Live Pterosaur - Part 39

November 5, 2014January 10, 2017

Second Pterosaur Expedition of 2004

Woetzel and a native and Guessman, on Umboi Island

Ten years ago David Woetzel and Garth Guessman climbed mountains and interviewed natives on Umboi Island (AKA Siasi) in Papua New Guinea. I pray that their expedition will not be forgotten, for how dramatic were their discoveries, notwithstanding the ropen of Umboi appearing unwilling to cooperate except through one or two brief glowing episodes. I have no doubt that the flying creature seen by native eyewitnesses is a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur. I submit a few quotations from the fourth edition of my nonfiction Searching for Ropens and Finding God.

From page 93

Guessman and Woetzel left California October 17, arriving in the city of Lae on October 19, Papua New Guinea time, where they met missionary Jim Blume and his wife, Mary. Here, Guessman interviewed both Jim Blume and Pastor Jacob Kepas. Blume had founded fifty-two Baptist Churches in Papua New Guinea, and under his leadership Kepas had founded nine.

Both Blume and Kepas would reveal what they had seen but there’s more: Blume had previously spoken with about seventy eyewitnesses of what we call ropens, and Kepas would soon become deeply involved by going with the two Americans to Umboi Island as their interpreter . . .

From page 94

Rather than take a ship, as I had, those three flew to Umboi Island in a small plane, searching the landscape as they passed over the center of the island. Because the pilot had no interest in zigzagging, they flew directly to the northern coast which they followed to the air strip at Lab Lab.

Here the three ropen investigators met Peter Ake, magistrate of Mararamu Village, and the four men took a banana boat along the northeast coast. Kepas interprets between English and Tok Pisin, but Peter also interprets between English and the local dialect of Kovai.

From page 95

Stopping to refuel at Kampalap, they learned that villagers occasionally see the ropen as it leaves a cave, most recently three weeks earlier. The local man said, “Taim em kam aut . . . save . . . taim em go bek, em no gat.” They know when it leaves the cave but not when it returns. The creature flies to a promontory north of the village, landing and waiting on a tree top before flying out to the reef.

Interpreting the man’s Tok Pisin, Peter explained the belief that the ropen waits to see if it is being watched before it flies to the reef to feed. What it eats, the man was unsure. He was also unsure of the size, admitting that it’s only a light that they see, but his hand gestures showed his belief: The ropen is bigger than a man.

About a week later, Woetzel had his own sighting of the flying ropen light. After the expedition, Woetzel answered my questions about the encounter.

From page 98

“My sighting was so quick that it was impossible to get a video—maybe two seconds. The light was very different from what Garth and Pastor Jacob saw. I suspect theirs was a meteor. I also saw some meteors while on night watch. They were whitish in color and had a tail.

“But this thing was different. It went about as fast as a meteor, but it was very different in coloration . . . almost golden and shimmering around the edges. . . . There was no tail and it was flying horizontally from Mt. Barik toward Mt. Tolo.”

###

Rhamphorhynchoid in South Carolina

“It looked as big as any car, and had NO feathers, not like a huge crane or egret. . . . it swooped down over the highway and back up gracefully over the pines.”

What is a Ropen?

Before you dismiss the concept of a modern pterosaur (in particular, of a long-tailed featherless Rhamphorhynchoid), consider the many eyewitness testimonies of those flying creatures.

Nicknamed “the Bible of modern pterosaurs,” this nonfiction ropen book is a large-paperback of 360 pages

October 28, 2014October 28, 2014

Look Overhead, not Underfoot

On page 191 of the fourth edition of Searching for Ropens and Finding God I wrote:

You cannot see what’s overhead when you focus on what’s underfoot, and you cannot perceive what you believe cannot be seen. C. S. Lewis was aware it’s not “seeing is believing:” Believing allows us to see.

“Extinction” – Really?

A skeptic may look down on those of us who publicize reports of apparent modern pterosaurs, yet where is the explanation for universal extinction of all species of those flying creatures? Consider the following, quoting from three nonfiction books on these extraordinary flying creatures:

From the Book Live Pterosaurs in America, third edition

My experience interviewing natives [in Papua New Guinea] and reviewing interviews done by other explorers—that suggests it’s easier to catch a giant ropen in a fishing net than to find a native eyewitness who disbelieves personal experience because of what American professors assume. Eyewitnesses in a culture that dogmatically teaches pterosaur extinction—they sometimes have problems dealing with an experience that they feel should not have been experienced; native eyewitnesses in New Guinea have no problem. [from page 95 of the book]

From Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea

The first discovery of a pterosaur fossil by a Western scientist, in 1784, was decades before Charles Darwin began writing about his ideas on extinctions and evolution. Before Darwin, Western scientists had assumed that all species of pterosaurs were extinct for a simple reason: Those who discovered the fossils had no experience with any similar animal that was living.

