When a Child Sees a Pterosaur May 9, 2016Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in United States of America.
I got the following email early in May of 2016 (quoting most of it here, with only a very few spelling corrections):
Three of my children, [up to age eight] are quite sure that they observed a pterosaur above our home in Pottstown, PA, today, mid-afternoon. . . .
Today, while I was at work, my wife contacted me about this. She said that she heard the kids suddenly start screaming in the back yard, and rushed out to see what it was. She is accustomed to the kids playing loudly and such, but said that this was very different–that there was a mix of sincere terror and excitement which was not playing. They were screaming that they just saw a pterosaur. My wife did not see it.
There is no doubt in my mind that they truly believe that they saw a pterosaur. That doesn’t mean that they did–but they truly believe that they did.
When my wife first told me, my first thought was that this was probably a heron. I’m concerned that cryptozoology be credible, and I don’t want to gullibly believe every report just because I want to believe it. But as I interacted with my kids about this, I grew to suspect that they may really have seen something unexpected.
I know that perspective in the sky is very uncertain, but I wanted to get my kids’ impressions of size nevertheless:
They guess that the body was “about as long as a lion.” They guess that the wingspan was “one and a half of our
bathrooms…maybe a little less.” Our bathroom is eight feet long. They guess that the tail was as long as “one and a half broomsticks.”
They emphasize repeatedly that the tail had a knob at the end.
I thought that perhaps, if this were a misidentification, the “tail” might actually be legs, and the “knob” the feet. BUT they insist that they saw short legs and feet BESIDE the tail. THAT is what I find most curious. . . .
They agree that it was tan colored, and that it did not seem to have feathers. “Like elephant skin.” They say that the knob at the end of the tail may have had some kind of fur on it . . . it seemed different, but they weren’t sure what it was.
If they were imagining things, they probably would have mentioned a head crest, since they’re familiar with that image. But, interestingly, they all agree that they did not see any head crest. My oldest noted that it flew directly overhead, so he could not have seen a head crest if there were one. . . .
It was flying east. We live on the west outskirts of town, so presumably it flew over Pottstown.
My younger two saw it flap several times, then glide. My oldest did not see any flapping–he looked up a few seconds later than they did and only saw it glide overhead.
Anyway, the features which most impressed them were the “snout,” the long tail with a knob at the end, and the hands/feet besides the tail. They are very excited about these features. . . .
So what do you do when a child sees a pterosaur? For me, it’s the same as when an adult sees one: get the details like the following:
- Where was the sighting?
- When was the flying creature seen? (date and time)
- Did it have a tail? (if so, was it long?)
- Were there any feathers?
- Did it have a head crest?
- About how big was the wingspan?
- How many persons were eyewitnesses to it?
- What did the flying creature do? (flapping wings?)
In this sighting report, much of the information was given to me by the father, who provided many details from what he learned from questioning his children, so I had fewer questions to ask. According to the three eyewitnesses, we have the following:
- It was in Pottstown, Pennsylvania
- In the first week of May, 2016, mid-afternoon
- It had a long tail, maybe six feet long
- “It did not seem to have feathers” – maybe fur
- It flapped its wings a bit then glided
But should the testimonies of three children be summarily dismissed because of their young ages? Definitely not in this case, for we have three children who were interviewed soon after the sighting, by a father who carefully questioned them. I feel that this father was objective in trying to determine what the children saw.
I believe that they saw a ropen, a long-tailed pterosaur, and I’ll be looking for others to come forward with what they saw flying overhead in the Pottstown, Pennsylvania, area in the first week of May.
On a pleasant day in June of 2012, I walked into the Sheriff station in Lakewood, California, two miles northeast of my home in Long Beach. I knew better than to tell a police officer of my concerns about the safety of family pets now that pterodactyls had invaded the community. . . .
YouTube video: interview of a World War II veteran (eyewitness of a pterosaur)
Another report of flying lights has surfaced, this one from a wilderness area of Oregon. It seems that the mysterious lights that have been reported to fly over the Yakima River in the state of Washington—those are also seen to fly over a river in Oregon, reported by two cryptozoologists from the Portland area.
Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs in Acambaro July 15, 2015Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Mexico.
