image_pdfimage_print

Challenges to live-pterosaur investigations

What is the biggest problem faced by those who search for living pterosaurs and try to bring their investigations to light? Being attacked by a large ropen—that is not even close to the top of the list. Personal financial sacrifice, as in using personal savings to travel to Papua New Guinea—that is one challenge. The most difficult problem relates to American culture, which is an attitude common in developed countries in general: severe bias against the possibility that one or more species of pterosaur is still living.

A hoax can challenge any serious investigation, whatever is investigated. But one hoax perpetrated by an anonymous person or persons has been especially challenging. Around 2003 or 2004, a web site popped up called “Objective Ministries.” It is now widely believed to be an elaborate hoax. But one page declares much about living pterosaurs, including apparent plans for an expedition in Africa. The “university” named and the persons named now appear to be fictional, part of the joke. The problem for serious researchers and investigators of modern living pterosaurs is this: Some people will be so repulsed by those “objective ministries” pages that they might reject any serious investigation. Tragic!

Another challenge to our investigations is the “tiny minority” position of Wikipedia. This makes any very unusual research or investigation almost impossible to portray in a very positive light on a Wikipedia page. Popular opinions rule on certain web pages and Wikipedia is a good example of that. Of course other wiki’s cover that problem, in particular is this seen on “Creationwiki” (see Pterosaur on their site).

Another problem comes from a few paleontologists who insist dogmatically that fossils, somehow, are evidence that all species of pterosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago. But those critics make no distinction between extinction and near-extinction. And they fail to acknowledge that fossilization is not a common way for a living organism to pass away after death, thereby making a “lack of recent fossils” practically meaningless in the subject of eyewitness accounts of living pterosaurs.

Am I mistake about lack-of-fossils evidence? Then why are there so few pterosaur species that did leave fossils, compared with all the pterosaur species that could have lived during all those supposed millions of years when standard models insist that they lived? No, an apparent lack of “recent fossils” cannot reasonably be used to dismiss eyewitness accounts. To insist that a lack of pterosaur fossils in particular strata is evidence that no species of pterosaur could now live is no more reasonable than insisting that no species of pterosaur could have lived anciently unless we now have a fossil of that species. That kind of faulty reasoning is another problem we face, for educated paleontologists may be assumed to reason reasonably, and sometimes that is far from the case.

Foxes, paleontologists, and cryptids

Please understand my intentions with the following humor, for I do not downplay the importance of paleontologists; they are essential, the experts in learning from fossils. But the fox has his or her own specialty and the paleontologist likewise. The point? Cryptids are outside paleontology and an apparent lack of fossils in certain categories of strata should not be viewed as strong evidence for extinction of a general type of organism.

What’s the difference between a fox and a paleontologist? After a successful hunt, one is lick’n bones of chicken; the other is pick’n bones of therizinosaurus. It makes no rhyme, but a paleontologist is not usually associated with light verse: Don’t confuse Darren Naish and Ogden Nash.

How else is a fox like a paleontologist? When fully mature, neither one should be mistaken for a playful puppy, else you may be lick’n your wounds. More important, both of them can sometimes roam outside their proper place.

One Monsterquest episode involved an expedition to New Britain Island, Papua New Guinea. On the surface, it appeared to be a search for giant nocturnal flying creatures that some cryptozoologists believe are modern living pterosaurs (in reality, it was a dramatic production project to make an intertaining show; it was not a scientific investigation). Of all the potential explorers to take with them, Monsterquest chose a paleontologist. What’s wrong with that? It’s like inviting a fox to inspect an electric-fence security system for a chicken yard; you know that the fox will advise you to immediately stop wasting electricity on the worthless contraption. Likewise a paleontologist will be totally predictable, regardless of eyewitness evidence that a cryptid is a “living fossil.”

That brings up another similarity between a fox and a paleontologist: They both have to eat. I condemn neither of them for the need to survive. But I must point out that crytozoology is far outside the realm of paleontology, and any apparent or real lack of known fossils in any particular series of strata is not evidence for the non-existence of life. The world of living organisms is far bigger than all the fossils ever found. When paleontologists dismisses a large number of eyewitnesses with insinuations of misidentifications and improper motivations, those paleontologist have gone far outside the special field in when they are experts. They have no more right to ridicule those specific eyewitnesses than a fox has a right to eat chickens in a specific chicken yard.

The paleontologist Glen Kuban has been associated with a mild case of bulverism because of his web page criticizing the concept of modern living pterosaurs. I have known of some non-paleontologists who seem to be trying to defend traditional models of that field by using extreme bulverism. I invite all critics to keep to the issues involved: Avoid personal attacks such as insinuations of lies. Kuban has at least used a number of examples of eyewitness cases, even though he has avoided the more important cases. His portrayal of problems in the objectiveness of investigators or their lack of clear thinking seems to be in the background rather than the foreground, so I classify his page as using mild bulverism.

**************************************************************

Child Care in Long Beach, California

Pterosaur Sighting in Ohio (Antwerp, Ohio, sightings and the minister near Mount Vernon, Ohio)

Lively topics on living pterosaurs

Once in a while let’s consider some of the best articles on living pterosaurs, those especially deserving attention.

Why so few eyewitnesses?

I’ve lived more than half a century in Southern California, but I have never seen a mountain lion in the wild. It’s not that I’ve never walked through a wilderness area; mountain lions keep hidden, most of the time. But a few Southern Californians do see them.

At the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, in Southern California, near Irvine, in the summer of 2007, a man was driving north from the university, with the ponds on his right. From the marshy area on his left a very strange flying creature flew across the road, right in front of him, flying into the sanctuary.

American eyewitnesses (1400) of pterosaurs

 I have learned, over the years that I have promoted attention to the eyewitness evidences, that some vocal critics are overly anxious to discredit all those who promote the idea of living pterosaurs. I welcome comments on the eyewitness evidence itself, rather than weaknesses (real or wrongly-supposed) of the interviewers and investigators.

Marfa Lights and Min Mins (and ropens)

Come with me to Victoria, Australia, along Salisbury Road in Mt. Macedon. Notice, as we enter an open window, that Mr. Fred Silcock is sleeping in the easy chair by the fireplace. Now search for a thin brown book on the bookshelf. That’s the one; the spine says “The Min Min Light  F.F. Silcock”. Notice the drawing of a glowing barn owl on the cover.

Science and Clear Thinking

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” I believe Nikola Tesla was thinking clearly when he said that. I also believe that we need clear thinking in the scientists of today, at least as much as in the time of Tesla. It appears to me difficult to define, although its opposite appears easy to expose. Perhaps we should be grateful for extremes that help us to distinguish between foggy and clear thinking. I suggest a couple of examples.

Glowing Orbs of the Mekong River

What attracts hundreds of thousands of spectators, every October, to Nong Kai Province? The Naga Fireballs of Southeast Asia have attracted crowds for many years, and these strange glowing orbs have been seen emerging from the Mekong River for centuries.

. . . We know that some insects glow and some insects emerge from rivers to fly away. This may be a large bioluminescent insect.

Cryptozoology Book Live Pterosaurs in America

“The world’s greatest expert on chickens—that’s a fox. The details of that expertise culminate in picking bones, executed differently than, but for the same purpose as, the work of a fossil expert: to make a living. The hope differs: The paleontologist searches for ancient bones somehow protected from the destructive forces of time; the fox, for fresh meat, somehow unprotected by the farmer for a time. Interminable dogmatism keeps both of them searching: one for death anciently; the other, death soon-to-be.”