Reasoning, general – Live Pterosaurs in America

May 18, 2019August 3, 2020

How many people see living pterodactyls?

"Were dragons real?" short video mini-documentary

By Jonathan Whitcomb, investigative journalist

The point is this: pterosaurs still living.

I’ve been investigating sightings of these flying creatures for sixteen years now, reported encounters with apparent living pterosaurs. Most of them have been in the United States. The estimated number of sightings suggests that ancient legends of dragons, seen around the world, may not have been based entirely on fictional accounts.

Various labels have been put onto these flying creatures:

dragon, a term used anciently but also in modern times
flying dinosaur, more common in recent generations
pterodactyl, used from the 19th century to the present
dinosaur bird, maybe more common in recent decades
ropen, more common after two expeditions in 2004
prehistoric bird, maybe more common in recent decades

I’ve received reports from a number of countries on five continents, yet most of the eyewitness reports have been from the USA, and they’re enough to now make an estimate that I believe is more accurate than my estimates in earlier years: how many Americans have seen a living pterosaur.

Sketch by the eyewitness Eskin Kuhn

Introduction to the work in cryptozoology by Jonathan Whitcomb

My associates and I have helped each other a great deal over the years, although much of our work has been independent to a great deal. We each draw our own conclusions about these amazing flying creatures, yet we agree on many things.

I’ve spent well over 10,000 hours on my own investigation, probably more time than any other person now living. I know that some skeptics may not accept the following estimates, yet I disclose them now with confidence that they’re not very far off.

Estimated Number of Sightings of Pterosaurs in the United States

How many Americans now living have seen a modern pterosaur? The persons who had significant sightings in the USA probably number at least 150,000, although only 25% of those involved good-enough views of the animals to make it reasonable for the persons to tell one or more persons about it.

In other words, 37,500 Americans have told somebody something to the effect that they saw a flying creature that appeared more like a pterosaur than a bird or a bat, and 112,500 have not told anyone about seeing something that gave them the impression that it was a pterosaur. The combinations of those two types makes 150,000 Americans with significant sightings.

Those numbers fit well with the following three factors:

If many more persons had significant sightings, like many millions of Americans, these flying creatures would have been discovered before now and I would be swamped by eyewitness reports.

If only a few thousands of Americans had encounters, I would not have so many persons sending me sighting reports.

If only a few thousands of Americans had encounters, I we would not see so many reports that included references to other eyewitnesses who also had sightings. Consider Cynthia Lee, an eyewitness in Raleigh, North Carolina; she reported her own sighting and later reported that her mother and uncle also had a sighting many years earlier.

Youtube video “Were Dragons Real?”

###

41 reported sightings of living pterosaurs in California

This video is mostly about seven reported sightings of huge featherless flying creatures, most of the encounters being in Southern California. Take it in context: forty-one reported encounters in California.

American Dragon-Pterodactyl

In the summer of 1891, southeast of Fresno, several eyewitnesses reported two featherless flying creatures with wingspans of fifteen feet . . . two “dragons”

How many persons have seen a living pterosaur?

As of early December of 2017, it seems that no scientist has a body of a recently-deceased pterosaur to examine, or at least I have no knowledge of such a discovery and examination. That’s why my associates and I continue to work in the realm of cryptozoology, using whatever knowledge is available.

Dragon-pterodactyl in Los Angeles County

“Apparent relationship to a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur”

November 28, 2014

Dr. Prothero Attacks Living Pterosaurs

Jonathan David Whitcomb in 2004, near Gomlongon Village, Umboi Island

Readers of a recent post by Dr. Donald Prothero may think that I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have single-handedly deceived ignorant people into believing that pterosaurs are still alive. The paleontologist seems upset that my web pages dominate Google searches (and they used to dominate, years ago, on words like ropen.) Let’s look deeper.

Why use the Words “Apparent Pterosaur?”

Google “apparent pterosaur” (within quotes) and all nine non-image pages on the first Google-page are my publications, at least on November 28, 2014. What other search terms result in such a domination by my writings? My postings do not even come close to that dominance with the following terms used:

ropen
pterosaur
pterodactyl

In fact, today the word ropen brings up “Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth,” on the top non-image first-page position, and that article is extremely critical of living-pterosaur ideas. In addition, pterodactyl did not bring up even one of my posts on the first-page listing on Google.

So why do my blog posts and other web pages dominate when googling apparent pterosaur within quotation marks? I often use those words when referring to an eyewitness report of a flying creature. In other words, I try to be objective and allow for the possibility that a particular encounter was not from observing a living pterosaur.

Bulverism in a post by Prothero

A major problem with Dr. Prothero’s post is in the idea that I, Jonathan Whitcomb, have used deception in promoting my ideas, thus flooding the internet with my supposed error in believing in modern pterosaurs. I will not link to “Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets,” but it’s easily found. In reality, I used two pen names, in a minority of my writings, to allow readers to learn about eyewitness sightings without becoming distracted by my common name, which had been used in ridicule years earlier. I used those two pen names because of earlier false accusations about dishonesty; I did not use them to deceive.

Sock puppetry accusations pull readers’ attention away from the point, which is eyewitness testimony. Prothero has fallen into bulverism, but in a more pernicious form than the one described by C. S. Lewis decades ago.

Men of action, who search remote jungles for modern pterosaurs but who return home admitting they saw no clear pterosaur—they do not lie about their failures. They do, however, tell the truth about what natives tell them. Men who go nowhere to look for any living thing—they may be least qualified to accuse men of action of deceiving.

Objective Investigation of Reports of Living Pterosaurs

Getting back to the words apparent pterosaur, an individual eyewitness of one sighting of a flying creature can be mistaken in thinking a bird or bat or unknown non-pterodactyl was a pterosaur. Dr. Prothero and I agree on that. But that paleontologist appears to be completely ignorant of the overall sighting report details, in particular the similarities that cross cultural boundaries and cross religious differences.

Long tails on featherless flying creatures dominate reports from around the world, even in Western countries where short-tailed Pterodactyloid pterosaurs dominate in fictional television and in films. I have found practically no difference between American sighting reports and in the reports from third-world countries where cultures and traditions are greatly different.

Common kind of image seen by Americans in fiction (no long tail)

Compare the above with the sketch by Eskin Kuhn:

This is much more like what both Americans and jungle natives actually see

If a cryptozoologist becomes over-exuberant in trying to persuade the Western world that one or more species of pterosaur is alive, and loses all sense of objectiveness, would that radical person use the phrase “apparent pterosaur” so often that his pages would dominate when a Google search were done with it? Of course not. The point is that I am honestly trying to know and understand the truth about these sightings. I am trying to be objective.

I hope that many readers will come to understand that I have not spent over 10,000 hours, in the past eleven years, on a personal project to deceive people. This is not actually about me, however; it’s coming to that understanding so people can awaken to listen to the eyewitnesses with an open mind. The overall report-details make the case.

###

Honesty in Ropen Searching

A different kind of attack has been launched, as an American paleontologist has dismissed the ropen as a “fake” pterosaur and dismissed me, Jonathan Whitcomb, as one who practices deception.

Whitcomb interviewed on Monster-X Radio

“Maybe, Shane, I should go a little bit into some of the ideas that have been floating around and thrown out by skeptics . . . One of them is about, well, people are just misidentifying flying foxes. That’s one of the oldest: I heard of that way back in 2004; I think that was already an old idea. But this is one of the examples: You see, these seven boys were terrified at this creature that was not a flying fox because they would not have been scared of it. . . .”

Ropen in Papua New Guinea

Hodgkinson continues to give a powerful testimony of his 1944 encounter with a huge flying creature that is an obvious live pterosaur, notwithstanding the Western dogma about universal extinction.

C. S. Lewis and Bulverism

When someone publishes a web site with a URL that includes the words “stupid” and “lies,” and the point of the site is to ridicule those who promote the idea of living dinosaurs or living pterosaurs, “bulverism” probably fits . . .

The quest for discovering modern pterosaurs – nonfiction book

Searching for Ropens and Finding God – fourth edition

August 29, 2014April 14, 2015

Is the Ropen a “Stupid Fantasy?”

Professor Peter Beach is interviewed by cryptozoologist Jonathan Whitcomb, on the banks of the Yakima River in Washington state

It began after the online publication of a photo of a biology professor from Oregon; he was standing by the Yakima River in Washington state. Professor Peter Beach (who has taught at a small college in the Portland area) was being interviewed by me, Jonathan D. Whitcomb (an American cryptozoology author), on August 6, 2014, with Milt Marcy (also from Portland), another cryptozoologist. The controversy related to what Beach and Marcy believe they may have seen: bioluminescent pterosaurs, perhaps even ropens.

