kuban had only looked at the Ptp photo himself, with reasonable care, he would probably not have made that blunder. In fact, I remember reading only one or two places online where that out-of-focus idea is mentioned, and at least one of them said that the Freakylinks fake photo was the one that was out of focus, not Ptp. But Kuban gives no reference or URL for “others.”

The point is this: Professional photographs in the mid-to-late 19th century almost always had the main subject in sharp focus, and the men and the animal in Ptp are in sharp focus. This is one of the errors of fact that Kuban has made a number of times in “Living Pterosaurs,” errors of fact that can lead readers away from the truth. (For years, “Living Pterosaurs” had the Ptp image but referred to it as a hoax from a television show. Thank you, Mr. Kuban, for correcting that, this year.)

“Dye or stain cloth wings” (or hide) over wooden wings

Kuban gives no name of any expert who might support him in this conjecture. He also gives no reference or URL for anything that might support that idea.

He says, regarding the apparent biological structures in the two wings, “if animal hides were used, they would even be ‘biological.'” Why not look closely at those structures? Again, Kuban seems to neglect actually looking at the image itself or at least looking with an open mind. It’s not only in focus but the outer areas of both wings show structures that look nothing remotely like cloth or hide, whether or not any dye or stain was applied to it.

And why in the world would six men, or any number of persons in the 19th century, go to so much trouble to construct two long wings of a monster, using wood that was then covered with cloth or hide? And how would they know to make those wings fold in a similar way that real pterosaurs folded their wings? It’s far easier, in my opinion, to believe in a modern pterosaur than in the fantastic model construction suggested by Glen Kuban.

Wing folding in Ptp is direct evidence that this was a real pterosaur

Conclusion

Careful scientific skepticism can help encourage researchers and investigators and experimenters to remain disciplined in their work, but careless non-scientific criticisms can lead persons away from the truth, even when the careless skeptic does not intend to deceive or lead anyone astray.

I acknowledge that Mr. Kuban has made corrections in “Living Pterosaurs” when he has been informed of one or more errors of fact. He may very well make corrections in at least some of the points I have mentioned above. Yet severe bias can prevent the kind of progress that a person needs to make in coming to a thorough knowledge and understanding of the truth. I suggest that he and others conduct the kind of self-examination needed to recover from severe bias.

###

News Release – Modern Pterosaur

A forensic videographer has announced his discovery of an old source for the photograph that is labeled “Ptp.” On June 2, 2017, Jonathan Whitcomb, of Murray, Utah, found that the photo was published by Underwood & Underwood, which was a leading company in photography from the late 19th century until at least the 1920’s.

Monster with Civil War soldiers

. . . the head suggests it was a Pteranodon, but we stopped short of insisting it must be that species.

Pterosaur photo and skepticism

This is not a reply to scientific skepticism but to a skeptic who uses a variety of tactics to persuade readers of his online page to disregard anything that might appear to give credence to the possibility that one or more species of pterosaur is extant.

Confirmation bias, belief perseverance, and living pterosaurs

Glen Kuban (GK) and I have a few things in common. We’ve both been writing about reports of apparent extant pterosaurs (or those who believe in them) for a long time, and we’ve written a lot. . . . He believes that no species of pterosaur has survived into the past few centuries; I believe that a number of species live today.

May 4, 2017May 30, 2017

Modern Pterosaurs and Confirmation Bias

By the cryptozoology author Jonathan D. Whitcomb

In my recently published nonfiction book Modern Pterosaurs, I referred to a critic who wrote a long online article “that attacks the possibility of extant pterosaurs: bampp (big anti-modern-pterosaur page—but you won’t find that label or phrase on the page itself).” That critic has edited bampp a lot in recent weeks, making it difficult for me to refer to it directly without committing myself to constantly updating my online writings with less relevant details. I now refer to him as Wampp (writer of the anti-modern-pterosaur page), and I acknowledge that he may end up revising bampp as I point out errors in it.

This skeptic has made many mistakes, and appears, to me, to have fallen into both confirmation bias and belief perseverance. As I cannot read his mind and he has not responded to my request for him to investigate the possibility of confirmation bias on his part, I’ll take the general case: Skeptics in general have been misguided by generations of indoctrination into 19th century dogmas, including the idea that all species of pterosaurs became extinct long ago. Yet I’ll begin with myself.

Did Whitcomb fall into confirmation bias?

Wampp has said, “his own approach and arguments seem to entail large doses of [confirmation bias],” when referring to me, yet he gives no explanation or example of it. I will do so, although he may not like it, for it points in a completely different direction from what he tries to portray in bampp.

Ptp photograph: folded wings of the animal: evidence that this was a real pterosaur

I began my passionate investigation, of eyewitness reports of apparent pterosaurs, in 2003, and yet I knew about the Ptp photograph for many years, possibly as long ago as 1968. Yet I never wrote, between 2003 to 2012, about my belief in its authenticity, for I had little confidence that it was a genuine photograph of a modern pterosaur.

