“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.

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.

An article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Volume 45, Number 3, “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific”) states:

The first American to bring back video evidence for the bioluminescence of the ropen was Paul Nation, who explored near Tawa Village in late 2006. He saw a number of flying lights on several nights and videotaped, for about fifteen seconds, two lights that were on a ridge where there were no roads, cars, or campfires.

According to Wikipedia (English Wikipedia: “ropen”):

In late 2006, Paul Nation, of Texas, explored a remote mountainous area on the mainland of Papua New Guinea. He videotaped two lights that the local natives called ‘indava.’ Nation believed the lights were from the bioluminescence of creatures similar to the ropen of Umboi Island.

From Searching for Ropens (second edition, nonfiction book):

[We] “saw one yellow glow start from a small glow to a bright glow and then a second appearance start and increase in intensity. The second and higher up the mountain glow, flew up and over the ridge and out of sight. While the first glow went out. 10 pm saw a single yellow glow flying along the mountain ridge to the east of our location following the terrain up and down going south to north.”

From Live Pterosaurs in America (nonfiction book, published in 2009):

On the Papua New Guinea mainland, in 2006, Paul Nation and his associate, native minister Jacob Kepas, explored deep in the highland interior. One night, Paul videotaped two glowing objects at the top of a ridge. The natives attribute this kind of light to large flying creatures that used to carry away animals and children from their village.

More resources:

Giant Bat and ropen of Papua New Guinea

Problems with a bat interpretation (this blog site)

Paul Nation, the most active LP explorer (another blog on living pterosaurs)

Brian Hennessy

Hennessy told me, “The creature I saw one early morning . . . was so unusual. I actually heard it before I saw it. A slow flap…flap…[flapping] sound. The air was still, and our truck had stopped on our downward journey from the top of the range to the coast way below. . . . When I looked up, trying to see what was making this sound, I saw a very unusual creature. Firstly, it was very big (wingspan at least 2 metres, probably more … possibly much, much more).” [the distance was difficult to judge and distance is critical when estimating size. JW]

“It certainly looked prehistoric, in that it did not look like any other bird that I have seen before or since. Why prehistoric? Well, maybe my memory has been influenced by the intervening years, but I recall seeing this creature with a longish narrow tail . . . the head was disproportionately large compared to the body (no feathers in sight). The wingspan was large. . . . and not a feather in sight (and that is not to say that there weren’t feathers…maybe I could not discern them).”

His objectiveness becomes obvious when we consider his comments about the featherless appearance, for he admitted the possibility of feathers that he did not see. Nevertheless, the absence of visible feathers suggests that it was no bird. Could this have been a strange large bird with feathers not easily visible? Mr. Hennessy also mentioned something on the back of the head of the creature; he used the word “horn.” That horn and the long tail suggest a ropen or at least a large flying creature similar to the one seen by Hodgkinson.

I am very grateful that he gave us permission to use his name and quote his comments on what he had seen, for it demonstrates the credibility of living-pterosaur investigations. Why? For one thing, the possibility of a hoax is practically nil, because of the lack of any motivation for a hoax and because of the eyewitness’s profession. What about insanity? Ask him to see a psychologist; it’s easy for him to look in a mirror, for Mr. Hennessy is himself a professional psychologist.

More resources:

Pterosaur Hoax Idea Itself Refuted

Giant Pterodactyl of 1944 (sighting by Hodgkinson)

When an eyewitness estimates wingspan (not all eyewitnesses estimate it), I record it and later compare it with other estimates. After several years of interviewing eyewitnesses of apparent pterosaurs in the United States, I found a peak at 8-10 feet; in fact, 27% are in that range, with a wide variety of other estimates falling off on both sides. This size is far too small or too big for hoaxers, for standard models suggest Rhamphorhynchoids were much smaller but cryptozoological reports from Papua New Guinea suggest ropens can get much larger. A combination of hoaxes would not produce this peak.

When I questioned eyewitnesses in detail about featherless appearance, most of them admitted some doubt about what seemed like a lack of feathers. Hoaxers who wanted to convince somebody that they had seen a living pterosaur would not have left any doubt about that.

The great majority of eyewitnesses report a long tail. This would not be a common lie from hoaxers, as this is not what is portrayed in movies and on television. In addition, if hoaxers were acquainted with standard-model teachings about pterosaurs, they would have lied with a Pterodactyloid (short-tailed) pterosaur-description, for those were the ones said to have lived more recently.

No, hoaxes did not cause the many reports of living pterosaurs seen from the West Coast to the East Coast and from the deep South to New England. [Note the comments regarding the book Hunting Marfa Lights, on the Post "Living Nightmare: Attack in the Dead of Winter. The author never suggested living pterosaurs but published a book with data that seems to validate the possibility. Obviously this author is not playing a joke to promote the idea of living pterosaurs.]