Peter Beach explains how the flying light left this tree at night

As this interview became publicized online, another biology professor, this one in Minnesota, became upset and wrote his own blog post, ridiculing the idea of modern pterosaurs. The content of the post by the skeptical professor, however, was weak; it relied on words like “stupid” (in the title) and with “turds” to describe the many writings of a cryptozoologist with whom the Minnesota professor disagrees. I think it would have been more intelligent to rely on reasoning or facts, rather than on bulverism.

The skeptic proclaimed the absence of any evidence for modern pterosaurs (ropen or not) and used his imagination to come up with various faulty motivations for the one that he concentrated on criticizing.

No Evidence for Living Pterosaurs?

Do cryptozoologists really have no evidence for the bioluminescent ropen? It depends on how one defines “evidence.” One thing is certain: There is no evidence of any kind for the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs.

So what about modern living ones? The great weight of evidence for extant pterosaurs lives in eyewitness testimonies and the statistical analysis of the compiled data from those records. Hoaxes have been eliminated as a significant possibility for the overall case of 128 sighting reports compiled at the end of 2012, by several methods.

In other words, ropen searching and research still lives within the realm of cryptozoology, with no dead or living body of this flying creature to examine in a laboratory or in a zoo; yet scientific methods have been used in examining the eyewitness evidence. Biologists need not worry that cryptozoology is trying to break down a back door or to sneak through a crack in the wall of biology; thus far, it’s just a few scientific tools being borrowed from science, to be used in this narrow field of cryptozoology: Nothing is stolen. When a ropen is caught, dead or alive, it will be brought in through the front door. (Once it’s inside, however, the philosophical case will be opened wide.)

What is a Ropen?

The title of the skeptic’s post was “There are no living pterosaurs, and ‘ropen’ is a stupid fantasy.” So what is the definition for this flying creature whose existence the skeptic-professor in Minnesota disputes? The third edition of my nonfiction book Searching for Ropens and Finding God gives it thus: “A modern pterosaur with Rhamphorhynchoid characteristics.” In other words, a long-tailed featherless flying creature that many American non-scientists would call a “pterodactyl.”

Yet we need to clarify the difference between “Rhamphorhynchoid” and “ropen.” At least as of August 27, 2014, “ropen” refers to a cryptid, and the longer name refers to a type of pterosaur known from fossils. The relationship between them, however, is critical: worldwide, the resemblances are astonishing: featherless flying creatures that have long tails that end with a “diamond” (or a similar description for a tail flange).

On a book cover: sketch of an apparent pterosaur seen by Patty Carson in Cuba

Definition of “Stupid”

One dictionary defined it as “lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind.” Take that simply in the literal sense and the biology professor in Minnesota has a problem in making that word useful to his case. A closer look reveals that “stupid” problem.

The cryptozoologist criticized by the professor in Minnesota has worked in his specialty (of sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs) for eleven years, with many thousands of hours of experience with the overall subject; the critic, probably less than ten serious hours. Even if the skeptic in Minnesota were ten times as smart (or less stupid) than the cryptozoologist he criticized, the professor would be at the wrong end of the resulting ratio, 60-to-1. Those are not good odds for the man who teaches biology in Minnesota. This is not to say that the professor is stupid. He is just not likely to be many hundreds of times smarter than the cryptozoologist who has written several nonfiction books on the subject, in addition to a published scientific paper in a recognized peer-reviewed journal of science.

###

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.

Destination Truth Ropen Episode

I’m thinking about a particular native who was interviewed by Josh Gates, during the Destination Truth expedition of 2007: Fabian. In spite of Fabian’s assurance, however, the expedition team was probably skeptical, at least to some extent, for those visitors to Papua New Guinea were, after all, Americans. They may have thought, “How could a large long-tailed pterosaur be still alive, without the knowledge of any of our scientists?”

Bioluminescent Pterosaurs

There is a species other than a pterosaur that is purported to have intrinsic bioluminescent capability, namely the common barn owl, Tyto Alba.

