Book | Live Pterosaur

May 19, 2017May 30, 2017

Living Pterosaurs and the 1944 Sighting

side-by-side front covers of two cryptozoology books by Whitcomb - "Modern Pterosaurs" and "Searching for Ropens and Finding God"

By modern-pterosaur researcher Jonathan Whitcomb

For a moment, let’s set aside my recently published book Modern Pterosaurs and see what one skeptic has written about a few pages in my older book Searching for Ropens and Finding God.

A critic of our investigations has written that the army buddy of the late Duane Hodgkinson (DH) was a “biology professor” who denies seeing a pterosaur in that jungle clearing in New Guinea in 1944. How misleading are those statements! To begin, consider the following points:

I interviewed DH a number of times
Garth Guessman also interviewed him a number of times
The critic never interviewed DH
Nobody, apparently, has ever interviewed the army buddy of DH

Reference to Searching for Ropens and Finding God (fourth edition)

The critic refers to my book, declaring that it says that the army buddy of DH was a biology professor. That is patently false, even though the critic uses that reference with pages “24-28.” Not once is the word professor found in any of those pages of my book. Read pages 24-28, if you have a copy of the fourth edition. Notice that the mistake in not a simple error in the critic’s referencing page numbers: Those pages are about that subject at hand. Any person who will carefully read my nonfiction Searching for Ropens and Finding God should not insert a word from his or her imagination into a published comment, as if that word were in one of those pages in my book. That critic has done just that, falsely called that soldier a professor.

I mentioned that the army buddy of Duane Hodgkinson had some education in biology, and I gave him the benefit of the doubt when I called him a “biologist.” I did not know, when I wrote that word in that page of my book, that a skeptic would some day see biologist on page 28 and take the word professor from his imagination and declare that professor was in that page of my book. I now wish that I had written “biology student” rather than “biologist,” but that editing will have to wait for the next edition. Yet the other blunder made by the critic, which seems technically less glaring a mistake, is far more toxic in leading people away from the truth about what happened in that jungle clearing in 1944: what was observed by those two soldiers.

Was it a Ropen in New Guinea in 1944?

I believe that Garth Guessman and I see this in the same light, having both interviewed the World War II veteran a number of times over a period of years. DH’s army buddy saw the same thing that DH saw, on that day in 1944 in a jungle clearing west of Finschhafen on the island of New Guinea. That biology student just did not want to talk about it.

I have seen this reluctance often, during my investigation over the past 14 years. American eyewitnesses are usually hesitant to admit that they saw a living pterosaur. Some cases are extreme, including this one.

Contrary to what the critic has written in his online publication, I never said or insinuated that DH’s army buddy was distracted and so did not see the animal. Anyone who carefully reads those pages in my book should not make that mistake made by that critic. Let’s look at what is actually printed in Searching for Ropens and Finding God (4th edition) rather than what swims around in the imagination of one skeptic:

What if Hodgkinson had seen something other than what he thought he had, for some unknown reason. A strange bird or bat, however, fails to explain the strange reaction of the other soldier, the man who was educated in biology; it fails to explain why “Well, George, we saw it,” was answered with, “No, we didn’t!”

What I did not include in the book was what DH said right after his buddy again apparently tried to deny what they had seen. DH said something like, “How stupid can you get?” That was said within seconds of so of the sighting.

In other words, if the thing that flew up from that jungle clearing could have been some kind of bird or bat then the biology student would surely have suggested that possibility. Apparently that man decided to pretend that they had seen nothing at all, and the reason is obvious: Why invite people to call you “crazy” or “liar?”

That is not a recent idea I’ve had. Here’s the next paragraph in my book:

Notice that he [the soldier who had some education in biology] did not say it was a bird or a bat; he just denied that they had seen it. A generalized misidentification fails to lift off but a giant long-tailed pterosaur flies perfectly well here, even if it does drop a bomb on standard biology.

In other words, the critic fell into a confirmation bias. He was looking for anything he could find that would discredit the idea that pterosaurs are still living on the earth. When he found out that a man appeared to deny that he had seen a pterosaur, the critic jumped to the conclusion that the man had not seen what the man next to him declared they had seen. The truth, however, is far different from what the critic wants to believe.