Where is the physical evidence for modern ropens, or extant long-tailed pterosaurs? It’s there to see, for those who are open-minded enough to look. But let’s now examine the bigger picture: non-extinct dinosaurs, at least in some species and at least at some time in human history. Let’s look at Acambaro, Mexico.
The Julsrud Figurine Collection
In 1945, the German merchant Waldemar Julsrud (an immigrant) discovered a clay figurine at the foot of El Toro mountain, near Acambaro, Mexico. He already owned an extensive collection of ancient art and recognized the importance of the new discovery. He agreed to pay a local man, Odilon Tinajero, one peso for each similar figurine that could be recovered without too much damage. Jurlsrud gave no guarantee of any payment for broken pieces, especially not for pieces that appeared impossible or impractical to try to put together.
Julsrud eventually collected about 32,000 figurines (Mystery in Acambaro, by Hapgood). That number is significantly absent in skeptical articles that declare the works of art to be recent fakes. Who in the world would participate in such an extraordinary endeavor when the whole thing was a hoax? Probably nobody. So this huge collection of figurines is in fact genuine, at least with most pieces, but we have much more evidence that just this number: 32,000.
One of the leading experts in recent years, Dr. Dennis Swift, has said that the collection at one time numbered 33,500, at the time that the collection was at its largest. Only a small portion of them represent dinosaurs.
The people who created and collected the figurines are of the Chupicuaro culture, which existed many centuries ago. It’s important to note that there are many styles of art represented in these figurines, and the Chupicuaro people may have collected art from diverse sources and supported artists who had a variety of skills and styles.
Julsrud owned tens of thousands of ancient figurines, for many years. During all that time, he never sold one of the pieces of art, with one exception: One figurine was sold to someone for scientific examination and testing. This is an important point when we examine the possibility of hoaxes: Why would anybody pay one peso each for tens of thousands of ceramic figurines, when almost none of them were ever sold? Indeed, Julsrud made it a rule to refuse to sell any of those works of art.
Don Patton has been an active field investigator for years, including work in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, and Canada (dinosaur excavations) and in Cambodia (he examined an apparent Stegosaurus image on an ancient temple wall). He was introduced to the Acambaro figurines collection by Charles Hapgood, who investigating the many thousands of art pieces with the help of Erle Stanley Gardner. Both Hapgood and Gardner became convinced that the figurines were genuine ancient works of art.
Although very few pieces may appear to be obvious ropens, we can see some evidence for living pterosaurs in this vast collection.
Ancient figurines that seem to represent dinosaurs (Acambaro, Mexico)
Answers to Skeptics
The following relate to criticisms by skeptics. Charles C. Di Peso concluded that the figurines were fakes (a), so we’ll start with the opinions of Di Peso, an American archaeologist. A major credibility problem with this man comes from the time he spent in the home of Waldemar Julsrud: Di Peso studied the vast collection not in months or in weeks or in days but only in four hours.
- Di Peso had samples of one or more of the figurines tested and found no evidence of any recent origin (b). This detail is absent in the Acambaro page of Wikipedia (a).
- Di Peso said that the surfaces of the figurines “displayed no signs of age [probably referring to patina]; no dirt was packed into their crevices” (a). But Dr. J. Antonio Villia Hennejon said that the figurines “were encrusted with dirt and other materials [patina].” In addition, “during Easter week of 1951 [Dr. Hennejon] spent two days with Julsrud cleaning the dirt and patina off recently excavated ceramic pieces” (b).
- Di Peso said that “though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing” (a), but “Tinajero [the man doing much of the excavations] was very careful with the excavation process so as not to break the pieces, and the broken ones were cemented together before being brought to Julsrud” (b). In addition, it would have taken at least several days to carefully unpack all the boxes and more days to give them even a cursory examination. Yet Di Peso was in the Jurlsrud home for only four hours. In reality there were many broken pieces (b).
- One skeptic said that the collection was so vast that the many thousands of figurines would have to be hoaxes. Perhaps this non-scientist was thinking that great discoveries in archaeology cannot be made without quick acceptance from many scientists or that it’s impossible for anyone to find any vast number of ancient artifacts even if many years are spent in the endeavor, no matter where the discovery is made. That non-expert apparently was ignorant of the absence of any ceramic home (or in other) industry in this part of Mexico, in modern history (only anciently). He was probably also ignorant of a number of investigations in Mexico, official government investigations included. Those found that there was no manufacturing of ceramics anywhere in that area in recent history (b).
