comparing one

witness with another

Live Pterosaur




Before rejecting the

testimony of an eye-

witness of an apparent

live pterosaur, consider

the case for extinction.

What eyewitness has

seen any species of

pterosaur become


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 live pterosaurs, when one eyewitness (or at least self-proclaimed eyewitness) comes forward, the credibility of that person may be questioned. Unfortunately, the appropriate cross-examination concept is often badly misunderstood by those who ridicule living-pterosaur eyewitnesses: healthy skepticism is not manifested by blindly accusing someone of lying or being a fool. 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 refusing to cross-exam, and instead, openly accuse the witness of lying or being a fool. 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: live pterosaurs.

When two eyewitness testi-

monies  agree  on  several points, the credibility of the most  natural  or  direct interpretation of those points is strengthened. Accumu-

lating evidence strengthens the case.