Critics Answered

Live Pterosaur




large Pterodactyloid pterosaur

Criticism: “The Creationist viewpoint is likely to have prejudiced him [a living-pterosaur investigator who explored an island in Papua New Guinea] towards a living pterosaur interpretation.”


Reply: The great majority of Americans who explored in Papua New Guinea, searching for living pterosaurs, have believed in the Bible in a similar way to how Galileo and Isaac Newton believed in it. The founders of modern science, like all scientists, were subject to personal prejudice in various ways on various subjects. Those who believe in Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution also have their own prejudices. Eventually the truth comes out, as investigators with different philosophies become involved.


In early 2007, an non-creationist expedition in Papua New Guinea obtained similar results to earlier explorers who were creationists: Video footage was obtained of distant lights. Scientists failed to find any commonplace explanations for those lights, both those lights videotaped by creationists and non-creationists. Also, eyewitness reports of pterosaur-like creatures were given to both the creationists and non-creationists: similar descriptions.


Criticism: “. . . the fossil record [is] completely void of pterosaur fossils dated to the Cenozoic Era . . . we would have seen post-Mesozoic pterosaur fossils.”


Reply: In the above quotation, why not substitute “Coelacanth” for “pterosaur?” The Mesozoic-strata objection to living pterosaurs is a popular objection but it is based on a misunderstanding: Fossils are not evidence for extinction; they are the remains of individual creatures that died. In fact, the great majority of fossils are similar to presently-living organisms.


Another problem invalidates the Mesozoic objection to modern pterosaurs. How are pterosaur fossils dated? Without the assumption that pterosaurs lived many millions of years ago, there is no standard method used for dating pterosaur fossils. The assumption of their existence only in certain time periods permeates the dating process.


Should a five-thousand-year-old fossil of a pterosaur be discovered by researchers who use standard methods of dating fossils, it would be dated at many millions of years old.


Criticism: “. . . at least some southern hemisphere sightings of ‘pterosaurs’ are explained by fruit bats.”


Reply: Which sightings? Hodgkinson’s sighting of a “pterodactyl” the size of a “Piper Tri-Pacer” airplane, with a long pointed head crest and a tail “at least ten to fifteen feet long?” Why did a professional psychologist report a creature with similar features? Was it a Flying Fox fruit bat that appeared to a couple in Perth, Australia, as a creature with a long tail and a wingspan between thirty and fifty feet? What about the many sightings of the glowing creature that feeds on fish in the reefs that surround Umboi Island?


The Flying-Fox explanation may have seemed reasonable in the mid-20th Century, before detailed eyewitness reports became available. But that outdated explanation has now been refuted.

Criticism: “I . . . remain skeptical, since the main evidence for living pterosaurs is a handful of reported sightings . . .”


Reply: Is this skepticism really based on the number of sightings? If so, “handful” is inappropriate, for the eyewitness interviews by living-pterosaur investigators Jim Blume and Jonathan Whitcomb alone number about one hundred, and other Americans have investigated similar sightings independently for years. There may be more eyewitnesses of living pterosaurs than eyewitnesses of evidences for black holes or other scientific concepts that are taken for granted by educated persons.


Is this skepticism because of “reported sightings?” What scientific investigation was ever started without somebody who personally experienced something? A person must see something first, even if it is only a concept in the imagination. When other persons begin seeing the same thing, or something similar, credibility begins to be established. But the other persons must look in the same direction to experience the same thing.


Criticism: “. . . evidence for living pterosaurs relies on reported ‘sightings’ which typically lack credible photos . . .”


Reply: The credibility of an idea is not usually associated with the existence or nonexistence of photos. Why treat the idea of living pterosaurs differently?


When the Wright brothers began flying, newspapers accused them of lies. Why? Because they had not yet submitted photos. It was the eyewitnesses who provided the early evidence for human flight, not photos.


Criticism: “Here's the problem . . . Must be a breeding population. This further compounds flying cryptids, because it's VERY hard for aerial creatures to remain unseen.”


Reply: This is a reply to a web site that lists many eyewitnesses of apparent living-pterosaurs. One problem with the above “problem” seems to be in circular reasoning. Because the critic has not seen a living pterosaur (and perhaps has had no previous experience with reports of living pterosaurs), he assumes there are none: “If they existed, people would have seen them. Since they do not exist, any report of an apparent living pterosaur must be a mistake.” But that reasoning is invalid because it is circular. The reference to a breeding population seems to relate to numbers of creatures, but since there are many eyewitness reports, it is irrelevant.


Criticism: “It'd really be hard to hide a breeding population of something that size. They'd show up on radar . . .”


Reply: Where does this critic get the idea that living pterosaurs have not been detected by radar? He did not mention anything he has done to monitor radars in different airports in Papua New Guinea (where most giant ropens are seen), even if the largest living pterosaurs do fly near airports. As to reports of pterosaurs in North America, what would a radar operator do after noticing a blip that was similar to a bird but just a tiny bit larger? Immediately report the blip to living-pterosaur critics? No.

Eyewitness Testimonies

(compare testimonies)

Umboi Official Sees

Ropen Light

Chess: Improve your game