Reply to Skeptics | Live Pterosaur

August 20, 2014

“Lie” on Wikipedia “Ropen” Article?

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy . . . fringe theories

I have been practically (but not officially) banned from contributing anything anywhere on Wikipedia. Why? Because I told the truth and was therefore accused of the opposite. This is complicated, so let’s take one step at a time and see if I did contribute anything to lying. I submit that whatever lie may have been involved, it was not mine.

Ropen Article on Wikipedia

For several years, Wikipedia has given the world many paragraphs in its article “ropen.” That changed this month (August of 2014). Here is part of the explanation:

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy. . . .

This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view . . .

There lies a weakness in Wikipedia, although a solution seems hard to come by. When proponents of the “mainstream view” on a subject seem reluctant to state their orthodox opinions, in sufficient content-size, a fringe theory can appear to be unbalanced in an article, favoring too much an unpopular point of view. Supporters of the old universal-pterosaur-extinction dogma are numerous, but they have, on the whole, been reluctant to contribute standard-model views on the Wikipedia “ropen” article. That was the original problem my associates and I faced earlier this week.

An Attempted Solution was Derailed

I tried to solve the problem by quoting the words of the paleontologist Dr. David Martill. What could be more simple? He gave his opinion about the improbability of modern pterosaurs in an podcast interview, and the words were transcribed on the page “Dr. Dave Martill & Pterosaurs.” Think about it: What more natural solution to the Wikipedia problem than adding a non-fringe opinion related to the ropen?

That is when I was rear-ended by a Wikipedia editor, within minutes of my uploading the contribution. That self-appointed editor deleted my entire submission, instantaneously. I had no knowledge about the proper behind-the-scenes discussion procedures on Wikipedia, and I had already spent a good part of my afternoon in preparing my contribution and figuring out and applying the references formatting. Evening was approaching, and I felt no desire to fight the thing out. Early the next morning, I saw how fortunate I was not to have continued trying to submit anything on Wikipedia.

Quoting Dr. David Martill

I tried to quote the words of a paleontologist with whom I disagreed. Why? To save the Wikipedia “ropen” article from deletion. Dr. Martill seems to be one of the world’s most respected living experts on pterosaurs (let’s be clear here: living pterosaur-expert, NOT living-pterosaur expert; where you put the hyphen is critical). Here is what I tried to contribute to Wikipedia:

Dr. David Martill is a world renowned authority on Pterosaurs. In a podcast interview, he said, concerning the possibility of pterosaurs surviving into modern times, “Let’s assume that just a few did get through . . . right up to the present day. Where would we go to look for them? Well, I think we’d have to go for somewhere that had been largely unexplored, that could exist, without mankind’s having come across them. Because flying animals, when they’re disturbed, anything that is able to fly has an ability to escape using flight. It takes to the air and in the air, you are visible. . . . If pterosaurs were still around, hey if you disturbed them, they would take flight and you would see them flying away. If they were going to be around, they’re going to be somewhere where nobody’s . . . been, nobody’s taken a camera, nobody’s every managed to capture an image. There aren’t terribly many places left on the planet where that’s the case.”

I saw an apparent error in the transcription (“When a bird takes fright“—but when referring to pterosaurs, the transcription later says “take flight”) and left out that sentence. I believe I left out one or two other sentences because the ideas were repetitive. I also left out one word, “every,” because it seems to be an error in English, with the original transcription being “somewhere where nobody’s every been.”

Please be aware, I was not intending to distort anything that Dr. Martill was communicating. I left out any reference to Papua New Guinea, in my attempted contribution to Wikipedia, because it could have made the paleontologist look bad (he did mention Papua New Guinea). I simply wanted to contribute a paragraph, at least, that would give balance to the ropen article.

Lie or Honesty?

Here is the self-appointed editor’s comment on why he deleted my contribution (quoting of Dr. Martill):

Consider this a final warning – if you once more add grossly misleading material to the Ropen article, as you have done by selectively quoting a source in such a way as to imply the opposite conclusion to that which the source supports, I will report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be topic-banned or blocked. Wikipedia does not lie to its readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If I had continued trying to contribute that quotation, I could have been “banned,” apparently. I dispute the above, but I prefer to reply here, to the statement by “AndyTheGrump,” rather than in the Wikipedia background discussions; few persons read those almost invisible comments. For those who would like to compare my selective quoting with the original, see Interview of Dr. Martill. I see no substantial difference in meaning.

