By the cryptozoologist Jonathan Whitcomb
Early this morning, February 22, 2021, I read a comment left under one of the videos on my Youtube channel Protect Animal Life. The person may not be aware of his or her own assumptions about me and my writings and my small online video productions, probably having only very limited experience with them. (To be fair, I suspect that probably many viewers on Youtube may encounter one video and assume the producer has published nothing other than that one video.) Here is the criticism:
“Every one and their mom’s have phones not calling the eyewitnesses liars but come on you see a pterodactyl looking bird and you stop, pull over, check to see if others saw it and most definitely take pictures! It’s inexcusable to have all these supposed sightings and have nothing but word of mouth!”
I will not reply directly to this critic but will respond by appealing to those who may be more objective and who are willing to think more deeply. I will not try to communicate with this person but will leave out the name used by him or her. Similar criticisms have been thrown at me before, so let’s deal with the issues and hope this critic will come to think more clearly in the future. I’ll call this person “MOC” (for Mr. Omnipotent Critic).
Over many centuries, God has told us about his omnipotence in scriptures. Some have read and believed in him and in his all-knowing power; others have rejected scriptures and refused to believe in God.
Does MOC assume that everybody knows and accepts his own omnipotence? Perhaps he does not understand the nature of his own assumptions. How can MOC know that I “have nothing but word of mouth” regarding modern pterosaurs or the possibility that not all species of these flying creatures are extinct?
Has MOC read carefully all five of my nonfiction books on this subject, including all three editions of Live Pterosaurs in America and all four editions of Searching for Ropens and Finding God? Has he even thought about the possibility that in one of my blog posts or other web pages can be found something other than “word of mouth” regarding these reported flying creatures? I have published over a thousand of them online over the past 18 years, each one about living “pterodactyls”.
Does he know that one of my nonfiction books in print is primarily about an apparent photograph of a modern pterosaur? What difference does it make that some persons contest the validity of that photo? It is clearly more than word of mouth.
And what about the video footage recorded by the eyewitness Cynthia Lee in Raleigh, North Carolina? From the words written by MOC, I strongly suspect that he (or she) is totally ignorant of that and knows nothing about my writings regarding that eyewitness.
Eyewitness Cynthia Lee of Raleigh, North Carolina
Of the countless thousands of eyewitnesses of these flying creatures that have been seen worldwide, a tiny fraction of those persons have been attacked by the animals. The danger to humanity may seem small when compared to dangers from of a new virus or a new war, yet I feel it my duty to now warn people.
Yet how effective can my warnings be if I fail to make use of the most important kind of evidence for the existence of these animals: flying creatures that so many Westerners have assumed have all been extinct for many “millions” of years?
Yet how effective can my warnings be if I fail to make use of the most weighty evidence for the existence of these animals: flying creatures that so many Westerners have assumed have all been extinct for many “millions” of years? Eyewitness testimony is one form of evidence.
How can any reasonable person constantly reject all pieces of evidence that consist mostly of common human experience? Western science came into existence from people trying to make sense of human experience. Reject everything that you do not personally like, simply because some persons experienced things you did not, and you potentially give power to all those who would reject everything you believe, simply because they do not personally like things they have not experienced.
Sketch drawn by the eyewitness Patty Carson
A small portion of scientists have studied pterosaur fossils, and millions have therefore believed in pterosaurs that lived in the past; a small portion of the six billion humans on this planet have seen an apparent modern pterosaur, possibly only a few million eyewitnesses, and thousands are therefore now learning about a few of those persons . What is “inexcusable” about one person (me, Jonathan Whitcomb) believing that a small portion of pterosaurs survived into the present, inspiring me to publicize that good news to the world, even if I did “have nothing but word of mouth”?
###
.
Over the past 18 years, I’ve encountered hundreds of reports of apparent modern pterosaurs, also called “flying dinosaurs” and “dragons”. . . . On occasion, a person is in danger, sometimes resulting in injury and even death [but attacks from modern pterosaurs on humans are the exceptions: rare, by comparison with all encounters].
.
Throughout human history, and more recently, come fascinating reports of what may have been living pterosaurs
.
To insist that all of those eyewitnesses must have been mistaken in the same way—that requires extraordinary proof. Of course we need something like a living ropen being captured and put into a zoo, before scientifically classifying the animal, yet all scientific progress involves, at some point, somebody observing something and reporting what was observed.
.
The Youtube video (on the channel Protect Animal Life) titled “When a Pterodactyl Attacks”
.
I try to be objective with each of the eyewitnesses I interview, with neither a crude skepticism nor an over-zealous acceptance of everything that seems to support my previous conclusions.
.
I can attest to the honesty-credibility of both Milt Marcy and Peter Beach, for I have communicated with them for years. In fact, they took me with them on a mini-expedition in Washington state in 2014 . . .
.
This is a response to an attack, by a vocal critic, against the credibility of recent investigations into reported sightings of apparent modern pterosaurs, yet we can here cover only a small number of problems in the lengthy publication by that skeptic.
.
The cognitive bias of loss aversion and pterosaurs
I now write about a cognitive bias, loss aversion, that appears to have had a major influence over a critic of my research.
.
