image_pdfimage_print

Nonfiction “Live Pterosaurs in America” — A Creationist Book?

"Live Pterosaurs in America" back cover of 3rd edition

By the nonfiction author Jonathan David Whitcomb

Introduction

The third edition of Live Pterosaurs in America is mainly a nonfiction cryptozoology book, with the vast majority of its sightings in the United States. Its first edition was almost the first book I had written about living pterosaurs, and at that time I wrote in a cross-genre of cryptozoology and Christian nonfiction. With that said, the third edition (LPA-3) is almost entirely in the nonfiction-cryptozoology genre, but with two pages entirely about religion and a few other pages with some remarks relevant to religion.

Where did this come from, this need for me to explain all this? One Amazon Customer Reviewer, Terry Betts, wrote a comment on my book on May 17, 2018, and gave his remarks the title “A look at a real Cryptid or a dissertation on Creationism?” I submit that almost all readers of Live Pterosaurs in America, third edition, will find that it is nothing remotely like a dissertation on creationism, if they are ever exposed to that title written by Terry Betts.

What reader would be happy with this book?

Theoretically, looking on the other side of it, the following two kinds of reader might be unhappy with it:

  1. An atheist who is unhappy with Christians
  2. A Biblical creationist who wants to read books only about the Bible

What I have found over the years, however, points to only the first kind of reader being offended, at least from what I get from Amazon customer reviews. Almost anyone other than an atheist appears to have no major problem with Live Pterosaurs in America.

The great majority of readers seem to be very happy with LPA-3. As of November 20, 2018, of the 17 Amazon Customer Reviews, 76% gave it five stars, 6% four stars, 6% three stars, and 12% one star. For a controversial book, it ranks very highly in that way on Amazon.

What religious elements are actually in the book?

They’re actually quite limited. Consider the following.

After setting aside 15 pages of index, Live Pterosaurs in America (3rd edition) has 138 pages of print. The Appendix has 30 pages, divided into nine short sub-sections, two pages of which are the subsection titled “Philosophy at the Foundation.” In other words, we have 108 pages of text before the Appendix begins and two pages of that Appendix relate to religious matters.

Is this really a religious book, as Terry Betts appears to have at least hinted at? I looked into several words in my book; I’d like to share what I learned from searching on a pdf copy of LPA-3.

  • Bible
  • Creationism
  • Creationist
  • Christian
  • God

The word ‘Bible’ appears eight times, but only three of those are in the main body of the book, before the Appendix. The word ‘God’ also appears only three times outside the Appendix, and in that case all of those three were in quotations from eyewitnesses, not in any statement by me.

The word ‘creationism’ appears only once outside the Appendix; it is found seven times in the Appendix. ‘Creationist’ appears eighteen time, but not once is it seen outside the Appendix. The word ‘Christian’ appears only twice in the entire book: both times in the Appendix.

.

"Live Pterosaurs in America" back cover of 3rd edition

Back cover of this nonfiction cryptozoology book

.

Conclusion

Live Pterosaurs in America, third edition, is obviously nothing remotely like a “dissertation on creationism.” Another skeptic and critic once declared that I had tried to hide my creationist ties. That is also incorrect, according to word searching of a pdf copy of this book, as the above demonstrates.

The truth is simple: Belief in the Bible has been important to me and to many of my associates in living-pterosaur investigations, yet the great majority of my publications have been either entirely in the realm of cryptozoology or have been with a limited mixing in of some elements of Christian religion.

###

.

Live Pterosaurs in America

Many modern pterosaurs are much larger than any bat, many with long tails, many with head crests. What about news headlines? How did these creatures avoid media attention? Get the answers from years of work by American cryptozoologists.

.

Hot Spots for Pterosaur Sightings

  • Shropshire, England
  • Cuba (mid-20th century)
  • Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea
  • Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
  • Mansfield, Ohio, USA
  • Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Draper, Utah

.

New “dinosaur” book for children

I wrote the nonfiction book The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur for several purposes. As a gift giver for a child or teenager, you need to know what this does and does not do and what benefits it can give to the young reader. I recommend it for readers between about the ages of eight and fourteen; for some ten-year-olds (and eleven and twelve) it will be exceptionally delightful: easy to understand yet stimulating.

.

Book about “flying dinosaurs”

My boss and I suddenly saw . . . a flying object that was strange. . . . we knew it was quite far away, but it was as big as a regular bird would appear up close. It was gliding, with an occasional slow, smooth flap. We were talking about it, but, as it approached, words ceased, and amazement took over.

.

Some call them pterodactyls or flying dinosaurs

The non-fiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America

Ropen or “Pterodactyl” Seen in Papua New Guinea

on banks of Yakima River, Washington state

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 . . .

.

 

Individual Belief

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.

Science and Clear Thinking

“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?

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