Still Living

The Great Dinosaur Mystery
and the Big Truth

By Jonathan (not John) Whitcomb
I reply to a web page without referring to its URL, for the "big lie" in its title libels me and my associates (falsely accusing us of lies). "The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Big Lie," at least in its original form (or late-2008 version), included at least a reference to the following inaccuracies:
Two web pages referred to the living-pterosaur expedition of "John Whitcomb." One of the pages refers to this "John Whitcomb" as the leader of a group of creationists who, sponsored by Carl Baugh, went to Africa; it seems to be a multitude of mistakes: I am "Jonathan," not "John," and went alone to Papua New Guinea, not leading anyone into Africa (I've never been to Africa). And I was never sponsored by Carl Baugh. The other page also uses "John" and also accuses me without evidence. That page, with the title "The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Big  Lie,"  was apparently written without careful consideration of my own account, for it repeats "John Whitcomb." That page is answered here.
To the point: We have not lied about our living-pterosaur investigations; we have told the truth about our experiences and about those who have told us about what they have seen.
Consider some of the comments of this critic:
     "In the creationistsí delusional eyes, if itís big and it looks
      like a bat and/or a bird, itís a pterosaur . . ."
What creationist has ever written or said anything that would
lead a rational person to conclude that the creationist would
think that "if itís big and it looks like a bat and/or a bird, itís a pterosaur?" I have researched and written about the living pterosaur phenomenon (from late 2003 through the present) more than perhaps any other person on earth. Some readers
who believe in the Creation of Genesis do seem enthusiastic
about the possibility of living pterosaurs. Of course some of
them may be over-eager to accept questionable reports. But
those who have spent years actively searching for living pterosaurs and researching reports (myself, Paul Nation,
Garth Guessman, David Woetzel, Jim Blume, and others)
are not "delusional" but seem more open-minded than this
critic. Consider the reports themselves, not libelous non-scientific criticism, which is destructive.
"Every 'report' made of alleged sightings are without proof of evidence," is what this critic says; but we do not deny that these investigations have been cryptozoological. Remember cryptozoology normally involves eyewitness sighting reports prior to overwhelming physical evidence, evidence like a captured creature. The ropen has been a cryptid, and this seems to have escaped this critic's notice: cryptozoology.
This same critic says that sightings are "made by natives . . . plagued by superstition," but where is the evidence of any plague of superstition? Even if the author can show that all
of those natives are superstitious, those supersitions must
be shown to cause a false report. My own experience in
Papua New Guinea has shown that this is not the case. Whatever superstitions the natives of Umboi have, they are
not mentioned or implied when native eyewitnesses report what they have seen (almost without exception). This critic
has explored what remote island, interviewed what native?
Has this critic even read an original eyewitness report? If
so, where is the evidence for relevant superstition?
The critic next proclaims that the natives have been "bribed
or brainwashed." Excuse me, but when and how did this take place? Where is the evidence for the dishonesty? Does the critic really believe that the American creationists used their own money to explore remote junges in Papua New Guinea (searching for living pterosaurs), and then told the world that they saw no clear form of any pterosaur, but they "bribed
or brainwashed" natives into reporting pterosaurs? Does the
critic proclaim that the American explorers were dishonest when they said that they had never themselves seen any
living pterosaur? No. The accusations are ludicrous.
Notice two more keys to descerning the fallacious nature of charges of dishonesty. There is no mention of details (no evidence of dishonesty) and there is that word: "or." That is
a simple clue, for bribing and brainwashing are two different things. Obviously, the critic knows no details, so imagines
two possibilities and, by saying "or," reveals foggy criticism. How can that kind of criticism be constructive?
The critic continues with, "The only reason why the okapi,
the coelacanth, and the megamouth shark are confirmed
to be real is because we have found physical evidence for
their existence." I would put it more simply: Things are confirmed real after the confirmation of their reality. But
that's hardly more useful than saying that real things are
real. To the point, the critic imagines extant dinosaurs and pterosaurs to be unreal and fails to comprehend the nature
of cryptozoology. And part of the nature of cryptids is the
possibility that eyewitnesses may see them before one
of them is captured, providing "physical evidence." We
need to remember, however, that every living creature has
lived before it was classified by modern science, before
there was any physical evidence for its existence.
Lack of research is obvious when the critic says, "they cannot explain why are there no pterosaurs found in the fossil record above and below the Mesozoic strata . . ." Just search on
Google with:
"Mesozoic strata" pterosaur
On October 3, 2008, the first page of Google gave six results
(out of ten) in which the creationist perspective explains why some persons believe (incorrectly) that "Mesozoic" strata and
pterosaur fossils can be used as if evidence against extant pterosaurs. Strata that is not classified as Mesozoic soon
will be if a "Mesozoic" creature is discovered therein. The
standard-model method in dating fossils has this fault: It has
no single sure method of dating anything that might seem to
be more than a few tens of thousands of years old. One way
strata is dated is by the kinds of fossils it contains. Circular
reasoning jumps into the dating, preventing an pterosaur
fossil from appearing in strata "younger" than "Mesozoic."
The Mesozoic question alone shows how little research this
critic has done in at least one aspect of living-pterosaur investigations, for this matter has been explained well and is easy to find online. Perhaps this critic has never read any
report except perhaps some of what David Woetzel has on
his Genesis Park site (mostly regarding the kongamato or ancient written accounts).
For those who are open-minded enough to hope that some
pterosaur or pterosaur-like creature might still live in some
part of this planet, please consider the writings of all those
who have explored remote areas, looking for ropens. Consider
the possibility that natives are capable of telling us what is
flying around; I (Jonathan Whitcomb, not John Whitcomb)
have interviewed natives who are highly credible. Consider
that the many similarities between native accounts and
accounts of Westerners is no coincidence. Consider the
possibility of extant pterosaurs.
An early-2009 version of the "Big Lie" web page uses words like "idiocy," "stupid," "idiot," "stupidly," and "lie." In fact, one page uses these words five times in six sentences. Is this part of scientific reasoning or dirty politics? You decide.