(a) Wikipedia page “Acambaro Figures”
(b) “The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico” (Bible.ca/tracks . . .)
I had no idea that many Americans had encountered, in the forty-eight contiguous states of the USA, flying creatures like the ropen.
Many people assume dinosaurs never lived at the same time as humans. Not so, for some ancient human cultures were in contact with dinosaurs, shown in their art.
The same modern ideas [about the appearances of dinosaurs] are reflected in clay figurines from the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C. to 200 A.D.) found near Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.
Fascinating ancient art depicting living dinosaurs
Now, Professor Hapgood is an interesting individual. He is essentially fair-minded, well-balanced, and not given to hasty decisions . . .
According to Blume, in a wide area of Papua New Guinea, many nationals give similar descriptions: bat-like wings, long body, tail with a flange, pelican-like bill, and a “comb” (more rounded than horn-like) on the back of the head.
. . . many thousands of artistic representations of apparent dinosaurs are found on the Acambaro figurines of Mexico. Detailed analysis, in recent years, demonstrates that the anatomy and stances of some of these dinosaurs fit more neatly within recent scientific ideas about those dinosaurs that appear to be represented.
. . . why does [Wikipedia] say there “are several thousand” of those figurines [in Acambaro, Mexico] when one of the leading experts in the world, Dr. Dennis Swift, says over 37,000 were discovered?
Dinosaur Fossils Dated With Carbon-14 February 7, 2015Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in United States of America.
Direct Radiometric Dating of Dinosaur Bones
Dinosaurs and pterosaurs, we have long been taught, became extinct many millions of years ago . . . or did they? The discovery that bones from an Acrocanthosaurus and a Triceratops, not to mention several other types, were alive and part of living dinosaurs only tens of thousands of years ago—that astonishing discovery was met with immediate . . . censorship.
The carbon-14 dating research (C-14 or radiocarbon dating) was done over a period of years, with many samples from bones of several types, including:
Allosaurus (excavated in Colorado)
Hadrosaurus (Alaska and Montana)
Blatant Censor Instead of Correction
If some scientist giving a lecture in a science conference makes a mistake, why not correct that mistake? Conference leaders may add an addendum to the official website, after the oral presentations are completed, with details about why the conclusions of that speaker may have been in error. Specific details can be included in that addendum, with future responses possible for the one who gave the lecture and was later corrected. Open discussion, with details, makes for an atmosphere where the truth may come into open view.
So why did two chairmen of the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore delete one of the oral-presentation reports from their official website? They gave no warning to the Paleochronology group. The whole report was just deleted from public view, with no online explanation.
Notice the absence of report number five in the above image from the official conference web site. The Paleochronology group asked for an explanation; they were given the following:
Notice this: “There is obviously an error in these data.” So where is the error and what exactly is that error? No explanation is given by these two chairmen. Science, meaning real science, thrives in details. The details given in the conference lecture itself included explanations for how contamination was avoided in the bone samples sent to the carbon-14 testing laboratory and much more.
Raw censorship in this deletion of an abstract—that deserves an investigation. Here are some clues for why the report was censored (unfortunately no pterosaur fossils were tested, only dinosaurs):
Carbon-14 Dating Results for Dinosaurs (BP=before present)
Acrocanthosaurus (Texas, five samples): 23,760 to 32,400+ years BP
Allosaurus (Colorado, one sample): 31,360 years BP (+/- 100 years)
Apatosaurus (Colorado, one sample): 38,250 years BP (+/- 160 years)
Hadrosaurus #1 (Alaska, two samples): 31,050 to 36,480 years BP
Hadrosaurus #2 (Montana, five samples): 22,380 to 25,670 years BP
Hadrosaurus #3 (Colorado, one sample): 37,660 years BP (+/- 160)
Triceratops #1 (Montana, three samples): 24,340 to 33,830 years BP
Triceratops #2 (Montana, two samples): 30,110 to 39,230 years BP
Typical error potential listed for the above C-14 testing is only a few centuries but sometimes even less than one century. Notice how greatly the above data vary from the millions-of-years figures commonly proclaimed in Western media and textbooks.
Radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils has generally not been done until recent years, for the great majority of scientists had assumed such testing would be pointless. Carbon-14 should not exist in dinosaur bones, for it should have decayed away millions of years ago. But that idea comes from the assumption that those creatures actually lived millions of years ago, an assumption now challenged by other scientists.
Those astonishing data give a clue why the research report was censored: It was revolutionary in a way that those two chairmen did not like.
Dinosaurs have been carbon-14 dated to much more recently
Radiocarbon dating is the most accurate and most verifiable of the radiometric dating systems. . . . Sad to report: Because so many paleontologists have so long assumed that all dinosaurs became extinct many million years old, the abstract of the report by the Paleochronology group was censured, deleted from the conference website because they did not like to consider such an apparently revolutionary discovery.
It now appears obvious that both kinds of animals [dinosaurs and pterosaurs] lived together much more recently, although two supposedly scientific authorities have censored this discovery, in my opinion, preventing public viewing. Decide for yourself if this is a case of censorship.
Carbon-14 dating was recently performed on dinosaur fossils,1 and the results were presented at the Western Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 2012, a gathering of approximately two thousand scientists. . . . Compared to the conventional theory of dinosaurs’ being at minimum 65 million years old, the time it would take soft tissue to degrade and the < 50,000 year ages reported from carbon-14 dating are less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the expected age for the dinosaur fossils.
Radiocarbon dating is the most accurate, most studied, most verified of all the radiometric dating schemes. One of the chief reasons for this is that absolute dates for carbon material can be absolutely independently verified for certain parts of its useful range.
. . . they gave 14C [carbon-14] dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years . . . But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them.
Are Modern Pterosaurs “Pseudo-Dragons?” January 6, 2015Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Criticism, Papua New Guinea.
This is a reply to the post “The Pseudo-Dragons of Genesis Park, Part 13” by Owosso Harpist. For the most part, it’s a scathing attack on the online writings of my associate David Woetzel. Yet it refers to living-pterosaur investigations in general and accuses me and my associates of being not only delusional but potentially dishonest, so I must respond.
I am not replying to the whole post, for it is long, but certain mistakes need correcting. I point out these errors, not to imply that everything that Owosso Harpist has written is faulty, but simply to put as much truth as I can before as many online readers as possible.
To the best of my knowledge, Owosso Harpist (a pen name) is an amateur harpist who works part time as a janitor. I do not relate this to ridicule O.H., for I myself worked as a janitor in my younger years. In addition, as a young adult I once played a wind instrument in a duet, for a wedding prelude, in which my sister played a harp similar to the one now played by O.H.; I respect this musical instrument and those who seek to master its use. I relate these things because that’s about all that I know about this person except for the critical writings that include this post “Pseudo-Dragons . . .”
Point by Point Reply to Part of the Post by O.H.
Q: Are creationists deluded, thinking any large flying creature is a pterosaur?
A: Do an online search with apparent pterosaur. Notice that the vast majority of pages are either written by me, Jonathan Whitcomb, or are about one of my books about modern pterosaurs. I often use the phrase “apparent pterosaur” because I recognize that an individual sighting may have come about from something other than a pterosaur.
I have also noticed that some of my associates have also shown caution in their conclusions about individual sighting reports, at least sometimes. I don’t know where O.H. got this idea about extreme bias among creationists, but it appears this critic has not done enough research, at least not with an open mind to the possibility that my associates and I might not always be entirely wrong.
Q: Do “details” in reports indicate sightings are of NON-pterosaurs?
A: O.H. mentions no details, in the first part of her post, but I will do so now: Patty Carson saw a featherless winged creature at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in or around 1965. That flying creature had teeth and a long head crest. It also had a flange at the end of its long tail. Here is the sketch she drew of what she encountered:
If this critic uses the word pterosaur only for precise species known from fossils, I can understand why she might think that eyewitness report details differ from what we know from fossils. But I and my associates use the word pterosaur in a more general sense, meaning we include those modern flying creatures that appear to be descended from pterosaurs that were related to the ones that left fossils that paleontologists have already discovered.
Q: Is “every” report of a living pterosaur “without proof of evidence?”
