Civil War photo | Live Pterosaur

May 19, 2017May 30, 2017

Living Pterosaurs and the 1944 Sighting

side-by-side front covers of two cryptozoology books by Whitcomb - "Modern Pterosaurs" and "Searching for Ropens and Finding God"

By modern-pterosaur researcher Jonathan Whitcomb

For a moment, let’s set aside my recently published book Modern Pterosaurs and see what one skeptic has written about a few pages in my older book Searching for Ropens and Finding God.

A critic of our investigations has written that the army buddy of the late Duane Hodgkinson (DH) was a “biology professor” who denies seeing a pterosaur in that jungle clearing in New Guinea in 1944. How misleading are those statements! To begin, consider the following points:

I interviewed DH a number of times
Garth Guessman also interviewed him a number of times
The critic never interviewed DH
Nobody, apparently, has ever interviewed the army buddy of DH

Reference to Searching for Ropens and Finding God (fourth edition)

The critic refers to my book, declaring that it says that the army buddy of DH was a biology professor. That is patently false, even though the critic uses that reference with pages “24-28.” Not once is the word professor found in any of those pages of my book. Read pages 24-28, if you have a copy of the fourth edition. Notice that the mistake in not a simple error in the critic’s referencing page numbers: Those pages are about that subject at hand. Any person who will carefully read my nonfiction Searching for Ropens and Finding God should not insert a word from his or her imagination into a published comment, as if that word were in one of those pages in my book. That critic has done just that, falsely called that soldier a professor.

I mentioned that the army buddy of Duane Hodgkinson had some education in biology, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt when I called him a “biologist.” I did not know, when I wrote that word in that page of my book, that a skeptic would some day see biologist on page 28 and take the word professor from his imagination and declare that professor was in that page of my book. I now wish that I had written “biology student” rather than “biologist,” but that editing will have to wait for the next edition. Yet the other blunder made by the critic, which seems technically less glaring a mistake, is far more toxic in leading people away from the truth about what happened in that jungle clearing in 1944: what was observed by those two soldiers.

Was it a Ropen in New Guinea in 1944?

I believe that Garth Guessman and I see this in the same light, having both interviewed the World War II veteran a number of times over a period of years. DH’s army buddy saw the same thing that DH saw, on that day in 1944 in a jungle clearing west of Finschhafen on the island of New Guinea. That biology student just did not want to talk about it.

I have seen this reluctance often, during my investigation over the past 14 years. American eyewitnesses are usually hesitant to admit that they saw a living pterosaur. Some cases are extreme, including this one.

Contrary to what the critic has written in his online publication, I never said or insinuated that DH’s army buddy was distracted and so did not see the animal. Anyone who carefully reads those pages in my book should not make that mistake made by that critic. Let’s look at what is actually printed in Searching for Ropens and Finding God (4th edition) rather than what swims around in the imagination of one skeptic:

What if Hodgkinson had seen something other than what he thought he had, for some unknown reason. A strange bird or bat, however, fails to explain the strange reaction of the other soldier, the man who was educated in biology; it fails to explain why “Well, George, we saw it,” was answered with, “No, we didn’t!”

What I did not include in the book was what DH said right after his buddy again apparently tried to deny what they had seen. DH said something like, “How stupid can you get?” That was said within seconds of so of the sighting.

In other words, if the thing that flew up from that jungle clearing could have been some kind of bird or bat then the biology student would surely have suggested that possibility. Apparently that man decided to pretend that they had seen nothing at all, and the reason is obvious: Why invite people to call you “crazy” or “liar?”

That is not a recent idea I’ve had. Here’s the next paragraph in my book:

Notice that he [the soldier who had some education in biology] did not say it was a bird or a bat; he just denied that they had seen it. A generalized misidentification fails to lift off but a giant long-tailed pterosaur flies perfectly well here, even if it does drop a bomb on standard biology.

In other words, the critic fell into a confirmation bias. He was looking for anything he could find that would discredit the idea that pterosaurs are still living on the earth. When he found out that a man appeared to deny that he had seen a pterosaur, the critic jumped to the conclusion that the man had not seen what the man next to him declared they had seen. The truth, however, is far different from what the critic wants to believe.

