Georgia Sightings by Sandra Paradise

Sandra Paradise has released her name and is no longer anonymous. She was previously known simply as the lady who had seen two long-tailed pterosaurs in daylight east of Winder, Georgia, as she was driving to work on highway 82, east of the Barrow County Airport.

She has now revealed two more sightings, in addition to the first two. The third one was when she had a camera in her car but she could not stop in time to photograph it before it flew away. The fourth sighting she was not sure of except that it was probably of the same kind of creature.

Her sketches are copyrighted and she has requested her name be listed as both copyright owner and as the artist. They bear some relationship to the sketch by the witness Susan Wooten, of South Carolina, except that Wooten is not a professional artist. Paradise is.

Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur living in Georgia, United States of America

Copyright 2008 Sandra Paradise

===========================================================

Pterosaurs in Georgia

The lady . . . had been trying to find someone who might help her verify . . . the strange animals that she had seen twice in the past few weeks [in 2008]. . . . Her first sighting was at 7 a.m., the second, 9 a.m., with both mornings overcast . . . Both times she phoned a friend to tell him of her extraordinary experience.

More on Two Pterosaurs in Georgia

To review what these sightings entailed, the lady saw two different flying creatures, two weeks apart, late in the summer of 2008. They were obviously of the same species but different sizes. The tail was long, with a “heart” shape at tail-end.

Posted in Sightings | Tagged | Leave a comment

Two Ropen Cryptozoologists Interviewed for Television

cryptozoology subject on television interview

Two American cryptozoologists, the living-pterosaur experts Garth Guessman and Jonathan Whitcomb, were interviewed earlier this month, for a Canadian television show called “The Conspiracy Show.” The host, Richard Syrett, interviewed them separately.

Syrett:

Most people have been taken aback by the theory that there are living dinosaurs . . . What would you say to those skeptics . . .

Whitcomb:

Richard, some of those skeptics who were really shocked were actually witnesses themselves. . . . Some of those witnesses . . . they are shocked at what they have seen and . . . relieved to know that there are actually others who’ve seen something similar.

Too bad that the television talk show, about living pterosaurs and living dinosaurs, will probably not be on the air in the United States, only in Canada and maybe in one or two other countries.

Whitcomb Opposes Shooting Pterosaurs

Richard Syrett, host of “The Conspiracy Show” in Canada, asked me, Jonathan Whitcomb, about my opinion on proving the existence of living pterosaurs by shooting one of them. I made it clear that I oppose killing a modern pterosaur for that purpose.

Smithsonian Bias Against Modern Pterosaurs

I also rejoice at the arrival of the Discovery shuttle in Washington, where it will be housed at the Smithsonian, another feather in their cap. But I am sorry that the Smithsonian has not budged from its dogmatic article that was written by the science reporter Brian Switek.

Posted in Sightings | Tagged | Leave a comment

“Modern Pterosaur” Magazine Parody

humorous "Modern Pterosaur" magazine

I was pleasantly surprised with the email that I recently received from Nick Smerker, for he linked to the superb image above. It’s a jolly parody of a modern ladys’ magazine cover, with funny things like the following:

For the empowered she-pterosaur, since the late triassic

Bioluminescent Patterns — Dazzle your prey with these sassy new styles

FLAPLING FUN! — What to do with your young this summer

STUCK ON LAND?  The hottest shoes for two—or four—feet

Don’t call me a flying dinosaur! — Redefining our species for yet another generation of mammals

I really enjoyed receiving my own copy of Modern Pterosaur magazine, even though it was only the front cover. Thank you to Nick Smerker and to his wife. What wonderful humor!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Probability of a Modern Pterosaur

Statistical analysis has shown that the more credible reports of modern pterosaurs, as a whole, have not been tainted by hoaxes. But probability, in a simple form, can be used to evaluate the likelihood that at least one species of modern pterosaur lives, at least somewhere on this planet.

Ninety-eight sighting reports were analyzed by Jonathan Whitcomb, in 2011, with a limited number of results. The main weakness in this project was in the descriptions, for at least some of the interviews did not have precisely similar questions. For example, the degree of certainty in the absence of feathers did not come from the same question in each interview. Those reports that had sufficient information on feather-lack were grouped in absolutely-no-feathers and probably-no-feathers. This means that only a portion of those 98 reports could be used on that particular point. But Whitcomb still had 36 reports that were adequate for feathers-lack, and the result was a sound slap in the face to those who have believed that hoaxes were the cause of sighting reports.

But those 98 reports in themselves make an impression. Whitcomb chose them because they were unlikely to have come from hoaxes and misidentifications. If each of those 98 has only one chance in a hundred to have come from observing a modern pterosaur, then it is much more likely that at least one of them was just that: a modern pterosaur. Figure it for yourself if you like, but a 99% chance of a mistake in each of those 98 reports means that at least one of them was probably a modern pterosaur. But those of us who have examined those reports believe the probability of error is far less than 99%, even less than 50%. That means that it is practically certain that at least one of them was a genuine sighting of a modern extant pterosaur.

Smithsonian Incapable of Calculating a Probability

Take the four critical sightings in the southwest Pacific: Finschhafen-1944, Bougainville-1971, Pung-1994, Perth-1997. In context with the history of the pterosaur-extinction axiom (the weakness in the pre-Darwin assumption of universal pterosaur extinction), each of the above four encounters independently appear to have been unlikely to have been from any non-pterosaur. I judge each one at less than 10% of being from any non-pterosaur. In 0ther words, there is less than one chance in 10,000 that no living pterosaur was involved in any of those four sighting reports.

Teradactyl or Pterodactyl?

On the Papua New Guinea mainland, in 2006, Paul Nation and his associate, native minister Jacob Kepas, explored deep in the highland interior. One night, Paul video- taped two glowing objects near the top of a ridge. The natives attribute this kind of light to large flying creatures that used to carry away pigs and children from their village.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Smithsonian Success and Failure

With many other people, I applaud the accomplishments of those who made the Space Shuttle missions successful. I also rejoice at the arrival of the Discovery shuttle in Washington, where it will be housed at the Smithsonian, another feather in their cap. But I am sorry that the Smithsonian has not budged from its dogmatic article that was written by the science reporter Brian Switek.

Smithsonian Proclaims “Ropen Myth”

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.

Smithsonian Slams the Door

Perhaps it is the fear of appearing foolish that keeps the Smithsonian doors closed to any pterosaurs except those having only bones. Perhaps the official policy remains “the ropen is a myth.” But where is any real evidence for universal extinction of general types?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Big do Pterosaurs Get?

What’s been going around lately is the subject of just how big modern pterosaurs get. What some people misunderstand is that sightings of modern pterosaurs do not necessarily need to closely coorelate, in size estimates, with sizes known from examining fossils. If we look to the fossils alone for understanding, we would think that any modern pterosaur that had a wingspan over twenty-five feet must be the short-tailed variety, what some cryptozoologists call “Pterodactyloid.” But that is not the case when we look to the details in the eyewitness descriptions, for most of them include a long tail, like what some cryptozoologists call “Rhamphorhynchoid.”

But now to specifics, how big do pterosaurs get?

The Lake Pung Sighting may have involved one of the largest pterosaurs observed in the past century. From a careful examination of Gideon Koro’s testimony, it seems that the ropen that terrified him and his three friends, around 1994, had a wingspan over forty feet.

The “Perth Creature” seen by an Australian couple in 1997 may have had a wingspan as great as fifty feet. The minimum size that they thought it could have been was thirty feet in wingspan.

Biggest Pterosaur

I believe the creature’s flight path was not exactly perpendicular to the road, when it flew over it, from the best of my memory of interviewing the eyewitness, which brings up the possibility that it may have been even longer than thirty feet. It’s hard to find room for much exaggeration in this sighting: The ropen seems to have been close to thirty feet long.

Giant Bat

Sometimes an eyewitness will say “giant bat.” We need not assume the flying creature was literally a bat.

Posted in Sightings | 1 Comment

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.

Advertisement

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.

Posted in Science and Religion | Tagged | 1 Comment

Nineteenth Century Hoax

The hoax I mention is in an 1856 issue of The Illustrated London News, in the article about the pterodactyl that stumbled out of a railway tunnel after a drilling explosion or manual digging. I see little need to examine this old newspaper story, for the details point to a hoax, if I have learned those details correctly. I mention this now because of the writings of Glen Kuban, who seems to take this newspaper joke as if it were evidence that eyewitness accounts in general are hoaxes, or takes it as if it throws suspicion on all reported sightings of modern pterosaurs.

I don’t say that everything that Kuban says about reports of modern pterosaurs is wrong, but that he may do more harm than good by trying to convince people that pterosaurs all became extinct long ago. And one thing he probably does not understand, and this relates to that old London newspaper story, is that nineteenth century newspapers, when they carried joke-articles, may have been influenced by true stories that were not mentioned in the hoax-story articles.

I now refer to American newspaper articles in the nineteenth century, for a possible example, and I use the book Live Pterosaurs in America, in quoting:

Cryptozoology author Chad Arment wrote “The Pterodactyls of Fresno County, California” for the BioFortean Review (November 2006, No. 5). I include a summary of those newspaper accounts here . . .

I cannot prove all the accounts were genuine, for they were recorded secondhand in the early 1890’s. I suggest that at least some eyewitnesses were telling the truth, regardless of the opinions of the news reporters of that time, and that at least some eyewitnesses may have seen a living pterosaur. I do not submit these old reports as indisputable evidence to prove pterosaurs lived in the late nineteenth century; I submit them to dismiss any potential objection that twentieth century and twenty-first century reports of living pterosaurs in California are without historical precedence: Sightings continue.

The point is that when a newspaper in the nineteenth century printed a hoax story, the idea may have come from another newspaper that had printed a genuine story about an extraordinary sighting of a real pterosaur. The hoax articles do not prove or even lead one logically to assume that all articles on that same subject must be hoaxes.

But there’s something else. We need to be careful about extreme positions, and I don’t mean just pterosaur extinction itself, for there have been countless species living at some time in the past. Extreme positions about newspaper stories means blindly taking every one of them as if containing indisputable facts or taking every newspaper story about a pterosaur sighting as if must have been a hoax. Take each story, instead, by itself. If two or more newspaper accounts seem to relate, then take that into account. Just beware of extreme positions, for newspaper reports are human and hoaxers are not yet extinct.

Hoax Explanation for Living Pterosaurs

In 1856, according to The Illustrated London News (newspaper) at the time, men working on a tunnel in France discovered a living pterosaur (by whatever name). In 1890, according to the Tombstone Epitaph (newspaper) at the time, two Arizona ranchers shot a giant flying creature. What do these two accounts have in common? Each is now believed by many to be a hoax. But not all accounts of living pterosaurs can be easily dismissed as hoaxes.

Living Pterosaurs? Not by Glen Kuban

But Whitcomb’s web page does not go nearly far enough in emphasizing the testimonies of Brian Hennessy and Duane Hodgkinson. Glen Kuban’s web page ignores those two witnesses entirely. Hennessy and Hodgkinson witnessed “prehistoric” looking flying creatures in daylight, at fairly close range, with locations being Bougainville Island and the Finschhafen area, respectively, both in New Guinea, which is now the nation of Papua New Guinea.

Marfa Lights up in the Houston Chronicle

Large newspapers, the traditional backbone of major media, rarely publish ideas that contradict basic assumptions of the sociey in which they exist. It was no surprise when the Houston Chronicle’s December 19, 2010, print edition played to the audience with the article “What’s going on in Marfa?” published online on December 16. The subject was Marfa Lights. It played to the assumption that no “dinosaur” could live in Marfa, Texas.

Posted in Sightings | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Why a Hoax Does not Explain Sightings

Again the subject of a hoax or hoaxes has come up in regard to accounts of modern pterosaurs. There seems to be no end of refutations for the “hoax hypothesis,” as it has been called. Statistics from years of eyewitness sighting reports disprove any generalized hoax explanation, for the degree of certainty in descriptions of featherlessness (if “featherlessness” is a word) fly in the face of those skeptics who use the word “hoax.”

But that is not exactly the direction I wish to take at present. I say we need to look at some of the key eyewitnesses of modern pterosaurs, look into why they might or might not play a hoax. First, we look at the psychologist Brian Hennessy.

In 1971, perhaps before Hennessy had a degree in psychology, I don’t know, he was on Bougainville Island, which is now part of the nation of Papua New Guinea. In his own words:

Our truck had stopped on our downward journey from the top of the range to the coast way below. The sound was amplified by the road-cutting into the mountain. That is, there was bare red/orange clay, rather than the surrounding jungle. I can’t remember why our vehicle had stopped. Maybe we had to wait for another vehicle to pass us. I don’t know. But I can still hear that slow flapping sound in the stillness of an early tropical morn, on the road from Panguna down to loloho on Bougainville Island in 1971.

When I looked up, trying to see what was making this sound, i saw a very unusual creature. Firstly, it was very big (wingspan at least 2 metres, probably more…possibly much , much more). I can’t remember the exact distance estimate that this creature was from me…let’s say about 50 metres above.

It was black or dark brown. I had never seen anything like it before. It certainly looked prehistoric, in that it did not look like any other bird that I have seen before or since. Why prehistoric? Well, maybe my memory has been influenced by the intervening years, but I recall seeing this creature with a longish narrow tail…almost like a counterweight that a kangaroo has, although not as large.

The body seemed to be quite narrow. However, the head was disproportionately large compared to the body (no feathers in sight). The wingspan was large. The head had no ‘normal’ beak. Rather there seemed to be (and this is difficult to describe) a kind of beak that was indistinguishable from the head, and the head seemed to continue this ‘point’ at the back of the head.

I’ll explain why I have brought up this particular sighting. When Hennessy reported his experience, in 2006, he was a professional psychologist. I believe that he still is. But why would he agree to have his real name be used in cryptozoology literature, if he was playing a hoax? It would likely come back to haunt him in his profession.

A skeptic might say that reporting a live pterosaur could come back to haunt you. But Hennessy did not say that he had observed a live pterosaur. He simply described it. He did not say that there could not have been any feather on that creature. He simply told us that he saw no sign of any feather. He was not trying to convince everybody that he had observed a modern pterosaur, but he was simply reported his observation. He was obviously not playing a hoax.

Second, we look at Paul Nation, a cryptozoologist-explorer, who explored in Papua New Guinea at least four times. If he had any desire to play a hoax, why has he said nothing about personally observing anything like any pterosaur? He tries to let people know about the possibility of the existence of modern pterosaurs, so why has he not lied and said that he did see a pterosaur? Surely it is because he is honest and simply reports what eyewitnesses have told him and what he personally observed in distant flying lights. That brings us to the final point: Honest people do not play pterosaur hoaxes.

No Hoax With Pterosaur Sightings

Evelyn Cheesman was a biologist who searched for insects and small animals in remote areas, including New Guinea, in the 1920′s and 1930′s. In fact, some of her discoveries put her name to some of those creatures, including Lipinia cheesmanae—a skink (lizard), and Litoria cheesmani—a treefrog.

Cheesman’s successes in biology are worthy of praise, but what about her observations of strange flying lights? They resemble the strange flying lights observed by Paul Nation, miles south of where Cheesman saw them. She was no cryptozoologist and was surely not playing a hoax when she wrote about her observations in her book The Two Roads of Papua.

Other eyewitnesses could be mentioned, but the point is that a generalized hoax hypothesis cannot touch all of the sighting reports, therefore any critic who wishes to be thorough must find some other explanation or admit the possibility of modern pterosaurs.

Posted in Expeditions in Papua New Guinea, Sightings | Tagged | 2 Comments

New Mexico and Texas

Wild animals pay no attention to human borders, unless a fence hinders them. But fences are generally ignored by animals that fly, so what’s the difference between New Mexico and Texas? Western Texas in particular should not seem much different from New Mexico, to flying animals. I find reports of “pterodactyls” in these areas interesting.

From the book Live Pterosaurs in America:

“I live in central N.M.. Fourteen years ago, in [Socorro], N.M., me and a close friend, who now has a masters in biology, were hiking during the midday sun at [a] box canyon and something blocked the sun for a moment. We both looked up to see what did that and saw a large flying animal.

“It had a 20-30 foot wingspan and was about the same length long. It had a long tail with [a] seeming spike at the end. Its head was very pterodactyl shape with a fluted back pointy head. It glided at about 700 feet in a westward direction. . . . we watched it glide . . . and land somewhere on the southern expanse of Magdalena Mountains.”

The fact that the two eyewitnesses saw this creature in the middle of the day does not necessarily mean that it was not nocturnal. When an animal that is normally active at night is disturbed during the day, it can well become temporarily active.

Although most sightings of reported pterosaurs in Texas are not with estimated wingspans as large as this one in New Mexico, size does come into play, sometimes, in attracting the attention of eyewitnesses.

Sightings in Texas

A lady and her brother, in San Antonia one evening in 1986, saw something flying around across the road, a little above the phone lines. “It would go one direction, turn, and swoop back. The shape was wrong for any large bird of the area, and the size was much too large to be any bat . . .”

Posted in Sightings | Tagged | 1 Comment