Early-2015 Pterosaur Expedition in PNG

Three Americans explored a tropical rain forest in Papua New Guinea, within the past few weeks, and two of them succeeded in observing an apparent living pterosaur. That’s better than the previous ten expeditions, over the past 21 years, at least in regard to direct observations of a flying creature: Most of the earlier searches got little more than eyewitness interviews with natives or brief glimpses of a flying light.

The name of the island is being kept secret, at least for the moment; the two American eyewitnesses were Milt Marcy and Peter Beach. The island was chosen because eyewitnesses had previously reported big flying creatures there, featherless and pterosaur-like. Strange to tell, it appears to be a species that differs from the ropen of Umboi Island, for it has a very short tail, when a tail is noticed.

In April of 2015, I interviewed two of the American Biblical creationists by phone, confirming their sighting. I have a number of evidences for their honesty in reporting the huge flying creature in Papua New Guinea.

Honesty of two Eyewitnesses: Milt Marcy and Peter Beach

According to Wikipedia, the expedition team (January, 2006) led by Milt Marcy traveled to the Dja river in Cameroon, near the Congolese border. They interviewed native eyewitnesses of the Mokèlé-mbèmbé but the explorers themselves saw no such animal. The expedition team consisted of the following:

  • Milt Marcy
  • Peter Beach
  • Rob Mullin
  • Pierre Sima

A key point is this: Marcy and Beach searched for a sauropod dinosaur in a remote area of Africa, but returned home admitting that they had seen nothing like that animal. Obviously they were telling the truth about that critical detail. A liar would not likely go to such lengths to explore a jungle wilderness and then come back admitting that kind of failure, for that kind of person would lie about seeing something.

Milt Marcy and Peter Beach also investigated a sighting report of a “pterodactyl” or apparent pterosaur that was said to have been observed in a tree on the bank of the Yakima River in southeastern Washington state. Neither of those men, however, reported observing anything like a pterosaur in daylight near or over the Yakima River, although they did see some strange flying lights there at night. Again we see their honesty-credibility supported by their admission that they failed to see what they hoped for. Dishonest persons do not admit seeing nothing like what they wanted to convince people about!

Now Mr. Marcy and Mr. Beach have returned from an expensive expedition in Papua New Guinea. Both of them report observing a flying creature that was more likely than not to have been a pterosaur. The point? Why admit uncertainty about that flying creature being a modern living pterosaur? If they had any desire to deceive, they would have proclaimed positively that they had seen a pterosaur.

Those three searches by those two men, in different years and in different areas of the planet, prove their honesty. This is three-strikes-you’re-out for skeptics who have accused such cryptozoologists of dishonesty over many years. That case is closed and the verdict is this: Milt Marcy and Peter Beach have been honest in their reports of their searches for dinosaurs and pterosaurs.

on banks of Yakima River, Washington state

Milt Marcy (left) and Peter Beach, Yakima River, Washington

The Case for Modern Pterosaurs

So why should any paleontologist believe in modern pterosaurs or dinosaurs? These two men have searched diligently in three areas of the world and have seen nothing until early 2015, when they saw a flying creature that appeared to be a pterosaur probably. The point is in the many eyewitnesses who have had better sightings of obvious pterosaurs, flying creatures obviously not birds or bats.

But I’ve written several nonfiction books with reasoning on why these animals are living pterosaurs. There’s no room here to repeat even 5% of all of that. Please use the “Search” function of this blog, for information about location or other subject matter related to these wonderful flying creatures.

###

.

Pterosaur Expedition in Papua New Guinea

On Saturday, April 18, 2015, two American explorers returned from Papua New Guinea, after searching for living pterosaurs on a tropical island where the creatures were previously reported.

No Lie in Whitcomb’s Reports of Modern Pterosaurs

Within the past few weeks, three web sites have caught my attention, each with a page accusing me of dishonesty. . . . We’ll look at what dishonesty is and examine the credibility of those three proclamations about my guilt.

Honesty in Ropen Searching

A different kind of attack has been launched, as an American paleontologist has dismissed the ropen as a “fake” pterosaur and dismissed me, Jonathan Whitcomb, as one who practices deception. . . . why does this paleontologist assume that I intended to deceive anyone? He seems upset that my web pages dominate the internet, at least when people use Google. But what would be fair if that skeptical scientist had spent over 10,000 hours in a project, for eleven years, and had published online articles and posts that outnumbered those of all of his colleagues? Would he not think it fair that his ideas would show up on the top of search-engine results?

Pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea

After he and his  buddy walked into a clearing, they were  amazed as a large creature flew up into  the air. The men soon realized that it was  no bird that started to circle the clearing. It  had a tail “at least ten to fifteen feet long” . . .

Not Extinct, Flying Creatures

He set aside his work in legal video, traveling to Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, and leading the first ropen expedition of 2004. After interviewing many natives, he returned to the United States convinced of the identity of the ropen: a living Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur . . .

.

 

Tagged with:
 

Individual Belief

On December 7, 2010, in philosophy, sighting in North America, by Jonathan Whitcomb

I received a phone call today: from a reporter for a large newspaper in Houston, Texas. As we talked about Marfa Lights and reports of living pterosaurs, she asked me if creationists believe in living pterosaurs. Grateful for an easy question, I answered, “Yes.” I then remembered the exceptions: I told her that some creationist scientists are cautious about the possibility of modern pterosaurs, for the investigations are still mostly in the realm of cryptozoology.

After that phone conversation I thought a bit deeper. Some Americans disagree with me and my associates about the origin of life, choosing to believe that live came about through many millions of years of evolution from simple small organisms to large complex ones. Most of those “evolutionists” have little if any respect for living pterosaur investigations. But a few of them actually believe in living pterosaurs, notwithstanding how their interpretation differs from that of creationists. In fact, I occasionally interview an eyewitness who will talk about the creature in terms suggesting an evolutionary perspective.

