Eyewitnesses

of Pterosaurs

Living Pterosaur

Investigations

In court trials, attorneys attempt to accumulate evidences that strengthen their cases. When a second witness testifies in a way that supports the previous witness, the credibility of the point can be greatly strengthened. With investigations of reports of living pterosaurs, when one eyewitness comes forward, the credibility of that person may be questioned. Unfortunately, appropriate cross-examination is often badly misunderstood by those who ridicule living- pterosaur eyewitnesses: Blindly accusing someone of lying or being a fool—that is NOT healthy skepticism. Keeping an eye open to different possibilities—that is healthy skepticism. In a court of law, an attorney would get into trouble with the judge by openly accusing the witness of lying or being a fool. That lawyer should instead cross examine the witness. With scientific examinations, it is also inappropriate to dismiss one point of view simply because it conflicts with the majority opinion. What is appropriate? Compare eyewitness testimonies and consider what is the most likely explanation for consistencies. Should the comparisons justify it, consider the obvious explanation, even if that leaves open the possibility of giving up an old axiom: the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs.

Part of the Case Against

Universal Pterosaur

Extinction

Before rejecting the testimony of an eyewitness of an apparent living pterosaur, consider the case for extinction. What eyewitness has seen any species of pterosaur become extinct?

Eyewitness: compare one witness with another