A: Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence. In fact there would be no science or scientist without testimonies of human experience. What O.H. may have been thinking about is physical evidence to accompany testimonies.
Yet even there, this critic seems to be thinking only in a narrow sense: a dead or living pterosaur or an egg, perhaps. But the greatest weakness in this critic’s statement about “every” report is this: Owosso Harpist probably has very limited knowledge of the actual sighting reports. Why did she fail to mention the name of Patty Carson or the following names?
- Brian Hennessy
- Jacob Kepas
- Sandra Paradise
- Eskin Kuhn
- Peter Beach
- Evelyn Cheesman
- Sherry Cooper
- Professor Steven Watters
Q: Is “every” report “likely” to be from a native who is plagued by superstition?
A: Where does O.H. get that idea? Has that critic observed and listened to my videotaped interviews with natives on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea? I see nothing on this particular post (Pseudo-Dragons . . . Part 13) that supports that possibility. I learned about native superstitions in some villages of Umboi Island. I interviewed natives in three villages, including Gomlongon and Opai. Almost without exception, those witnesses reported details to me that were not part of their superstitions. They simply told me what they had seen.
Q: Have natives “likely” been paid by creationists to give a particular kind of report, in other words “false reports?”
A: Where is the evidence? Where did O.H. get that idea? That may be not far from the worst possible form of bulverism.
Q: Were natives “likely” “coerced” into giving a particular kind of testimony?
A: This speculation has the same weakness as the previous accusation and deserves to be dismissed.
Owosso Harpist does point out a real weakness in one of David Woetzel’s web pages. My associate quotes from a book by James B. Sweeney, A Pictorial History of Sea Monsters (1972), which has many mistakes that are not immediately corrected by Woetzel. (See the above link.) But even with all of those mistakes, a person is more likely to learn the truth from those words than from much of what I have seen in the post written by O.H.: “The Pseudo-Dragons of Genesis Park, Part 13.”
I consider much of these criticisms to be bulverism, which involves changing the subject by trying to point out another person’s weakness. I would be happy to write only about the concept of modern pterosaurs, but the accusations against me need to be addressed.
For those who go to that link in question, it may become obvious that I was not trying to deceive anybody concerning reports of modern living pterosaurs, including the flying creature called ropen; for those who read only that post by Prothero, however, it can seem like I’ve tried to deceive people about the ropen and that I did so almost single-handedly. Let us look deeper.
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.
A few weeks after my expedition on Umboi Island, David Woetzel and Garth Guessman arrived in Papua New Guinea. It’s now been ten years since our two expeditions in 2004, but what we learned from interviewing natives—that still needs more publicity, for few Americans have heard about our discoveries in cryptozoology.
Missing Children Found in Caves December 27, 2014Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Australia, Papua New Guinea, United States of America.
First, if you have any information on any unusual flying creature observed in or near a cave, please contact me, Jonathan Whitcomb, at:
A typical cave entrance, this one in Texas
Pterosaur Caves in General
Before getting into the missing-persons cases of Mike McDonald in Arizona and Timothy Farmer in Australia, consider other reports that tie caves to ropens (or other modern pterosaurs).
The following are limited quotations from the book Searching for Ropens and Finding God, fourth edition (more about caves can be found in this book):
Another [native] man, also interviewed by Blume, examined a magazine-cover illustration of a pterosaur and said that he had seen those creatures himself. He estimated their size, perhaps wingspan or length, at six to seven feet, “bigger than a man.” They eat fish “out of the water” and live in caves. [page 22]
Stopping to refuel at Kampalap [Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea], they learned that villagers occasionally see the ropen as it leaves a cave, most recently three weeks earlier. [page 95]
. . . he heard of an old story of the flying creature that is called kor on islands north of Umboi. During World War II, some Japanese had bombarded a cave inhabited by the creatures because some of their soldiers had been attacked by them. [page 134]
“I live in Lamero, Kentucky. . . . I have a friend who lives near Renfro Valley, which is about twelve miles north of me. Its a wooded area as well, with . . . several caves. And I’m talking a lot of caves, lol. This county is seriously like swiss cheese [page 228]
Timothy Farmer in a Cave in Australia
This two-and-a-half-year-old boy was found in a cave in New South Wales, Australia, in May of 1954, after he became missing from the family’s front yard the previous day. I learned about this case from the book Missing 411 The Devil’s in the Detail, by David Paulides. (Keep in mind that the pterosaur-abduction hypothesis—PAH—is my idea, not his.)
