Are all Pterosaurs Extinct?
Is it really meaningless to the credibility of standard models whether or not all
species of pterosaurs are extinct? This is a reply to Glen Kuban’s web page.
The testimonies of the above nine men say “no” to the assumption that all species of pterosaurs are extinct
"Do nothing to refute mainstream geology" are the words
of Glen Kuban. This phrase, however, is a clue that he is
actually protecting a philosophy, for science, by its nature,
is expected to bring about changes in opinion about what we
used to think: changes. To consider "mainstream geology"
to be a branch of science, it would need to be capable of
change, even major change, should that become necessary
(An observation by Jonathan Whitcomb). Why emphasize
old hoaxes irrelevant to critical new sighting reports?
Copyright 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Jonathan David Whitcomb
Science and Change
Scientific Analysis of Paul Nation’s Video
". . . absence of combustion sources is confirmed, as is the absence of
evidence for 'ballistic sources' and meteor vapor trails . . . Ropen lights
(or indava lights) are not caused by fire, airplane lights, or meteors."
Analysis, by the physicist Clifford Paiva, regarding Paul Nation's video
footage of two Indava lights observed near the top of a ridge deep in
the interior of the mainland of Papua New Guinea, late in 2006. In
addition, analysis revealed NO paste-on hoax was involved.
The Gitmo Pterosaur
The Gitmo Pterosaur was observed by Eskin Kuhn
in 1971 and sketched by him very soon after his
sighting. It was also observed by Patty Carson in
1965, but she did not begin sketching until 2011.
The credibility of these two eyewitnesses was con-
firmed by Jonathan Whitcomb, who interviewed
both eyewitnesses early in the 21st century. No
sign for any hoax was found: They’re credible.
Brian Hennessy, a psychologist
Gideon Koro, with six other boys in about 1994, saw a giant “ropen,” in
daylight, flying over Lake Pung, Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea. To
the American interviewer Jonathan Whitcomb, Gideon said that the tail
length was “sefan meetuh” (twenty-two feet). There were “no feathers.”
There was also no sign of any hoax with any of these eyewitnesses.
Pterosaur sketch by eyewitness Eskin C. Kuhn
Gideon Koro of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, 2004
Brian Hennessy, a psychologist whose work has,
in recent years, included consulting for a medical
university in China, saw a large creature looking
“prehistoric” in Papua New Guinea, in 1971. It
had a long tail but no sign of feathers; it also had
a horn-like appendage. The overall description
strongly suggests a modern pterosaur. And how
inappropriate to conjecture that a psychologist
would perpetrate a hoax. That never happened.
A flight instructor, with over 13,000 hours of airplane-flying experience,
Duance Hodgkinson (right) saw, in 1944, a giant “pterodactyl” with a
tail “at least” 10-15 feet long. Mr. Hodgkinson now lives in Montana.
He has no reason to perpetrate a hoax for six decades.
Garth Guessman (left) interviews Duane Hodgkinson
Paul Nation, Umboi Island Expedition of 2002
Paul Nation’s second time on Umboi Island, with his son Nathanael in
2002, helped establish and strengthen friendships with natives, making
for more successful expeditions in 2004, by three other Americans.
(Umboi, AKA “Siassi,” is in Papua New Guinea) No hoax was involved.
Paul Nation was interviewed by Jonathan Whitcomb (2006)
Paul Nation, of Texas, had videotaped two “indava" lights that Whitcomb
and other investigators believe are from giant long-tailed pterosaurs on
the mainland of Papua New Guinea (late-2006 expedition).
Whitcomb’s peer-reviewed paper in scientific journal
"Eyewitness testimonies can be divided into two categories: those
describing a flying light and those describing a creature. Four of the
eyewitnesses describe both a glow and a shape or features, connecting
the two types of description."
Scientific Paper on Living Pterosaurs
Introduction to Kuban’s Criticism
of the Concept of Modern Pterosaurs
Glen Kuban has created a web page devoted to discrediting
the idea that pterosaurs have lived in human times. An in-
depth response is found in the appendix of my book Searching
for Ropens, (second edition, although the third edition is up-
coming). In brief, Mr. Kuban draws attention to the weakest
reasons for believing in modern pterosaurs, the weak reports;
he also points out flaws or just possible flaws in some of the
words and reasoning of those who promote the concept of
living pterosaurs. He also emphasizes a nineteenth-century
newspaper account that is believed to have been a hoax.
But consider two critical points that he ignores: the strongest
eyewitness-testimony accounts and the philosophical foun-
dations of the conflict (why be open-minded or close-minded
about the possibility of modern live pterosaurs). What critical
points! He could have done better if he had looked carefully,
rather than assume that eyewitnesses had looked carelessly.
According to Glen Kuban: “While finding a living species of
pterosaur would be a monumental discovery, it would do nothing
to refute mainstream geology.” (web page of Glen Kuban, at
least until the summer of 2011)
Reply: “Do nothing” and “refute” are strong expressions, in this
case offering a clue about the nature of what Mr. Kuban means
by “mainstream geology,” or the real nature of what he thus labels.
True scientific progress normally involves refinements in theory;
it sometimes even involves the rejection of a theory that turns out
poorly when compared with another theory.
Pterosaur Discoveries and Philosophy
How might Kuban react to the discoveries of three species of
living pterosaurs plus two species of living dinosaurs? Would he
modify “do nothing to refute mainstream geology?” What about
fifteen species of living pterosaurs and dinosaurs? Whether or not
he would modify his thinking or the phrasing of his words would
depend on how dogmatically he is holding onto a philosophy that
is woven into “mainstream geology.”
