Lake Pung, Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, where the ropen ("demon flyer" or not) sometimes flies

The book Mysterious Creatures, A Guide to Cryptozoology, by George M. Eberhart, includes this entry under the “Ropen” title: “An Austronesian word said to mean ‘demon flyer.’” That may be partially correct but easily misleading. Most of the sources for Eberhart’s Ropen entry are the writings of Karl Shuker in Fortean Times articles, dated in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Without reading those articles I will not speculate on them. But my associates and I who have explored in Papua New Guinea more recently and have interviewed many natives—we may have had opportunities more extensive than Shuker’s, or at least have had the potential for new insights.

Austronesian is a language family, not a language; individual languages of this family are found on many islands, including many in Papua New Guinea. Among the hundreds of languages spoken in Papua New Guinea, Kovai (spoken in some villages of Umboi Island) is Papuan, according to Wikipedia; it is not Austronesian. But the word “ropen,” for a large flying cryptid that sometimes glows as it flies at night—that word comes from those villages that speak Kovai.

The second Umboi Island expedition of 2004 (a few weeks after mine) turned up an interesting perspective on the word “ropen.” Jacob Kepas, the native interpreter for the American cryptozoologists David Woetzel and Garth Guessman, knew the word but was puzzled. Why go to such trouble flying on a small plane to Umboi Island to search for a bird? In his village near Wau (mainland Papua New Guinea), “ropen” is the word used for a common bird. The large nocturnal flying creature that glows—that frightening creature they call “seklo-bali.”

So in those two small areas of Papua New Guinea (villages of Umboi Island including Opai and Gomlongon, and at least one village near Wau on the mainland) the meaning of the word “ropen” differs greatly. An examination of the expedition reports from American cryptozoologists who have searched for living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea in the 1990′s and early twenty-first century—that reveals that the Western-world usage of ”ropen” comes from the Kovai-speaking islanders of Opai and Gomlongon.

A casual observation of the “Demon Flyer” episode of MonsterQuest on television is a world apart from reading Shuker’s article or Eberhart’s book or one of my books. Monsterquest episodes are mini-adventure-shows, not scientific documentaries, so we are not surprised at a few technical innacuracies; but innaccuracies are hardly confined to television adventure shows. Search with the phrase (in quotes) “demon flyer” and one of the first-page results from Google can take you to a page with the following:

Just off the eastern coast of Papua New Guinea . . . are the small islands of Rambunzo and Umboi. These two islands are said to be the home of the Ropen, which when translated from the indigenous dialect literally means, Demon Flyer.

Let us examine that declaration.

First, a brief Google search makes me suspect that the island of ”Rambunzo,” by that spelling, does not exist in Papua New Guinea; perhaps it is a misspelling, for the first few pages of Google searching refer to cryptozoology sites and Wikipedia has nothing by that spelling. But if this is a misspelling of “Rambutyo,” ( near Manus Island) we need to consider what at least some of the people of the northern islands of Papua New Guinea call the large nocturnal flying creature : “kor.” My contact person in that part of PNG is clear about that word for what Umboi Islanders (to the south) call “ropen.” “Kor” is their word, which I suspect is used by the people of Rambutyo. In addition, I don’t recall ever writing anything about “Rambunzo,” in any of my web pages from 2003 to late-2011, in spite of what one web site declares about my involvement with that word.

Second, Rambutyo (as the correct spelling for the nonexistent ”Rambunzo”), which is actually northeast of the mainland, is smaller than Umboi, but many people would not call Umboi, at 900 square kilometers, ”small.” In addition, many islands, of various sizes, are east and northeast of the mainland; why single out those two? The large nocturnal flying creatures, called by various names in various languages, can be seen (although mostly at night by their bioluminescence) around and over many islands of Papua New Guinea, not just over or near Rambutyo and Umboi.

