Tag: Hodgkinson

image_pdfimage_print
Posted on

Misidentification Possibilities in General

Besides the possibility of Frigate Bird misidentification, what else do critics suggest? Perhaps the oldest misidentification suggestion, for reports of living pterosaurs in Papua New Guinea, has been “Flying Fox fruit bat.” It seems to satisfy reports of large featherless flying creatures in the southwest Pacific, but there are problems with “misidentified bat.”

Fruit Bats or Pterosaurs?

Look at the details in eyewitness accounts, for details often shoot down the misidentified-fruit-bat conjecture. A long tail mocks that interpretation, as does fish-eating and hanging right-side-up on a tree trunk. A giant size may also shoot down the Flying Fox, especially when the wingspan is estimated at over twenty feet. In addition, that long horn at the back of the head—that indicates a non-fruit-bat, for that bat has nothing like that pterosaur-like appendage.

Duane Hodgkinson, on the mainland of New Guinea in 1944, and his army buddy saw a giant flying creature take off into the air. Why “giant?” For one thing, Hodgkinson estimated the length of the tail to be “at least ten or fifteen feet.” (The Flying Fox fruit bat has almost no tail.) In addition, the wingspan appeared to be close to thirty feet, far too large to be any bat. It now appears obvious that this World War II veteran had witnessed the rare daylight-flight of a giant ropen.

Misidentified Tail

Some critics suggest that descriptions of a long tail come from a bird’s feet, held back while flying. Consider details in the eyewitness testimonies. Hodgkinson first saw his “pterodactyl” when it was running to get airborne. The feet of a bird cannot appear to be running and held back straight at the same time.

Another problem with “misidentified tail” is this: Many eyewitnesses are sure about the lack of any feathers on what they saw. Birds have feathers, even those birds that may appear to have a long tail when their feet are held back in flight.

And what about overall size? One eyewitness described the length of the flying creature he saw: close to the width of the road on which he was driving. His estimate was probably not far wrong, for the creature was flying low as it crossed that road. I later measured that road myself: close to thirty feet. No bird has feet long enough to make its total length anywhere near thirty feet.

Misidentified Bird

One or two critics, at least, have suggested that eyewitnesses exaggerate size because of fear or surprise. A couple of problems jump out at me there. For one, why would a bird cause anyone to be surprised or fearful enough to think that they had seen a “pterodactyl?” In Hodgkinson’s case, he first thought that he was watching a bird, for it was flapping its wings. Only later, after he had considered the details on that flying creature and its extraordinary size, did Hodgkinson think “pterodactyl.”

Some eyewitnesses have no fear, for the flying creature is far away, at least when they first notice it. Obviously fear does not cause any misidentification when there is no fear.

Some Youtube viewers may have taken a Frigate bird for a ropen, but that is irrelevant to the many sightings of flying creatures that are obviously not Frigate birds. For those who still may doubt, consider these characteristics of the ropen and its behavior: glowing brightly at night, carrying away the recently-buried body of an adult human, appearing in clear daylight with a wingspan of at least twenty-two feet, carrying giant clams up into the interior of Umboi Island (clam shells over fifty pounds). The ropen is no misidentified Frigate bird.

Misidentified Mechanical Model

Some critics suggest a mechanical model caused an eyewitness to believe in a living pterosaur. Under scrutiny, this breaks down. How could Hodgkinson have seen a model pterodactyl in that remote jungle wilderness in 1944? And how could that model, flying years later but in that same area, pick up an adult human and carry the victim away to be eaten?

For recent sightings of pterosaurs, in the United States, how do model pterodactyls fly without any sound and behave like living giant pterosaurs? Why do so many eyewitnesses mention the graceful flights? Those characteristics need to be addressed, not dismissed or ignored. And why, when some eyewitnesses have shown no fear, do critics fear the obvious: modern living pterosaurs?

Overall Desciptions

When several thing each suggest a living Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur, suggestions of a misidentified bird, bat, or model evaporate. The problem is not that all eyewitnesses misidentify a non-pterosaur: Critics misidentify pterosaur sightings for anything and everything else that they can imagine.

Posted on

Frigate Bird Misidentification

You would think the humble Frigate bird incapable of masquerading as a featherless pterosaur with a wingspan of a Piper Tri-Pacer airplane, but some skeptics appear to be ignorant of the 1944 “pterodactyl” sighting by the U.S. serviceman Duane Hodgkinson. Whatever he saw flying up from that jungle clearing, just west of Finschhafen, New Guinea, it was no sea bird, for the head alone was about three or four feet long, not counting the appendage at the back of the head.

Let’s look at the details in this sighting by Hodgkinson, in relation to the conjecture that Frigate birds have caused people to think that they have seen living pterosaurs. Two army buddies were standing at one side of a jungle clearing (1944, west of Finschhafen, New Guinea); a large creature flew up from the ground of the other side of that clearing. The soldiers had a perfectly clear view of the “pterodactyl,” as it ran to their left and took off into the air. Hodgkinson still remembers how the vegetation swayed from the wing flapping. How critical is the size of that clearing! At about one hundred feet in diameter, that field was small enough to prevent any major distortion in estimating the size of the flying creature. An estimate of twenty-seven feet for the wingspan makes it impossible for it to have been a Frigate bird in masquerade.

Why did I choose Duane Hodgkinson’s sighting as an example? A certain ornithologist (I presume he is a bird expert; at least he purports to be one) who goes by the pen name of “PNG Wantok” has declared,  “The Ropen myth has taken a life of its own, started on no evidence and some local boys pulling the leg of naive visitors to their village.” Look carefully at his comment (on a blog post titled “Caught on Video: Dinosaur or Common Bird”); notice there is not a gram of evidence for his conjecture about how the living-pterosaur idea got started in Papua New Guinea. He says nothing about Duane Hodgkinson, probably because he is ignorant of that eyewitness account. But that American World War II veteran, along with his army buddy, were on the way to a local village, when they had their sighting of the giant “pterodactyl.” They were not leaving a village where natives had told them stories.

Is it Misidentification of Bird or Bat?

Eyewitnesses are seeing  ‘flying fox’ fruit bats or Frigate birds.” Nothing is easier than ignoring what passes through our hands, packing everything away while labeling the box with one word: “misidentification.” I suggest examining each eyewitness report. Duane Hodgkinson described a flying creature with a tail that was at least 10-15 feet long: obviously not any known bird or bat. Brian Hennessy described a beak that was indistinguishable from the rest of the head, a long tail, and no sign of feathers: not likely any bird or bat. Many eyewitnesses describe a bright glow from a nocturnal flying creature: not likely a fruit bat or a Frigate bird. How much better to examine descriptions rather than ignore them and only imagine what someone else has seen!

Marfa Lights on “Live Pterosaur” Blog

Why consider that American “ghost lights” relate to live pterosaurs? Consider the ropen light of Papua New Guinea. From them we can learn that at least some living pterosaurs are bioluminescent, in particular the apparent Rhamphorhynchoids of the Southwest Pacific.