Evidence for Pterosaurs and Honesty

For modern living pterosaurs, however, we have BOTH physical evidence and eyewitness evidence. The difficulty some persons have with it, however, is that reported eyewitness encounters with living pterosaurs dominate the physical evidence, in both quantity and quality.

April 11, 2013May 3, 2017

Civil War Photo of “Unknown Bird” or “Monster”

Controversial photograph of six Civil War soldiers next to the apparent body of a recently deceased giant pterodactyl or pterosaur, maybe a Pteranodon

Update on the Civil War Photograph

The original post below was written in April of 2013, long before the early-2017 proclamation by Clifford Paiva and me, Jonathan Whitcomb. For a more up-to-date post, see “Skeptical Responses to Civil War Pteranodon Photo.”

Introduction

I don’t display this version of this photograph as clear and convincing evidence for a giant pterosaur living during the American Civil War. As of 5:00 a.m., April 10, 2013, after spending several days researching and analyzing comments on this photo, and personally examining the photo itself, I rate the probability of its authenticity, in its original portrayal of a modern pterosaur, at only 30% [but before the end of January, 2017, this estimate approached much closer to 100%. See “Skeptical Responses to Civil War Pteranodon Photo”]: More than likely those soldiers were not posing for a photograph next to the body of a recently deceased pterosaur, at least close to how it appears here. But comments from skeptics I found unconvincing and worse.

I do submit others’ comments on this photo as clear and convincing evidence for Western bias against the concept of a species of pterosaur living in human times.

Who is Jonathan Whitcomb?

I believe I have written more nonfiction books and blog posts on modern pterosaurs than any other person on earth, which quantity of words proves nothing about my own objectiveness, to be sure; but those who’ve read even a little in those books and blog posts should have no doubt about this: I have spent much time and thought on the subject, more than any other person on earth, as far as I know, and that should count.

Who am I to judge bias against the possibility of modern pterosaurs? I cannot look into the heart of each skeptic who dismisses reports of living “pterodactyls,” but I draw conclusions from the reasoning in many of their comments. I often see similarities in weak arguments for universal extinction and weak arguments in dismissing eyewitness testimony. Consider what has been written about this apparently old photo of six Civil War soldiers and a huge Pteranodon-like winged creature or what looks like that kind of pterosaur.

First Union Civil War soldier on the left in the main photo of six men by a dead Pteranodon-like flying creature

Missing Fingers of Soldier #1

Some skeptics have pointed out missing fingers and opposing thumb on this poor Union soldier (above), the first man on the left in the top photo. It’s unlikely from any injury suffered during the Civil War. Those critics give this detail as if evidence of a hoax. Let’s look a little deeper by comparing his rifle with that of soldier number six:

Union soldier from the far right side of the original photo

Of course this man, soldier #6, has his fingers intact, but look at the rifle. What else is missing from the enlarged image of soldier #1, besides fingers? I’m no Civil War expert, but I see that soldier #6 has his rifle turned in a way that reveals the gun’s ramrod. Soldier #1, on the other hand, has a rifle in which the ramrod is not showing.Why could not soldier #1 be holding onto a ramrod that is turned away from our view? How obvious! But it takes time and thought to discover that kind of detail.

We have a more serious problem with the missing fingers insinuation. Consider hows and whys of photo manipulation regarding soldier #1. If a Photoshop job caused the soldier to have missing fingers, how did that occur? The critic, probably unknowingly, brings up the possibility of a cut and paste hoax operation; that brings up a big problem.

If an adept Photoshop hoaxer made a slight error and cut off that soldier’s fingers, what happened? He would have cut out the original rifle in an old Civil War photo, and then pasted onto the image another rifle. But why would he do such a thing? (And why not just paste an image of a giant Pteranodon onto a photo of Civil War soldiers?) Why bother cutting out and pasting rifles?

Did the original photograph show a soldier without a rifle? Then why was that soldier holding out his arm, as if holding a rifle? The critics who bring up missing fingers completely fail to comprehend both a ramrod ramification and the unbelievable image-origins that their words imply.

With all that said, I myself do not imply that no manipulation was done on the image shown in the top photo, the image with six Union soldiers. I have found details that could be explained through an image-manipulation hoax, both by Photoshop and older techniques. But most of the details that Skeptics bring up as if evidence for a hoax are either worthless or of questionable value.

