critic – The Bible and Modern Pterosaurs

February 27, 2018March 26, 2018

Head Crest and a Rhamphorhynchoid Tail

By Jonathan Whitcomb, author of nonfiction cryptozoology books

I recently came across a series of comments in the cryptozoology section of Reddit. Here’s part of what one skeptic said about eyewitness reports from North Carolina:

“nonsensical ‘head-crest and long tail with a diamond fin’ description”

It is a strange description, to be sure, that combination of a head crest and a Rhamphorhynchoid-like tail that has a structure at tail-end. It appears almost as strange as a description of a platypus, to someone who knows about mammals and ducks but who has been ignorant of that strange animal that now lives in Australia.

I suggest the countless sightings of ropens around the world—that demonstrates that this animal now lives worldwide. The critic who threw up that comment on Reddit was surely ignorant of just how many persons have reported a living ropen. And eyewitnesses live in many countries of the world, not just in North Carolina.

Eskin Kuhn, a U.S. Marine at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 1971, is a talented artist. He witnessed two “pterodactyls” flying at “close range” and not high above the ground. He concentrated on their appearance so that he could sketch out details later. He drew the above sketch within minutes of his sighting, which encounter was on a clear day.

Notice the combination of a long tail with a tail-end structure and that horn-like head crest. Mr. Kuhn had no idea that during World War II, in the Pacific, an American soldier had a close encounter with a “huge” flying creature that brought to mind the word “pterodactyl.” That one also had a long tail (“at least ten or fifteen feet” in length) and a horn-like head crest.

Sightings in New Guinea, decades ago

The late World War II veteran Duane Hodgkinson freely described the long-tailed flying creature he and his army buddy observed in a jungle clearing west of Finschhafen, New Guinea, in 1944. He did not focus, at the time, on the end of the tail of the “pterodactyl,” for he was concentrating much more on the head. He made it clear, however, that the long tail was separate from the legs, for he clearly saw the legs when the creature was running to get up off the ground while it was taking off.

But Hodgkinson saw the head crest and approved the sketch that was made according to his guidance. Brian Hennessy also saw a large flying creature with a long tail, and that was on Bougainville Island, New Guinea, in 1971, the same year as the sighting by Eskin Kuhn, on the other side of the world.

Ropen-pterosaur: 1971 (top) and 1944 (bottom)

Notice the similarities in the two sketches above. The top head-sketch was chosen by Brian Hennessy; the bottom, by Duane Hodgkinson. Although the sightings were in different decades, the proximity (eastern mainland of New Guinea and Bougainville Island) and the similarities in the choices made by those two men—those point to the large flying creatures being either the same species or a closely related species.

More on a Head Crest and a Rhamphorhynchoid Tail

So we have two Western eyewitnesses of apparent ropens in New Guinea and one American soldier in Cuba, with sketches corresponding to those three sightings. We actually have more than that: Take the report by the American Patty Carson. She saw a flying “dinosaur” at Guantanamo Bay but several years before the sighting by Eskin Kuhn.

Sketch by the eyewitness Patty Carson

This eyewitness drew her sketch long after the sighting she had in Cuba, but she has something in common with Mr. Kuhn, aside from encountering a ropen: She is a talented artist who can draw realistically from memory. Notice the horn-like head crest on the above sketch.

You may respond with something like this: Carson’s sketch does not have any long tail. Yes, that is true. But she remembers seeing a long tail on that “dinosaur” and she remembers the flange that she saw on the end of that tail.

The combination of a head crest and a long Rhamphorhynchoid tail, with a “diamond” or “spade” or “triangle” at tail end—that may be relatively rare in a pterosaur fossil, but it’s common in sighting reports of modern ropens. Despite remarks from critics, this is a real animal and described in similar ways, if not in the exact same words, by eyewitnesses in different areas of the planet and from different human cultures.

###

Living pterosaur in Arkansas

Encounters with strange flying creatures

Another Living Pterosaur in North Carolina

It was so big I could easily make out the features. . . . I estimate wingspan was like 10 to 15 feet.