Third, there is no “indigenous dialect” for these two islands. In fact, I was told by Delilah Kau (or “Kow”), wife of the government-and-local-village leader Mark Kau, that several nearby villages around Gomlongon have different “languages.” She probably referred to what we would call different dialects of Kovai, but other villages of Umboi, not so close to Gomlongon, really do have different languages. Even if islanders of Rambutyo all spoke the same language, it would be very unlikely to be the same dialect (even if the same language) as any on Umboi Island.

That brings up the idea that “ropen” comes from two native words. A brief reflection makes that appear unlikely, for how could such a short word come from two words that mean “demon” and “flyer?” No, it is much more likely that the original meaning of the word was something like ”flyer.”

New York State Pterosaur

I recently interviewed a man who was informed of a sighting of a live pterosaur on Long Island, New York (this is indirect, for I have not interviewed the eyewitness himself).

The creature was referred to in terms like ”dinosaur-flying-reptile.” The sighting was at a long stretch of beach, perhaps Lido Beach, on Long Island. A number of eyewitnesses saw it soaring above the beach, and one or more observers tried to take photos of it.  People thought, at first, that it might be a kite, but it soon became apparent that it was not moving like a kite, and it had no string attached.

The creature’s wingspan, tip-to-tip, was around seven to ten feet. The head had a long beak and something ”pointy” at the back of the head. It was a clear day.

Dallas, Texas, Live Pterosaur Sighting

Two persons were positive that what they had witnessed flying overhead one night was a ropen or pterosaur.  At first, they thought it was just a huge bird, but soon concluded that it was too big to be a bird. The wingspan was about twenty feet. Said one of the eyewitnesses, “I am very much a believer that they do still exist.”

Pterosaur in British Columbia, Canada

A lady in British Columbia saw what she thinks was a ropen. She told me, ”I don’t know what else it could have been. . . . I understand that the Ropen is nocturnal but I saw this creature during the day about 2:30 pm so maybe i’m wrong . . .”

The creature was larger than any bird the eyewitness had ever before seen. It had a long tail “with something on the end of it just like the Ropen. Then I couldn’t believe my eyes when I looked at the wings and they weren’t feathers, they were like huge bat wings.”

While writing about the pterosaur interpretation of Marfa Lights and the “Huntington Hypotheses” for one sighting of those mystery lights of Texas, I came across a Smithsonian blog post by Brian Switek. I do not question the honesty of Mr. Switek; in fact I agree with his point that an amateur video of a Frigate bird is not evidence for a living pterosaur, namely the cryptid called “ropen.” Nevertheless, a number of problems appear and they are serious.

. . . the chief advocates of living dinosaurs turned out to be hucksters, overly-credulous wildlife enthusiasts, or young-earth creationists intent on somehow disproving evolution . . .

The moderate length of that blog post is insuffient to adequately cover more than one of those three seemingly related ideas, but Mr. Switek avoids getting into details, instead criticizing a Salem-News article for mistaking a Frigate bird for a pterosaur. Of course that was a serious blunder in that report by Terrence Aym (and there were other errors in that Oregon news report, errors that Switek seems to have missed), but the error is Mr. Aym’s, not errors of the living-pterosaur investigators Switek soon mentions. A careful reading seems to indicate that Switek is trying to use this to discredit anyone who proposes pterosaurs live in Papua New Guinea.

The fifth paragraph actually names recent living-pterosaur investigators, but Switek seems to use bulverism rather than reasoning:

Then there is the problem of Aym’s sources. Both Blume and Woetzel are creationist explorers who have tried to promote the existence of living pterosaurs and dinosaurs. In fact, Woetzel has gone as far to propose these living pterosaurs as the “fiery flying serpent” of Isaiah 30:6 in the Bible . . .

Switek gives no evidence against any of this, apparently only mentioning the religious nature of Woetzel’s beliefs, as if that were enough to dismiss his ideas about living pterosaurs. I suspect Switek has never thought about Isaac Newton’s relationship to this, for Newton had religious beliefs similar to those of Woetzel.

I suspect Switek is also oblivious to critical responses to paleontologists like Darren Naish, for Switek then says:

Paleontologist Darren Naish has debunked many of the famous ones at Tetrapod Zoology . . .

The problems with this post are numerous, with no room here for many details; but since Switek seems to rely on this post by Naish, consider part of this response to live pterosaur criticism from Darren Naish:

The paleontologist Darren Naish has said, “Fossil evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that pterosaurs did not survive beyond the end of the Cretaceous.” He fails to realize that no group of fossils can overwhelmingly demonstrate the extinction of any species in any time frame, let alone all species of a general type. That is not what fossils can prove, even if paleontologists were able to recover all fossils that were ever formed.

Rather than delve into any particular eyewitness reports, Switek delves a bit into origin philosophies. He does not use the word “philosophy,” however, using the phrase “science of evolution,” and disparaging creationist philosophy. But in defending traditional ideas about evolution he makes the common reasoning-mistake of protecting his beliefs from every possible outcome, revealing that he is really protecting his philosophy. He states that modern descendants of pterosaurs should not be expected to resemble their ancient ancestors (therefore modern sightings of such creatures he believes must be wrong somehow). Then he immediately turns around by saying, “even if a long-tailed pterosaur were found it would do nothing to undercut the science of evolution.” In other words, whatever happens Switek’s philosophy is correct. I think that reasoning, if it could be called reasoning, is too convenient, revealing that it is a philosophy that is being protected, not science. True scientific reasoning does not include “whatever the outcome, whatever the evidence, my idea must be correct.”

A Youtube video titled “Ropen (Flying Dinosaur)” has received 37,000 views as of this afternoon. But the beginning of that video shows an obvious Frigate Bird soaring as Frigate Birds will soar. I’ve lost count of how many times I have responded to that video footage, explaining that it does not show any ropen but only a common ocean-going bird.

Another Youtube video, “pterosaur type creature part 1,” is the identical video footage but with text: “While on holiday in Papua New Guinea with my wife . . .” I am not accusing any person of dishonesty here, but that barren hillside above the beach looks nothing like any beach that I saw while I was in Papua New Guinea. In addition, the two telephone poles and the two cars and the almost total lack of humans appears to add up to some beach other than one in that remote tropical part of the world; I don’t say that this is a fraud, but it appears very strange, regardless of birds and ropens. I don’t say that this beach is in Mexico or some other country other than Papua New Guinea; I just feel that the strangeness of the barren hill and the strangeness of the lack of natives thronging around those two cars—they deserve an explanation.

I am concerned that some of the 176,000 viewers may have been mislead in some way, for that Frigate Bird looks nothing like the descriptions that I have received from eyewitnesses of the ropen, regardless of what beach is in that video. Ropens are nocturnal creatures, for the most part, appearing dark and featherless, not with a white throat-chest common for some Frigate Birds. This video has been put up on Youtube with apparent blocking of  negative comments for about two years. It seems that this version of the footage is purposefully protected from a criticism like ”Frigate Bird,” an obvious explanation.

I don’t know that all photos and videos of proclaimed pterosaurs are non-pterosaurs; but frauds and jokes through photos and videos are so common that it has interferred with publicizing the results of legitimate investigations and research.

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

The nonfiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America is the undisputed best seller among nonfiction books that have much content about apparent living pterosaurs (in first edition, Amazon.com, late 2009 through early-August, 2010). Purchase your own copy and discover these amazing eyewitness accounts for yourself: large “pterodactyls” flying through the skies of California, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, New York state, South Carolina, and elsewhere in the United States.

This is probably the only nonfiction book ever written about eyewitness sightings of apparent living pterosaurs seen across many of the forty-eight contiguous states of the USA, from West Coast to East Coast and from North to South: “Live Pterosaurs in America!” second edition; by Jonathan David Whitcomb.

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

The third edition of this non-fiction cryptozoology book has been published.

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

Child Care in Long Beach — Childcare Resources in California