Bias Against Modern Pterosaurs

Why do so many skeptics simply dismiss this Civil War photo as if it had been proven to have arisen from a hoax? Western people have been indoctrinated, for generations, into universal extinction dogma. It’s drilled into us since early childhood. How difficult it is for us to accept a photograph of an apparent recently-deceased or still living pterosaur!

That severe bias can cause a skeptic to latch onto any little detail in a photo, proclaim it as evidence of a hoax, and then dismiss the whole matter. I don’t suggest anybody simply accept this photo on face value, to satisfy an inward desire that dinosaurs and pterosaurs might still live; I suggest we need to think more clearly, search more deeply, and try to be more open minded to various possibilities.

The sad truth is that if one of my associates or I were to photograph a modern living pterosaur tomorrow, and display the photo to the world, many skeptics would simply dismiss it as a Photoshop job. They would probably give it little attention except to search for something that would justify their previous conclusion about extinction. How we need clear objective thinking!

Photograph of Civil War Soldiers and a “Monster”

To begin, I do not present Photo #1 as overwhelming evidence for the existence of a huge modern living pterosaur that has a head suggesting a Pteranodon; I interview eyewitnesses, and some of them report sighting details that have convinced me that huge pterosaurs (rare and nocturnal as they may be) live in this modern world of ours.

Pterosaurs in Georgia

My wife and I were sitting outside when motion from above the tree tops to our left caught my attention . . . We were looking at two extremely large birds flying together . . . 15-20′ wingspans . . . appeared to be featherless.

Pterosaur Sightings and Photos

My associates and I hope that our efforts will someday directly yield photographic evidence and even the capture of one or more of these flying creatures; but for the moment, let’s consider photos that have already been held up as images of possible pterosaurs . . .

November 2, 2012

Jumping Fishes Fall Short

How is a jumping Manta ray fish like a flying pterodactyl? How desperate is the critic of living pterosaur reports, the skeptic who suggests people are observing large fish that jump up above the surface of the sea!

Imagine you are in a boat in the Caribbean, and a large Manta ray jumps up out of the water. Would you tell people that you had seen a flying pterosaur? No. Neither would I. Nobody, perhaps, would make that kind of mistake and be mentally fit enough to send an email, reporting a “pterodactyl” encounter, to a cryptozoologist.

But a strange declaration has popped up on two or three blog posts, a suggestion that some sightings come from misidentified Manta rays that leap out of the water and high into the air. The person who suggested that strange idea, however, has failed to follow through: When a Manta ray fish jumps out of the water, it immediately falls back down into the water, and most sightings of flying pterosaurs involve a much longer flight and a much higher altitude than a few feet above water.

In fact, the great majority of sightings of flying pterosaurs have a critical point in common: The pterosaur (or “pterodactyl” or “flying dinosaur”) was not even flying above water, but above land. And those few sightings in which the creature was above the sea or above the ocean—those sightings have critical points that shoot down a jumping-fish speculation.

Sighting From USS Jouett (CG-29)

The USS Jouett (not to be confused with earler U. S. Navy ships with that name) was a Belknap class cruiser, designated “DLG-29” when it was commissioned in 1966. It was reclassified as a guided missile cruiser, CG-29 in 1975.

Garth Guessman and I spoke with one of the men who was a sailor on this ship when a giant flying creature flew overhead many years ago. One or more of the crew on deck at that time had been watching the approach and called for everyone else to come up and look for themselves. The creature flew over the ship before everybody could get on deck. Even if it were not some species of living pterosaur, the crew called it a “pterodactyl,” and it was definitely not a Manta ray fish that flew over the midsection of that cruiser.

Ship that was overflown by a giant “pterodactyl” intruder

Manta Ray Comes Back to Surface

“Again that poor fish is shot down. We now concentrate on the recent blog post by Dale Drinnon.”

Jumping Manta Ray Fish

“The Four Key Sightings in the Southwest Pacific”

February 23, 2012July 18, 2013

Attack on the “Pterodactyl Expert”

One of the problems with the cryptozoology.com forum thread discussion titled “Jonathan Whitcomb: Pterodactyl Expert” is this: Most of the comments involve attacks against me personally (the exception being comments from the person who seems to have initiated the discussion). I now answer two criticisms.

From “Ape Man”

“Johnathon Whitcomb IS NOT a pterosaur or pterodactyl expert. He is a CREATIONIST who did minimal research about legendary creatures and fossil flying reptiles . . .”

Reply

In the sense of being a paleontologist, I am not a pterosaur expert; but many paleontologists do not seem to even consider the possibility that any pterosaurs are extant. “Ape man” seems to rebel against any idea involving any modern living pterosaur. But in another sense—some living pterosaurs (AKA “pterodactyls”)—I am probably one of the leading “pterodactyl experts” in the world, having written more than any other cryptozoologist on this subject, perhaps more than all other cryptozoologists in the world combined, regarding sightings of apparent modern pterosaurs.

Earth Age and the “Creationist” Label

I consider myself a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is literally correct in the first few chapters of Genesis. But I am not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) in the sense that I insist that the days spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are 24-hour periods. I have no problem with a literal “old” earth, setting aside all concepts about life on earth; this world, in its bare form, may very well be much older than 6,000 years. But I believe that the life that we see around us is descended from similar life-forms, in original ancestors that lived about 6,000 years ago and that those original ancestors had no ancestors on this earth. In that sense, I am a creationist, and accept that label, for I give God the credit for the origin of earth life.

Have I done “minimal research?” From what I have read of “ape man’s” comments on this forum thread, I doubt if he has read more than 1% of what I have written about modern living pterosaurs. Where does he get his concept of how much research I have done? How did I write over one thousand online pages (blog posts plus web pages)? How did I write two editions of one nonfiction book and three editions of another nonfiction book? How did I write a peer-reviewed scientific paper that was published in a journal of science? How did I write about a quarter of a million words, online, (not counting the books) on the subject of extant pterosaurs? With many thousands of sentences to choose from, why does “ape man” not quote something that I have written and then explain how I was wrong? Has “ape man” himself done “minimal research” and then carelessly proclaimed that I have done “minimal research?” He gives me no reason to doubt that possibility.

From Gerry Bacon

“I don’t believe Whitcomb is a scientist . . .”

Reply

Defining “scientist” is off-topic, I believe, and too deep for this reply; but I will stress this point: I have interviewed eyewitnesses, from around the world, for eight years, accumulating more data on this phenomenon of pterosaur sightings, perhaps, than anyone else, regardless of whether or not other investigators have the undisputed title of “scientist.” I have published an article in a journal of science—a peer-reviewed journal—and have copyrighted an earlier scientific paper on another subject. I consider myself a scientist.

I take no offense at somebody who doubts I am a scientist, and I admit that in regard to paleontology I may be the most ignorant scientist in the world, among those who have published a scientific paper (in peer-reviewed journal) on the subject of pterosaurs. But why emphasize a label for a person rather than the reasoning and writings of that person? I feel that the eyewitness sighting reports, of apparent living pterosaurs, are far more interesting than speculations about a label.

Conclusion

Call me a non-paleontologist if you like, but beware of assuming I must be a non-pterodactyl-expert (or more technically accurate: a person who is not a pterosaur expert). Let’s get back to the subject, please.

Pterodactyl Expert

What “invented monster” is “ape man” referring to? My overall conclusion, after more than eight years of research, is that there are a number of species of pterosaurs living in various parts of the world, with various differences in appearance. What do the important sightings have in common? Descriptions of the flying creatures (often called “pterodactyls”) suggest a modern pterosaur far more than they suggest any misidentification or hallucination or hoax.

Jonathan Whitcomb: Pterodactyl Expert

It is true that I do not study fossils directly. I am not a paleontologist. But modern “pterodactyls” need not closely resemble any fossils, whether or not they are descended from older species that left fossils that are now studied by paleontologists. I study eyewitness reports. For some reason, my critics often neglect that point.

December 21, 2010December 21, 2010

Flying Creatures in a Cryptozoology Book

“Winged Wonders” is the chapter on flying creatures in Williams Gibbon’s cryptozoology book Missionaries and Monsters, and wonderful indeed are those huge apparent pterosaurs (“pterodactyls” or “flying dinosaurs”) in Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. I recommend this cryptozoology book that has a spiritual undertone. It is filled with cryptid-encounter reports from long ago and more recently. Some of the information about reports from Papua New Guinea (about the ropen and the “Duah”), however, is outdated and needs clarification.