Garth Guessman (left) and the World War II veteran Duane Hodgkinson (videotaped interview in 2005)

Confirmation Bias Against the Possibility of Extant Pterosaurs

I’ve seen other examples of confirmation bias that this critic has fallen into. It comes up repeatedly in his online page. One simple example is in his belief that a word that exists in two different languages in Papua New Guinea (the word ropen) appears to be relevant. He says, “This seems like a very relevant piece of information.” In reality, it is entirely irrelevant, and here is why:

In one language, ropen means a nocturnal flying creature that glows at night (in the Kovai language of Umboi Island); in another language, in another area of Papua New Guinea, ropen means “bird.” In the real world, when one word exists in two languages, the meaning can differ; it often does. Even in the same language, a word can be used very differently for people in different areas. How surprising for an American to hear an English citizen call a column of children walking down a sidewalk a “crocodile!” And that is in the same language: English.

Confirmation Bias and a Photograph of a Modern Pterosaur

For many years, the critic had an image of Ptp on his online page. He declared that it was a hoax from a television show. I communicated with the critic, earlier this year (2017), and revealed to him his mistake: Two photographs are somewhat similar, but the other one came from a TV show, not the photograph he displayed. He then corrected the long-standing error.

The photograph that we now call “Ptp” is not the same photo that was created for the Freakylinks TV show. That hoax photo, however, was modeled after the older photograph, with apparent reenactor Civil War soldiers playing their acting parts to help make the fake image.

But the critic may have then fallen into belief perseverance, or something like it, assuming that Ptp was also a hoax. A person can sometimes fall into both confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

For years, his web page declared that the Ptp photograph was a hoax from a TV show. After learning his mistake, and correcting it on his online publication, however, he held onto his idea that Ptp was a hoax. He searched for every possible thing that could cast doubt on its authenticity. I strongly suspect he had fallen into belief perseverance.

I don’t recall seeing any transition stage of his updating his critical online article. I did not see any version of his page that simply admitted his mistake about confusing the two photos, a version that did not proclaim that Ptp was a hoax. That in itself is suspicious.

Research by Paiva and Whitcomb

My fellow researcher Clifford Paiva suggested that I write a small book about Ptp. The result was Modern Pterosaurs. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

We have found much evidence for authenticity for Ptp, over a period of months.

The photograph now known as “Ptp” – declared authentic by two scientists

Conclusion

Keep an open mind regarding evidences for modern pterosaurs, and beware of shallow half-truths that appear to be evidences against the possibility that not all species of pterosaurs are extinct.

###

Photograph of a “Pterodactyl”

In my recently published nonfiction book Modern Pterosaurs, I refer to that long online article that is extremely negative towards living-pterosaur investigations. I labelled that page BAMPP (big anti-modern-pterosaurs page), which is how I refer to it now.

Book about modern pterosaurs

Once you know what’s been flying overhead, what people around the world have been encountering, you’ll be better prepared to see and understand the details in Ptp. You should then appreciate what has always been available to those with eyes to see. . . .

Scientists examine a photograph of a modern pterosaur

Cliff Paiva found the two evidences shown above [in an image]: shadows that were consistent (yellow arrows) and a vertical eye slit (vertical pupil like in a cat or a reptile)

New nonfiction cryptozoology book Modern Pterosaurs by Jonathan Whitcomb

From the first chapter in Modern Pterosaurs:

In the summer of 2014, a well-known biology professor at a Midwestern university wrote a scathing blog post about my online writings concerning apparent modern pterosaurs. It included ridiculing the lack of photos of the creatures on my web pages. Whatever pages he had seen, it appears he failed to notice the ones that examined the photo now called Ptp.

March 27, 2017May 30, 2017

Book About the Pteranodon Photograph

apparent photos of modern pterosaurs - The left photo might be genuine; the right one is a hoax

Before getting into the new book, Modern Pterosaurs, about the Ptp photograph, let’s consider the hoax image that has caused confusion: The Freakylinks photo.

Glen Kuban, a critic of living-pterosaur investigators for years, made a mistake regarding Ptp in his long online publication “Living Pterodactyls.” (He also made many other errors in that page, so it will not here be linked to.) As recently as March 26, 2017, one paragraph includes, “Alas, the photo has since been exposed as a hoax—a promotional stunt for a Fox television series.” Alas, that paragraph is next to a small image of Ptp, the photograph that is NOT associated with that television series (Freakylinks) [that it, Ptp was NOT created by that TV production company].

Compare the two photos side-by-side:

Figure-1: Ptp is on the left; the television-show hoax is on the right

If Kuban had included the correct image (Haxan Films photo for Freakylinks), he would have been correct when he said, “exposed as a hoax.” Unfortunately, he put the following text under the Ptp photo: “widely acknowledged as a hoax.” How many persons could have been misled by that statement in the web page “Living Pterodactyls!” Of course, it would have been better if Kuban had researched those two images before displaying Ptp with a caption that included “hoax.”

Apparently the Haxan Films photo was a Civil War reenactment kind of staging, in imitation of the older Ptp photo. Look at the way the soldier in front, in both photos, places his left foot. Also notice that the other “soldiers,” in the hoax photo, stand right behind the “animal,” similar to the Ptp photo. That is highly unlikely to be a coincidence, extremely likely to be this: In around the year 2000, persons associated with Haxan Films created their hoax photo in imitation of the older one. Notice also how vague the animal looks in the hoax photo on the right.

Modern Pterosaurs Cryptozoology Book

In addition to direct evidences of authenticity, in the Ptp photograph, we also have indirect evidences. Consider the following, taken from page 100 in the book Modern Pterosaurs:

One day, early in 2017, I realized it would be unlikely for a large animal to die in a perfect place for it to be photographed. How much more likely for the animal to have died in the underbrush or in the woods than in a small clearing, an ideal place for photography!

I looked for a drag mark and there it was, running from around the lower right of the photo to near the end of that beak. That drag mark is exactly what we should find in a photo of a large animal that was dragged out from underbrush to a clearing where the whole thing could be photographed well.

Figure-2: Mark on the ground: apparently where the animal had been dragged

Notice the drag mark on the ground in Figure-2. Apparently the creature had fallen somewhere else, quite possibly among bushes or trees, and needed to be moved into a better place for photography.

Also notice the small tree that was broken down. This is most likely from one of the men stepping on it, breaking it down to the ground so that they could drag the “monster” onto the spot where we now see it.

Of course those two evidences do not, in themselves, prove that Pteranodons lived in the 19th century, yet they do support the other evidences uncovered by the scientist Clifford Paiva: evidences that a real animal was photographed alongside real men, and that this was before about the year 1870.

###

Pteranodon photograph of the Civil War

The dead flying creature seen in the “Pteranodon photograph,” (Ptp) although it may be called a “pterodactyl” by some Americans and a “ropen” by others, could be a pterodactyloid pterosaur, possibly without the long tail that ropens are seen to have.

Photographie d’un ptérosaure moderne

La photographie plus ancienne est appelée “Ptp”. Celui de droite a été réalisé pour une émission de télévision. La similitude a causé de la confusion. Certaines personnes ont pensé que Ptp est un canular.

The old Pteranodon photograph

Answering skeptical comments and criticisms of a direct interpretation of a photograph that some persons report remembering from the middle of the 20th century, long before Photoshop digital imaging processing was generally available.

Pterosaur photo in Civil War

The pterosaur-image in the Ptp photo has enough evidence of authenticity to justify closer examinations. But critics appear to be so biased in favor of universal extinctions of all species of pterosaurs that they will not look where they should: at the image of the apparent pterosaur itself.

Pterodactyl in Civil War photo

. . . a scientist (Clifford Paiva, a physicist) has found a number of evidences for the authenticity of the image of the apparent Pteranodon in the older Ptp photo.

The beginning of what may be the most exciting discovery in the history of science

Modern Pterosaurs – nonfiction adventure in an astonishing scientific discovery

August 12, 2016

Ropen Sightings – Importance of Eyewitness Testimony

reef area off the coast of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea

How grateful I am for those who bravely step forward and report what they have encountered! Americans and other Westerners have a special challenge, for it’s difficult to say that you’ve seen a living pterosaur, whether you call it pterodactyl, ropen, dinosaur bird, or dragon. It’s difficult to report what you saw because it’s easy for skeptics to carelessly dismiss the account and declare that you are either insane or a liar.

It’s not that all or most scientists consider a modern pterosaur absolutely impossible. I’ve encountered the words of a number of critics of our investigations in cryptozoology, over the past thirteen years, and a common ending to the more-lengthy of their blog posts or online articles is something like this:

Even if one species of pterosaur is found to be still living, it would not disprove our standard models of science, and it would not prove that the earth is young.

In other words, they’re trying to protect something.

Improper Approach to Eyewitness Testimonies

Let’s confine ourselves to reports of modern pterosaurs in general, even though the great majority of sightings are probably of ropens, the featherless flying creatures my associates and I believe are Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs.

Beware of generalizing to protect an old assumption. How easily can a skeptic declare that eyewitnesses see common birds or common bats but imagine pterosaurs! How easily that skeptic may criticize a cryptozoologist for being so gullible as to believe that the eyewitness saw an actual pterosaur! How easily might people be influenced by a skeptic who has a diploma in paleontology and who ridicules a cryptozoologist! The most common form of criticism we have encountered is a very brief rejection notice, sometimes without any reference to any particular sighting. Some persons just want to protect the old dogma of what I call universal extinction, the assumption of the demise of all pterosaurs by many millions of years ago.

