With a title that includes “finding God,” how much religion is in my recent nonfiction book? Actually not much. I wrote Searching for Ropens and Finding God (fourth edition) with readers of all faiths in mind, for anyone open to some kind of positive spiritual experience. Let’s allow the book to speak for itself with these excerpts:

Title Page

[This] soars above disputes about religion, revealing why an official discovery of an extraordinary animal was delayed for so long. Above all, this explores human experiences—of eyewitnesses and those who interviewed them. People have become connected by common encounters: Persons of various faiths, with various levels of education, from various countries and cultures, have seen a living pterosaur.

First Page of Acknowledgements

The pioneering investigations of three men illuminated the path for my own expedition: James Blume, for decades a Baptist missionary and plane pilot in Papua New Guinea; Carl Baugh, founder and director of a creation-science museum in Texas; and Paul Nation, an associate of Baugh.

Second Page of Acknowledgements

The prayers of family, friends, and other Americans were answered when I found Luke Paina, who became my interpreter, bodyguard, and counselor. By the grace of the Father of us all, Luke and I were welcomed like brothers by those we met on Umboi Island, and through the friendship of humble native Christians in remote villages, we were fed, sheltered, and led to those who made this book possible: the native eyewitnesses. Thank you . . .

Introduction

Expect answers in this book: why my associates and I traveled to a remote tropical island to search for living pterosaurs and why only a few professors have given us any hope that they still live. . . . I hope my readers will discover more than adventure—a purpose in life—as worthy a purpose as I have found. This is no instruction manual for finding God, yet I suggest that the spiritual quest gives us the highest reward. . . .

Is this a tool for promoting Biblical Creation and ridiculing evolution? Clear thinking we need, without fear, allowing us to discover both truth and error in whatever camp we find ourselves, entrenched or visiting, at the moment. Beware of simplistic labels.

Chapter One

The existence of life I credited to God, from childhood choosing to respect the Bible as nonfiction. When I was ten, my father, psychologist for the San Bernardino School District in California, showed me the largest collection of bird eggs in the Western United States, in the museum in our own little town of Bloomington. The variety of eggs and birds, all dead, fascinated me. Then I read the labels. Non-birds becoming birds discomforted me, for each type of life appeared to have a role in its own basic form.

If all of the above gives a reader no offense, with its religious tones, the book as a whole should not offend that reader. Does it improperly mix religion and science? It’s really more of a cryptozoology book with reasoning about the meaning of eyewitness testimonies and the adventure of searching for modern living pterosaurs.

Jonathan David Whitcomb

###

.

Flood of Genesis

Did every variety of every type of creature enter the Ark of Noah? Why should they? Take the obvious example first: Would Noah have taken every breed of dog into the Ark, if all the present-day varieties existed in his day? No. Only a few genetically-healthy dogs would be needed, for they would have all the traits that could later become active in our modern breeds, even though the countless traits would not be outwardly visible in those original ancestors.

Scientific Paper on Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific

While both ropen lights and meteors are fast-moving flashes of lights in the sky, several characteristics distinguish them (Whitcomb, 2007). For example, Abram of Opai Village, Umboi Island, described a ropen light that flew down to a reef and stayed at or near the surface of the sea before flying back toward Mount Bel (Whitcomb interview) . . . Analysis of 2004-expedition records suggest that many suspected ropen lights move away from Mount Bel early at night but toward it late at night.

Religion and Belief in Ropens

. . . the eyewitnesses come to us with different religions, almost as if religion had nothing to do with encountering a live “pterodactyl.” . . . A person who sees an apparent pterosaur is just as likely to be an atheist as a Bible believing Southern Baptist.

Fiery Flying Serpent

The Fiery Flying Serpent of the Old Testament is also found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, in First Nephi, Chapter 17, verse 41, it is more clearly a flying fiery “serpent” that afflicted the children of Israel at the time of Moses, more clear than at least one of the relevant passages in the Bible, in that “flying” is included.

.

According to the paleontologist Donald Prothero and the biology professor P. Z. Myers, I Jonathan Whitcomb have used sock puppetry in online publications promoting the idea that modern pterosaurs are living. Each has written a post about me, with each post proclaiming that I have admitted using sock puppets. Both statements in each post are false, yet some of my proper use of two pseudonyms may resemble improper usage, so this needs to be explained in detail.

Norman Huntington and Nathaniel Coleman

Soon after my expedition on Umboi Island, in 2004, I found a web site highly critical of the living pterosaur investigations. In fact, the URL included the words stupid, dinosaur, and lies. In the original posting, both my first and last names were misspelled: “John Whittcomb.” Keep in mind that this was in 2005.

