By the modern-pterosaur expert Jonathan Whitcomb
Soon after I had returned from my expedition on Umboi Island, I saw that somebody had published an online article attacking the possibility of modern dinosaurs and pterosaurs, with a URL containing the words “stupid” and “lies.” The following long sentence appears to have been removed from that site, but it illustrates a point: When a critic writes in anger, mistakes are easily made, not just errors of judgment but errors of fact. The following sentence contains a number of errors of fact, at least in this case, indisputable falsehoods:
“Another claim of an alleged pterosaur sighting is made in Africa where a team of explorers led by John Whittcomb who are sponsored by Carl E. Baugh a staunch creationist and other creationists regard him as a kook, just like Baugh they are kooks themselves.”
As best as I recall, that old site also had a sentence declaring that I had led a group of creationists on an expedition, but that is false. Let’s concentrate on the above sentence.
That was on the critic’s web site Stupid Dinosaur Lies, a dot-com, on February 24, 2005, and the following are the most obvious errors, probably made and published because the person jumped into writing before doing reasonable digging to get to the facts:
1. Both my first name and surname were misspelled.
2. Never in my life have I set foot in Africa.
3. Nobody on my expedition was sponsored by Carl Baugh
That critic seems to have become confused in a number of ways. From the above sentence, she (I believe it was a woman; I could be mistaken) appears to have thought that only one alleged sighting was involved and that only one expedition took place. Baugh led a few brief expeditions in the 1990’s, but most expeditions have been in the 21st century, none of which included Baugh. And no ropen expedition was in Africa, only in Papua New Guinea, which is north of Australia.
I see a glimmer of truth in the sentence, for a number of Biblical creationists have been encouraging ropen expeditions in Papua New Guinea. A few weeks after my expedition, the Americans Garth Guessman and David Woetzel, along with the native Baptist minister Jacob Kepas, interviewed natives on Umboi Island. I don’t know of anyone who doubts that Guessman and Woetzel are Biblical creationists, but I’ve never read or heard anything to suggest that some creationists consider such explorers to be “kooks.”
To that critic’s credit, that sentence (beginning with “Another claim of an alleged pterosaur sighting”) was removed from the old site Stupid Dinosaur Lies. In fact the whole site disappeared in 2010 (the old dot-com version). The errors in that sentence, however, show the importance of careful research over a period of time rather than a quick shotgun blast, without any careful aim, at an idea that upsets the skeptical writer. I hope that critic continues to improve in thinking and eventually comes to recognize the truth behind the worldwide sighting reports of these animals.
###
.
Within the past few weeks [late 2014], at least two posts have accused me, Jonathan Whitcomb, of deceiving people. The second writer, “idoubtit,” seems to have been convinced by the first one, Dr. Donald Prothero, regarding my online writing behavior. But when Prothero responded to me, he appeared to reveal two sources for his conviction that I have used deception, and the earliest source is the site Stupid Dinosaur Lies . . .
.
When a non-scientist observes a featherless flying creature that looks like a pterosaur, that eyewitness might say “pterodactyl” rather than use the correct name: pterosaur.
.
Scientific skepticism can be useful, when a scientist is criticized on a particular point. It can sometimes allow him or her to make a needed correction and improve the original idea. But when extreme bias exists in either that scientist or the one doing the criticism, problems arise.
.
Early yesterday morning, November 30, 2010, I posted a short announcement on the “Cryptids on the Wing” forum of Cryptozoology.com [which site has disappeared]. The quick, negative responses were no surprise to me, for I have received similar dismissals, for years, on this forum. The first criticism deserves attention here, as an example of bulverism.
.
Do pterosaur sightings come from lies?
The following is in response to a statement about me, Jonathan Whitcomb, published on a web forum: “. . . that he lies about in his book . . .”
I believe that the total number of web pages and blog posts that I have written over the past eight years is well over a thousand, with perhaps more than a quarter of a million words related to the concept of modern living pterosaurs. That is in addition to two editions of one nonfiction book, three editions of another, and a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. With hundreds of thousands of words to choose from, why doesn’t at least one of the critics on this forum thread find one or two of my sentences, to quote me? If one of my books includes a lie, why not quote that lie, bringing to light why it is wrong?
.
Live Pterosaurs in America — third edition of this nonfiction book
Live “pterodactyls?” In the United States? Many scientists have long assumed all pterosaurs died millions of years ago. Now take a whirlwind tour of many years of investigations in cryptozoology, and prepare for a shock: At least two species of pterosaurs have survived . . .
.
One Reply to “Do Reports of Live Pterosaurs Come From Lies?”
Comments are closed.