Garth Guessman (left) and the World War II veteran Duane Hodgkinson (videotaped interview in 2005)

Confirmation Bias Against the Possibility of Extant Pterosaurs

I’ve seen other examples of confirmation bias that this critic has fallen into. It comes up repeatedly in his online page. One simple example is in his belief that a word that exists in two different languages in Papua New Guinea (the word ropen) appears to be relevant. He says, “This seems like a very relevant piece of information.” In reality, it is entirely irrelevant, and here is why:

In one language, ropen means a nocturnal flying creature that glows at night (in the Kovai language of Umboi Island); in another language, in another area of Papua New Guinea, ropen means “bird.” In the real world, when one word exists in two languages, the meaning can differ; it often does. Even in the same language, a word can be used very differently for people in different areas. How surprising for an American to hear an English citizen call a column of children walking down a sidewalk a “crocodile!” And that is in the same language: English.

Confirmation Bias and a Photograph of a Modern Pterosaur

For many years, the critic had an image of Ptp on his online page. He declared that it was a hoax from a television show. I communicated with the critic, earlier this year (2017), and revealed to him his mistake: Two photographs are somewhat similar, but the other one came from a TV show, not the photograph he displayed. He then corrected the long-standing error.

The photograph that we now call “Ptp” is not the same photo that was created for the Freakylinks TV show. That hoax photo, however, was modeled after the older photograph, with apparent reenactor Civil War soldiers playing their acting parts to help make the fake image.

But the critic may have then fallen into belief perseverance, or something like it, assuming that Ptp was also a hoax. A person can sometimes fall into both confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

For years, his web page declared that the Ptp photograph was a hoax from a TV show. After learning his mistake, and correcting it on his online publication, however, he held onto his idea that Ptp was a hoax. He searched for every possible thing that could cast doubt on its authenticity. I strongly suspect he had fallen into belief perseverance.

I don’t recall seeing any transition stage of his updating his critical online article. I did not see any version of his page that simply admitted his mistake about confusing the two photos, a version that did not proclaim that Ptp was a hoax. That in itself is suspicious.

Research by Paiva and Whitcomb

My fellow researcher Clifford Paiva suggested that I write a small book about Ptp. The result was Modern Pterosaurs. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

We have found much evidence for authenticity for Ptp, over a period of months.

The photograph now known as “Ptp” – declared authentic by two scientists

Conclusion

Keep an open mind regarding evidences for modern pterosaurs, and beware of shallow half-truths that appear to be evidences against the possibility that not all species of pterosaurs are extinct.

###

Photograph of a “Pterodactyl”

In my recently published nonfiction book Modern Pterosaurs, I refer to that long online article that is extremely negative towards living-pterosaur investigations. I labelled that page BAMPP (big anti-modern-pterosaurs page), which is how I refer to it now.

Book about modern pterosaurs

Once you know what’s been flying overhead, what people around the world have been encountering, you’ll be better prepared to see and understand the details in Ptp. You should then appreciate what has always been available to those with eyes to see. . . .

Scientists examine a photograph of a modern pterosaur

Cliff Paiva found the two evidences shown above [in an image]: shadows that were consistent (yellow arrows) and a vertical eye slit (vertical pupil like in a cat or a reptile)

New nonfiction cryptozoology book Modern Pterosaurs by Jonathan Whitcomb

From the first chapter in Modern Pterosaurs:

In the summer of 2014, a well-known biology professor at a Midwestern university wrote a scathing blog post about my online writings concerning apparent modern pterosaurs. It included ridiculing the lack of photos of the creatures on my web pages. Whatever pages he had seen, it appears he failed to notice the ones that examined the photo now called Ptp.

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 . . .

April 28, 2017May 30, 2017

A Reply to an Attack Against the Pterosaur Photograph

By the living-pterosaur expert Jonathan Whitcomb

I will not here mention the name of the critic or of his web page. Anyone who is determined to see it can find it easily enough by an online search. I here make a partial answer to some of the unjust criticisms he has made against the apparent Civil War “pterodactyl” photo that is now called “Ptp.”

The Wings of the Animal in the Ptp Photograph

According to the physicist who has examined this old photo in detail, Clifford Paiva, the apparent pterosaur has a head that suggests it was a Pteranodon. He told me that the wings are inverted, meaning that what appears to be the top of the wings, in the photo, would be the underside of the wings in flight. I assume that is why we see that strange angled area of the wing, with a border between very dark and very light areas.