So what did it say about me, Jonathan Whitcomb? It said I had led creationists on an expedition in Africa and that I had been sponsored by Carl Baugh. All three statements were false; I had never led any creationists on any expedition, never set foot anywhere in Africa, never been sponsored by Carl Baugh. It would have been purely comical except for what followed on other sites.

Insinuations and direct statements about dishonesty followed. It came to the point where one skeptic suggested people should take statements by Paul Nation with a “grain of salt” because he was associated with Jonathan Whitcomb.

By about that time, I had begun writing nonfiction book about eyewitness sightings of apparent pterosaurs, especially in Papua New Guinea and in Australia. My main purpose was not in making a profit but in telling the truth to the world, the truth about details in the many sighting reports that I received from around the world.

To publicize details about the encounters with apparent pterosaurs, I needed some way to emphasize those reports without my name getting in the way. I began using two pseudonyms on a limited number of my many blogs: Nathaniel Coleman and Norman Huntington. Neither of those names were ever used as if they were happy purchasers of my books. They were used to emphasize the logic of a modern-pterosaur interpretation of many sighting reports and critical details in those eyewitness accounts.

When using my regular name, Jonathan Whitcomb, I sometimes admit personal weaknesses, most notably in the problems I faced in my expedition in 2004, problems sometimes caused by my lack of planning or inexperience in exploring on a tropical island. When using one of the two pen names, I sometimes mentioned a weakness or potential bias in the reasoning or writings of “Jonathan Whitcomb.” That’s not deceptive but honest, for I am human like everybody else. I did not use any pseudonym or sock puppet to heap empty praise on “Jonathan Whitcomb,” for that would have been dishonest.

What are sock puppets?

According to Wikipedia:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. . . . [It] originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Many online communities attempt to block sockpuppets.

Dr. Prothero’s post went much further than suggesting that I might have been guilty of using sock puppets. He said, “it’s a classic case of a typically modern internet phenomenon, sock puppetry.” I suggest my usage of those two names was more like the opposite. Consider the following ways of improper online writing, sock puppetry:

1. Endorsing a self-written book as if from a common reader
2. Praising oneself
3. Sneaking around a suspension or ban

I suggest a “classic case” of sock puppetry would include at least two of the above, if not all three, when the person involved was an author. Yet none of the above three applies to my use of the names Nathaniel Coleman and Norman Huntington. Where does Dr. Prothero get the his definition of “a classic case?”

Honesty or deception in the first expedition of 2004

The point of this controversy about modern living pterosaurs is in honesty or dishonesty. In particular, have I, Jonathan Whitcomb, been deceptive or have I tried to bring the truth out into the open? Consider my expedition on Umboi Island in 2004.

Nobody disputes the fact I was on that tropical island, wanting to find evidence that a species of pterosaur was still living. Yet I returned home to the USA admitting that I had seen nothing that could be interpreted as a living pterosaur. The nocturnal ropen had kept out of my sight. A liar would have reported a sighting of a glowing pterosaur, making it appear like his expedition had been a success. I was honest and told the truth.

For some reason, Dr. Prothero says nothing about the fact that I had been on Umboi Island, looking for the ropen. Why did he say nothing about that? Is it because any mention of that expedition could have defeated his purpose in how he wanted to portray me? Since I was obviously being honest about my 2004 expedition, why not consider the possibility that I have been honest in my online publications since then?

Conclusions on sock puppets and pseudonyms

Did I make a mistake in using those two pen names. From the narrow point of view of the moment, it certainly looks like I should never have used any name except Jonathan Whitcomb, yet time will tell the whole story. I am content to see how history will play out.

The critical point, however seems to have been entirely overlooked by Donald Prothero: Eyewitness-testimony details prove the case for modern living pterosaurs, and his post “Fake Pterosaurs and Sock Puppets” does not even mention the word eyewitness. Who really has something to hide, Dr. Prothero?

.

###

.

Dr. Prothero and modern pterosaurs

My blog posts and web pages outnumber those of anyone else on the subject of modern “pterodactyls” or primitive flying creatures that have been assumed to have been long extinct; that need not suggest that I have been dishonest. Skeptics include at least three of the best-known paleontologists in the world; that need not suggest my investigation over the past eleven years has been in vain. Look at some details.

