Pterosaur Eyewitness

To paraphrase Nicola Tesla, the modern scientist needs, rather than deep thinking, clear thinking. I suggest that investigators need to recognize evidence of intelligence rather than require interpretations involving non-intelligence, regarding the CE-III mystery lights of Marfa, Texas. Car headlight misidentifications are irrelevant. Car headlights do not prove that airplanes cannot produce lights at night, and the CE-III’s are nothing like car headlights. We need to consider the apparent intelligence in the movements of those CE-III Marfa Lights, for sometimes some things are exactly as they appear to be, in this case, intelligent.

When residents of Marfa, Texas, and those in surrounding areas, including those living in ranch houses, have observed the more mysterious flying lights—many observations over the decades—they recognize an intelligence in the “dances.” A light sometimes will split into two lights and the two will slowly separate for quite a distance, eventually turning back as they approach each other, like in a square dance. Variations can appear on that theme, but the basics are commonplace. The point is this: Why do so many outsiders, scientists or not, assume that all those residents must be wrong when those local people ascribe intelligence to some of those lights (the ones Bunnell labels “CE-III”)? How we need common horse sense!

For those who have not read my book, or blog posts on this subject, I’ll summarize. The light splittings probably relate to a specific hunting technique. Bioluminescent flying predators attract insects with their glowing. They separate for a short while, allowing Big Brown Bats to go after those flying insects. The larger predators then reunite to try to catch bats, although they may not both remain glowing all the way back, for that would alert the bats.

How can one flying predator split into two? There were always two (or more), but they were close together when they started their hunting “dance.” From a distance, it appeared to be one light splitting into two.

According to Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” I don’t have the omnipotent-like assurance of Sherlock Holmes, but I feel about 75% sure that those special flying lights, the ones labeled (by the scientist James Bunnell) “CE-III,” that appear only a few times a year around Marfa, Texas, are modern living pterosaurs, hunting as a group.

Explaining Marfa Lights

He admitted to me that Marfa Lights last much longer than ball lightning and are seen in all kinds of weather (discounting ball lightning), and he told me what he himself had seen, near the MLVP, unwittingly suggesting a bioluminescent creature. Near the MLVP, Hendricks saw a light come down and move about in the nearby bushes, like an animal would . . . I suspect that Hendricks had witnessed a ropen-like nocturnal flying predator that was chasing a Big Brown Bat.”

Biological Marfa Lights

That reminded me of the light from the ropen of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, and the flying lights seen by the British biologist Evelyn Cheesman, on the mainland, west of Umboi. Those lights are very limited in how long they remain on, only a few seconds.

Flying Under the Radar in Marfa, Texas

But why is that Houston Chronicle newspaper article indirectly instructive? The writer makes no examination of the possibility or impossibility of a biological interpretation. The opinions of two non-biologists (James Bunnell and Karl Stephan) receive most of the attention . . .

More Light on Marfa Lights

After reading the book Hunting Marfa Lights, it becomes obvious that some lights around Marfa are not at all like common lights. Something strange is happening around Marfa, Texas.

I rarely mention jaws that snap or claws that scratch. I write more on featherless features of long-tailed creatures, emphasizing both non-bird and non-bat evidence from eyewitnesses, and  I warn against a weakness in Western mentality, pleading for self-inoculation against the intellectual danger of bulverism. Laying aside those points, I’ve recently read the cryptozoology book Bird From Hell, not the best or second-best living-pterosaur nonfiction but it warns us of a more down-to-earth danger. It’s now time to mention what often captivates readers: teeth with an appetite to bite.

I hope that no pterosaur was responsible for any of the human deaths in British Columbia, Canada, along the 500-mile stretch of highway from Prince George to Prince Rupert, but I also hope that all attacks from irresponsible humans, against innocent human victims, will cease, and that this world will become a paradise in which death itself will cease. Notwithstanding all our hopes for the future, however, we now face a present danger, a warning from Gerald McIsaac, author of Bird From Hell, who believes that “most of the hitchhikers [on this highway at night] who disappear have been killed by this animal. It is also my opinion that many of the people who have disappeared have not been reported.”

Chapter Eight, “Highway of Tears,” in Bird From Hell reveals, “Amnesty International estimates that since 1969, thirty-two women and girls, most of them Aboriginal, have disappeared along that highway.” Nobody denies that some women and girls in this part of Canada are victims of abuse at home and that some of them hitchhike on this highway, making themselves vulnerable at night. But the general human population, at least the Native Americans in one area of northern British Columbia, keep indoors at night to avoid the “devil bird,” and some eyewitnesses of that flying creature have been attacked by an animal with wings, when those persons have stayed outside after sunset.

Of course it is possible that aboriginals are superstitious and that all the missing persons, over the decades, who have walked that long highway at night were attacked by human rapists and murderers; that seems possible on the surface. But animalistic humans do not fit all the reported encounters at night in British Columbia, according to the book Bird From Hell.

What about the dead horse mentioned in that book? Much of its body was found by a tree. Of course ordinary non-human predators could be responsible, or so it seems. But why were parts of its body in the top of that tree, with some of the branches broken?

What about the girl in Kwadacha (northern British Columbia)? She was outside one dark night, when it seemed that “one of the boys” was spying on her. She was big for her age, and decided to teach him a lesson by charging him. At the end of the charge, she came to a stop. It was not one of the boys . . . She was facing a creature that she later called the “devil bird.” It released a “cloud of smoke” and flew away. Whatever the species of that flying creature, pterosaur, whatever, it was not one of the boys or one of the animalistic humans who have attacked girls on the Highway of Tears.

I don’t believe everything that I’ve read in Bird From Hell, but other cryptozoology books mention “pterodactyl attacks,” even when a different name is used for the flying creature. Take one account in the pioneering nonfiction On the Track of Unknown Animals, by Bernard Heuvelmans:

Coming straight at me only a few feet above the water was a black thing the size of an eagle. . . . its lower jaw hung open and bore a semicircle of pointed white teeth set about their own width apart from each other. . . .  And just before it became too dark to see, it came again, hurtling back down the river, its teeth chattering, the air “shss-shssing” as it was cleft by the great, black, dracula-like wings. . . . the brute made straight for George. He ducked.

Those are the words of the well-known biologist-explorer Ivan T. Sanderson (1911-1973). Within minutes, a large flying creature had dived straight at a human twice; I would call that behavior “attacking.”

I have read other reports of early-to-mid twentieth-century attacks, in Africa, from pterosaur-like flying creatures; but in late-2004 I did more than read: I led a small expedition on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, where I interviewed an old villager who encountered a strange flying creature. Micheal told me that he had witnessed, in 1949, the glowing ropen one night, when it dug up and carried away a human body that had just been buried in a grave in Gomlongon Village. I would not call that behavior “attacking,” for the man was already dead, but it was extremely rude to the family and friends of the deceased. If I were a resident of Umboi Island, I would not allow my children to wander too far, alone at night. And if I were a resident of northern British Columbia, I would avoid a long walk at night.

A few years ago, before I was fully aware of the significance of reports of sightings of apparent pterosaurs in North America, I received a report from a lady in San Diego County, Califorina. Now I have another report, from another eyewitness, supporting the idea that ropens or ropen-like flying creatures live in Southern California. Last November, two men witnessed two very large long-tailed creatures flying at low elevation over the city of San Diego. After some emails, I talked with one of the men by phone. He is quite credible.

Nocturnal Pterosaurs in San Diego

“I was at my friend’s house. . . . We were standing in the street . . . from the west came this dark object in the sky. It was right over us about, I say, 40 yards [high]. As it got closer we both yelled, “What the hell is that?” It looked like a huge bird. It was gliding . . . I was stuck looking at it the entire time. I began yelling at it, then it turned around and it stood still in the air. It was flapping its wings while it was there. Then outta nowhere here came another one. It was waiting for it; as it got close to the other one, they both went east.”

Apparently, the two ropens were flying in the same direction, from the west, but one was following the other. The first one was observed to be gliding but it stopped (with some wing movement or flapping) and waited for the other one to catch up. They then continued together towards the east.

A Joke Earlier in 2011

I am still searching for some strategy for communicating with the news media in the San Diego area, for we have a serious problem with the time of this late-2011 sighting. Just three months earlier, in August, somebody played a practical joke with a model “pterodactyl” being placed onto a statue in the north-coastal area of San Diego County. That “pterodactyl” joke was covered in quite a few news outlets, making any report of a genuine ropen sighting very difficult to market in this part of Southern California.

I will not link to this YouTube video; it has had enough exposure. For those who have hoped that it is a legitimate recording of a modern living pterosaur I am sorry to give out bad news, but problems fly in my face when I examine the credibility of this video. I will not put the credibility figure at zero percent, for I don’t declare myself mentally perfect; but the hoax-like elements are numerous enough and serious enough that the producer of this video really needs to come forward and reveal what it really is.

“Pterodactyl Sighting 2008″

For those unfamiliar with the scene or declared-scene: Flathead Lake, in NW Montana, is the largest freshwater lake in the western United States, in surface area, although Lake Tahoe is almost as large and surely holds more water (at a greater depth than Flathead Lake).

I don’t demand that eveybody must use perfect English (perfect spelling, perfect grammar, perfect punctuation), but when errors multiply with each sentence I suspect it comes from a writer unfamiliar with proper English or from a careless writer, and carelessness is not always confined to language. But let’s set aside this problem and examine the video itself.

When I first saw this video it gave me a feeling like it was a hoax. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but it did not look real to me, not organic, not living. When I reviewed it at a much later time, I got the same feeling. But it seems that at least a few viewers have believed it to be a real living pterosaur, so I decided to look closer.

Although this is technically a video, it actually shows a series of still images, seemingly still photos. The third image (the second image in which a flying thing is shown) shows what look like artifacts commonly found on still images taken from actual video footage, bringing up a question: If this comes from a video, why did the one giving us these images just give us the video? Why are we given only a few still images?

The first image shows us that the camera is just above the surface of a lake, perhaps as high as ten feet or more above the lake but unlikely over a hundred feet. The fourth image seems consistent, as it seems like we are looking at a slight angle up at the flying thing, with a ridge under it. The fifth image also seems like we are looking up at the flying creature. The sixth image seem even more like we are looking up at it, as does the seventh. But the eighth appears somewhat different, like we were almost at the same level as the flying creature. The ninth image gives me the impression that I am looking slightly down at the flying creature; I notice one of the hind legs (kept straight back behind the rear of its body) now is seen above its right wing, and the main part of the head is below the left wing. I have tried to imagine some way that I could be looking up at this flying creature, in this image; my mind rebels against the thought. Of course it could be in a steep dive, but this seems inconsistent with the other images. It looks more like this photo, if it really is a photo, was taken far higher, way up in the air; but how did the camera get so high up in the air?

Other issues appear serious. For one, why did the one submitting this YouTube video not respond to many comments from viewers who mentioned reasons that this is a hoax? I read many objections with words like “fake” and ”hoax” (especially “fake”) but not one comment in response from the author or recorder of this “video.” One or more commenters mentioned artifacts around the “pterodacty” images, suggesting a paste-on hoax; why no response from the one submitting this to us?

Where is the cryptozoological report? I should have heard or read something about this somewhere, in the past three years, for there may be no person on the face of the planet who spends more time on living-pterosaur investigations than I do. If the eyewitness sent his report to Loren Coleman (instead of to me), why do I not see anything about this 2008 Flathead Lake “pterodactyl” on Cryptomundo?

I have read some of the comments on this YouTube video, comments about remote-controlled mechanical “pterodactyls” at Flathead Lake. Why has the video-submitter not replied to the insinuation that his “photos” are of radio-controlled devices?

This “report” of a modern living pterosaur may not be the lowest in credibility of all the reports that I have received or examined over the past eight years, but it is a runner-up contender for most-likely non-pterosaur.

********************************************************************

Objective Ministries Hoax

I conclude that there is no such educational facility as “Fellowship University,” and there is no such creationist “Richard Paley” affiliated with “objective ministries.” All the supposed plans for an expedition “to locate and bring back to the United States living specimens of pterosaurs or their fertile eggs” are fictional.

No Hoaxes with Pterosaur Wingspan Estimates

According to standard ideas in paleontology (and that is mostly what is mentioned in Western media when it is mentioned at all), only a small percentage of Rhamphorhynchoids attained wingspans over eight feet. But the data on wingspan estimates does not show any sharp decline above six feet, more of a gentle downward slope (fewer eyewitness estimates) into sizes much larger than standard ideas about Rhamphorhynchoid fossil wingspans. If a significant number of hoaxers made some of these fifty-seven estimates, and a significant number of those hoaxers were trying to portray Rhamphorhynchoids, there would have been a steeper decline above seven feet.