Pterosaurs in Ohio

On August 27, 2010, in sighting in North America, by Jonathan Whitcomb

Sightings of pterosuars in Ohio include the Antwerp case that was covered in a newspaper story a few months ago:

“He described it like a pterosaur, according to a recently-published book, ‘Live Pterosaurs in America.'” The creature was reported “chasing sparrows as it flew over the Route 49 bridge near Antwerp, Ohio.” The author found credibility in the testimony. . . . Few major newspapers have published eyewitnesses accounts of apparent living-pterosaurs, at least in recent years. As reported in the Antwerp Bee-Argus, they “have been thought by many scientists to have gone extinct many millions of years ago,” that is, the pterosaurs, not yet major newspapers. [quotations from the Ohio newspaper article about the sightings of a living pterosaur]

Of course, this seems to have little relationship to the title of this blog: The Bible and Living Pterosaurs. One eyewitness in Ohio, however, was a minister; the sighting was in 2005:

[in Mount Vernon, Ohio] “I was coming to preach at a church out in the country. . . . I [noticed] a creature in the sky. . . . It appeared to have no feathers . . . [the tail was] longer than most bird tails . . . with a diamond-shaped point at the end.” [from Pterosaurs in the Bible]

The Antwerp, Ohio, sightings are covered in detail in the nonfiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America. But sightings of apparent living pterosaurs in the United States are hardly confined to Ohio; other sightings have been reported in California, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, South Carolina, New York, Maine, Michigan, Kansas, and other states.

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.”

Jacob Kepas of Papua New Guinea, Baptist minister, explorer, and cryptozoologistLate in 2006, Pastor Jacob Kepas (a Baptist minister) was interviewed by Paul Nation, in a hut in Tawa Village, deep in the mountainous interior of the mainland of Papua New Guinea. Kepas had recently climbed up a hill adjacent to a cliff where some of the nocturnal flying creatures sleep during the day. He was accompanied by a local villager who confirmed that what was on that cliff was indeed an indava, the creature that glows at night.

During the videotaped interview, Kepas and his guide described how they had observed the sleeping winged creature. They had tried to videotape it from the hill they had climbed, but the resulting footage was poor, perhaps from a combination of inexperience of the camera operators and the distance involved (Kepas was observing it through binoculars). But even with binoculars, Kepas had been uncertain that it was the creature that they sought until his guide climbed up higher for a better view, confirming that it was an indava.

But that was not the first time that Kepas had observed a strange flying creature. When he was a boy, in another area of the mainland of Papua New Guinea, he had seen a seklo-bali as the glowing creature had flown overhead. Researchers believe that the seklo-bali, ropen, and indava may be closely related or even the same species of bioluminescent flying creature, apparently living pterosaurs.

Regarding the objectiveness of Kepas, in his 2006 sighting of what was identified as an indava, consider this: Kepas himself voiced his uncertainty that what he was observing was the creature that they had sought; the distance and viewing angle made identification difficult. After the other man had climbed higher, obtaining a better viewing angle, it was confirmed to be an indava. This confirms that Kepas is capable of objectiveness in his observations, for he did not force a conclusion when the conditions were inadequate for certainty.

In this 2006 expedition, Nation and Kepas were flown into the remote mountainous area by missionary pilot Jim Blume, who has been a great help, for many years, in living-pterosaur investigations.

See also “Fight With a Kor in Northern Papua New Guinea”

This Baptist minister has worked with the Baptist missionary James Blume, in assisting American ropen searchers and in helping the living-pterosaur investigations in general.

Tagged with:

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: