Pterosaur Eyewitness

Brian Dunning, a few years ago, wrote a blog post (“The Marfa Lights: A Real American Mystery”) with the conclusion that Marfa Lights are caused by car headlights. There are serious problems with that simplistic conclusion. But another problem in that post involves an assumption about written histories:

Critics of this [car headlights] explanation quickly point out that the Marfa Lights have been reported for hundreds of years, since long before there were any car headlights around. Well, apparently, the Marfa Lights have not been around all that long, after all.

How did Dunning come to that conclusion? His brief post gives no hint that he has done years of research looking for old records of Marfa Lights; that I seriously doubt. Even if he had searched for years, how could he be sure that he had not missed some nineteenth-century journal that described those mysterious lights? Yet that statement, “apparently, the Marfa Lights have not been around all that long” goes beyond a conclusion that no old written record exists referencing those mysterious lights: It is a dogmatic proclamation that those lights never appeared long ago, and that contradicts what old residents of southwest Texas have said about Marfa Lights.

I was born in Pasadena, California, and lived there through all my teenage years and many of my young adult years. Yet I probably have never mentioned any Rose Parade in any of my journal entries; to those who have lived many years in Pasadena, what is so special about the Rose Parade? It quickly becomes common. Of all the hundreds of thousands of citizens who have live at least part of their life in Pasadena, at least many hundreds have, at some time, kept a personal journal of life; yet many journals of life in this old city are probably devoid of any mention of any Rose Parade. And what of those journals that do mention it? How few readers have sifted through those personal journals, noting references to the Rose Parade! And of those researchers who have found those references, how many of them would have written about it in a way to easily be found by anyone interested? Search the internet if you like. Many online pages will be second-hand at best. The point? It takes serious research to dig into a subject far enough to get first-hand accounts of events. I seriously doubt that Mr. Dunning has done enough research to even come close to credibly declaring that Marfa Lights “have not been around all that long.”

Mr. Dunning does go into one detail about written histories in this part of Texas. He mentions the memoirs of Robert Ellison, whose descendants declare that he told them about the lights appearing in old times; but Dunning says that the memoirs mention nothing about those lights. Dunning says, “Curious that he would leave that out.” Why should that be curious? To those who have lived many years around Marfa, in old times (before Marfa Lights became famous), what is so special about those lights? Why should any of the old timers have written anything about those lights long ago, before any outsiders took notice? Those lights rarely had more than a gram’s weight of importance to old timers.

So why did Ellison tell his descendants about those strange lights? Look at the obvious. They probably asked him about the lights. So why doubt what those descendants remember about Ellison’s recounting old sightings? (Remember, it’s not the details that are important here, only that there were old sightings.) Second hand accounts may be far from perfect, in gathering scientific or legal evidence, but their evidential value far exceeds that of speculations about non-experiences in the nineteenth century. When lost in a vaste desert, what is the better choice? Dream about eating in a restaurant or roast a rabbit on a campfire? (Remember, if we are to live long enough to ever see another resaurant, we need strength to get through another day.) When starvation is the alternative, I’ll take the rabbit.

See also “Did Satire Backfire?” regarding Marfa Lights.

The live pterosaur investigations have sometimes been criticized, at least by a few critics, as if they lacked objectivity. Well, we’re all human; why not evaluate interviews and eyewitness reports themselves, especially those that are more credible or emphasized as important by the investigators? Avoid bulverism, look to the testimonies.

At the risk of self-approbation, please excuse these examples; I have written more about living pterosaurs than any other writer, so examples are easier to find with my own writings. Consider these and decide for yourself about whether or not I have a special problem with being objective, in particular if my desire to promote the idea of living pterosaurs overshadows reasonable thinking.

Frigate Bird

When one or two Youtube videos of a Frigate Bird became popular (as if evidence for a living pterosaur), I was in the front of objecting to the error. I commented on Youtube and wrote blog pages about those videos. When what looks like a Frigate Bird is seen soaring near a beach in daylight, well, that’s a Frigate Bird.