Not all paleontologists, professional or amateur, always generalize in criticizing modern sightings of pterosaurs. Sometimes a paleontologist will write a long article that appears to be formed primarily to discredit the idea that any pterosaurs are still living. The lengthy article may give examples of sightings, yet the ones mentioned are hardly the most credible ones. It reminds me of the classic straw-man argument: Quickly construct a man made of straw the then tear him to pieces, proclaiming that you have won an important battle.

I don’t mean that all paleontologists who have written lengthy criticisms of living-pterosaur investigations have always been constructing complete straw-men to knock down. They may give reasonable causes to reject certain accounts or reports but the ones they have chosen appear to be the least credible ones, not the reports most commonly written about by me and my associates. In other words, they go through our gym lockers, or a locker of one of our friends, pulling out the most ugly pieces of clothing, and then proclaiming that we are unworthy to run in the race (regardless of how well we look in the clothing we are now wearing). That is improper.

Web Site by Glen J. Kuban

“Living Pterodactyls” is copyrighted 2004-2013, although much of it seems outdated: To me, in mid-2016, it appears little different from what it was like quite a few years ago, at least in regard to the essentials. This is a very long online article, about thirty paragraphs, highly critical of the possibility that any pterosaur has survived into the present day. Yet look at what Mr. Kuban inserts at the bottom, at the very end of his very lengthy article that was put together to discourage any belief in the possibility of modern pterosaurs, for that ending seems to be playing a different tune:

If living pterosaurs were someday confirmed, it would be a wonderful scientific discovery, but do nothing to undermine mainstream geology.

In other words, he’s trying to protect something.

So with all those thirty paragraphs, how many specific sighting reports or accounts are actually mentioned?

Railway-tunnel account of 1856
Flying light reported by American Carl Baugh (1990’s)
Gideon drawing a sketch in the dirt, Umboi Island (2004)
Flying light reported by David Woetzel (2004)
Female missionary pilot, Umboi Island (mid-1980’s)
Shooting a giant pterodactyl in Arizona (late 1800’s)

He does mention many generalities about sightings, but the above six appear to be the only specific ones by particular eyewitnesses in particular locations.

Be aware that Brian Switek wrote a long *criticism of living-pterosaur investigations, mentioning the following:

“Glen Kuban has also posted a thorough summary . . .”

In other words, Mr. Switek appears to assume that Kuban’s article makes a valid case against living pterosaurs. I have found it to be far from that. “Living Pterodactyls?” avoids the numerous credible eyewitness accounts and is significantly outdated. Switek is correct in the use of the word “thorough” only in the sense that it is very lengthy and keeps to the objective of discouraging people from believing in modern pterosaurs.

After spending over 10,000 hours, over the past thirteen years, on sightings of modern pterosaurs, I have concluded that the number of persons worldwide who have, in their lifetimes, had some kind of encounter with a living pterosaur—that is probably between 7 million and 128 million persons. What about Kuban? Writing one long article to discourage people from believing in those animals, and including only six accounts of such encounters, apparently the least credible—that is far from the best approach to eyewitness testimonies. I am sorry that Mr. Kuban has not deleted that outdated and misleading page.

*The Switek article, “Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth,” was published on the Smithsonian site in 2010, and it also has significant weaknesses.

Proper Approach to Eyewitness Testimonies

Why not listen to the eyewitnesses themselves, especially those who reports are more credible? The following are a few of many who can be found by searching online:

Patty Carson (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)
Eskin Kuhn ” ” “
Duane Hodgkinson (near Finschhafen, New Guinea)
Brian Hennessy (Bougainville Island, New Guinea)
Evelyn Cheesman (flying lights in New Guinea)
Steven Cottingham (flying light on Umboi Island)
David Woetzel ” ” ” ” “
Joshua Gates (flying light in Papua New Guinea)
Jonah Jim (native of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea)
Gideon Koro (Umboi Island)
Mesa Agustin ” “
Wesley Koro ” “

Note that some of the above refer to sightings of one or more flying lights, which my associates and I believe are the bioluminescence of living pterosaurs, especially ropens.

Evelyn Cheesman was a British biologist who often explored in New Guinea or other areas of the south Pacific. She witnessed some strange flying lights on the mainland of New Guinea (what is now probably in Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea). We believe that these were from flying creatures related to the ropen of Umboi Island, perhaps even the same species. She was convinced that the lights were not from any human agency.

Steven Cottingham was a government official, responsible for Umboi Island around the early 1970’s. He witnessed a flying light at Lab Lab, Umboi Island, a light that we have no doubt was also from a bioluminescent ropen.