Hoax Criticism and Pterosaur Wingspans

Estimated pterosaur wingspans, analyzed in recent statistics of eyewitness reports, show what would be expected of a variety of pterosaur species of different sizes, observed under various conditions by eyewitnesses having various abilities in estimating sizes. In other words, the sighting reports support the honesty of eyewitnesses, in general.

.

Nonfiction, 360 pages, worldwide sightings of modern pterosaurs

.

Pure cryptozoology, 154 pages, live pterosaurs in the USA

.

I highly recommend this blog post:

Live Pterosaurs and Science

We now have 74 sightings with wingspan estimates, up from the 57 that were analyzed about one year ago. The updated database includes the earlier sighting reports, as they were combined with the newer accumulations of information on such things as wingspans, time-of-day-or-night, presence or absence of a long tail, head crest, etc.

Whitcomb’s analysis is somewhat brief, with general concepts that show how the weight of evidence points to a lack of hoaxes for those sightings in which wingspan estimates were given. This could benefit from a closer perusal.

By the way, Whitcomb is open to requests for the original database, for those who would want to take the time to do their own analysis.

Getting back to wingspan estimates, the proposal by some antagonists, that hoaxes caused sighting reports, is countered by Whitcomb’s data on wingspan estimates. To understand this, it helps to know something about what type of pterosaur is often reported.

The long-tail to no-long-tail ratio is about twenty to one as follows:

• long tail 41%
• no long tail 2%
• not specified 57%

This means that if many hoaxes had contaminated the data then those jokesters would need to be in one of the following categories:

1. Trying to convince people that basal pterosaurs were seen
2. Ignorantly including long tails in their hoaxes

If number one, the hoaxers would have given wingspans below about seven feet. But Whitcomb’s data clearly defeats that possibility, for the only impressive peak is more like eight to thirteen feet, and that peak is not extremely high, tapering gradually into those wingspans that are somewhat larger than wingspans of large birds. Number one is practically eliminated, for it would not have led to the data we have on wingspans.

Number two seems more likely, but a different problem presents itself. If jokesters had ignorantly promoted long-tailed pterosaur sightings, what would influence them in providing wingspan sizes? It would be large wingspans, probably over twenty feet, that they would have lied about, for three reasons:

1. Cause shock from a report of a huge size
2. Avoid the possibility of a bird-misidentification interpretation
3. Connect the hoax with popular science fiction movies and stories

No jokester would report seeing a modern pterosaur with a wingspan of eight or nine or ten feet. That’s too much like the size of large birds. Where’s the shock value in that lie? But it’s in that simple concept that we have a device for eliminating the number two category of jokester mentality. Here is part of Whitcomb’s data for wingspan sizes in feet:

6, 6, 6, 6

7, 7

8, 8, 8, 8, 8

9, 9, 9, 9

10, 10, 10, 10, 10.5

11, 11

12, 12, 12.5

13, 13, 13, 13

—

15

16, 16

17, 17, 17

18

—

20, 20, 20, 20, 20.5

21, 21.5

22

—

24

25, 25, 25, 25

—

27

The range from 8-13 feet is small, compared with the overall range from 1.3 to 46 feet, but see how many sightings have wingspan estimates from 8-13 feet inclusive: 23 sightings, which is 31% of all those in which wingspan was given numerically. That number, 23, eliminates the number two possibility for jokesters, for if they existed, they would not have given wingspan estimates of 8-13 feet.

Now we compare that five-foot range (8-13) to the five-foot range from 16-21 and see the difference: Only 12 sightings in that range, far fewer than the 23 sightings from 8-13 feet. I chose 16-21 because it is just above the wingspan size of large birds. When we go further up the wingspan size range, we see fewer and fewer sighting reports, which eliminates that kind of hoax potential. Nothing in the wingspan estimates makes any sense when we think about how hoaxes could have skewered the data.

I’m not preaching absolute purity from any hoax contamination in the data. I can’t say whether or not there is complete purity. But there could not be any major contamination. To be plain, there could have been one or two hoaxes among so many, but what would that mean? It would not have any influence on the numerous other sighting reports. Even so, I have not yet seen any evidence that even one of Whitcomb’s reports has any evidence of it being from any hoax.

I also recommend the following:

Tail flange and long tails

Advertisement

Searching for Ropens and Finding God – true adventures that support the Bible

From page 181:

I had wondered why so many sightings are in daylight; ropens are nocturnal. Then I began finding clues, including reports of storms that sometimes pass through before sightings. Since a sighting in Georgia in 2008, I sometimes ask about the weather, including for the previous day or two before the sighting.