One critic of living-pterosaur investigations, Sherry Konkus, has created, for a web site, a URL that includes “stupid” and “lies.” On the page that caught my attention (a first-page result from a Google search on “pterosaurs age earth creationist”), the writer blasts the ideas of a creationist I had never heard of, Bill Johnson. Nowhere on Konkus’s page did I see the names of the most-active investigators (of eyewitness reports of living pterosaurs: Garth Guessman, Paul Nation, David Woetzel, and me). The creationist page that is criticized describes native American (including Mexican) legends about the Thunderbird, bringing up the possibility that some legends may be based upon sightings of pterosaurs that lived in human times: a perfectly valid creationist perspective, although contrary to standard models commonly promoted in Western society. 

The main article in question, by Konkus, is titled “Thunderbirds A Creationist Fairy Tale.” The secondary article, “Thunderbirds – Did the American Indians see ‘winged dinosaurs‘?,” by Johnson, gives ten references and notes at the bottom; Konkus’s criticism gives no references at the bottom, but refers to something written by Glen Kuban, another critic of living-pterosaur investigations. That alone does not prove Johnson’s ideas correct and Konkus’s incorrect, but the latter seems, more than once, to accuse the former of dishonesty, restating standard models as if facts, and that alone flashes a warning sign that Konkus is not thinking clearly: Citing sources that are interpreted to contradict standard models does not prove one a liar, but Konkus seems to portray that it does.

Other warning signs are easier to spot. Referring to creationists, in the first sentence Konkus uses the word “idiocy,” and in the second sentence, “idiot.” Starting off like that brings up the concept of bulverism. Also in the second sentence, Konkus gives a straw man argument, rather than quoting any creationist. The third sentence includes, “Creationists heavily rely only on science fiction and its influence in pop culture for knowledge on dinosaurs and pterosaurs.” That deserves attention here, for the author of that statement appears ignorant of the true nature of twenty-first century investigations of recent eyewitness sightings of apparent pterosaurs.

Konkus mentions nothing about the eyewitness Duane Hodgkinson. This American World War II veteran had suffered, not injuries from combat: disbelief from those who were casual about his account of his 1944 sighting on the mainland of New Guinea. Until Hodgkinson was interviewed by me and by my associate, Garth Guessman, he was usually hesitant to talk about his experience, for people would dismiss it as impossible. But in the last few years, many thousands of Youtube viewers have been impressed by the honest statements given by this veteran who witnessed a “pterodactyl” that had a tail “at least” ten or fifteen feet long. Critics, including Konkus, usually avoid the name of “Duane Hodgkinson.”

Konkus mentions nothing about the eyewitness Brian Hennessy. This active Australian professional psychologist has been a consultant for years. He does not portray eyewitnesses of large “prehistoric” flying creatures (with long tails but no sign of feathers) as crazy. He himself is an eyewitness (Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea). Critics, including Konkus, usually avoid the name of “Brian Hennessy.”

Konkus mentions nothing about the eyewitness Eskin Kuhn. I interviewed him by phone early in 2010, and found no indication of any hoax. This United States Marine, a talented artist, sketched the two flying creatures soon after he had observed them at the Guantanamo Bay military installation in Cuba. The sketch shows nothing like any bird or bat; it shows two obvious pterosaur-like creatures. Critics, including Konkus, usually avoid the name of “Eskin Kuhn.”

Contrary to the declarations of Konkus, I have found no stupidity in the ideas given by Johnson and no reasonable evidence for any lies from creationists who promote the possibility of modern living pterosaurs. I could quote many testimonies of eyewitnesses of these flying creatures in Papua New Guinea, North America, and elsewhere, but this, for now, should suffice. I was about to contact Konkus by email, but found that this critic (who seems so free to use words like “stupid” and “lies”) has specified no “Creationist slander” allowed; I interpret that as a warning sign that anything I would say in defense of any “creationist” might cause offense, so I will leave that critic alone.

I suggest we avoid bulverism and keep to the significant evidence itself: credible eyewitnesses of living pterosaurs.

Further information on criticism of investigations of living pterosaurs:

Are All Pterosaurs Extinct – A reply to Glen Kuban

Eskin Kuhn Sighting and Creationist “Claims” — There Was No Hoax

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Tagged with:
 

2 Responses to “Why “Stupid?” What “Lies?””

  1. […] word “propaganda,” for it suggests deliberately misinforming. I do not accuse anyone of lies, although that accusation has been thrown at me and my associates by one critic. But generations of […]

  2. […] Why “Stupid?” What “Lies?” Referring to creationists, in the first sentence Konkus uses the word “idiocy,” and in the second sentence, “idiot.” Starting off like that brings up the concept of bulverism. Also in the second sentence, Konkus gives a straw man argument, rather than quoting any creationist. […]