I do not accuse AndyTheGrump of telling a lie in his comment of 19-Aug-2014-22:34; I offer another explanation. A severe bias against somebody who holds to a fringe opinion can cause the biased person to carelessly dismiss the fringe-person’s quoting something. If AndyTheGrump was honest in his above statement, then his bias appears to me to be the most likely explanation for his words.

Who among us has never been guilty of a careless mistake? I suspect this Wikipedia editor was careless, noticing some weakness in the words I quoted and assuming that the original source lacked that weakness. Dr. Martill’s reasoning itself is a problem, in my opinion, yet that is too deep for coverage here: It deserves a post for itself. The point now is this: Oh, how we need writers and editors who think more clearly!

Sometimes a writer quotes the words of someone with a contrary opinion, for one reason or another. That does not mean that the quoting must be out of context or somehow deceptively. Even if the writer has a fringe opinion, quoting an opponent need not be improper. It can take a careful examination by an objective editor to come to any certain conclusion, at best. A careless dismissal can do much more harm than good.

Complete Quotations and Copyright Issues

How much can you quote on Wikipedia before a copyright issue comes up? I don’t know, but I did not want to get too close to an infringement. That was part of the reason that I quoted only some of Dr. Martill’s words on the difficulty of pterosaurs surviving into the modern day. Perhaps I should have simply written a brief statement on Wikipedia and linked the idea to the source. All that is irrelevant now, for I’ve given up on Wikipedia.

###

Ropen — page published by Whitcomb

Long-tailed feather-less ropen-like flying creatures have been reported around the world, including states in the U.S.A.

Searching for Ropens and Finding God — one of several nonfiction books by Whitcomb

From page 26 of the book:

The sighting occurred at about noon, west of Finschhafen, after the two soldiers left their vehicle to hike inland. They stopped at the edge of a clearing to watch a colony of large ants on a log, when a wild pig startled something huge, only a hundred feet away. The creature, which Hodgkinson first assumed was a bird, flew up from the edge of the clearing and, as it circled, fifty to one hundred feet above the men, presented a “perfect side view” of itself—obviously no bird.

July 1, 2014April 21, 2021

Don’t get “Strung Along” by the Smithsonian Myth About Ropens

heading to a Smithsonian online newspaper article

This is a reply to “Don’t Get Strung Along by the ‘Ropen’ Myth.” This Smithsonian online post supports the dogma of the universal extinctions of all species of dinosaurs and pterosaurs. I call it a “myth”: the total extinction of all varieties of pterosaurs. My associates and I, in contrast to the author of this Smithsonian article, have researched this subject seriously over many years and declare that regardless of how many species of those amazing flying creatures have become extinct in the past, some species still survive.

So where is the scientific evidence for the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs? Notice the Smithsonian blog post by Brian Switek*, dated August 16, 2010: not one reference to an eyewitness sighting report. Switek says “such anecdotes,” without mentioning what he is talking about. He says much about the religious beliefs of Blume and Woetzel, as if that counts against their ideas, but why does he say nothing about what caused those expeditions: eyewitness reports? And he says nothing about the fact that the eyewitnesses come from around the world, with no indication of any preponderance of creationists among those eyewitnesses. *( In recent years this online article, “Don’t Get Strung Along by the ‘Ropen’ Myth”, has a different name for the author because of a personal name change: In 2010 he called himself “Brian Switek”.)

Like some paleontologists I have communicated with, Switek says not one word about any scientific test related to the universal-extinction conjecture for pterosaurs. He also mentions no date for any scientific study on the subject, nothing.

Headline of a faulty online article of the Smithsonian Magazine

Mr. Switek writes as if science were on his side, as he emphasizes the religion of those whom he associates with “hucksters.” Yet a deeper look into what he seeks to protect—that reveals that the general extinction idea originated when George Washington was president. Look into history and I believe you’ll find that no scientific study was ever conducted relevant to the extinction of ALL SPECIES of pterosaurs, from the time of George Washington until Mr. Switek wrote his Smithsonian blog post in 2010 . . . with one exception: the work of those whom he ridicules in “Don’t Get Strung Along by the ‘Ropen’ Myth.”