The coast of Umboi Island, PNG (photo by Jonathan Whitcomb)

###

Cryptozoology book Searching for Ropens and Finding God, fourth edition

Please support this research by purchasing your own copy of the above nonfiction paperback. The following is only a partial listing, a small fraction of the locations mentioned in this large paperback, places where these featherless flying creatures have been seen and reported (taken from the first part of the index of the book):

Africa (many)
Alabama, USA
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Antwerp, Ohio
Anza Borrego Desert Park, California
Appalachian Mountains (eastern USA)
Arizona
Arkansas
Arot Village, Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea
Asheville, North Carolina
Athens, Georgia, USA
Atlanta, Georgia
Auburn, Maine
Auckland, New Zealand
Austin, Texas
Australia (many)
Bad Axe, Michigan
Benicassim, Spain
Big Island of Hawaii
Birmingham, Alabama
Birmingham, England
Bitoi Village, Papua New Guinea
Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
Brisbane, Australia
British Columbia, Canada
Bunsil Station, Umboi Island, PNG
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
. . . . .

You can purchase this cryptozoology book on Amazon.

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

Ropen – Featherless Flying Creature

It’s not [so shocking] that one man reported two featherless flying creatures that should not be living within the past 65 million years. The most shocking truth is this: Every day, at least one person somewhere in the world has some kind of encounter with a living pterosaur. After communicating with eyewitnesses from around the world, over the past thirteen years, and spending over 10,000 hours on this investigation, I have come to believe that these encounters happen every day.

Bioluminescent Ropen

American cryptozoology author Jonathan Whitcomb believes the ropen of Umboi is related to the “Gitmo Pterosaur” of Cuba.

Cryptozoology Book – Dinosaur Birds

“He has focused on the accounts of witnesses who saw something, and that adds credibility. The writing is easy to read and he adds comments and analysis to make it all more useful. Mostly, the author lets the sightings speak for themselves, which is good. A worthwhile book.” [book review: Live Pterosaurs in America]

Bioluminescent Pterosaurs

. . . several pages from the book “The Two Roads of Papua,” by Evelyn Cheesman . . . I was delighted that Muirhead found this book, for it gives details of E.C.’s observations and deliberations on the strange lights near the village of Mondo. [probably related to] “ropen light,” similar to the lights seen on Umboi Island.

May 24, 2016May 27, 2016

The Ropen and “Hunting Monsters”

Gitmo Pterosaur of Guantanamo Bay Cuba, sighting in 1965

Is the ropen a real animal, a modern living pterosaur? We now look at part of a Kindle book written by Darren Naish: Hunting Monsters – Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths. I’ve not read the whole book, so I’ll review only part of it, from the paragraph that begins with “moving away from tropical Africa” to slightly beyond the paragraph that ends with “how not to do an interview.” I personally deemed this book not worth purchasing, so I have to be content with reviewing only the portion that I can see on the Google-books page. Fortunately for me, much of the book’s content on living pterosaurs and the ropen seems to be available in Google-books.

I believe this portion of Hunting Monsters is in the fifth chapter, “Mokele-Mbembe, Ropen and Other ‘Prehistoric Survivors.’” If it turns out that significant content on living pterosaurs is in another part of the book then consider that my evaluation might need to be updated or modified. At any rate, this is not a standard book review, only an examination of a small part of this nonfiction by Darren Naish.

And yet this post you have just begun reading, long as it may be, is my response to only part of that small portion of the Kindle book by this paleontologist. Other points must be set aside for other blog posts.

Whitcomb vs Naish on Living Pterosaurs

We need to be clear about one point, something Dr. Naish and I (Jonathan Whitcomb) agree upon: that many varieties of pterosaurs known from fossils are extinct. The ones known to paleontologists outnumber the types known from sightings. We disagree completely, however, on the meaning of eyewitness sightings, for he believes that none of them were the result of a non-extinct pterosaur. I believe that some of them were precisely that: modern living pterosaurs.

Even the most optimistic cryptozoologist, after careful research, should come to realize that many species of pterosaur have probably become extinct. Exactly when they became extinct is open to questions that paleontologists like Naish appear unwilling to ask, yet the long tails with Rhamphorhynchoid-like flanges and the pointed head crests dominate too many eyewitness reports to ignore. Because of the great variety of forms known from fossils and the narrow range of descriptions in many reports of modern flying creatures, it seems obvious: Most species of pterosaurs are surely extinct.

