Scientific Testing of Dinosaur Bones: Carbon-14 Methods

dinosaur colored green

This is about radiometric carbon dating of dinosaur fossils, but we need an introduction, for it also relates to reports of extant pterosaurs.

Nikola Tesla once said, “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I say, “Not everybody embraces a live pterodactyl.” I’ll add to that: “Not everybody embraces a dinosaur that is not yet completely decomposed.”

For eleven years I have heralded the credibility of eyewitness testimony of living pterosaurs, especially long-tailed featherless creatures, that fly overhead in our modern world. For almost that long, some critics have insinuated (at least) things like insanity or dishonesty, when mentioning my name. In this new year of 2015, I began writing about something new, and I expect that among some readers it can make a difference. If I were crazy to have expected my repetitious writings to have grabbed public attention, I can at least be consoled that I can now do something different and wonder if the results will differ. I hope that more people will think more clearly.

Carbon Dating and the “Age of Dinosaurs”

Consider one of the comments on answers-dot-yahoo-dot-com:

“The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and HomoSapeins only became a distinct primate about 200,000 years ago. This is fact, as proved by carbon dating of fossils and the remains of early man.”

Actually the above is not “fact” but false, and that comment was fortunately not ranked as the best answer to a question about a possible dragon-dinosaur relationship in history. Carbon-14 methods cannot date anything older than a few tens of thousands of years old, for the half-life of that isotope is close to 5,700 years. Dating accuracy may be as high as 60,000 years, at best, but carbon-14 just does not last much longer.

Did Dinosaurs Live Recently?

If dinosaurs lived as recently as 40,000 years ago, it would certainly open many human minds to the testimonies of countless eyewitnesses of modern pterosaurs. But who would believe such a wild idea, that at least some dinosaurs lived so recently? Well, a few researchers who used carbon-dating on quite a few dinosaur bones, that’s who.

A lecture was given in a geology conference in Singapore, in 2012, with carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils the subject. All the bones were found to have that isotope of carbon, a shocking finding, but there it is: Those particular dinosaurs in North America lived only a few tens of thousands of years ago, at most.

 

dinosaur colored green

###

.

Recent Dinosaurs and Carbon-14 Dating

Recently-living dinosaurs help people to realize that eyewitness reports of flying pterosaurs are more credible than people may have assumed. Yes, I am talking about dinosaurs that have lived relatively recently. Some dinosaurs appear to be well under 1% as old as Westerners have been taught, tens of thousands of years rather than many millions of years old.

Dinosaur Fossils That are Carbon-14 Dated

For generations, Americans and peoples of other Western countries have been indoctrinated, from early childhood, with continuous proclamations about all of the dinosaurs and pterosaurs becoming extinct many millions of years ago. [Actual carbon-dating of dinosaur bones, however, does NOT support that.]

Censorship of carbon-14 (C14) dinosaur dating

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.

.

Sock Puppets and Jonathan Whitcomb

Eskin Kuhn sketched Gitmo Pterosaur he saw

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.

.

4th edition of Whitcomb's "Searching for Ropens and Finding God"

Nonfiction, 360 pages, worldwide sightings of modern pterosaurs

.

Cover of the third edition of "Live Pterosaurs in America" by Whitcomb

Pure cryptozoology, 154 pages, live pterosaurs in the USA

.

Pterosaurs, “No Evidence,” and Poop in the Freezer

two pterosaurs sketched by eyewitness Eskin Kuhn

Set aside what critics imagine about my motivations. One critic, a biology professor in Minnesota, insists there is “no evidence,” in my writings, for any living pterosaur. What does he mean? He will not be named here, for I’m responding to his blog post (“There are no living pterosaurs, and ‘ropen’ is a stupid fantasy”), and his approach is faulty. If I were to respond, in one posting, to all his negative comments about my writings, my religion, and my personal motivations, it would be a long posting indeed. And it could reflect more negatively towards that professor than his posting did towards me.

Gitmo Pterosaur sketched by eyewitness Patty Carson

Is this sketch, by the eyewitness Patty Carson, really worthless?

Let’s focus on concepts related to “no evidence,” in two senses:

  1. How does it relate to what other critics say about me and my associates?
  2. Is there evidence for the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs?

Science, Cryptozoology, and Evidence

How common for critics of modern-pterosaur investigations to fail to comprehend that this is cryptozoology! In my digital book Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea, it is explained:

Cryptozoology is not a branch of science, at least not in the usual sense; but it can motivate zoologists to conduct field investigations, at least in theory it can motivate them. It is the “study of hidden animals,” and usually relies less on direct scientific examination and more on eyewitness testimony; nevertheless, we can use scientific reasoning and methods within the boundaries of cryptozoology.

The American missionary Thomas Savage, in the 1800’s in Africa, obtained some bones of what we now call a “Western Gorilla,” which prepared for its eventual scientific acknowledgement. Whatever led that missionary to obtain those bones can be called “cryptozoological,” especially if he had been following eyewitness accounts.

If we look only at the first paragraph of the above quotation, does that mean that all nonfiction writings about modern pterosaurs can be dismissed by scientists and professors of biology and paleontology, because cryptozoology is not science? No, this runs much deeper. Some of the books, scientific papers, and web pages on extant pterosaurs contain more scientific reasoning and methods than many of the writings of those professors who criticize those cryptozoologists, much more.

Testimony from common eyewitnesses—that is often the major part of evidence in cryptozoology, in contrast to standard work in biology and paleontology. But eyewitness experience is not the only evidence gathered by cryptozoologists, and this can prove embarrassing to a some biologists and paleontologists. One example is statistical analysis of data from 128 of the more-credible sighting reports of apparent modern pterosaurs, showing that hoaxes could not have played a major part in the overall reports of those 128 encounters (which sightings were in various parts of the world).