Strange Thing in a Landscape Photograph

When a new young investigator showed me a photo with something in the sky, I pointed out to the young man that the person taking the photo had noticed nothing unusual when the photo was taken. I felt no hesitancy in deflating that idea of a pterosaur photo, for the image itself does not look like what should be expected of a flying pterosaur.

Sleeping at the Wheel

In the first edition of my book Live Pterosaurs in America (repeated in the second edition, which should be published within the next few weeks), I brought up actual examples of dreams that two persons had after they fell asleep while driving: a giant bat about to collide with the car, in one dream; a herd of dinosaurs crossing the road, in another dream. I know both dreamers; each told me, from their own mouths, of their dreams.

As far as I know, I am the first writer to bring up this possible criticism of literal interpretations of eyewitness encounters with living pterosaurs. I believe it to be potentially one of the stongest possible objections to eyewitness accounts. Yet few of my critics, as far as I am aware (as of late October, 2010) have mentioned this possibility to explain sightings.

So why do I continue to proclaim the validity of eyewitness sightings of living pterosaurs, in the face of this apparent severe criticism? That requires an aside; I’ll be brief. Shocking dreams of strange things like giant bats or dinosaurs, dreams that wake the dreamer—those dreams seem to be contrived especially to awaken the dreamer who is driving (self-preservation through the intelligence of the unconscious mind). The real shock is in awakening to realize one is driving. But those sightings in which a large flying creature, without feathers, flys in front of the windshield of someone’s car (and the drivers later report to me)—those sightings have a notable absence of awakening. And when two eyewitnesses have seen a living pterosaur, it is not because both of the have dreamed the same thing at the same time. Enough said on that.

The point is this: Am I devoid of objectiveness, when I have written like that on those subjects? I don’t think so.

Youtube videos, fortunately only a few of them, have shown obvious Frigate Birds while speculating it is a ropen. If an apparent bird is soaring over the ocean or over a beach in daylight and what is flying resembles a Frigate Bird, assume that is what it is. One video is so obvious that it brings up a question: “Why did the person who put up the video not realize the obvious?” The bird has the white throat-chest common for some Frigate Birds and it has the wing-shape of a Frigate Bird.

I am concerned when I see a video of that bird and read comments like these:

“This looks like a ropen, its a type of dinosaur . . . thats sposed to exist still, i dont think this is fake, and its quite the discovery, well done ”

I hate to spoil a happy face but the appearance of that bird on that video differs significantly from the appearance of a ropen of Papua New Guinea.

” . . . you guys obviousely this video is real he can not paste or animate this its imposible because when he zooms back . . .”

The person making that comment is also unfamiliar with the appearance of Frigate Birds.

Enough said.

What a misuse of the word “objective!”

The web site objectiveministries.org, I have concluded, is an elaborate 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. Although there are a few references to real persons in other associations, most of this site is a huge joke, apparently created to ridicule Christians of a particular kind of beliefs. I have found no reasonable way that the person or persons who created this hoax would themselves believe in what is portrayed on the site.

This should not reflect negatively on my “objectiveness” site (see Objective Ministries NOT), but the name similarity is unfortunate, for some of my pages promote research or investigations into reports of living pterosaurs. Those who look only deep enough to note that outward similarity may assume they are the same or from the same source; they are not. I do not hold a grudge against the person or persons who manufactured this hoax, but it was surely wrong to do that.

How sad that somebody would spend so much time to ridicule those of a particular belief system! And how sad that somebody would create such an elaborate hoax! In places, some statements resemble (at least somewhat) statements on sites that portray the actual beliefs of the writers. If there is a problem with those actual beliefs, why not openly bring up the subject? Why not simply question those statements?

I first noticed the objective ministries site around 2004, and assumed that things like the “Pterosaur Rookery“ and “Project Pterosaur” expedition to Africa were simply naive goals by a serious but unprepared minister. Since looking deeper into this, I conclude that there is no creationist minister named Richard Paley; others have come to the same conclusion.