We also agree that not all reports of a modern pterosaur come from encounters with living pterosaurs. This has probably often been overlooked, this point of agreement, perhaps overlooked even by Naish himself. I have found that at least a small portion of accounts appear to be one of the following:

Misidentification of a non-pterosaur
Hoax (including some YouTube videos)
Mental health problem of the one reporting the encounter

Yet Naish and I appear to have taken different routes entirely. I dig into the details to get a better understanding of each report. I have spent well over 10,000 hours on the total sightings, including the many cases appearing to be unrelated to the three types shown above. I doubt that Dr. Naish has spent even 1% as much time on pterosaur sightings, for why would a typical paleontologist spend 100 hours objectively researching something that appears to undermine the foundation of his or her beliefs about when such flying creatures lived on this planet?

Yet we agree on some things. Dr. Naish and I agree to some extent on the quality of interviews of eyewitnesses. He mentioned my name but did not go into details about any particular interview that I conducted (he seemed to have been referring to my evaluation of an interview done by one of my associates when he mentioned “Jonathan Whitcomb”). If he had mentioned the details in my interviews with three young men (Gideon, Mesa, and Wesley), he would have been correct in saying that a number of factors were far from ideal.

But to sweep aside two whole expeditions on Umboi Island in 2004, because of perceived imperfections in interviewing technique in some of the interviews—that appears to be too extreme. I don’t expect Dr. Naish to invent a perfect time machine to take scientists millions of years into the past to prove his theories about ancient pterosaurs; my associates and I should not be expected to kidnap all the wildlife photographers in the world to force them to go with us to Umboi Island to get perfect video footage that proves the ropen is a modern pterosaur. So how often has an witness in a court been given perfectly conducted questioning? We need a practical approach, not an extreme dismissal of everything that might appear imperfect and contradicting our previous assumptions. If a particular interview had serious problems then those particular problems in that interview should be discussed. Dr. Naish appears to prefer to avoid bringing any such details to light.

Beware of jumping to the careless conclusion that a few pages in Hunting Monsters prove that all the expeditions and interviews and research of living-pterosaur investigators over the past 22 years is worthless. And those few pages in HM do not come close to refuting what is found in four scientific papers (three of them published in peer-reviewed journals), articles that are clearly in defense of modern pterosaurs. I see nothing in Naish’s book that even hints that any of those four scientific papers exist.

An Overview of Book Reviews of Hunting Monsters

Seventeen Amazon customer reviews of this new book, as of May 23, 2016, should give us enough to judge its popularity.

Five Stars: 70%
Four Stars: 12%
Three Stars: 12%
One Star: 6%

Many books on Amazon do worse than getting 70% top ratings from readers. I recommend going over these Amazon customer reviews of Hunting Monsters to learn the details. Before moving on, please be aware that I do not suggest that most potential readers will be disappointed after purchasing this book. Amazon suggests at least 70% will be satisfied with their purchase. But a small part of Hunting Monsters has major weaknesses; I cannot speak for the rest of the book.

Sketch by an eyewitness (sighting in Cuba in 1965)

Quetzalcoatlus and Sightings of Flying Creatures in Texas

Hunting Monsters, in this part of the book, has with a statement about sightings of apparent pterosaurs (ropen or otherwise) in the USA, in particular Texas. But do “most” sightings of apparent pterosaurs actually date to the “1970’s” as Dr. Naish declares? Not necessarily. Closer examination reveals that the actual sightings are spread out over decades.

But what’s so important to Naish about the 1970’s in Texas? It’s the discovery of Quetzalcoatlus fossils, beginning in 1971. The conjecture is hardly new. Other skeptics have also stumbled into this assumption: that news reports either caused or contributed to citizens in Texas believing they had witnessed living pterosaurs when they had actually not. The conjecture fails to include any details about exactly how it takes place, so skeptics can chose which explanation they like:

Foolish Texans see ordinary birds and think they are seeing pterosaurs
Hoaxers want attention, so they give false reports

Naish does not come close to proving either of the above, however, only suggesting that those are proper explanations for pterosaur sightings in Texas soon after the discovery of the Quetzalcoatlus. So where are the details that would give credence to the above two explanations for those sighting reports? Naish gives no detail at all, at least not in this part of his book: No particular sighting report is examined for judging the plausibility of those two explanations. Real science thrives on details and on numbers, but the number of analyzed reports he gives is zero.

Please be aware that I’m not out to make Dr. Naish look foolish. Yet a careless acceptance of his suggestion about reports of flying creatures in Texas—that can make quite a few citizens of Texas appear foolish. I will not use the word fool for anybody, for I have personally qualified for that adjective too many times in my own life. In this case, with eyewitnesses in the southern United States, I take the side of the majority: citizens of Texas versus Darren Naish. But still I prefer avoiding pushing individuals into one of two boxes with labels of fool and non-fool. Let’s just see which point of view is more realistic:

At least some Texas eyewitnesses reported sightings reasonably accurately
No Texan saw a living pterosaur, for Quetzalcoatlus news tainted their thinking

I submit that the first point of view is far better than the second.