The reports of living pterosaurs are not birds

I know of three cases in which a person has seen a frigatebird, or a photo or video of that kind of oceanic bird, and thought it was a living pterosaur (or at least he put forward the idea that it was a non-extinct pterosaur). Take that in context: Over the past thirteen years, I’ve looked at hundreds of eyewitness sighting reports of possible living pterosaurs.

Ropen — a Myth or a Living Reality?

Why do critics of these investigations proclaim so ardently the religious beliefs of cryptozoologists who interview eyewitnesses of apparent pterosaurs?

A living Rhamphorhynchoid

The pterosaur suborder of Rhamphorhynchoidea, those long-tailed featherless flying creatures—they’re also called basal pterosaurs. For generations, many scientists have assumed that they became extinct, at least for most of their species, before the last of the Pterodactyloid pterosaurs dominated the skies, many millions of years ago. At least that has been the assumption.

November 28, 2014

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. He also ridicules my belief in the Garden of Eden and in the Flood of Genesis. If I were a paleontologist who had a valid point to make about pterosaur fossils, I hope I would not respond to a misguided cryptozoologist by ridiculing that person’s religion or assuming the worst regarding honesty.

“Stupid Dinosaur Lies”

Those are not my words. They are part of a URL that I first saw around mid-2005, perhaps the first major online attack against those who promote the possibility that not all of these featherless flying creatures are extinct. Search the words of my book Searching for Ropens and Finding God (fourth edition) if you will, and you’ll see, in those 360 pages, that only twice is the word stupid printed: once quoting that word in that libelous web page and once for an eyewitness who was discouraged because of the possibility that he had been mistaken through misidentification, his own word for his predicament. I do not use that word for a person who disagrees with me.

I will not link to that web site having the URL words “stupid,” “dinosaur,” and “lies.” I will quote from page 118 of my nonfiction book:

I will quote no more from that web page, but I deny that my associates and I have perpetrated a hoax to make money. In addition, I have never led any Young Earth Creationists on any expedition and have never set foot in Africa. Those noticing the misspelling of both my first and last names, they may take a clue that other details on that page may also be inaccurate. Enough said.

Honesty of Explorers

Perhaps nobody accused Paul Nation of dishonesty after his Umboi Island expedition with his son in 2002; hardly anybody knew about that.
Few persons, if any, seem to have accused him of dishonesty after his 2006 expedition on the mainland of Papua New Guinea.
Nobody that I know of accused him of any lie after he returned from his 2007 expedition, in which he found that he had made a misidentification in part of the 2006 endeavor.

When an American like Paul Nation travels to remote tropical wildernesses to look for flying dinosaurs (not the phrase he himself normally uses), his return to the United States is not usually met with loud proclamations of dishonesty. For those who dismiss the possibility of a living pterosaur, accusations of lies could be interpreted to mean that the explorer was not telling the truth about observing nothing resembling a pterosaur, and that would defeat the skeptics’ purpose.

But that is the point in all those expeditions in Papua New Guinea: Liars would not be expected to return home admitting they saw nothing like what they were most hoping to see. In other words, the following explorers were telling the truth when they returned from Papua New Guinea:

Garth Guessman
David Woetzel
Jonathan Whitcomb
Paul Nation

Attack From an American Paleontologist

This highly acclaimed scientist, whom I will not name here, recognized in his field of paleontology and acknowledged on Wikipedia for his many scientific papers (published in peer-reviewed journals of science, no doubt)—he never mentioned the word expedition in his attack against my honesty. Of course such an admission could seriously detract from what he wanted to portray, that I am dishonest. He concentrated on one apparent political blunder that I seem to have made, but he twists it around, even 180 degrees around, making it appear that I was using deception.

The early years of my publications were met with skeptic comments questioning my honesty. I then continued writing in web pages and online blogs, usually using my normal name, Jonathan Whitcomb. I also started using two pseudonyms: Norman Huntington and Nathaniel Coleman. That was to allow readers to be informed about the living-pterosaur investigations. To at least a few readers, my name had been smeared to some extent, and it could have been a distraction. In other words, I used those two pen names to get the truth to as many persons as possible, while still using Whitcomb on many blog posts, including on my dominant blog Live Pterosaur. So 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?