The newspaper article Switek criticizes was indeed seriously flawed. Yet the newspaper writer is not one of those who explored remote jungles, searching for living pterosaurs. Of course a photograph of a Frigate bird is no evidence for a modern pterosaur, but Switek’s writings are also flawed, leaving out the critical eyewitness evidence as if it could not be worth considering.

Note that I do not excuse careless newspaper writings, even when one of them appears to support the work of my associates who have searched for living pterosaurs in remote locations. Careless writing needs to be corrected, preferably before a newspaper article is published. Edit carefully before publishing your writing, but even more important is this: Look deeply into the subject before doing much writing about it.

Back cover of a nonfiction cryptozoology/spiritual book

From Searching for Ropens and Finding God (page beginning on page 294)

He says nothing about me or my associates Garth Guessman and Paul Nation, but does mention David Woetzel and Jim Blume . . . Be aware that the Smithsonian post that portrays the ropen as a myth was a response to a flawed newspaper article written to support the ropen as a possible pterosaur. Both writings have problems.

Brian Switek speaks of extinction in the general sense, as have paleontologists who’ve responded to the living-pterosaur investigations. He seems to take standard models without question, like so many others who have dismissed what me and my associates have proclaimed. I submit that the assumption of universal extinction of dinosaurs and pterosaurs is part of what lies at the root-cause of some of the mistakes they have made.

###

Refuting “Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth”

I found it amusing that Mr. Switek, after going to such lengths to demonstrate the foolishness of those who promote the possibility of living pterosaurs, and beat to death any supposed evidence for that concept, finally, near the end of his post, admits an interesting possibility: Maybe a long-tailed pterosaur may still be living.

Don’t Get Strung Along by the Smithsonian

He may have gotten unanimous approval for pointing out that a photo of a frigate bird is not evidence for living pterosaurs, but he got a stern rebuke for mentioning the word “hucksters” for those who search for cryptids many had assumed have been extinct for millions of years, especially those who have searched in Papua New Guinea for the ropen.

March 4, 2014March 4, 2014

Misidentification? Look at the Whole Chess Board.

Lake Pung on Umboi Island in Papua New Guinea

I plan to bring up the misidentification interpretation in the appendix of my upcoming nonfiction book Searching for Ropens and Finding God, but let’s take a brief look at it now. When I give somebody a chess lesson, I might say, “look at the whole board.” Beginners often overlook a good move when they see one piece and one move for it, and they make that move before considering many other possible moves. I don’t suggest we try to imitate a chess computer program, evaluating every possible move, yet we need to expand our view and see the broader perspective.

If only one or two persons had reported a living pterosaur, in recent years and in one part of the world, we could be excused for thinking of misidentification and dismissing two reports. Consider the reality. Many persons, from various countries and of various cultures and beliefs, have seen long-tailed apparently-featherless flying creatures. Some persons reported a long neck and a horn-like appendage coming out of the back of the head, if fact each of those two characteristics is common. Consider now some of the critical sightings that cannot reasonably be dismissed as misidentified birds or bats.

In clear daylight, seven native boys, on Umboi Island around 1994, saw a gigantic featherless creature fly over Lake Pung. This was not a fruit bat mostly obscured in dense vegetation in the dark of night—a long-tailed creature in clear daylight over a lake. Somebody from a Western country might dismiss a report from a native who estimated the tail was seven meters long, but how would that skeptic respond to a comparison between that sighting and one to the south, a sighting in 1944 by an American soldier who estimated the tail length of the “pterodactyl” at “at least ten or fifteen feet?” Nobody would think of Duane Hodgkinson as a superstitious native; he’s a clear-thinking plane pilot and flight instructor. Yet why assume that Gideon Koro, Wesley Koro, and Mesa Agustin are superstitious natives who saw only a bird or a bat? Their descriptions may not match up closely to any known fossil of a pterosaur, but why should a particular modern pterosaur correspond to any particular known fossil? The creature they encountered is far more like a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur than it is like any known bird or bat, and it appears to have been closely related to the “pterodactyl” seen many years earlier by Hodgkinson and his army buddy on the mainland of New Guinea.

Of course some birds and bats, in certain conditions, can be misidentified by certain eyewitnesses and reported as living pterosaurs . . . theoretically. But many critical sightings, actual reports, cannot be dismissed with the word “misidentification.”