The "Stupid Dinosaur Lies," and related web pages, seem to be written by someone who also misunderstands the significance (or lack of s.) of where pterosaur fossils have been found. When fossils of a species of pterosaur are known only from one country (for example, from England), what does that tell us about where a living pterosaur might be found? Nothing! Even a small pterosaur might fly to the other side of the earth in one year; what about 4000 years (or the evolutionist's many millions of years)? I suggest that this critic try to think more carefully before labeling us with "idiot."

Why does the writer of these libelous statements assume that Woetzel purposefully tried to mislead readers? The writer seems to give no evidence for such purpose. I (Jonathan Whitcomb) have had several disagreements with David Woetzel, over the years. A significant scientific disagreement between us is in regard to the type of Rhamphorhynchoid suggested by most of the more-important testimonies. In none of my experience with David Woetzel have I found any evidence at all of any deception. Mr Woetzel is respected by those who have worked with him.

The critic seems to try to make much of some of the differences between some eyewitness reports. But he neglects to mention that the investigations are still in the realm of cryptozoology, not biology. We expect to find differences between reports. It is important similarities that catch the attention of the creationist investigators: glowing flying creatures with long tails, for example.

One "Stupid Dinosaur Lies" page refers to one or more eyewitness reports that seem to have been written about by Woetzel. The critic says that pterosaurs "are probably more colorful than just black and red." But the writer who accuses us of lies has nothing tangible to show what color any pterosaur was or is; fossils do not show the color of living pterosaurs. So what is wrong with the possibility that one species of pterosaur is black or red?

Please consider the cryptids called "ropen" and "indava" and "kongomato" in the context of eyewitness reports, then believe what you will.