Both the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) and standard-model
(he calls “mainstream”) geology are based upon the philosophy of
Naturalism, which is not to be confused with “natural science.”
Naturalism includes the assumption that origins, in the distant
past, had nothing to do with any miraculous intervention from
any god; “natural science,” on the other hand, requires no opinion
on early origins.
“Do nothing to refute” seems to be a well-chosen phrase to protect
a philosophy, for scientific hypotheses and theories are not legiti-
mized by this kind of phrase; this is inappropriate in science, if it
is not outright unscientific.
Glen Kuban has stepped outside his area of specialty, paleontology,
and into a realm in which he is not an expert: cryptozoology.
Why Believe in Extinction?
Since Darwin wrote about his conjectures on the origin of life,
dinosaur and pterosaur fossils have been offered as if scientific
evidence for his philosophy of universal common ancestry. After
all, a biological microorganism cannot change into a human
(over billions of years) without leaving countless organisms in
the far distant past; it would be unbelievable. Dinosaurs and
pterosaurs appeared to be just what was needed, the apparent
evidence that many organisms, different from present ones, had
lived in the distant past; the fossils were gladly taken to all be
from extinct creatures that lived long ago. How convenient!
In Searching for Ropens, I wrote, “Since no researcher in Europe
[when fossils were first being discovered] had any knowledge of
living creatures similar to the fossils, it was assumed that they
were all extinct. The key word is ‘assumed.’. . if only 1% of the
population of Western Europe, in the late 18th Century, had . . .
[seen] living pterosaurs, the universal-pterosaur-extinction notion
would never have gotten started.” (second edition, page 237).
Nothing on Mr. Kuban’s web page (as of mid- 2007) mentions
any evidence for the extinction of any species of pterosaur. As
I wrote (SFR) on page 234, this web page “seems devoid of
evidence for pterosaur extinction; does he expect us to take his
word for it?” And why mention a nineteenth-century hoax?
Without any scientific evidence to support his case--universal
pterosaur extinction--Kuban leaves us with only one explanation:
He's relying on generations of declarations about extinction.
But those with open minds are learning that the solemn obituary-
like proclamations are virtual propaganda, if not sometimes
actually dogmatic propaganda. Those declarations have been
indoctrinating millions into assuming that all pterosaurs and
dinosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago.
Does Kuban ignore the strongest evidences for living pterosaurs?
Judge for yourself. At least in the earlier versions of his web page,
I would say that he is either ignorant of those major points of
evidence or he chooses to ignore them. Ignoring the importance
of eyewitness evidence, he seems anxious to dance to any tune
except one: "modern pterosaur."
Gitmo Pterosaur Eyewitness, about 1965
When Patty Carson was a child, living with her
family at the Guantanamo Bay military base in
Cuba, she encountered the “pterodactyl” that
would, six years later, be witnessed by the U.S.
Marine Eskin C. Kuhn, at that same base. Read
the details in the third edition of LPA. Carson
is now an R.N., living in California. She has
not perpetrated any hoax.
California Pterodactyl Sighting near CSUF at Irvine
The non-fiction cryptozoology book Live Pterosaurs in America, by
Jonathan Whitcomb, has a publication scheduled for late 2011. It gives
exciting details about sightings in many states. Learn the truth about the
idea that all species of pterosaurs became extinct millions of years ago:
However many may have become extinct, some species still live.
Live Pterosaurs in America
An anonymous eyewitness in Orange County, California, was shocked at
the giant creature that flew over Campus Drive, northwest of the state
university campus at Irvine, in the summer of 2007. He was interviewed
by Jonathan Whitcomb, who found the man’s testimony credible, even
though the sighting was extraordinary: The length of the pterosaur-like
flying creature, from end of tail to beak, was about the width of Campus
Drive, about thirty feet, according to the eyewitness. This anonymous
eyewitness has no reason to play a hoax, for it could damage severely
his professional reputation.
Although Mr. Kuban does not suggest that all sightings of "modern
pterosaurs" in Papua New Guinea are misidentifications of Flying
Fox fruit bats, he says, “It's likely that at least some southern
hemisphere sightings of ‘pterosaurs’ are explained by fruit bats.”
He then admits, “Of course, no bats are known to be bioluminescent,
or that have wing spans of 25 feet.” He then gives no explanation for
the creature’s bioluminescence or giant size. He also seems to have
no explanation for tails between ten feet and twenty-two feet. Since
he does not seem to have any explanation, why does he not admit
this? Is it because he is so focused on discrediting the idea of living
pterosaurs that he ignores the most important evidence: valid and
credible evidence that pterosaurs really do live in Papua New Guinea?
Examine each eyewitness testimony and then compare the many
similarities in the descriptions of the flying creatures. The true
credibility of the living-pterosaurs idea then will become clear. And
for learning about rare nocturnal creatures in remote areas, clarity
in thinking about the possibility of live pterosaurs, however rare for
Westerner professors, may be essential.
Flying Fox Fruit Bat Suggestion by Glen Kuban
See the 2010 blog page about bulverism from a paleontologist,
albeit the bulverism from Glen Kuban may be only mild
"I do not understand how a critic can fail to see the fallacy of avoiding
eyewitness-report details: More than once I’ve noticed a critic will
invent an eyewitness scenario and appear to assume that the reported
sightings of apparent pterosaurs fit into the critic’s fabricated outline.
How dogmatic are some advocates of universal extinction of pterosaurs!"
(comment by Jonathan Whitcomb)
Email - Report