At the end of 2012, I compiled a list of sightings: 128 reports, each of which I deemed more likely than not to have been from an encounter with a living pterosaur (worldwide sightings). I never said that it was close to a complete list, but I personally interviewed or questioned the eyewitnesses in close to 74% of these sightings.

This was more than just a simple listing, however, for the compilation had details like the following, with many of these involving a yes or no answer:

Definitely no feathers
Only probably no feathers
Long tail
Tail but not long
Head crest
Feet
Teeth
Wingspan
Tail straight
Tail flange
Tail length
Head-crest length
Total length
Clear sky
Cloudy sky
Clear view of creature
Length of sighting in seconds
Number of witnesses
Height flying (when closest to the ground)
Distance from eyewitness to flying creature
Any soaring or gliding
Any slow flapping
Any fast flapping
Near swamp or marsh
Over water
Near water
Any change in direction (of flight)
Year of sighting
Year of interview or year when interviewing began
Daylight
Night
Twilight
Country (if not in USA)
State (if in USA)
Number of creatures
Long neck
Neck length
[plus about a dozen other types of data or questions]

Of those 128 sighting reports, eight were in Texas, with these sighting years:

1976
1976
1976
1982
1983
1986
1995
1995

Please keep in mind that this is hardly a complete listing of sightings in Texas. These are the ones in Texas that attracted my attention and each appeared unlikely to have been from a hoax or misidentification or mental-health issue. Also be aware that I have been involved in sightings worldwide, while the cryptozoologist Ken Gerhard has investigated flying-creature sightings that were mostly in Texas. We’ll soon get to Gerhard’s writings.

Dr. Naish mentions “flaps,” which I interpret as temporary but concentrated interest in a subject of local or regional news. In Hunting Monsters, he says that they usually go away within a few weeks, and this is in the context of sightings of apparent pterosaurs in the state of Texas. But how do news reports of Quetzalcoatlus fossils relate to sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs in Texas? Let’s look at that.

The first fossil discovery of that species of pterosaur was in Texas in 1971. What an excitement that would have caused for paleontologists! Yet not every citizen of Texas is a paleontologist like Dr. Naish. So let’s examine all the pterosaur sighting reports that came out immediately after that exciting fossil discovery . . . well, actually not one sighting report seems to exist for within a few weeks of that discovery, at least not among the reports that I had compiled at the end of 2012.

Yet what if my reports from Texas are too limited? After all, they number only eight. Look at Big Bird – Modern Sightings of Flying Monsters by Ken Gerhard, which was published in 2007. Here are the sighting years for Texas:

1945 to the “present”
Pre-1958
1970
1971 (Harlingen)
1975 (Robstown)
1975 (Rio Grande City)
1975 (San Benito)
1975 (near Los Fresnos)
1976 (five miles south of Harlingen)
1976 (two police officers see “white bird with 15′ wingspan”)
1976 (near Brownsville)
1976 (ranch north of Poteet)
1976 (Raymondville: wingspan=10-12 feet; leathery featherless skin)
1976 (Loredo)
1976 (northeast of Brownsville: resembled “Pteranodon“)
1976 (near Olmito)
1976 (San Benito)
1976 (Del Rio)
Late 1970’s (Brownsville and Edinburg)
1976 (near San Antonio: three eyewitnesses)
1976 (Montalba)
1976 (Bethel)
1981-1983 (Houston)
1983 (east of Los Fresnos)
1983 (Hondo)
1990’s (Rangerville)

Of the above twenty-six Texas sighting reports listed in pages 77-79 of Gerhard’s book, which ones might have been caused by 1971 news reports of the Quetzalcoatlus? Well, maybe one, and that one is questionable. On page 77, it says, “unusual, brown bird.” That sounds like a puny “flap” to me. Why should anybody assume that news of a fossil discovery would cause that one eyewitness to think that an unusual-looking brown bird would be a non-extinct pterosaur? And even if it did, it would not explain the many other sighting reports.

I’m not saying that Dr. Naish is 100% wrong about news reports having a relationship to eyewitness accounts of apparent living pterosaurs, but I see a better suggestion about how it works.

What would citizens of Texas see in those news reports in 1971? Scientists found some fossil bones of a pterodactyl. How could anybody conclude from that news report that such flying creatures might still be alive? Suggesting such a conclusion appears to me to be insulting Texans. Perhaps one person might find a bone somewhere and wonder if it might be from that flying creature in the news, but even that possibility is questionable. To think that a newspaper or television news story would cause a considerable number of Texans to see ordinary birds and think they were “pterodactyls”—that strikes me as ridiculous.

