On the subjecty of hoaxes, a few years ago I found an online reference to a reported sighting of a “pterodactyl” that was said to have been seen flying through the sky with a family pet in its mouth (I will not go into detail about what kind of pet that was). I investigated the person who made that report; he was found to be unreliable, to say the least (I will not go into detail on that). I have also seen an apparent hoax on Youtube, what looks very much like a computer-3D model or a flying model airplane shaped like a pterodactyl. I know that some people make hoaxes. But that does not mean that every reported sighting of an apparent pterosaur is a hoax.
Skeptics often conveniently overlook details when they carelessly toss “hoax” out into the air; we don’t need more air pollution. Consider some of what has been written about experiences of eyewitnesses, as written in my scientific paper (peer-reviewed) that was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly:
“Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific” (C.R.S.Q., Vol. 45, Winter 2009)
“Although Woetzel saw neither shape nor features during his ropen-light sighting on Umboi Island in 2004, his report is significant, for he was looking for the ropen and was prepared to take note of anything he saw. His description was distinctly unlike meteors or manmade lights . . . the object disappeared behind the crater-mountain system of Lake Pung . . . where other sightings have taken place, suggesting the ropen’s destination was that lake.” (page 207)
What is the point of Woetzel’s sighting report, in relation to skeptic’s generalized suggestions of hoaxes? Woetzel has been passionate in searching for living dinosaurs and pterosaurs in various parts of the world. He, like me, has written a scientific paper that was published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. But he, like me, never saw any clear form or features of a pterosaur on Umboi Island. Other explorers (who have also passionately promoted the concept of living pterosaurs) have also returned from Papua New Guinea with no personal sighting of anything like a pterosaur. That practically eliminates a hoax as in relation to our investigations: We would not lie when telling everybody that we never saw a pterosaur. Woetzel and I and other American explorers encountered eyewitnesses of the ropen, and descriptions of that flying creature suggest a modern pterosaur far more than any bird or bat.
. . . look at Paul Nation . . . 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? . . . he is honest and simply reports what eyewitnesses have told him and what he . . . observed in distant flying lights. . . . the final point: Honest people do not play pterosaur hoaxes.
If some hoaxers gave “estimates” based on standard beliefs about long-tailed pterosaurs, and some hoaxers gave “estimates” based on standard beliefs about giant pterosaurs, the graph would have shown two peaks, with a deep valley in the top graph around “d,” (“e” and “f” in the lower graph), far different from the actual data collected.
I proclaim that no combination of hoaxes made up any significant portion of the sighting reports that I have personally received. You don’t need to rely only on my word, however, for the overall data confirms the credibility of those eyewitnesses.
One comment on “A Hoax or not a Hoax, That is the Question”
Pingback: Hoax or Pterosaur? - Pterosaur Eyewitness