Flying Dinosaur Still Flies in Cuba May 7, 2011Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Cuba.
Tags: Cuba, Rhamphorhynchoid
1 comment so far
Gitmo Pterosaur (“Gitmo” refers to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base)
I have recently learned that Eskin Kuhn is not the only eyewitness of a large long-tailed pterosaur (Rhamphorhynchoid) at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. On May 4, 2011, I interviewed, by phone, Patty Carson, who now lives in Southern California but who witnessed a “flying dinosaur” at Guantanamo Bay, in 1965. Although she was only a child at the time, she immediately told her family about the frightening encounter, and although her family disbelieved her at the time, her testimony of the appearance of that flying creature now verifies the plausibility of Kuhn’s 1971 sighting. Patty verified that the sketch drawn by Kuhn is very similar to what she had seen in 1965.
The wings connect with the legs in a strange way, perhaps not exactly orthodox according to what would be proper for a fossil of a pterosaur, but the detailed sketch by the U.S. Marine Eskin Kuhn has recently be validated by another eyewitness of a modern pterosaur: a registered nurse in California, who had seen the same type of flying creature in Cuba, a few years before Kuhn’s sighting. Both encounters were in daylight, at a close distance, and at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
After eliminating any reasonable possibilities of hoax or misidentification, the obvious explanation for these two sightings is that a large modern Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur (long-tailed “flying dinosaur”) lives in the Caribbean, or at least did live in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the 1960′s and 1970′s. Misidentification of a known bird, for either the 1965 or 1971 sighting, is eliminated by the many teeth observed in 1965 and the sketch drawn by Kuhn in 1971 (in addition to the noted abscence of feathers in both sightings). Misidentification of a known bat, for either 1965 or 1971, is eliminated by the huge size and long tail in both sightings.
What about one or two hoaxes? That explanation also fails upon detailed examination of the reports. Eskin Kuhn has maintained the truthfulness of his sighting for decades, even enduring ridicule from some thoughtless critics; he is not a hoaxer. Patty Carson has only recently revealed her own sighting (she has only recenly learned about Kuhn’s sighting, so she is not alone), but has told us that she was only about six years old at the time: a very unlikely detail for a hoaxer to invent.
Some critic might try to dismiss her sighting because of her young age, and the many intervening years, but she told her father (the commander at Guantanamo at the time) about the huge flying creature just minutes after the encounter, and Daddy dismissed the account immediately; if such a creature existed, an adult would have seen it (six years later an adult saw the “pterodactyl”). Youthfulness cannot be used to dismiss an experience that is shared by someone who is not so youthful.
There are now a number of online sources for more about this 1965 “flying dinosaur” sighting by Carson.
I was around six years old. . . . We were walking down near the boat yards, headed home. . . . where it was sandy underfoot, sparse scrub vegetation around four feet tall . . . suddenly it sat up, as if it had been eating something or resting. . . . right in front of us about thirty feet away. All of us froze for about five seconds, then it leaned to its left and took off with a fwap fwap fwap sound . . . and flew to its left and disappeared behind trees and terrain.
It did have a tail and it had a diamond shaped tip . . . The skin was a leathery, brownish reddish color. It had little teeth, a LOT of them . . . It was as tall as a man when it stood up on it haunches.
Pterodactyl — Extinct or Alive? October 23, 2010Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Cuba.
Tags: Cuba, extinct, extinctions, eyewitness, Kuhn, pterodactyl
add a comment
“Pterosaur” is the correct name for what is called “pterodactyl,” but we will here use the common, albeit inaccurate, word. The controversay of recent years involves assumptions about extinctions (yes, the plural of “extinction,” for these magnificent feather-less flying creatures are of many species, not one). This extinction assumption itself deserves thoughtful scrutiny.
Extinction of all pterodactyls has been assumed for generations, at least in Western societies, so why doubt that these flying creatures are all extinct? Look at the history of fossil discoveries and find the answer: Early searchers and researchers assumed that the strange fossils were of animals that no longer live. Why? Those particular discoverers (few they were in numbers) had no knowledge of living creatures that were like those pterodactyl fossils.
But why believe that pterodactyls still live? It is the eyewitnesses, common persons from many countries and many cultures. Those eyewitnesses have reported large flying creatures, featherless but different from bats. Most reports are of long-tailed creatures, obviously not bats.
Let’s look at one of those eyewitnesses, Eskin Kuhn, who was a United States Marine in 1971, when he was stationed at the Guantanamo military base in Cuba. Let’s consider some of his own words.
I was looking in the direction of the ocean when I saw an incredible sight . . . I saw 2 Pterosaurs (or Pterodactyls…what’s in a name?) flying together at low altitude, perhaps 100 feet, very close in range . . . I had a perfectly clear view of them.
Pterodactyls have been reported alive for many generations, although they used to be called “flying dragons.” Trusting human experience more than human imagination, we must admit the possibility that at least one or two species of pterodactyls may still be living.
Kuhn’s ropen sighting in Cuba August 16, 2010Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Cuba.
Tags: Cuba, Eskin, Kuhn, ropens
I interviewed Eskin Kuhn by telephone early in 2010. He had no warning I would call, which helped me to judge his credibility by asking him questions on the spot. He proved himself perfectly, giving no hint of any possibility of any hoax. So what did he experience that would cause anybody to doubt him? In 1971, at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, this U.S. Marine, in clear daylight and in close range, he saw two large long-tailed pterosaurs, each with a large head-crest. Consider his own words:
It was a beautiful, clear Summer day, hot ( but we were pretty well acclimated to that), still; most of the platoon was in the new barracks “hanging out”. I was looking in the direction of the ocean when I saw an incredible sight. It mesmerized me!
I saw 2 Pterosaurs (or Pterodactyls…what’s in a name?) flying together at low altitude, perhaps 100 feet, very close in range from where I was standing, so that I had a perfectly clear view of them.
The rythym of their large wings was very graceful, slow ; and yet they were flying and not merely gliding, like turkey vultures do here in Ohio.
How fortunate that Eskin was a talented artist, for soon after his sighting he sketched what he had seen:
Are reports of living pterosaurs anecdotes? May 25, 2010Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Criticism, Cuba.
Tags: anecdote, critic, Cuba, eyewitness, Kuhn
“A short account of a particular incident”—that is one definition of “anecdote.” But the connotation includes more than “short,” for “anecdote” is the word more appropriate when an event is witnessed by only one or a few and the report is second hand at best. Regarding eyewitness accounts of living pterosaurs, I have found that ”anecdote” has been eliminated as a valid word for some of the reports. Consider what some critics have said and observe how the word is proven inappropriate. Those critics’ dismissals are themselves dismissed.
Things that eliminate the appropriateness of ”anecdote”
- A written account was recorded by the eyewitness soon afterwards
- A sketch was drawn by the eyewitness soon afterwards
- An investigator or researcher examined the first-hand eyewitness testimony and wrote about it, quoting the eyewitness
Other things make “anecdote” less appropriate, for example, when two or more eyewitnesses describe the same thing, with details of similarity recorded. But any one of the above three points eliminates the appropriateness of the word “anecdote.” Consider some examples.
A critic of the report by Eskin Kuhn (two pterosaurs in Cuba)
In part, the critic said in his blog, “I had been planning on writing a post called ‘Thoughts on Eskin Kuhn’s Pterosaur Sighting’ . . . an American soldier named Eskin Kuhn saw a pterosaur while stationed in Cuba. The claim is a hoax. I no longer have the patience for dealing with creationist-related debunkings and I have no intention of actually writing up one for this topic.”
The problem with that short blog posting soon became obvious, for the writer used the name of a real person and wrote “The claim is a hoax,” without any explanation except that the eyewitness report is supposed (according to him, apparently) to be supported by persons labeled “creationists.” (His meaning of ”debunkings” is unclear, unless he means that creationists attemp to debunk ideas contrary to Biblical Creation.) The eyewitness himself replied to the blog, with no uncertain disdain for the one who tied his name to the word “hoax.”
The critic replied, “Relax, bro, I said I was not going to do a debunking of your alleged sighting. Anyway, obtain a specimen and you’ll convert me to belief in living pterosaurs lickety split. Until then, all you have is an unlikely anecdote.”
The critic tried to step away from his previous stand about a hoax. How? By trying to shove onto the shoulders of the Marine the responsibility of making what could be one of the most dramatic biological discoveries in history: Obtain the body of a modern pterosaur and prove its authenticity to the world.
That critic has written many postings, apparently (I’ve read only a little of very few of them), but has he any inkling of the implications of his position? He makes no personal claim of any earth-shaking scientific discovery. Does that mean we can dismiss his words? Are all of his postings of no account, because his has not astonished the world with a scientific discovery? But I’m getting off topic.