Also important, probably no scientist at that time had considered that a few species of pterosaurs might still be alive, rarely seen because they’re both uncommon and nocturnal. Today, some cryptozoologists believe that one or more of their species are indeed uncommon and nocturnal—and still alive.

From Searching for Ropens and Finding God, fourth edition (Chapter 23)

The paleontologists are rare who take notice of my associates and me, at least through mid-2014. When one has commented on what we declare about modern pterosaurs, it’s usually with a word like “extinction” but in a difference sense: the demise of all species of pterosaurs. Am I slicing quarks? I know of nobody who denies that many pterosaurs may have lived without leaving any fossil. Beware of the fog around two meanings of a word. Even if all species of pterosaurs known from fossils had become extinct long ago, we live in the real world of the present, a world in which people report encountering living pterosaurs.

Why do I often use the phrase “apparent modern pterosaurs?” Since I firmly believe that some species of these flying creatures are still living, why do I use the word apparent? Take any particular sighting as an example: We probably cannot come to any certain conclusion if that one encounter was with a modern pterosaur. But the overall reports worldwide, over years, over decades, and over generations—they prove the case, for it is practically impossible for all of those countless sightings to have come from non-pterosaurs, when so many descriptions so clearly point to pterosaurs.

Consider sighting reports of a rare bird that may become extinct. One reported encounter alone, in a particular location, is not proof that the species is living there. But a number of reports can make it obvious.

Sketch drawn by eyewitness Eskin Kuhn

Extraordinary Declarations Demand Extraordinary Evidence

Why should any paleontologist insist that all species of pterosaurs must have become extinct many millions of years ago? That’s an extraordinary assumption, an extreme position that demands explaining. Remember, this is not about one or two or fifteen species or varieties of pterosaurs but ALL of them that ever existed.

How many species of them have lived on this earth? It’s impossible to say, but the experts believe that most of them left no fossil evidence for their existence. Taking that point of view, how can anybody point to fossils as if they are evidence for universal extinction?

Is Pterosaur Extinction for Real?

I have estimated that millions of eyewitnesses, worldwide, have seen a modern living pterosaur, perhaps as many as 128 million persons. How can I make such an extraordinary statement? From the number of eyewitnesses who have contacted me, over the past eleven years, from around the world. Only a tiny fraction of the world’s population has the knowledge, desire, and ability to communicate with me about the flying creatures that they have encountered in their lifetimes. Consider some of the reasons so few of them have contacted me:

Natives of Africa, Papua New Guinea, and elsewhere have no internet access
Where pterosaurs are more common—that’s where people don’t talk much about them
Eyewitnesses who have a computer—they have other things to talk about
Most eyewitnesses do not know English
Most of them do not know a few Americans are looking for pterosaurs
Few eyewitnesses can afford to communicate by email

Please be aware: When I say that few eyewitnesses have contacted me, I mean compared with all of the probable eyewitnesses worldwide. I continue to get emails from those who have encountered these flying creatures, and the great majority of them hold up under my credibility examinations. So how do fossil experts reply?

One prominent paleontologist explained, during an interview, that the reason pterosaurs are extinct is that people would have seen them, if they still existed. Unfortunately, that paleontologist seems to have neglected to question any of the cryptozoologists involved. He seems to have assumed their investigations are somehow invalid or of little or no consequence. He has mentioned misidentifications to explain native testimonies, yet he has kept quiet about critical non-native testimonies of giant flying creatures that could not have been birds or bats. He says nothing about Duane Hodgkinson or Brian Hennessy or the couple in Perth, Australia.

Conclusion

Look overhead, rather than underfoot, for these worldwide sightings of modern pterosaurs refute the old universal-extinction proclamations. Take a break from swimming in your imagination, Mr. paleontologist, and open your eyes to the real world of the present, where people see these extraordinary flying creatures.

