Posted on

Flying Creature Like a Dinosaur Bird

It seems that some eyewitnesses of modern pterosaurs have another problem besides risking their reputations by telling others about what they saw: How do you spell “pterosaur?” Some eyewitnesses may search on Google with “flying creature” or “dinosaur bird.” That is unfortunate, for those searches, with those words, will bring up many irrelevant pages, not likely pages of the cryptozoology researchers who have specialized in modern living pterosaurs.

[Please note: I tried “Dinosaur Bird” with Google early in the morning of August 9, 2010; other than the page you are now reading, nothing else came up, on the first 10 pages of Google, relevant to living pterosaur cryptozoological investigations.]

I would like to suggest some pages that are most informative and interesting and relevant to the research that has been going on for the past 6-12 years.

Are Reports of Living Pterosaurs Anecdotes?

“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.

American Ghost Lights

. . . Some of these owls can turn on a glow on their underside. In fact, the whiteness of some of their feathers is explained by this intrinsic glowing capability: White feathers allow light to pass through.

So how do glowing owls relate to reports of live pterodactyls? In Papua New Guinea, the ropen is seen usually from a distance at night. How is it seen? It glows, sometimes brightly, as it flies. How can anyone conclude that it is a pterosaur? When it is seen up close, it is seen to be one.

Monsterquest “Flying Monsters” Television Episode

. . . the MonsterQuest expedition on New Britain Island, in early 2009, was not itself a serious living-pterosaur investigation . . . video footage from previous expeditions was shown with little mention of those expeditions. Nevertheless, this episode introduced many Americans to the possibility of extant pterosaurs. In that sense, it was a success.

For those using a search engine like Google, I suggest using “modern pterosaur” or something similar (like “living pterosaur”) rather than “dinosaur bird.”

image_pdfimage_print
Posted on

Critics of Modern-Pterosaur Research

A blog post by the well-known cryptozoologist Loren Coleman was aimed at creationists who support modern-pterosaur research, but the post was focused on the modern-pterosaur researcher Jonathan Whitcomb, probably because this researcher is so vocal. There are problems with Mr. Coleman’s reasoning, which I would like to explain.

Loren Coleman has said, “Cryptozoology used in the support of extreme, unsupportable theories of creationism is unscientific and, perhaps, worse.” But Coleman fails to consider critical details, and that failure seems to have severely clouded his vision or visa versa.

Look at this particular researcher mentioned by Coleman: Jonathan Whitcomb. Those who have read his books know that he is not a Young Earth Creationist, at least he believes in a universe much older than the 6,000 years supported by many YEC’s. Perhaps Coleman did not look deeply enough, failing to do his own thorough research, before passing judgement. Also, Coleman seems to stray far afield from the subject: eyewitness sightings of modern living pterosaurs.

“Cryptozoology used in the support of . . .” seems to imply that some cryptozoologists are objective and others, having personal agendas, are biased. Has Coleman forgotten the ageless truth that humans are, by their nature, imperfect and subject to personal bias? Has he considered that everything each of us does or says is influenced by deep motivations based on our unique characteristics, and that improper use of anything is not restricted to those whose philosophical beliefs differ from our own?

When Coleman says, “unsupportable theories of creationism,” I really begin to wonder what he has read by Whitcomb. Searching for Ropens, the first book written by Whitcomb, does support belief in God and belief in the Bible as the word of God; but the theories mentioned in that book are mostly related to the General Theory of Evolution. He even gives mathematical evidence to discredit Darwin’s Common Ancestry concept. Whitcomb does not propose any theory of creationism nearly as much as he points out problems with Darwin’s theory. To top it off, why does Coleman say “unsupportable theories,” when Whitcomb explains the mathematical basis for doubting Darwin? Mathematical concepts can be checked out and tested; microbes evolving into humans over many millions of years cannot be tested.

Coleman seems to have fallen into the trap of bulverism: pointing out supposed faults in the person with whom one disagrees, rather than becoming involved in reasoning. “Bulverism” is a word invented by C. S. Lewis long ago, but that subject is a bit off topic. Use Google with: bulverism pterosaurs.

Before condemning creationists or rejecting outright their scientific or cryptozoological research, remember the accomplishements of Sir Isaac Newton. Also remember that he may have spent more time studying the Bible than working in science. He believed in literal interpretations of Biblical scripture, and his judgement seems to have been none the worse for his Christian faith. Remember that.

“Flying Creatures and Flailing Paleontologists” and bulverism

Cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America by Jonathan Whitcomb

image_pdfimage_print
Posted on

Flying Creature in San Fernando Valley

A report of a large flying creature in Sherman Oaks, California, suggests similarities to the ropen of Papua New Guinea. A man reported the creature after he and his girlfriend observed it while taking a walk at about 10:30 p.m., on September 21, 2009. He reported, “It was a very large, winged creature that was gliding maybe 100 yards above us. . . . it beat its wings, once, before going out of view.” His girlfriend had a better view (she has better vision) and saw a glow or reflection on the wings.

The man estimated the wingspan: ten to fifteen feet; the girlfriend estimated twenty feet. The wings appeared more like those of bats than birds, with a greater depth from leading-edge to trailing edge. The sighting lasted ten to twenty seconds.

Pterosaur in Southern California: “I interviewed the two eyewitnesses separately, by phone . . . the creature they saw flying about 300 feet above them . . . was too big to be a bird. . . . I found the two eyewitnesses of the Sep 21st sighting quite credible. . . .”

Flying Creature in South Carolina: “The strange creature flew gracefully over the highway, right in front of the car Susan Wooten was driving to Florence, South Carolina. . . . ‘It looked as big as any car, and had NO feathers . . .”

Cryptozoology Book Live Pterosaurs in America: “From California to Maine, from Washington state to Florida, apparent living pterosaurs appear to be able to hide in any or all of the 48 connected states of the United States.”

image_pdfimage_print