On page 78 of Gibbon’s book, we read, “villagers of Gumalong, on the mainland, observed a huge Duah as it flew from Mount Bel, across the jungle valley, then directly over the village as it headed out to sea.” I would like to make some corrections here, even though the sighting mentioned appears to be a true encounter with a giant flying creature (or two sightings which have been confused and fused in their details).

Based on my experiences in the village mentioned, I think a better spelling is “Gomlongon,” based on my memory of how those villagers pronounced it; the word skips off their tongues so easily and quickly that we can easily miss the details and simplify the word. This village is not on the mainland but on Umboi Island, the island called by the people of Papua New Guinea “Siasi.” How do I know that Gibbons is not referring to another village (and another sighting), a village on the mainland? I interviewed many natives in villages within sight of Mount Bel; that mountain is near Gomlongon Village, on Umboi Island. For almost two weeks, my base camp was in the morning shadow of Mount Bel, at the edge of Gomlongon, next to the Baptist Church.

Perhaps this account in “Missionaries and Monsters” comes from confusing two encounters, one of which involved the name “duwas.” I know Gibbons uses the word “Duah,” but I think that comes from another mistake: The correct word is “duwas.” I have written much about that elsewhere, however, so I will leave that subject of “duwas” versus “Duah” aside for now.

Perhaps the sighting mentioned in Missionaries and Monsters (” . . . it flew from Mount Bel . . . it headed out to sea.”) was the one described by this eyewitness (the young woman motioning with her hand), notwithstanding this video seems to have been recorded in Lab Lab (east coast of Umboi Island). If so, that might explain the word “duwas” in the report, for Lab Lab has natives with languages different from that of Gomlongon, where the giant featherless flying creature is called “ropen.”

December 8, 2010April 4, 2011

“Marfa Lights Solved” – Is it a Giant Bird?

I reply to a blog post (Houston Press Blogs) by Richard Connelly: “Marfa Lights Solved!! It’s a Giant Bird!!” His brief remarks of December 7th were surely occasioned by the December 6th press release about my hypothesis on Marfa Lights. I don’t mind the brevity of his post, for it was just ridicule. I commented twice, in detail, on his blog, but more detail seems in order here. (By the way, “Giant Bird” is Connelly’s invention; I never used that expression.)

The first problem, appearing to me to need immediate clarification, relates to a misunderstanding about the basic nature of the true ML (James Bunnell’s designation for “Mystery Lights”) around Marfa, Texas. It seems Mr. Connelly needs to read Bunnell’s book, Hunting Marfa Lights, more than he needs to read my book, Live Pterosaurs in America. I quote part of my comment on Connelly’s blog:

. . . the investigation by the Society of Physics Students at the University of Texas at Dallas. It’s brief and easy to read. Note that those two nights of observations were done with the assumption that car headlights were the cause of all the appearances of strange lights. Since they assumed “car headlights,” that is where they looked on those two nights: [towards] Highway 67.

Did those students of the University of Texas at Dallas really solve a controversial mystery? I think not. Ask the right question in the beginning, for it can lead us into enlightenment; asking the wrong question (even if answered correctly) can lead us into ignorance. This appears to be a critical error that doomed those students to failure, for they seemed to have formulated a question like, “Can car headlights near Marfa, Texas, appear mysterious?”

What scientist or investigator doubted the possibility of night mirages of car headlights? None of which I am aware. Perhaps the best that can be said of the student experiment is this: It confirmed that visitors passing through the Marfa area, when they stop at the viewing platform, often see distant car headlights on highway 67 and find their appearance mysterious.

Questions about the true ML near Marfa could include, “Is it biological or geological in origin?” The flat assumption of Richard Connelly, that there are no mysterious flying lights near Marfa—that may have come from his avoiding any critical evaluation of that student experiment and his eagerness to ridicule a strange-sounding interpretation.

“Big Bird” may have been avoided, in favor of “Giant Bird,” for the Sesame-Street-sounding name is the title of a nonfiction cryptozoology book about sightings of strange flying creatures (at least some of which are like pterosaurs), especially sightings in the state of Texas. Indeed Big Bird (the book, not the Sesame Street character) competes with my own nonfiction cryptozoology book, Live Pterosaurs in America.