Posted on

A Hoax in Wingspan Estimates?

I know that I recently wrote something closely related to this subject of wingspan estimates in “Pterosaur News for Early December.” I there gave a brief statistical analysis of the 57 wingspan estimates that now need further examination. This comes from another blog, one I often quote.

More on Pterosaur Wingspans

Look at the raw data for the left and middle of the graph (wingspan in feet):   2 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 12.5 13 13 13 13 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 — According to standard ideas in paleontology (and that is mostly what is mentioned in Western media when it is mentioned at all), only a small percentage of Rhamphorhynchoids attained wingspans over eight feet. But the data on wingspan estimates does not show any sharp decline above six feet, more of a gentle downward slope (fewer eyewitness estimates) into sizes much larger than standard ideas about Rhamphorhynchoid fossil wingspans. If a significant number of hoaxers made some of these fifty-seven estimates, and a significant number of those hoaxers were trying to portray Rhamphorhynchoids, there would have been a steeper decline above seven feet. But in fact, 26% of reports involved wingspans estimated at 9-13 feet, completely out of line for this particular hoax conjecture.

I will not duplicate the display of that graph here, for it gives too much emphasis to a peak that is less significant that what it appears to be on that graph. Sufficient is part of the raw data of the above numbers.

Most of the 98 sighting reports, from which the 57 with wingspan estimates were taken, suggest flying creatures that have long tails like Rhamphorhynchoids. That is where the idea comes from for the possibility that hoaxers may have tried to conjure up that type of pterosaur in their hoaxes. But the data shows something far different from what is commonly believed about Rhamphorhynchoids, for the size-estimates do not fall sharply at around five-to-seven-feet, but gradually decline at huge wingspans, far larger than what is standard-size for even the largest flying birds of modern times.

A Hoax Suggestion in the Opposite Direction

On the other side of the graph, what about hoaxers who may have tried to convince people that they had seen giant pterosaurs? The Live Pterosaur post also shows up this conjecture, for the gentle slope from small wingspans, and the great number of those small wingspans, counts against any significant hoax pollution of the data.

image_pdfimage_print
Posted on

Another Pterosaur Sighting in Pennsylvania

The blog “Live Pterosaur” recently featured a preliminary report of what seemed to have been a glowing pterosaur in Pennsylvania, seen by two eyewitnesses on one night:

Afterwards she did some research and told me, “I have found that a pterosaur is identical to what we saw.” She has not yet told me any details about her research nor what image she may have seen that looked like what was encountered; but it is sufficient to consider that it was a possible American ropen. The sighting was in Pennsylvania, and I believe it involved bioluminescence.

I make mention that one of the comments was critical, questioning the wisdom of publishing an account that had not been thoroughly investigated yet. Another comment in reply answered that objection well, in part as follows:

This is one of many recent sightings I am now investigating. When I said, “it is sufficient to consider that it was a possible American ropen,” I did not think anyone would take that to mean that I was insinuating that it MUST have been a ropen or pterosaur. After all, this is a blog with recent news, not a repository of scientific papers that have been peer-reviewed and analyzed for months (although I have written, not many years ago, a scientific paper that was published).

While we are on the subject of pterosaur sightings in Pennsylvania, I refer to what I have already written about a different sighting in that state:

A Real Pterosaur in Pennsylvania

This “bird” also seemed to have a long tail . . . As it was almost directly over us we all agreed we couldn’t see feathers anywhere and my student Carrie said “It looks like pterodactyl . . .  doesn’t it?”

It flew over top us and landed in the water behind the school . . . We could here it splashing around, and Carrie ran around the building to see it. There are always ducks in that water as well as rats and other things. When she came back . . . she said it had taken off, Carrie said it was in the water splashing and eating or grabbing something in its mouth.

image_pdfimage_print
Posted on

Is “Demon Flyer” Correct?

Numerous web pages and one MonsterQuest episode use the phrase “demon flyer” as if it were a literal interpretation of the word “ropen.” It is not. I propose examining what natives of Umboi Island, and other areas of Papua New Guinea, believe about this mysterious nocturnal flying creature.

Interviews with native eyewitnesses, including the 2004 interview with Mesa Agustin, can reveal a fear that natives have of the ropen, but that does not necessarily mean that those eyewitnesses believe that the creature is an evil spirit or monster. I recommend the following post:

Ropen: a Demon Flyer?

The second Umboi Island expedition of 2004 (a few weeks after mine) turned up an interesting perspective on the word “ropen.” Jacob Kepas, the native interpreter for the American cryptozoologists David Woetzel and Garth Guessman, knew the word but was puzzled. Why go to such trouble flying on a small plane to Umboi Island to search for a bird? In his village near Wau (mainland Papua New Guinea), “ropen” is the word used for a common bird. The large nocturnal flying creature that glows—that frightening creature they call “seklo-bali.”

So in those two small areas of Papua New Guinea (villages of Umboi Island including Opai and Gomlongon, and at least one village near Wau on the mainland) the meaning of the word “ropen” differs greatly. An examination of the expedition reports from American cryptozoologists who have searched for living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea in the 1990′s and early twenty-first century—that reveals that the Western-world usage of ”ropen” comes from the Kovai-speaking islanders of Opai and Gomlongon.

Umboi Island Sighting in 2009

Rex Yapi is an accounting student at the University of Technology in Lae, Papua New Guinea. Around July of 2009, he was on a banana boat in Bunsil Bay, Umboi. Those on the boat became alarmed at a large creature that was mostly under water but approaching them. They stopped the boat as the creature passed, for apparently it was catching fish or something. Only the tail of the creature was above water, but what a tail! Rex estimated the length at six or seven meters, with a “diamond shape,” which may refer to a Rhamphorhynchoid tail flange.

The natives on those islands of Papua New Guinea where ropens are seen are sometimes afraid of what some Westerners call “demon flyer,” but that phrase does not seem to be a reasonable translation of the Kovai-language word “ropen.”

image_pdfimage_print