By Jonathan Whitcomb
A few critics have suggested that everyone involved in reports of modern living pterosaurs should
be dismissed as "kooks" or hoaxers. But isn't it better to consider the reports themselves? If they
show any signs of a hoax, then those reports can be dismissed. If my writings about those sighting
reports show signs that I am insane, then feel free to dismiss my writings. But if an investigation is
rejected simply because it runs against commonly-held beliefs of scientists, what about Galileo?
And what about Newton and Einstein? Each of them proclaimed ideas that were against common
ideas believed by the professors of their day. Did any of them use a hoax? Please consider what my
associates and I have found in eyewitness reports of living pterosaurs.
Among those who have contacted me (from 2004 through 2008), with their reports of apparent
living pterosaurs, less than 5% show obvious signs of a hoax or a mental health condition. What
about the 95%+? Many of them answer my questions, and those questions tell me more than just
descriptions of tails and lack of feathers. With questions specifically-geared to the sighting and
to the eyewitness, I learn about the thoughts and feelings of the person; I then get a feel for that
person's credibility. Sometimes I even phone the person and ask questions that a hoaxer would
have no time to answer convincingly, if a hoax coverup were attempted. My experience indicates
that many eyewitnesses report what they sincerely believe that they saw. They do not contact me
with any hoax, with almost no exception.
How do I know that these reports are not the result of hoaxes? Several examples could be given;
I'll explain one of them here. With many eyewitnesses, with sightings in many American states, I
have found something interesting about reports of featherless appearances. A hoax would be
expected to include certainty of no-feathers, for why would a hoaxer want to leave any room for
doubt? But the overall descriptions in the many sighting reports I have examined show something
different: The definitely-no-feathers are out-numbered by the probably-no-feathers. Since actual
sightings would involve many conditions (distance from creature, visibility, angle of view), some
eyewitnesses would not get a clear enough view to be really sure the creature had no feathers.
That is what I have received from many eyewitnesses: What is natural for true sightings but un-
natural for hoaxes. No combination of hoax added to hoax could have created this data.
Please consider a few web pages related to the hoax explanation of living pterosaur reports.
Absence of a hoax in a video of "indava lights" recorded in Papua New Guinea
" . . . the data accumulated from descriptions of apparent pterosaurs in the United States showed characteristics not to be
expected from a hoax or hoaxes."
1924 Pterosaur Footage Identity Hoax
Postings by "jdw" (near the bottom) explain the two hoaxes: pterosaur hoax and identity hoax
Questions and Answers about the book Searching for Ropens ("Hoax" does not fit)
"The eyewitnesses are from several differing cultures: Australians, natives . . . and Americans. Neither hoaxes nor hallucinations
(nor a combination of both) would cause dozens of reports with many similarities in descriptions."