I see a better explanation for any correlations that may become apparent between news reports of the Quetzalcoatlus fossil discovery and eyewitness accounts: News professionals are much more likely to publish reports of pterosaur sightings when such flying creatures are, or have recently been, in the news. Its the job of newspaper reporters to get relevant, timely news into their papers, so they are much more likely to publish stories about encounters with possible live pterosaurs when the that kind of flying creature has recently been in the news. In other words, the statistics of those sightings indicate they may happen in any year and in any decade, but they are published and brought into public attention much more when news professionals see timely news and then publish the encounters.

Indeed there may have been more news reports published and presented on television in the mid-1970’s in Texas, regarding the Quetzalcoatlus discoveries, for more fossils were found in 1972 and 1974. As I understand, Douglas A. Lawson published something about these discoveries in the journal Science in 1975. This is perfectly in harmony with the idea that an increased number of living-pterosaur sighting articles in Texas came from an increased awareness by news professionals, not from any increase in the number encounters themselves.

Something else may have completely passed by the attention of Darren Naish. Valid eyewitness encounters with actual living pterosaurs may not have increased after the Quetzalcoatlus fossil discoveries but the eyewitnesses themselves may have been more likely to recognize the significance of what they had seen after they read about those fossils in the newspapers. In other words, actual sightings of non-extinct pterosaurs could have been reported much more frequently when the fossil discoveries were in the news, but the numbers of actual encounters did not change.

Before leaving this examination of sighting reports in Texas, let’s consider a brief Google search that I conducted on May 23, 2016. The following phrase was used: pterosaur sightings in Texas. Of the ten results on the first page, one was for images, but the other nine revealed some interesting facts on the years of reported sightings of living pterosaurs:

Six were in 1976 and eight were in other years, as follows:

1982
1982
1986
2007
2008
2008
2011
2013

In other words, most of the sighting years do not appear to correlate closely with discoveries of Quetzalcoatlus fossils, and even if they did, it could easily be explained by an increased openness of news professionals to publish those sightings when the fossil discoveries of such flying creatures were already being published in newspapers and presented in television news broadcasts.

It may appear, on the surface, that the year 1976 may be significant, with all those reported encounters with apparent pterosaurs in Texas, yet it’s not likely anything close to what Dr. Naish declared in his book: He said that the “flaps” die down after a few weeks. In reality, reports of living pterosaurs in Texas not only do not die down within a few weeks, but they continue for years. In addition, they are seen to have arisen even before the first discovery of a Quetzalcoatlus fossil in 1971, according to Ken Gerhard’s research.

In Defense of the Ropen

One more detail on which Dr. Naish and I agree: The ropen is not a Quetzalcoatlus. In fact, the descriptions of the modern long-tailed flying creature correlate with the features of a Rhamphorhynchoid (“basal”) pterosaur, not a Pterodactyloid short-tailed pterosaur.

From the end-of-2012 compilations of data from the more-credible sighting reports, we learn that the ratio of long-tail to no-long-tail is close to twenty-to-one (41% to 2%). That’s a clearly significant statistical fact, for the 41% is for the entire 128 sightings. So why do so many eyewitnesses, worldwide, report long-tailed pterosaurs when the media and fiction films and television science fiction shows have so many short-tailed pterosaurs? The long-tailed ropen is the dominant type of pterosaur now living on this planet.

###

The Long Tail of the Ropen

The Fiery Flying Serpent of the Bible may have been a long-tailed Rhamphorhynchoid, related to the modern-day ropen.

Pterosaur Sightings Data for the USA

This includes the sightings in Texas, but also it has many other states, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, etc.

Fossils are Evidence of Life, not Extinction

The Mesozoic Objection for live pterosaurs and Darren Naish (a paleontologist)

Ropen Sighting

Peter Beach and Milt Marcy, both of the Portland area of Oregon, led an expedition in Papua New Guinea, in March and April of 2015, searching for a living pterosaur . . .

Ropen in Texas and in New Mexico

. . . modern pterosaurs in the United States, in spite of extinction dogma. Marvel at eyewitness accounts in many of the states: California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, and in other states.

Pterosaur Sighting in South Carolina

Susan Wooten, of Greenville, South Carolina, was driving from home to Florence (about 1989) when she saw a giant creature glide over the highway in front of the car.

Marfa Lights in Texas – a Ropen?

A few American cryptozoologists, including the Californians Jonathan Whitcomb and Garth Guessman, and the Texan Paul Nation, have searched for nocturnal bioluminescent flying creatures described like Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs. . . .