If I was afflicted with “large doses” of confirmation bias from 2003 to 2012, why did I not believe this photo was authentic? To the best of my memory, when I first saw this image I was bothered by the wings, for they reminded me of canoes, or of the possibility that the soldiers had cut a canoe in half to make a model of a monstrous flying creature. I eventually thought about how long this photo may have been around. During my youth and young adult years, why had I read nothing about any scientist who had pronounced any support for evidence of a modern pterosaur, if the photo was authentic?

Before 2003, I had assumed that scientists were objective (at least some of them) and that a genuine photograph of a modern pterosaur would eventually be recognized and officially acknowledged as authentic, if the photo had been around for many decades. After I began my investigation in this narrow field of cryptozoology, I again saw the image. I looked at it with the negative bias I had from earlier years, however, and the apparent lack of support from any scientist led me into a confirmation bias. I saw that apparent lack of scientific support as if that in itself were evidence that I had been correct in thinking that the photograph was a hoax.

So yes, I did fall into a confirmation bias, but I have recovered, and how greatly it differs from what Wampp would have guessed! My conversion came, in part, from an email I received from a canoe expert: He told me most plainly that the wings in the Ptp photograph are not a canoe or two halves of a canoe.

Did Whitcomb fall into belief perseverance?

If I had been subject, at that time, to belief perseverance, I could have resisted the words of that canoe expert and held onto my previous opinion that the photograph was a hoax. Instead, I looked more closely at the image and soon phoned my friend and associate Cliff Paiva. I did not realize, or had forgotten, when the canoe expert contacted me, that Paiva had studied the Ptp photograph for a number of years and had confidence that it was authentic. After all the above had occurred, I concluded, in agreement with my associate in science, that Ptp has a genuine image of a modern pterosaur.

So no, I did not fall into belief perseverance at that time. Contrary to what skeptics might guess, it was not very convenient for me to publicly give my support to this photograph. My specialty in cryptozoology is reports of living pterosaurs in general, but the great majority of the sightings appeared to have been of ropens. To the point, the flying creature seen in Ptp appears to be a Pterodactyloid pterosaur rather than a modern Rhamphorhynchoid (ropen), although I’m not 100% positive about that. A minority of eyewitnesses report that kind of pterosaur, some even using the word “Pteranodon,” yet it would have been much easier for me if I had received a photo of a pterosaur that appeared more like a ropen. After all, my biggest book is Searching for Ropens and Finding God.

Do skeptics fall into confirmation bias?

I believe they do. When someone has been indoctrinated, for years or decades, into believing all dinosaurs and pterosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago, that person may be surprised at the Ptp photograph. But confirmation bias takes place when that person sees something out of the ordinary, perhaps in the way one or more of the soldiers is standing, and takes that as if it were evidence that the whole photo is a hoax.

In other words, skeptics want to believe in anything that seems to point to a hoax, even if it is far removed from the image of the animal itself. For example, one skeptic mentioned the darkness in the tree background when compared with the darkness in the shirt of one of the soldiers in Ptp. This was publicized as if it were evidence that the photo was a hoax. Yet anybody can look at other Civil War photographs and see many dark shirts of Union soldiers and see how much darker they are than areas in trees in the background.

Belief perseverance also comes into play in the thinking of skeptics. Some of them have, for years, proclaimed that no credible photograph exists with a modern pterosaur. After Clifford Paiva and I made our announcement, in January of 2017, at least one of the skeptics (Wampp) has fought against the mounting evidence being found, in Ptp, for its authenticity. He is still holding onto the 19th century dogmas that my associates and I consider to be unscientific. I call that belief perseverance.

Conclusion

Both confirmation bias and belief perseverance appear to have been involved in regard to the Ptp photograph, but in ways that skeptics probably have not thought of.

###

Is it a Hoax, the Civil War Pterosaur Photo?

The scientist Clifford Paiva has uncovered additional evidence that the Civil War pterosaur photograph called “Ptp” is indeed as old as it appears at first glance: It was probably taken before about the year 1870.

Ptp Pteranodon Photo

That brings up the subject of confirmation bias.

Scott Norman and the Pterodactyl Photograph

This coming July will be the ten-year anniversary of Scott Norman’s sighting of an apparent nocturnal Pteranodon in California. . . . he used the word “Pteranodon” in his report of his mid-2007 sighting, and the head of the animal in the Ptp photograph definitely looks like it belongs to a Pteranodon or a similar pterosaur.

Civil War Pterodactyl Photo

Astonishing discovery by two scientists: Clifford Paiva and Jonathan Whitcomb

Confirmation Bias (Science Daily)

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions . . .

Confirmation bias and the Ptp photo

When Americans see something in Ptp that looks unusual to them, like in the way one or more soldiers are standing or in the way one soldier’s shoe is on the beak of the apparent animal, they allow that to turn them away in disbelief, thinking that they have found evidence that the animal itself is a hoax of some kind. That is confirmation bias.

Purchase your own copy of the nonfiction Modern Pterosaurs

From online booksellers’ book description pages:

First edition – This fully supports the literal Flood of Noah in the Bible, although the genre is nonfiction cryptozoology. For countless years, an old photograph has been seen on the internet, and some persons report they had seen it in a book decades before there was an internet. Now two scientists share their astonishing discovery . . .