Timothy was found without serious injury in that cave by a waterfall in a gorge, but how does that relate to a modern pterosaur? That little boy could not have climbed down there without serious injury; rescuers had difficulty getting down there. It’s far more likely he was carried to the cave.
But why should it be a pterosaur? Why not a Bigfoot or other unclassified cryptid? For one thing, it was the strange stare that met the rescuers when they found Timothy. Mr. Paulides says, in his book, that children found alive are usually semiconscious or unconscious and a strange stare is common.
This fits the model of the modern-pterosaur attack in which a debilitating mist prevents an animal or human victim from putting up much of a struggle when the predator flies off with its prey.
Does the shock of abduction cause many children to have memory problems and other mental weaknesses when found by rescuers? Simple reflection repudiates that notion, for these are not rare mental breakdowns but common symptoms, found in children of various ages, including two-year-olds.
In addition, rescuers in this 1954 search in Australia found one of Timothy’s shoes before they found him, another connection with the standard model of a flyaway abduction by a pterosaur. A victim sometimes falls out of a piece of clothing or a shoe, which sometimes saves the person’s life.
In this case, the flying creature probably accidentally pulled the shoe off the child, and Timothy fell a very short distance to the ground. The predator dropped the shoe and flew back to locate the boy. It then again grabbed him and flew away to its cave. Fortunately, rescue time came before ropen dinner time, in this case.
Mike McDonald in a Cave in Arizona, USA
This two-year-old was found fifteen miles from where he became missing, in 1945 in southern Arizona, asleep in a small cave. Like the case in Australia, he was found the day after he disappeared. Mike had no injury other than a small cut on one foot.
Could the two-year-old have wandered that far, so quickly, and found a cave by good fortune, as a safe haven to sleep? No. Something took the child to that cave and it was not a bear or a mountain lion. The most likely animal would be a flying creature large enough to carry him by grabbing him almost entirely by the clothing.
I don’t think rescuers in Arizona found Mike asleep because it was naptime, and I don’t think that one small cut on that one foot was from walking fifteen miles. The family dog was also found at the same time the child was found: standing guard at the cave entrance. That would explain why there was no ropen having lunch in that cave, for no family dog will stand having its human become any animal’s lunch.
We still may have a mystery in the case in Australia: Why was Timothy found alone in that cave? Perhaps noisy rescuers arrived just in time, and the ropen decided to eat out while the strangers came to call; perhaps another exit allowed the animal to escape without being noticed. Anyway, everyone can be grateful that the rescuers noticed that cave . . . everyone except that ropen.
. . . how an attack is accomplished, since these animals are considered by me and my associates to be modern pterosaurs with wings that may be delicate in comparison with the bodies of other large predators. The answer is in a few reports that suggest a debilitating vapor or mist is ejected at the victim.
Much of what I have learned so far has been from the nonfiction book Missing 411 – Western United States & Canada (by David Paulides) and from what I have learned from some reports of apparent pterosaurs. . . . we do have some direct eyewitness accounts that suggest at least a few modern pterosaurs can appear threatening to humans in the USA.
So where might a ropen hide in daylight? On Umboi Island, some natives say that the ropen . . . lives in a cave. Yet a deep cave in a cliff is not necessarily essential for a sleepy ropen who needs a safe bedroom for daylight napping. For a small ropen, why not a hole in a rock, just a modest little cavity?
These weird disappearances are not confined to Yosemite, nor even to the United States. Several factors do seem to tie together cases that are separated by long distances and sometimes separated by decades.
Books like the cryptozoology genre Live Pterosaurs in American and the cross-genre Searching for Ropens and Finding God
Who is a Scientist? December 13, 2014Posted by Jonathan David Whitcomb in Criticism.
Tags: cryptozoology, paleontologist
Jonathan Whitcomb at a sighting location where he installed a deer camera
I have written one scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. Yes, only one. Most of those honored with the title scientist have written many scientific papers, and those men and women generally have advanced educational degrees. I have no advanced degree in science, yes none. With all that said, however, beware of over-simplistic thinking.