###

Searching for Ropens and Finding God, fourth edition (2014)

Nonfiction paperback on modern pterosaurs worldwide

This overshadows common true-life adventures, revealing the early stages of what may become the most unsettling scientific discovery since Galileo and Copernicus. It soars above disputes about religion, revealing why an official discovery of an extraordinary animal was delayed for so long. Above all, this explores human experiences—of eyewitnesses and those who interviewed them. People have become connected by common encounters: Persons of various faiths, with various levels of education, from various countries and cultures, have seen a living pterosaur. [From the title page of the book]

October 8, 2014January 10, 2017

Ropen-Eyewitness Interviews, Ten-Year Anniversary

native eyewitness of ropen - Gideon Koro

Ten years ago I interviewed three natives, face to face, in a remote village on Umboi Island: Gideon Koro, Mesa Augustin, and Wesley Koro. Here is some of what I recorded of Gideon’s interview, quoted from the upcoming fourth edition of Searching for Ropens and Finding God:

I started with the basics: “Your name is Gideon Koro?”
“Yes.”
“OK. Do you remember, Gideon, about a few years ago, some Americans came with Jim Blume?”
Gideon looked puzzled.
I said, “They had a video camera.”
“Yeah.”

.

“Do you remember how many years ago that was?”
“Maybe ten years ago.”
“You told them about when you went up to the mountain where there was a lake . . . big, uh, wara.” (I should have said, roun-wara for “lake.”)
Gideon nodded many times.
“All right. . . What lake was that?”
He appeared surprised at my ignorance and said, “Pung.”
“Oh, Pung, OK, Is this the first time you went to Pung or second time . . .?”
“First time.”
“Oh, the first time, OK. . . . Was this in the daytime?”
“Yeah.”

.
“When you got to the lake, did you see anything right away or . . . only later? . . . Did you see anything unusual?”
I made a classic blunder in questioning someone with limited English skills: asking multiple questions at once.
Gideon paused, looking confused; then, with dawning comprehension, he said:
“No.”
Gideon took me literally: He saw nothing unusual at the moment he arrived at the lake. Arriving at an understanding of my intentions was something else.
“So did you stay there for a few minutes or an hour or . . .”
Now Gideon understood what I meant.
“A few minutes later, it came down.”

.
“Oh, a few minutes later? OK. Were there some creatures that came down to the lake?” (I still thought there had been ten to twenty ropens.)
Gideon hesitated.
“. . . or animals . . . or ropen or something that came to the lake?”
Gideon nodded twice.

.
“Do you remember about how many there were?”
Gideon said nothing.
I said, “Uh . . . plenty . . . or ten?”
He gave me another puzzled look and said quietly:
“Only one.”

“What’s that?”
“Only one.”
I said, “Only what? Oh, only one”
He then said clearly, “We saw only one.”
“Only one, OK.”
I would have to figure out that puzzle later.

.

“When you saw the creature . . . what color was it?”
Gideon looked away, thought for four seconds, then turned back to me:
“Brown.” (maybe the first time, outside school, he had used this English word)
“Did you notice . . . did it have wings?”
With a smile, Gideon said, “Yeah.”

.

“It had wings. OK. About how large were the wings . . . like if the wings were . . .uh . . .”
Gideon was again puzzled as I tried to hold the camcorder while using one arm after another to indicate wingspan.
“. . . spread out . . . uh . . . about . . .”
Now the weakness of my impromptu interviewing style became obvious. Finally, I simply asked, “How long were the wings? Big?” A villager came to my rescue with a few words in the local village language. Only long afterwards would I realized that I had no way of knowing if the interpreter had asked about the size of one wing or two wings.
Gideon said, “Sefan meeta.” (In Tok Pisin, the plural is not formed by adding “s,” and this can carry over into their English.)
“Seven meters? OK. This animal . . . you call it a ropen? Is that the name they have for it?” (I preferred another surprise to a new misunderstanding.)
“Yeah.”

.

“OK. Did it have a tail?”
“Yeah.”
“It had a tail. OK. How long was the tail?”
Gideon looked at the ground to his left for five seconds; from the way he glanced back and forth at the ground a few times, I concluded that he was imagining the tail and estimating its length. He looked back at me and said:
“Sefan meeta long.”
“Seven meters?”
“Yeah.”
“So the tail was as long as the wings?”
Without hesitation, Gideon said, “Yeah.”

Gideon Koro, interviewed in 2004 by Jonathan Whitcomb

Only after my expedition in Papua New Guinea would I realize that Gideon thought that I was asking about the size of one wing. No native in a remote village on Umboi Island could be expected to understand what is meant by wingspan. He was surely thinking that I wanted to know the length of one wing. In other words, if Gideon estimated correctly, the ropen that he and his six friends had seen flying over a crater lake in clear daylight had a wingspan of over 45 feet.

Why did the two interviewers, many years earlier, conclude that Gideon and his six friends had seen ten or twenty ropens? I have come to firmly believe that it was a misunderstanding. Take the average of ten and twenty: fifteen. People in Papua New Guinea think in meters (not feet), and if Gideon was reporting a rough estimate of size (length or wingspan), in the first interview, fifteen meters is quite close to the numbers he reported to me in 2004, although I failed to communicate the concept of wingspan and neglected to ask about the total length of the ropen.

