I have sometimes observed, in the writing of critics or skeptics, a fondness for throwing together “hoax” and “misidentification.” I now think that misidentifications are more likely than hoaxess, for those reports that are less credible, but the large majority of sightings that are reported to me from emails are credible reports, with no major sign of either a practical joke or a misidentified bird or bat.
Several factors practically eliminate hoaxes as a major cause for those publicized sightings that have been emphasized by the most recent LP-cryptozoologists (who specialize in living pterosaur sightings). For now, let’s look into the post-sighting experiences of some eyewitnesses.
I interviewed the Perth couple over a period of several years, by emails, and found a hoax was practically eliminated as any reasonable explanation. I know that some skeptics could respond with something like, “a giant long-tailed pterosaur in the modern day is unreasonable.” But the skeptics do not rely on any observation; they rely on a popular assumption.
I eventually found the original report that the lady had made to an online forum. As she had told me earlier, the replies to her report of a giant pterosaur-like flying creature were rude and insulting. How easy it was to see why the lady had become upset at being called a liar. But she and her husband have stood by their testimonies for years, inspite of that ridicule, making it hard to stand by the accusation that they had played a hoax.
The same could be said of the experiences of the U. S. Marine Eskin C. Kuhn, whose sighting has been called a “hoax.” I gave him a surprise phone call, a few years ago, and found him to be highly credible, answering my questions as a valid eyewitness would respond, not as a hoaxer would respond. He has stood by his sighting account for four decades, in spite of accusations that his experience never happened.
What about Susan Wooten, of South Carolina? She has encountered skeptics, since her sighting of a huge featherless flying creature, but she stands by her account. The apparent pterosaur flew right in front of her car, and other drivers on that highway in South Carolina pulled over to the side of the road in reponse to the flyover. She has been upset at the words of those who doubt her account, but she still maintains that she saw what she has said that she saw.
Who would insinuate that Brian Hennessy had played a hoax? He is another eyewitness who has given his name to the world as he has given us his account of the prehistoric-looking creature that flew over his head on Bougainville Island (now part of the nation of Papua New Guinea) in 1971.
Other eyewitnesses could be mentioned, credible persons who stand by their testimonies of their encounters with flying creatures that cannot reasonably be interpreted as any bird or any bat.
That practically eliminates a hoax as in relation to our investigations: We would not lie when telling everybody that we never saw a pterosaur. Woetzel and I and other American explorers encountered eyewitnesses of the ropen, and descriptions of that flying creature suggest a modern pterosaur far more than any bird or bat.
Hoax Explanation for Living Pterosaurs
“Mr. Paiva also found that Plate 24-B shows that no image-pasting hoax created the two lights. In other words, Paul Nation videotaped these two lights; they were not created separately and then inserted onto the background.”
Pterosaur Sightings From Hoaxes?
I interviewed Hodgkinson sixty years later, by phone, emails, and mail, for he still lives in reasonable health, in Livingston, Montana. I continued interviewing him, on occasion, and my associate in cryptozoology, Garth Guessman, also interviewed Hodgkinson. Over a period of eight years, we have found no indication of any hoax.
Pterosaur Eyewitnesses not Playing Hoaxes
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.