With limited obvious credentials, why do I suggest I am an expert in my specialty, a field most persons would assume is a branch of science? My associates and I are experts in a narrow branch of cryptozoology, namely in sighting reports of modern pterosaurs, and cryptozoology is not considered a branch of zoology. Yet there’s much more.
I have probably spent more hours on this subject than any other person on the planet, over 10,000 hours over the past eleven years. That in itself does not make me a scientist, of course, but that much time can sometimes open the door leading into scientific investigation, and this is the critical question: Have I, Jonathan Whitcomb, stepped through that door?
This is hardly my favorite subject, why I am a scientist. Why do I write about it now? An acclaimed paleontologist recently wrote a post, mostly about me. I will not mention his name here, but he has written more than 30 books and more than 250 scientific papers, according to Wikipedia. That led another writer to also write about me and assume that I am not a scientist. That second post is why I write about how I, Jonathan Whitcomb, can indeed be a scientist.
It was the second writer, who does not appear to be a scientist herself, who wrote, “Whitcomb, who is not a scientist by any stretch,” but let’s confine ourselves to the first post, written by the man who is an undisputed scientist.
It could have been a prized recommendation for my eleven years of work in my field, if only he had said something positive about me; but no, this particular scientist ridiculed my work, concentrating on accusing me of writing dishonestly and inappropriately. He provides no proof of my supposedly shameful motivations, but his sources, in my opinion, are just libelous web pages that also ridicule me as dishonest and underhanded.
If only this particular paleontologist had devoted himself to scientific reasoning, rather than assume I was deceitful and then ridicule my religious beliefs! Unfortunately he avoided anything scientific in his post. Yes, this acclaimed scientist, in that post, said nothing scientific.
I may be more of an investigative reporter than a scientist and certainly more like a journalist than a jurist who judges the honesty of someone on trial. I do not accuse my accusers of dishonesty. But the subject now is science; please consider the following.
I have analyzed statistics from 128 sighting reports, accumulated and recorded systematically at the end of 2012. My analysis revealed three separate factors that each demonstrated it was unlikely that any significant number of hoaxers could have been involved in those 128 eyewitness accounts.
I could say more, but I now submit that this particular part of my work was scientific, using mathematics to gain knowledge about one of the major objections that skeptics had brought up about reported sightings of living pterosaurs. The old hoax-conjecture has been disproven.
I hope that I have never used bulverism, as one paleontologist has done, in ridiculing someone with whom I disagree. I suggest that each of us participate in discussing the issues themselves rather than accusing others of deceit or making fun of other’s religious beliefs. Why should a scientist abandon scientific discussion in diving into dirty politics?
Jonathan Whitcomb interviewed by Richard Syrett in 2012
I’ve received emails from eyewitnesses from four continents plus islands in the Pacific, emails about flying creatures that resemble “primitive” or “prehistoric” animals more than any bird or bat. On occasion I am able to talk with an eyewitness by phone or by face-to-face interview. One critical point here, unappreciated by some paleontologists, is that those eyewitnesses come from various countries and have different backgrounds and beliefs, including differing religious beliefs.
Let me make this plain: I am not accusing the originator of Stupid Dinosaur Lies of deception. I am defending the honesty of me and my associates. That ludicrous sentence with five errors does suggest the writer was more likely to have been careless than dishonest. But the accusations, direct or indirect, are against those of us who have traveled to Papua New Guinea to search for living pterosaurs and those who later reported what was found in eyewitness testimonies.
One of the web pages that caught this professor’s attention was my post “Bioluminescent Pterosaurs in Southwest Washington State.” We need to be clear about the differences between two professors, for Peter Beach has also taught biology but he has no doubt that modern pterosaurs live in the state of Washington and elsewhere.
Anyway, do these things really still fly? I want to believe in big flying dinosaurs roaming the skies, but experience and common sense argue against it. So far I have never been chased by one as I wander through town. . . .
I spotted a book “Live Pterosaurs in America” by Jonathan David Whitcomb, a nonfiction analysis of actual sightings in the USA. This I had to own, so I immediately ordered it from Amazon, and a few days later it was mine! And you know what — I’m glad I bought it, and have enjoyed reading it.
A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.