Gideon Koro, interviewed around 1994 by James Blume

###

Banned Wikipedia Ropen Article

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.

September 22, 2014January 10, 2017

Ropen Expedition Suggestions

James (Jim) Blume interviewed this old native. The glowing ropen was trying to rob a human grave.

Ten years ago today, I was in the Lae International Hotel in Papua New Guinea, preparing for my expedition on Umboi Island while I awaited the small ship that I would board for that island. Today, I received some suggestions and questions about future expeditions and what has been done, in that third world country, regarding searching for the ropen recently.

The suggestions deserve thought, yet how few persons have had the opportunities to see how challenging it can be to search for these flying creatures in Papua New Guinea! Thank you to the man who sent me these comments by email.

Suggestions from a man who is interested in cryptids like the ropen

I’d first be gathering information from as many sightings as possible, and pinpoint on a map any routes or nesting sites the creature is using on a routine basis.
The next step would be to set up numerous video cameras triggered to record remotely, with a focus on an open pen area (with adequate time passage to let any scent of man or man-made objects dissipate) where a few pigs (or other potential bait animals) would be left to fend for themselves.
This procedure would take many months, not weeks, but I’m sure the chance for obtaining viable video footage would be greatly increased.

Responses from Jonathan Whitcomb

#1)

Ten ropen expeditions, in Papua New Guinea, have been led by Americans during the past twenty years. The one led by me and the one led by David Woetzel and Garth Guessman, both in 2004, benefited from the experiences of explorers in the earlier years. The ten expeditions as a whole now deserve attention.

We are grateful for the many sightings of these wonderful flying creatures, and some of the eyewitnesses have reported to us what happened in each of these encounters. Yet even adding the many sightings reported by natives to the missionary James Blume, we still have information on only a tiny fraction of the many thousands of encounters natives must have had over the past few decades. And what are two hundred or so encounters when compared with the size of the tropical rain forests in Papua New Guinea: over 100,000 square miles of jungles. Let’s consider what this means.

One square mile contains over three million square yards. If a ropen nest can be hidden within an area of jungle of 100 square yards, that leaves us with over three billion hiding places, and that’s only within the boundaries of Papua New Guinea. Yet we’re just beginning to see the challenges.

Assuming you had the time to search for those hidden nesting sites, over the necessary centuries it would take, what’s to keep a mother ropen from grabbing her eggs and flying away, seconds before you discover the hidden nest? (How could you hack through all the countless miles of jungle underbrush in silence?)

Please understand, I am not making fun of the suggestions I received today; they can be useful. But we need to know what we’re up against before getting into the positive side. I am indeed smiling as I write this, for we have discovered clues that can make expeditions in these remote jungles far more fruitful than the above numbers would indicate.

I have a few specific ideas about where and how to search for ropens in some areas of Papua New Guinea, but it will take time and more money than my associates and I have ever spent from our personal funds. We would really need help. I will keep those ideas to myself, for the moment.

Missionary Jim Blume interviews native eyewitness in Papua New Guinea

#2)

The worst human odor—that actually attracts the ropen the most, at least on Umboi Island. A dead body invites the ropen in, so any lesser odors from live humans should be OK.

Leaving live pigs (or other animals) in a pen sounds interesting. A most likely outcome, however, is that local natives will take the pigs for themselves, and that’s assuming the pigs don’t find a way to escape from the pen. Leaving a dead animal out, we’ve tried before, and this is still a good option, albeit it requires more time than we have invested in the past.

#3)

This is an excellent point. It will take much more time than what we have been able to give in the past. Time ties itself to money, in many ways, so it comes back to how much we need financial help with a future expedition.

Additional Thoughts

We have had some undisclosed expeditions, within the past few years, with undisclosed locations. Nevertheless, some of the most promising ideas relate to expeditions right here in the 48 Contiguous states of the USA. This is where most of my expedition attention is now centered.

###

Ropen – What is it?

With hundreds of cultures, and languages in Papua New Guinea, a real creature should have different names in different cultures. This is the case, with other names for large nocturnal flying creatures: duwas, kundua, kor, seklobali (also spelled “seklo-bali”), indava, and wawanar.

The Ropen – a Modern Pterosaur

Countless eyewitnesses, in many countries across the planet, have pondered what it was they had seen. But ropens continue to fly overhead, continuing to shock humans who had assumed that all pterosaurs had become extinct millions of years ago.