That critic labeled the eyewitness report of Eskin Kuhn “an unlikely anecdote.” But the link that he gives in his original posting is to a site with at least twenty-nine short paragraphs about the sighting; that alone makes the word “anecdote” questionable. And all of those paragraphs were quotations of the eyewitness, Eskin Kuhn; that shoots down the word “anecdote.” And Kuhn drew a detailed sketch of the two pterosaurs soon after the sighting; that buries the word “anecdote.” I interviewed Kuhn, verifying his credibility, sealing the tomb on the word “anecdote.” And both his sketch and his words have been compared with other eyewitness sighting reports, obliterating any evidence for the burial location of that word.
See also: pterosaur sighting by Eskin Kuhn
And: Pterodactyl in Cuba
And: Marine Sees Two Pterosaurs at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Sketch by Eskin Kuhn
Apparent-pterosaur sketches compared May 12, 2010Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Cuba, United States of America.
Tags: Aaron, Cuba, drawing, Eskin, Kuhn, left brain, long tail, Marfa Lights, nocturnal, pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchoid, right brain, sightings, sketches, species, teeth, Texas, Tullock
Aaron Tullock’s 1995 sighting of an apparent pterosaur was in Marion County, Texas. He drew a color sketch, showing a number of details described in his words; he drew in the common style, in which the mental image is not used directly but interpretted subconsiously first: “left brain” drawing. [see top image]
Eskin Kuhn’s 1971 sighting of two apparent pterosaurs was at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Soon afterwards he drew a sketch in realistic style (but not, apparently, to show realistic color), for he is a talented artist. This technique of sketching has been referred to as “right brain” drawing. [see bottom image]
Mr. Tullock made no immediate formal report of his 1995 sighting, for he was only eight years old; who would have taken him seriously? He reported his sighting to me in 2009 (I interviewed him in January, 2010), and that throws light on the reliability of his experience. Why? Childish imaginings do not usually remain misunderstood after a person grows into adulthood; even what is vividly imagined will normally become revealed as imagination as a person matures. My communications with Mr. Tullock revealed no symptom of any abnormality related to potential hallucination or delusion, and I have had adequate experience with those with that kind of problem. I believe that Mr. Tullock observed a flying creature with features basically the same or similar to those that he described to me.
Mr. Kuhn revealed his sighting years ago, and his sketch (of two pterosaurs) has been online for some time. I surprised him with a phone call early in 2010. His communications with me convinced me of his honesty. I believe that he observed creatures with features basically the same or similar to those that he described to me.
So why do the sketches show details both similar and dissimilar? A long tail on a featherless flying creature is obvious, as is the Rhamphorhynchoid flange at the end of the tail. On the other hand, the difference in the feet are striking, as is the difference between the heads (including teeth and lack thereof), and the general coloration. Although the drawing style is very different, in this case that has little relevance, for the differences reveal much more. Before giving the obvious explanation, I need to explain something.
For six years, I have interviewed eyewitnesses of apparent living pterosaurs. People of various beliefs, languages, and cultures have reported to me what they have seen in various countries around the world. I have written two books on living pterosaurs and a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. I dare say that nobody else has written hundreds of web pages and blog posts on living pterosaurs, not that I am more intelligent than anybody else; perhaps I am stubborn and outspoken. But my experiences have proven to me that there are a number of species of pterosaur living in various parts of the world, although they may be somewhat rare and mostly nocturnal.
The creatures seen by Eskin Kuhn and Aaron Tullock represent two distinct species of Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur. The pair seen by Kuhn are probably nocturnal (I believe the coloring was bland and most modern pterosaurs are nocturnal), not necessarily very rare; the one seen by Tullock is probably not nocturnal (judging by the coloring) but maybe very rare (judging by the rarity of sightings). For now, what we most need are more eyewitnesses who are willing to come forward, at least as far as to communicate with me; if they choose to be anonymous, I respect that desire. Any suggestions?
By the way, both sightings were in clear daylight, with no obstructions; both involved only one eyewitness, but that is rather common. Fortunately both eyewitnesses have agreed to have their names revealed. In regard to the differences in the sketches, why is drawing style mostly irrelevant here? The verbal descriptions that the eyewitnesses gave to me differ: teeth, no head crest, long claws on feet, bright coloration; no apparent teeth, head crest, no description of long claws on feet, no description of anything bright.
See also: “Texas Pterosaur” (Cryptid Eyewitness)
Somewhat related to: Marfa Lights of Texas (Living Nightmare: Attack in the Dead of Winter)