November 19, 2013December 24, 2013

Grateful for Pterosaur Sighting Reports

Duane Hodgkinson, of Livingston, Montana - eyewitness of a giant ropen

This morning I heard of a father who overheard his boy’s conversation with another little boy who had brought over a new pet: a small green turtle. The man’s son was overheard to say, “I wish I had a turtle. All I got is just a dog and a cat and a horse.” How enlightening! We need to be grateful for what we have, rather than dwell only on what we don’t have.

Are you wishing for a turtle?

We do not yet have any clear photograph of a living pterosaur, at least not a photo that we have felt comfortable is genuine. We do have many eyewitnesses, however, and for their testimonies we can feel grateful.

Last week we celebrated Veteran’s Day. Let us now observe a different perspective, feeling gratitude from a broader panorama but in a special focus. Consider now the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen, from whatever nations, who have observed a living pterosaurs and reported the encounters. And may we be grateful, regardless of any lack of photos or lack of official reports, grateful for all those who risk doubt and ridicule by reporting to us those wonderful flying creatures.

Why should military personnel have any special opportunities for encountering modern pterosaurs? They often spend more hours outdoors than most of us. That’s why we should not be surprised that they sometimes report such sightings.

Long-necked bat seen by sailors

Last week I got an email from a biologist who told me about his uncle’s report of a “giant long-necked bat” in the Pacific Ocean during World War II. The old veteran once asked his nephew what kind of bat had been killed, in 1944, on the deck of the uncle’s ship.

The sailor was stationed on an American ship that was just a few days from Wake Island. For target practice, they opened fire on a large island. After about ten minutes, the crew saw what they first assumed was a Japanese plane. Then it flapped its wings and moved its head.

The giant “bat” approached the ship and landed on the deck. Badly injured, it was poked by oars held by some of the sailors. The commanding officer told everybody that it was just a bat and ordered a sailor to kill it and toss it overboard. That sailor was the uncle.

The creature was about the size of a modern-day hang glider and had a long neck like that of a crane bird. The tough hair on the wings felt like cactus needles, and the body of the creature had soft fluffy hair. It had yellow eyes and what appeared like an “elongated parrot beak.”

Two “Pterodactyls” in Cuba in 1971

Eskin Kuhn was on a break, one sunny day, during his military assignment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when the U.S. Marine saw two strange flying creatures near the coast. Soon after the sighting, he sketched what he had seen, opening himself up to decades of occasional ridicule and occasional praise. I am grateful for his bravery in telling the truth about what he encountered, even though his testimony has mostly been ignored by those who should have taken notice.

Finschhafen, New Guinea sighting in 1944

So much has been written about this encounter that it needs no great explanation here. Be aware that Garth Guessman and I have found this World War II veteran to be highly credible. We believe that he really did see a living pterosaur in that jungle clearing in 1944.

Ropen off the coast of Indonesia?

In June of 2008, H. (anonymous) was flying a small twin-engined plane with his co-pilot, B.; both are former navy pilots. They were mostly finished with the 700-mile flight from Broome, Australia, to Bali, Indonesia when H. saw what he at first assumed was another airplane flying in a head-on collision course.

Quoting from an upcoming nonfiction book

From the upcoming third edition of Searching for Ropens and Finding God, an eyewitness tells us about his sighting of three flying creatures in Texas, in the 1970’s, and about his encounter with a school teacher who was trying to teach the class about dinosaur extinctions.

The first one appeared to be trying to avoid the other two. The eyewitness told me, “I kept thinking that I could make out long tails.” It may have been some time after the encounter in the classroom, between the boy and his teacher, when he concluded that one female pterosaur had been chased by two males. I don’t know, I saw nothing. I have encountered, over the past ten years, skeptics who appear to outnumber eyewitnesses. I’ve learned how desperately some eyewitnesses have tried to avoid getting shot down by scoffers. I know something of pain, although I may have felt the sting less deeply than eyewitnesses who have spoken out. I have a suggestion.

You cannot soar higher than hot air. That’s what pushes you up above those tied to the ground. The moment you fold up your wings to avoid the blast of hot air—that’s when you begin to sink toward their level. If you have seen something like a living pterosaur, and you feel crazy telling anybody, tell me about it. If crazy is how you must feel, at least you’ll feel at home with me.

Eyewitness Duane Hodgkinson

###