(Click on the above pterosaur image to magnify it.)

In other words, the wing edges closest to the camera would be the trailing edges of the wings in flight. That answers the following criticism: “There are no signs of the lesser digits on the forearms.” In reality, we should not see any finger-like claws on the closer part of wings in the above photograph because Pteranodons did not have digits on the trailing edge (in flight) of the wings. The digits should be unseen, for they would be out of the camera’s view, to the back.

If I am not mistaken, Pteranodons folded their wings while walking, but I am open to being corrected on this. Keep in mind, however, that the wings seen in the Ptp photo were surely positioned by the soldiers or the photographer, and they simply wanted them to be seen in their entirety. In other words, we need to remember that the persons involved in placing that animal in that clearing were not attempting to recreate how it would have walked. Nevertheless, it appears that those wings naturally folded around when the men were moving them to be photographed.

The critic says that the animal in Ptp has teeth. He should have looked closer, for a simple magnification of the image shows that those are NOT teeth, although it does suggest the beak may have been different from what has so far been discovered in Pteranodon fossils. The beak seems to have an irregular shape, possible like pseudo-teeth. In other words, the statement about teeth is not actual evidence that this was not any kind of Pteranodon. It very well could have been that type of pterosaur, or at least related to it.

Careless Reading

The skeptic says, “Whitcomb goes so far as to propose that the FreakyLinks producers engaged in a pre-meditated, anti-YEC plot,” but I have never said anything of the kind. I have never written anything like that. He may have assumed that anyone who has written anything supporting the Ptp photograph as genuine must be me. I have seen one or two web sites that promote that conspiracy theory, but I was never involved in writing anything on those sites.

Science and Changing Ideas

Progress in real science often involves changing your mind. When new information comes in, we change our opinions about what we used to believe, or we should be open to that. This skeptic, however, appears determined to shoot down anything that appears to threaten the 19th century dogma about universal extinctions of all species of pterosaurs.

This critic does not mention the name of Tom Payne, yet that canoe expert is the person who, in January of 2017, convinced me that those wings in the photo definitely have nothing to do with any canoe. That was the main reason I had doubts, in 2013, about Ptp: For many years, I had an idea in the back of my mind that those wings resembled two halves of a canoe. Once that doubt was eliminated, I was open to examining Ptp more closely and with a mind open to the possibility that it may be authentic: a real photograph of an extant pterosaur that was living in the 19th century.

More than once, the critic mentions my former reservations (in 2013) about Ptp, but if he had looked more carefully and read, with an open mind, my recent writings, he would have realized that it was perfectly natural that a canoe expert could lead me to think differently about the photo.

Conclusion

The clear preponderance of evidence supports the idea that Ptp has an image of a real animal and that it was some kind of pterosaur that was living in the 19th century.

###

Supporting the old Civil War Pterosaur Photograph

Last month, I contacted the writer Glen Kuban, informing him of his long-standing mistake in assuming that there was only one Civil-War-soldiers-with-a-dead-pterodactyl photograph.

Old Photo of a Pterosaur Declared Genuine

Declaration of Universal Pterosaur Extinction

We’ll call this “DUPE.” It’s not only assuming that all species of pterosaurs must have become extinct long ago; it’s declaring that idea as if it were a fact. The person who declares that all of them must have died out millions of years ago—that person then becomes part of the force that indoctrinates others into believing it.

Civil War Pteranodon Photograph

Over the past few days (mid-January, 2017), the physicist Clifford Paiva, of Central California, spoke with me twice by phone. He’s looking again at the old photograph that appears to be from around the late-Civil-War period, although I’ve been told it could have been from a little after the end of the war. Paiva has found new evidence that this has an image of a genuine modern pterosaur. The solar shadows tie the soldier’s boot to the animal, and a number of details in the head, neck, and other areas—those correlate well with the anatomy of a Pteranodon.

Pterodactyl photo – Civil War

The photograph now called “Ptp” has been around for a long time, possibly in one or more books in the mid-20th century, according to a number of persons who report remembering it.

Fake pterodactyl in Civil War photo

The photo shown here, recently given the label of “Ptp,” has been declared to have a genuine image of a modern pterosaur. The proclamation was given by the physicist Clifford Paiva and the cryptozoology author Jonathan Whitcomb on January 14, 2017.