Critics of the modern-pterosaur investigations rarely, if ever, say much about any particular recent sighting report. They generalize about apparent-pterosaur sightings, usually trying to make points from what they imagine, in their minds, about encounters with flying creatures. My associates and I, on the other hand, often examine particular reports—actual encounters—and compare them with other particular reports.

Feces Analysis Under the Microscope

During the past eleven years, I have published many blog posts related to the concept of modern pterosaurs. On thirteen of those blogs, I have written a total of 1,074 posts, and that does not count hundreds of non-blog pages, all on this one subject. This does not prove that those featherless flying creatures live in modern times, but it demonstrates that at least one human takes that idea very seriously.

The biology professor in Minnesota has written one blog post about the lack of “evidence,” in my many online publications, for living pterosaurs. I see only one explanation: He thinks that no reported sighting of a living pterosaur should be considered evidence.

If we look only in that narrow sense, eliminating all eyewitness testimonies of sightings, it appears on the surface that this may be correct. Where are the photos or video footage of a modern pterosaur? But how can any evidence be useful if all of us dismiss all human experience with it? We must believe some kind of eyewitness report, by somebody, even if it is only a scientist collecting data in his laboratory, otherwise “evidence” becomes stale, even a worthless word. The big problem in modern times is this: The imaginations of professors have been exalted far too high when only one kind of interpretation is allowed for a few limited observations in the laboratory and the imagination of one group rules by eliminating opposing points of view.

There must be some value in what common people see outside of laboratories. If it really is worthless for commoners to testify of apparent modern pterosaurs, that implies that professors who proclaim all species of those flying creatures must be extinct—those persons with college degrees—they should be given infinitely more credence than those without the same educational credentials.

What makes an examination by a scientist, of something tangible in a controlled environment, credible evidence? It’s not just the educational degree bestowed upon that scientist, is it? It’s the opportunity for other scientists to repeat that kind of examination, or one like it, right? The quantity of examinations, by specialists—that should increase credibility, even though the quality of detailed records also makes a difference.

How does the professor from Minnesota handle the quantity of my online publications? He refers to it as “busily dropping turds all over the internet.” I say that this professor is at least 99% wrong there, and that requires an explanation.

An eyewitness of a “dragon-pterodactyl” told me, in June of 2012, about her sighting, an encounter in Lakewood, California, within hours of her reporting it to me. Over a period of weeks, I interviewed her and her husband, and I collected feces that were almost directly under where the apparent ropen was said to have been perched. The husband pointed out to me that the dung differed from that of their large family dog, although it was in the same area of the garden.

To be brief, my associate Garth Guessman got in touch with a veterinarian who eventually agreed to examine the feces I had collected. Weeks after the sighting, the veterinarian finished the testing and gave us the results. He examined it using three methods: direct observation, floatation and centrifugation. He looked at two slides from each method for a total of six slides. Well, we need to remember that the feces I collected was almost directly under where the flying creature had been perched but not exactly under it. And the dung from a large family dog does differ from that of a raccoon, and somebody in the family did see a raccoon in the area recently. So it seems that the biology professor in Minnesota was not 100% wrong when he mentioned “dropping turds.” It was just more literal than he thought. Anyway, my wife still is not laughing when reminded of the time we kept raccoon poop in the family freezer for weeks.

Yet we need to look on the sunny side. The creature labeled “dragon-pterodactyl” was not a raccoon. It had a tail that she estimated was about four feet long and a “triangle” at the end of the tail. When she accidentally startled the animal that was perched above her head on a telephone line, the strange thing flew away to the thick canopy of a neighborhood tree: clearly not a raccoon.

Scientific Papers on the Universal Extinction of Pterosaurs

Over the past 200 years, how many peer-reviewed papers have been published in scientific journals, on the universal extinction of all species of pterosaurs? Well, let me take a guess: in the neighborhood of zero. (If you know of one, however, please let me know.) Why do so many Americans and so many citizens of other Western countries believe that all species of dinosaurs and pterosaurs have been extinct for millions of years? It’s because that idea has been drilled into us since childhood, from countless directions, and all this for generations. Westerners have assumed all species of pterosaurs became extinct long ago and this assumption had its birth at about the time when George Washington was the President of the United States of America.

The professor in Minnesota emphasizes the lack of photos of a modern pterosaur. I emphasize the lack of photos of an extinction of even one species of that general type of flying creature and those species were, at one time, very numerous. I repeat what I wrote in Searching for Ropens and Finding God: “Trust one eyewitness of a plane crash over the imaginations of a hundred professors who’ve agreed how that kind of plane should fly.”

Let’s be open to common human experience, for gaining a firm understanding of human experience was at the heart of the birth of modern Western science centuries ago.

###

Nocturnal Ropen in California

On June 19, 2012, over a storm drain in Lakewood, California, in clear daylight at about noon, a long-tailed featherless creature sat on a telephone line . . .

Horizontal Tail Vane of a Ropen Pterosaur

I brought up the subject of tail-vane orientation, and she was positive that it was held horizontally. This is an obscure subject, yet she quickly answered my questions about that detail. It seems unlikely to me that she had read anything online about any pterosaur eyewitness describing how the tail “diamond” or flange was oriented.

Pterosaurs in Lakewood and Griffith Park, California

I recently learned of a confirming eyewitness for that same backyard in Lakewood. A close relative told another family member that she had also seen a large strange flying creature in that same backyard, but two years earlier, in 2010. She had said nothing to anybody, for it would have sounded too strange. She spoke up when she learned about the sighting of June 19, 2012.

.

 

image_pdfimage_print