Pterosaur Eyewitness

Online references to the “demon flyer” of Papua New Guinea are easy to find; but finding both clear thinking and dependable knowledge in this area is not so easy.

Ropen: a Demon Flyer?

. . . a brief Google search makes me suspect that the island of ”Rambunzo,” by that spelling, does not exist in Papua New Guinea; perhaps it is a misspelling, for the first few pages of Google searching refer [only] to cryptozoology sites and Wikipedia has nothing by that spelling. But if this is a misspelling of “Rambutyo,” (near Manus Island) we need to consider what at least some of the people of the northern islands of Papua New Guinea call the large nocturnal flying creature : “kor.” My contact person in that part of PNG is clear about that word for what Umboi Islanders (to the south) call “ropen.” “Kor” is their word, which I suspect is used by the people of Rambutyo.

That post gives many more details on this use of the phrase “demon flyer” in referring to the flying creature that is called by a number of names in Papua New Guinea. I’ll add here what was left out there.

On Umboi Island, at least some of the villagers have a different perspective on the concept of spiritual beings, at least different from many Americans. An intelligent being need not be either 100% spirit or 100% physical. The ropen of Umboi, according to Darius (who recited native traditions to the American explorer Paul Nation, in 2002), is like a spirit but also like a man. It flies around at night and sometimes comes down from a mountain to hunt game animals. To many islanders, this being may appear to be both spiritual (flying) and human (hunting animals for food).

In addition, natives may have a more complex concept of spirits than most Westerners have. A spirit, to them, need not be either 100% good or 100% bad. In that sense, at least, “demon flyer” seems a poor translation for a word that probably does not have a purely negative connotation for them.

Addendum

Marfa Lights Explanation

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.

The third edition of Live Pterosaurs in America (published in this version in November of 2011) is available on Amazon.com and from some other book sellers.

From the third paragraph of the back cover:

Americans, for years, have reported obvious living pterosaurs, with sightings in Washington state, California, New Mexico, Texas, Ohio, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, Kansas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Missouri.

Strange as it may sound, “bioluminescent pterosaurs” is the concept that explains many strange flying lights around the world. From the ropen of Papua New Guinea (also called kor, indava, seklo-bali, wawanar, and duwas) to the Marfa Lights of Texas, flying lights do not usually reveal their forms or features at night, but when they are seen in daylight (which is not every day), prepare for a shock: large or giant long-tailed pterosaurs.

That may also explain the many old legends of flying dragons, said to “breath fire.” To peoples living centuries ago, giant bioluminescent Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs would have been called “dragons.” Even the Biblical account of “fiery flying serpents” may have its origins in venomous long-tailed pterosaurs, for the glow would have been attributed to fire (what else could make light at night?) and with wings coiled up in repose the creatures would have resembled snakes.

But what creatures are recognized, by modern science, as capable of extremely brilliant bioluminescence? Well . . .  none, at least not yet, for bioluminescent organisms, like the firefly, give off a rather dim light, at least compared with what has been reported in some of the ghost lights or ropen lights. But real science is not a static regiment of recited facts; it is methodical progress in obtaining more information and coming to better understand it.

The American Duane Hodgkinson and the Australian Brian Hennessy have something in common: They have seen, in daylight, in Papua New Guinea, a huge long-tailed featherless flying creature. In the blog Live Pterosaurs, “Hodgkinson-Hennessy Ropen,” we read:

The cryptid seen in New Guinea, by Duane Hodgkinson in 1944 and by Brian Hennessy in 1971, I have named “Hodgkinson-Hennessy Ropen.” Similarities between the descriptions given to me by these two eyewitnesses struck me as too much for coincidence. . . .

As I mentioned in my scientific paper (in The Creation Research Society Quarterly, Volume 45, Number 3, “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific”), these different lengths of head crest I believe fall within the range of eyewitness error. In other words, the creatures observed by these two men could very well have had the same length of head crest (relative to the size of the head) . . .  it seems likely that the species is the same for the 1944 and 1971 sightings.

I have interviewed both of these eyewitnesses, finding both of them to be highly credible. Nothing in either the substance of their testimonies or in the way they communicated with me gave any hint of any hoax or any reasonable possibility of any misidentification error.

Pterosaurs are sometimes called “dinosaur birds,” even though they are neither dinosaurs nor birds.

When I began interviewing Gideon Koro, I was still assuming that at least ”ten or twenty” ropens live on Umboi Island. I came to explore the island to videotape at least one of the apparent-pterosaurs, but here I was, videotaping an eyewitness (Whitcomb-Kenda 2004 expedition). When my questioning got to the number of ropens that he and his six friends had seen years ago, Gideon surprised me, staring at me as if I were very ignorant: They had seen only one ropen. I resumed questioning; I’d have to figure out that puzzle later.

When I got to the tail-length of the ropen, Gideon said, “sefan meetuh.” “Seven meters?” I asked. “Yea.” Only later did I tie this length-estimate to the puzzle of the “ten or twenty” comment in an interview many years earlier. That first interview with Gideon (around 1994) involved a question about the size of the creature. When the two interviewers looked away at a nearby house (to get an idea of ropen-size), Gideon said something about “ten or twenty.” The interviewers thought that he meant the numbers of creatures. He must, however, have still been talking about size, for fifteen meters (the medium of ten and twenty) is roughly similar to the length of a ropen that has a tail length of seven meters.