Civil War Soldiers and a Pterodactyl

Much confusion has come from publicity involving two photographs that, on the surface, greatly resemble each other. The following shows them side by side for comparison . . .

#####

Modern Pterosaurs – Human encounters with living ‘pterodactyls’

From the back cover of the nonfiction book:

On January 14, 2017, a physicist and a forensic videographer announced their joint findings on an old photograph: “a genuine image of a real animal . . . six men . . . were standing near the body of that animal when the photo was taken . . .”

April 21, 2017May 30, 2017

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. Scott passed away, half a year later, from natural causes, yet the large sizes of apparent extant pterosaurs, reported by some eyewitnesses in North America, may be connected to some of the more mysterious missing-persons cases that have never been solved.

The Civil War “Pterodactyl” Photo

I don’t recall talking with Scott about the old photograph, while we sat in my backyard in Long Beach, California, with Garth Guessman in 2005. But 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.

Of course many persons who have seen that “pterodactyl” photo will think how dangerous humans can be to wild animals. After all, that dead creature is lying on the ground, surrounded by apparent Civil War soldiers, each of whom is holding a rifle. The apparent pterosaur, however, is so large that it takes little imagination to realize it could be dangerous to people.

Ptp has been called the “Civil War Pterodactyl” photograph

Skeptics and living-pterosaur critics now have a problem. If they say that Scott Norman’s sighting report is invalid because nobody has a photo of a modern Pteranodon, what about Ptp? And if they say that the Civil War photo of an obvious Pteranodon must be fake because people don’t see those animals, what about Scott Norman?

It seems that skeptics have been mostly silent since the mid-January-2017 announcement by the physicist Clifford Paiva and me (Jonathan Whitcomb): the proclamation that this photo has a genuine image of a real animal, apparently a Pteranodon. Dozens of blog posts and web pages have been published since that proclamation. Where is the response?

In fact, a new nonfiction cryptozoology book has been published on this photo: Modern Pterosaurs, which is surely the latest word on the authenticity of Ptp, and definitely the most thorough examination of it. Why not get your own copy of this cryptozoology book?

###

American Civil War Soldiers and a Monster

What a gruesome head! I don’t recall when I first saw the monster photo, perhaps as long ago as 1968, but that long beak and head appendage made me uneasy.

Pterosaur Sighting by Scott Norman

Let’s consider the sighting by Scott Thomas Norman, as it’s a few days after his birthday (March 15, 1964) and a month after the anniversary of his death (February 29, 2008). His encounter deserves another look, in light of earlier sightings in Papua New Guinea and recent sightings in North America.

Mysterious Missing Persons

This past Monday, April 4, I was interviewed at Bass Lake, south of Yosemite, for a Travel Channel episode of “Mysteries at the National Parks.”

More Evidence for the Civil War Pterodactyl Photograph

Paiva has done a detailed analysis of the image. He found that the shadow under the boot of one soldier (he’s now known as “FS” for front-soldier) is consistent with shadows under and on the animal. Paiva also found details in the head, neck, and shoulder of the animal, details that closely correlate with the anatomy of the Pteranodon. Please be aware that we do not declare that this animal must have been of some species of Pteranodon, but we point out that it appears to be at least similar to that type of pterosaur.

Possible Pteranodon in an old Photograph

On January 14, 2017, Clifford Paiva (a physicist in California) and I spoke by phone and agreed that the following photo has an image of a real animal, with real wings. . . . What we now call “Ptp” has been around for a long time, with some persons reporting that they saw it in a mid-20th-century book, possibly a Ripley’s “Believe it or Not.”

The Pteranodon Photo and Religion

An old photograph has been bouncing around the internet for quite some time, with many persons giving it a careless glance but very few indeed examining it closely and with an open mind. In the first few months of 2017, however, that changed.

#####

Modern Pterosaurs – exciting new discovery of an extant pterosaur in the 19th century

From the Introduction in the book:

This book . . . [has] an analysis of an old photograph of a huge flying creature, with reasons for believing the photo is genuine evidence for a modern pterosaur. Yet eyewitness testimonies have been the heart of our investigations, so you need at least the summaries of some of the more important reports of encounters between ordinary persons and the larger apparent pterosaurs.