Conclusion About Honesty

I am shocked that somebody with so much education would make so many mistakes, indeed errors that are facing 180 degrees away from reality. But I do not accuse this man of dishonesty, for I cannot see into his mind or into his heart. Being honest or dishonest is, after all, about one’s intention. Those who search diligently will find the truth.

###

Is Jonathan Whitcomb a Paleontologist?

I’ve received emails from eyewitnesses from four continents plus islands in the Pacific, emails about flying creatures that resemble “primitive” or “prehistoric” animals more than any bird or bat. On occasion I am able to talk with an eyewitness by phone or by face-to-face interview. One critical point here, unappreciated by some paleontologists, is that those eyewitnesses come from various countries and have different backgrounds and beliefs, including differing religious beliefs.

1400 Eyewitnesses of Pterosaurs

Whitcomb’s current reply to this week’s Cryptomundo posting and nearly 40 comments is given in full below, without edits

Videographer in Papua New Guinea

. . . explored part of Umboi Island . . . in 2004, searching for the elusive ropen . . .

What does Whitcomb believe?

We defend both the Genesis account of creation and the worldwide Flood. We believe in the God of Biblical miracles and in a recent life on earth, devoid of molecules-to-man evolution (GTE).

“Settle into a comfortable chair and prepare for what may become the most unsettling scientific discovery since Copernicus and Galileo. This true story takes you into the expeditions that began to prepare the Western world for a discovery not yet recognized by scientists in developed countries.”

August 22, 2014

Ropen – Is it a Myth or Fantasy?

Gitmo Pterosaur of Cuba - eyewitness and artist Patty Carson

Why do critics of these investigations proclaim so ardently the religious beliefs of cryptozoologists who interview eyewitnesses of apparent pterosaurs? The latest skeptic to join in criticizing online reports of ropens and other non-bat featherless flying creatures—that appears to be a biology professor in Minnesota, although I will not mention his name here. His blog post he titled “There are no living pterosaurs, and ‘ropen’ is a stupid fantasy.”

That professor made many mistakes in his post, including the end of his first paragraph: “There’s just one fanatic.” He was referring to me, Jonathan David Whitcomb. Nothing is said about the following brave cryptozoologists who have explored remote jungles in Papua New Guinea, putting their health in jeopardy, perhaps even risking their lives:

Garth Guessman
David Woetzel
Paul Nation
Jacob Kepas

Other names could be mentioned, but the above explorers have searched for living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea during the past ten years, and each of them is a dedicated believer in the Bible and in literal understanding of important passages in Genesis. I too believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on this planet, with no non-human parents before them (meaning NO ape-like ancestors of humans), and I too believe in a literal worldwide flood. In addition, we all believe that the ropen is a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur, NOT a myth or fantasy. Ropens are for real.

So why was I singled out by that biology professor in Minnesota? Three of my associates (Guessman, Nation, and Kepas) have explored in Papua New Guinea more than I have. I will not go into details about my gospel faith here, but one religious principle of which I am often aware is this: “Where much is given, much is required.” I have been given a great deal, including the time, health, and opportunities to write blog posts (and traditional web pages), books, and one scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal of science. Because of those generous gifts from God, I have been able to write well over a thousand blog posts, in the past eleven years, about many aspects of modern pterosaur investigations. The quantity of my online writings can catch the attention of a critic.

I feel it’s time to quote what I’ve already written in my nonfiction books:

Last paragraph of the introduction in Searching for Ropens and Finding God

Believe what you will about modern dragons, about living pterosaurs, about giant glowing ropens. But the power of the testimonies of the eyewitnesses I’ve encountered, over the past ten years, including many credible natives I met on Umboi Island, makes that flying creature as real to me, almost, as if I had stared a ropen in the face. How can I deny the credibility of the eyewitnesses I have interviewed? With no other reasonable explanation, I now believe in modern dragons, in living pterosaurs, in giant glowing ropens.