Perhaps my thinking today has not been as deep as it could have been. All I got from it is this: Individuals often believe or disbelieve something based upon individual personality, more than upon how they are labeled.

I just remembered my 2004 expedition and the only financial donation I received as I prepared to travel to Papua New Guinea. It was only a few dollars, but it was from a man who was labeled “evolutionist.” Interesting.

Tagged with:
 

Science and Clear Thinking

On June 15, 2010, in philosophy, Sighting in Papua New Guinea, by Jonathan Whitcomb

“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.” I believe Nikola Tesla was thinking clearly when he said that. I also believe that we need clear thinking in the scientists of today, at least as much as in the time of Tesla. It appears to me difficult to define, although its opposite appears easy to expose. Perhaps we should be grateful for extremes that help us to distinguish between foggy and clear thinking. I suggest a couple of examples.

A few years ago, a critic of living-pterosaurs investigations appeared offended that I had, on one of my own web pages, included a link to a creationist site; he demanded that I remove that link, insinuating that I should not be taken seriously because of that link. I now suggest that those who can be offended by such a thing should consider this: Bias is not necessarily confined to those who disagree with you.

I later found a site produced by another critic; he used the words “lies” and “stupid” in his URL, with the content of his site ridiculing me and my associates. Not to repeat much of the content, I simply refer to part of it: He declared that “John Whitcomb” had been sponsored by Carl Baugh and led a group of creationists in an expedition in Africa; I have never gone by the name of “John,” have never been sponsored by Carl Baugh for anything, have never led any group of creationists on any expedition anywhere, and have never set foot in Africa.

Regarding his URL, I have told the truth, not lies; I hope that he was simply ignorant of my intentions. I make no comment about “stupid,” although I sometimes admit that my general intelligence may be inferior to that of some of my readers and my education may seem less impressive than that of some of my critics (not, it seems, this one), but let’s return to “clear thinking,” for that is the subject.

I admit this subject cries for me to dig more deeply and learn more about human thinking, but one thing is obvious: We need to listen to each other, regardless of previous disagreements and regardless of differing labels. Truth can be found in the thoughts of those appearing to be most ignorant and foolish. Even my own most vehement critic did reveal some truth about me: My last name is “Whitcomb” and I am active in promoting the concept of modern living pterosaurs; this critic may have actually helped promote awareness of the case for living pterosaurs.

By the way, I did explore a remote island in Papua New Guinea (north of Australia) in 2004. I traveled to P.N.G. alone and found an interpreter on the mainland, before taking a small ship to Umboi Island. I interviewed many eyewitnesses of the ropen. My associates and I are convinced that this nocturnal flying creature is a modern Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur.

My critic may have confused Papua New Guinea with a small country in Western Africa. He may also have confused me with John C. Whitcomb who wrote The Genesis Flood many years ago. He may also have been confused by my assistance from Paul Nation, who was once a close associate of Carl Baugh. He may also have been confused about the two expeditions of 2004, for the second one was led by two American creationists and they followed my expedition by only a few weeks.

After I had replied to this web site, stating the inaccuracies, changes were made, including the correct spelling of my name: “Jonathan Whitcomb.” The newer page mentions nothing about my being in Africa. I appreciate that correction.

But many other inaccuracies were added, related to sightings and the living-pterosaur investigations. For example, the two indava lights videotaped by Paul Nation in 2006 were compared with high-speed UFO’s (the two lights were actually sitting motionless on the top of a nearby ridge). The critic mentioned those videotaped lights “flying in the sky above the peaks of volcanoes located on Umboi Island created by creationists possessing fake credentials.” (I suspect he was trying too hard to cram too many criticisms into one sentence.) At any rate, the videotaped lights were on the mainland of Papua New Guinea, nowhere near Umboi Island. I’m afraid that the critic has a problem with clear thinking, for he still tends to become confused.

I don’t know why this critic uses the words “lies” and “stupid” for me and my associates; I assume that it is also from some kind of confusion.

More: objective evaluation of eyewitness reports and the nonfiction book Live Pterosaurs in America (published by Createspace; written by Jonathan David Whitcomb) This is a cryptozoology book.

Objective interview methods of Guessman & Woetzel (2nd Umboi Island expedition of 2004)

Objective Ministries” is a parody or hoax. The university is nonexistent. There’s no “objectiveministries.”

Is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea?

On April 9, 2010, in philosophy, by Jonathan Whitcomb

What is a living pterosaur? It’s a presently-living animal, with pterosaur ancestors, and with features making it an obvious pterosaur. It presently lives as a cryptid in the realm of cryptozoology, according to Western classification. According to critics, it lives only in the imagination of some creationists.

What is a creationist? It’s a human, with a belief in Adam and Eve as their original human ancestors on earth. Disbelief in the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) is one feature of a creationist. Not all cryptozoologists believe in living pterosaurs, and not all creationists are convinced. Some who belief in GTE assume that universal pterosaur extinction cannot be successfully challenged and that those who mention eyewitness sightings are misguided in a severe bias. The problem with that position becomes obvious when we examine the eyewitnesses: Few of them are creationists.

So is “living pterosaur” a creationist idea? From 1993 to early 2010, most expeditions were led by creationists, most research was done by creationists, and most writings were written by creationists. But no, the idea that pterosaurs continue to fly through our skies–that comes from openly considering testimonies of eyewitnesses of various beliefs, various languages, and various cultures. But the living pterosaur as part of a support for literal interpretations of many events recorded in Genesis–that is a creationist idea.

See also Monsterquest and Flying Monsters

Tagged with: