ropen – Page 5 – Modern Pterosaur

September 22, 2012

Possible Pterosaurs in Southern California Storm Drains

I don’t mean to limit this to the underground drainage lines that take rain water quickly to the ocean. I also include the rivers and open storm channels that run through some areas of Southern California. Apparently at least a few flying creatures that may be ropens or related to the ropen are seen flying nearby.

The ropen is a large featherless flying creature with a long tail and is usually associated with Umboi Island in Papua New Guinea or at least with that tropical country in general. But descriptions from Americans, and Californians in particular, often connect with descriptions in Papua New Guinea and in Australia. This creature does not seem to be confined to one part of the globe, and why should it? Giant wings make it easy for the ropen to reach distant lands across the earth.

So where should we expect to find a ropen if one were to arrive in California, a ropen whose ancestry originated in tropical island environments in the southwest Pacific? Why not areas where there is water? Storm drain channels, such as are found in Southern California, could be ideal, should nocturnal ropens try keep away from human attention. They may fly through the channels at night, searching for rats and possums and other easy prey.

Ropens Near Storm Channels in Southern California

Another lady eyewitness saw what she called a “pterodactyl” near the traffic circle in Long Beach, just east of Signal Hill. This traffic circle is very near the beginning of another storm channel, the one that goes through California State University Long Beach.

Los Angeles County’s Modern Pterosaurs

So what would keep individual creatures from venturing out? What would keep them from spreading out across the planet over a period of a thousand years?

Umboi Island Ropen

“He acknowledged that he had been interviewed before. I had studied his previous video-recorded testimony and noticed that he was much more at ease than he appeared to be years earlier. It should be noted that the previous interview may have taken place soon after the sighting itself took place, so he may have been nervous being interviewed on camera.

August 14, 2012November 22, 2017

Ropen Still Lives on Umboi Island

Since the 1990’s, when Young Earth Creationists first began exploring Umboi Island, the ropen had been elusive, usually refusing even a distant view of its pterosaurian qualities. In the 2002 expedition by Paul Nation and his son Nathanael, there was no sighting. But both of the two expeditions of 2004 resulted in a sighting, although they were at a distance and only involved the flying light. No pterosaur features were observed.

We’ve had no American-led expedition on Umboi Island since 2004, but in 2009 Rex, a native of Tarawe Village and a student at a university on the mainland, during one of his trips between the city of Lae and Umboi Island saw the ropen. He and others on the boat observed the ropen on the south coast of the island, although only its tail was above the surface of the water when they passed by in the banana boat. The ropen still lives there.

crypotozoologist Paul Nation crosses a river in Papua New Guinea in 2002

Ropen Close to Bunsil Station

I saw that its tail is about 6-7 meters long [about twenty feet long] with sharp diamond shape. It was an awesome scenerio.

Pterosaurs Still Living

It was around 1994 when the seven “boys” (probably in their early teens) climbed up to Lake Pung. Soon after they had arrived, the ropen flew down to just above the surface of the crater lake.

Nocturnal Ropen in California

She looked up to see a strange winged creature that immediately flew off, startled by the human who had suddenly come out from under the nearby gazebo.

March 16, 2012March 21, 2012

Smithsonian Proclaims “Ropen Myth”

Brian Switek made some serious errors of judgment in his “Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth.” It was the August 16, 2010, posting on the Smithsonian Magazine, online publication. I would now like to comment on some of those errors.

Switek wrote, “Sadly, some people still get duped by the fantastic claims espoused by ‘professional monster hunters’.” I don’t know why he put that phrase into quote marks, for when did any cryptozoologists use that phrase when referring to their expeditions or to their research? That is a small affair, but I see more serious problems with Switek’s writing.

He is correct in pointing out that a publication in Oregon had a seriour error in showing a photograph of a frigate bird while mentioning the ropen of Papua New Guinea. But did Switek dig deeper to investigate the origin of the modern-pterosaur phenomenon? I think he did not.

He failed to even mention key figures in the cryptozoological investigations, including Jonathan Whitcomb, Paul Nation, and Garth Guessman. He also failed to mention key eyewitnesses whose accounts cannot easily be dismissed by any reference to a hoax or misidentification.

Next, he falters with “Then there is the problem of Aym’s sources.” But Switek mentions only two persons: Jim Blume and David Woetzel. Obviously Switek has not researched this subject like he should have, for key figures are missing, important cryptozoologists. Even though the original Oregon publication may have failed to mention those persons, why could not Switek have looked deeper?

Switek says that there is a problem with Aym’s sources. But even if Blume and Woetzel are mistaken in certain ideas about life origins or earth age, what of that? Do we dismiss everything by all scientists who have not been perfect all of their lives? Do we dismiss Galileo’s promotion of a sun-centered system because of the faults in his tidal hypothesis? Has Switek missed this critical point, rejecting all the work of Blume and Woetzel because they have religious beliefs that he despises?

Switek soon reveals the philosophical side of the conflict. He says, “. . . we should have no expectation that a hypothetical, living member of this group would look anything like its prehistoric relatives.” Yet, later he says, “Furthermore, even if a long-tailed pterosaur were found it would do nothing to undercut the science of evolution.” But does he miss a critical point? What about sound scientific reasoning? Those whom he calls “creationists” point to eyewitness evidence for modern pterosaurs that have some resemblance to fossils of pterosaurs. In other words, supporters of Darwin, like Switek, predict that a modern pterosaur would be very different from fossils; supporters of a much younger earth predict that a modern pterosaur would be similar to fossils. The scientific method requires that the discovery of a modern pterosaur would give credibility to one side or the other, depending on how much that creature resembled fossils. But Switek proclaims that this is not what we should conclude. He proclaims that no matter what happens, no matter what evidence turns up, no matter what is discovered, his axioms must not lose any credibility. In other words, Darwin supporters can explain away any evidence in a way to support their assumptions. Switek has just shown us, unwittingly, that Darwinian thinking is unscientific.

Reply to “Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth”

I submit that this labeling of unnamed persons “hucksters” is inappropriate, implying that the persons soon to be named are in that same category. It also brings up the possibility that Mr. Switek is not the most objective writer to evaluate the work of James Blume and David Woetzel.

Front and back covers of the third edition of the book "Live Pterosaurs in America"

Non-fiction, true eyewitness testimonies, more credible accounts—all this and more will be yours after you purchase your own copy of the third edition of Live Pterosaurs in America, the leading nonfiction cryptozoology book on modern living “pterodactyls.” In addition, your purchase will help promote future investigations of these flying creatures.