Title Page of Live Pterosaurs in America (third edition)

Since the two ropen expeditions of 2004, in Papua New Guinea, more Americans have learned of the living-pterosaur investigations and the many resulting eyewitness interviews. Many web pages have sprung up, many of them by explorers themselves. But despite other web pages, by scornful critics who never went anywhere and never interviewed anyone, those two expeditions, and those that preceded and followed them, are causing an awakening, opening human minds in the birth of a new perspective: Universal pterosaur extinction has been an assumption; some pterosaur species are still living.

From the preface of Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea

I believe in living pterosaurs and hope they will soon be officially discovered. More important, I believe in you, that you can soar above dogmatic assumptions about extinctions. I hope that you already understand that we are more than a by-product of culture: Our existence transcends the boundaries of the human cultural assumptions that have shaped our beliefs.

Now is the time for us to listen carefully, to think clearly, and to act accordingly rather than simply react when a cultural belief is contradicted: now, not after the official scientific discovery of modern living pterosaurs.

Some of the Americans who have helped in the ropen searching and investigations in Papua New Guinea, since 2003 – Thank you to them and to their families and friends who supported them

###

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

One critic, a biology professor in Minnesota, insists there is “no evidence,” in my writings, for any living pterosaur. What does he mean? . . . 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.

“Don’t Get Strung Along by the Ropen Myth” – a Reply

Notice the Smithsonian blog post by Brian Switek, dated August 16, 2010: not one reference to an eyewitness sighting report. Switek says “such anecdotes,” without mentioning what he is talking about. He says much about the religious beliefs of Blume and Woetzel, as if that counts against their ideas, but why does he say nothing about what caused those expeditions: eyewitness reports?

Ropen – Is it a Pterosaur?

How often we’ve been taught that all dinosaurs and pterosaurs became extinct millions of years ago, as if that were proven! But what if some are still living? Before you dismiss the concept of a modern pterosaur (in particular, of a long-tailed featherless Rhamphorhynchoid), consider the many eyewitness testimonies of those flying creatures.

Pterosaur Experts

. . . Guessman recognized that this relates to the stiffening extension rods of Rhamphorhynchoid vertebrae: all but a few vertebrae are locked into stiffness; the few that are flexible are near where the pterosaur’s tail connects to the body.

April 15, 2013April 27, 2013

More Religion than Investigation?

Book Review on Amazon

On April 12, 2013, a skeptic of pterosaur sightings posted a brief review on Amazon, dismissing my recently published book Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea. At first, the review appeared to me a mistake or a dishonest attack, for my book examines many sightings of apparent pterosaurs and emphasizes four critical encounters, four pillars of cryptozoological credibility in my opinion, not just “two” reports; I thought perhaps “WS” referred to a different book, not mine. After looking more closely, I noticed the adjective “intriguing:” The critic wrote, “The book really consists of one or two intriguing reports.” But the other adjective, “really,” can mislead people into thinking my book examines no more than two eyewitness sightings, which is far from the truth.

Perhaps WS gave my book two stars instead of one because the reviewer found one or two of the reports intriguing; WS doesn’t say. But I’ll address some of the criticisms.

I was also struck by the title of the book review, “more religion than investigation,” for I had carefully avoided including any preaching while writing Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea (LPAPNG). This is a cryptozoology book that exhorts open-minded examination of eyewitness evidence, nothing like a book on religion. Part of one page refers to the non-religious accomplishments of a few Biblical creationist explorers, their interviews with natives in Papua New Guinea, but that hardly changes the genre of the book: “cryptozoology.”

False “Racism” Statement

I have done a word scanning of this book. The words completely absent include:

racism
race
aboriginal

Nobody will find any of those words in the book, for they’re absent.

The reviewer wrote the following:

He describes science . . . and even equates it with racism . . .

At first, the comment on racism lead me to suspect the person writing this review had not read my book but some other publication instead, or had read more than one author and had become confused. Never in my life have I written anything that even hinted at the idea that science “equates” “with racism.” I then scanned the book for the word “native” and found nothing supporting the critic’s words, but I found two statements almost relevant:

The natives were not trying to deceive us into believing in a fictional creature, contrary to what some American critics later proclaimed. [from the chapter “Another Expedition on Umboi Island”]

Was WS thinking that accusing natives of dishonesty is racism? I can see that possibility. But why would the critic believe that “some American critics” equates with “science?”

WS says that I complain “that scientists no longer believe in human honesty.” Where did I say that? Searching again in the book, scanning it for “lie,” (equivalent to “deceive” and related to “honesty”), I found the following in the first chapter:

On that point, I have found many rejections of eyewitness testimonies to be far from objective and far from mild-mannered. One skeptic, a non-scientist, built a whole web site to ridicule the concept of modern dinosaurs and pterosaurs, putting the words “stupid” and “lies” into the URL address of the site. [from the first chapter, “How can pterosaurs be alive?”]

Did WS overlook “non” and equate “non-scientist” with “science?” Many readers, including myself, have made that kind of reading mistake, especially when we are expecting a particular point of view in what we’re reading. Was the critic simply careless in reading only portions of the book? WS gives no material explanation and gives no example for his conclusions. Why? The more merciful explanation that I see is that WS was careless; I will not assume the worst.

My Conclusion

I sometimes write about pterosaurs and religion, but this book, Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea, has almost no religious content at all except for a few sentences about expeditions of creationist cryptozoologists who interviewed native eyewitnesses in Papua New Guinea. This is a cryptozoology book, notwithstanding WS makes no mention of that fact.

I think I know what WS meant when, in the middle of the brief review, that critic wrote, “Maybe someone will give this subject a serious treatment at some point, but this isn’t it.” I suspect WS means that the book is not a “serious treatment” and perhaps the “subject” was eyewitness accounts of apparent pterosaurs. The critic gives no details or explanation. I respond, “Maybe someone will write a more precise review, based on the actual contents of the book, but this review isn’t it.”

###

nonfiction cryptozoology book in electronic format - living pterosaurs

Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea

Preface

You will here find reports of encounters with apparent living pterosaurs, including many accounts never before published in any book. Other sighting reports are condensed from the print book “Searching for Ropens.” The ebook you are now examining is neither exhaustive nor rudimentary, but it explains most of what most Australians, and others, need to know about what might, on rare occasions, fly over their heads at night.

I believe in living pterosaurs and hope they will soon be officially discovered. More important, I believe in you, that you can soar above dogmatic assumptions about extinctions. I hope that you already understand that we are more than a by-product of culture: Our existence transcends the boundaries of the human cultural assumptions that have shaped our beliefs.

Now is the time for us to listen carefully, to think clearly, and to act accordingly rather than simply react when a cultural belief is contradicted: now, not after the official scientific discovery of modern living pterosaurs.

Addendum:

After WS communicated with me about our differing points of view, he agreed to change the title of his review to “More scientific approach would have been more effective.” More recently, I noticed that I had neglected to include the word “cryptozoology” in the Amazon “Book Description.” I have now submitted additional words to make the genre clear. (I’m as human as anyone else.)

Readers have come forward, soon after the publication of this negative review, offering support for my book. A notable comment comes from the prolific author Michael Newton, who wrote one of the most respected nonfiction books of cryptozoology ever published, Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers. Here is what he says about my newest book:

“Jonathan Whitcomb’s Live Pterosaurs in Australia and in Papua New Guinea adds important new information to his previous works on this subject. Disputes over theology aside, ‘young earth’ creationists remain the primary dedicated field researchers pursuing reports of these most intriguing cryptids.”

Michael Newton Author of 78 nonfiction books, including many on cryptozoology

www.michaelnewton.homestead.com

February 16, 2012February 18, 2012

Skepticism or Skip Decision

Why believe in a living pterosaur? Why disbelieve an eyewitness of a living pterosaur? Some who first learn about these investigations assume they are using scientific skepticism when they skip the decision to investigate for themselves. Of course, not everybody can delve into every report that appears to have the eery glow of the paranormal. But skipping the decision to look deeper is not scientific, even when the word “science” is used in repeating a century-plus old indoctrination of a whole society.

Not Everybody Embraces Living Pterosaurs

This species of critic is not satisfied at destroying an idea; they appear anxious to destroy the reputation of anyone who disagrees with them. More than once this kind of critic, on this online forum, has accused me of dishonesty for using something other than my real name, and this when those same critics use fantastic online names that must be made-up. Once, on the same forum of commentators with obviously made-up online names, I was accused of deception for using my real initials instead of my real full name. Really!

From the third edition of the nonfiction book Live Pterosaurs in America

“Since the two ropen expeditions of 2004, in Papua New Guinea, more Americans have learned of the living-pterosaur investigations and the many resulting eyewitness interviews. Many web pages have sprung up, many of them by explorers themselves. But despite other web pages, by scornful critics who never went anywhere and never interviewed anyone, those two expeditions, and those that preceded and followed them, are causing an awakening, opening human minds in the birth of a new perspective: Universal pterosaur extinction has been an assumption; some pterosaur species are still living.”

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.

cover of nonfiction cryptozoology book "Live Pterosaurs in America"

Third edition of Live Pterosaurs in America (nonfiction/cryptozoology)

From an Amazon review of the second edition of this book:

This is an updated review of the book and I am changing my rating to 5 stars. This book has been on my shelf for almost a year now. I pick it up every now and then and a part of me becomes more impressed by the book every time. . . . I highly recommend this. You may find yourself almost believing in it, although that is not even the authors intent! Whitcomb painstakingly reviews every account for credibility and reason. This man is not a crank. He tries to weed out would be hoaxes and miss-identification. This is not a guy looking to create evidence to confirm his own beliefs. On top of this, I have great respect for a guy who follows his dreams so passionately. He has traveled to Papua New Guinea to search for the creature there and this book is somewhat of a sequel if you will. After Whitcomb traveled to New Guinea, he started to collect more stories from North America concerning the pterosaur like creature . . .

Whitcomb is a pterosaur expert in the cryptozoological sense, interviewing eyewitnesses of flying creatures whose descriptions make them obvious candidates for a modern-pterosaur interpretation.

December 15, 2011

Must Eyewitnesses be Liars? No!

How sad that some critics have misunderstood not only the nature of faith in God but the nature of science! Consider now the importance of human experience. How can science exist without human experience? By definition, operational science involves what is repeatable and observable. Galileo succeeded, in the long run, because he provided a way for people to see not just specks of light circling Jupiter: a way for people to open their eyes to a new idea. Others could repeat the same observations—that is an example of operational science.

To call a number of persons “liars or deluded” because they make similar observations—that criticism now needs to be addressed. It came about in June of 2007, on a forum discussion on cryptozoology.com. “Rainbow Medicine Man” (RMM), after a number of comments by several writers of various opinions said (among other things):

– No 6K year Earth, friend. That is not so. And not being so is a FACT, not a theory.

– The Geological record is very accurate, and consistent. Also a FACT.

– There’s no fossil record of any ptero since 65M years. If some managed to survive, they would’ve changed beyond recognition, but they haven’t; they went extinct. No Ramphorynchus!. Again, a fact.

That is why I claim that these who say to have seen pteros are liars. Or deluded. It is surprising the percentage, of lately, of Creationists between the witness. Ask myself why?.

But RMM was replying to my statements, and I was not commenting on the age of the earth or the accuracy of the “Geologic record” or fossils. I made two long postings. The first one mostly referred to the Destination Truth expedition (which was NOT a Creationist expedition at all) in which a flying light was videotaped; later analysis could not find any explanation for the cause of the light. My second posting mostly referred to sightings of apparent pterosaurs and to those sightings in which an apparent pterosaur was seen to glow.

Why did RMM bring up the subject of religion? Why did he assume that all the investigators have the same religious belief? In the same comment, he later said, “Some Christian factions are really dangerous.” He seems to be oblivious to the possibility that the investigators I mentioned or alluded to may have a wide variety of religious beliefs, for some of them were members of the Destination Truth expedition, which was not at all a religious excursion, despite the name. Did RMM look only at the outward appearance of the name “Destination Truth” and assume that all those explorers had the same “dangerous” religious beliefs as me and Garth Guessman and David Woetzel?

Listing ones beliefs and appending each one with the word “FACT”—that does not prove ones beliefs. And it does not prove that those eyewitnesses who have seen something outside the philosophy of RMM are all “liars” or “deluded.”