I don’t often write more than 200 words without mentioning modern pterodactyls, but this is different. I now quote myself and hope you enjoy at least some of it, whether it’s funny or thought provoking or just entertaining. If you don’t discover any truth new to you, maybe you’ll get a smile, if not a laugh.

Attempts at humor

If you lead, others will follow, but if nobody wants to lead
then everybody watches football. [Aug 1, 2017]

How many important things cannot easily be learned in a university!
But do not tell that to a student until after graduation. [2021]

One thing we have to get used to about people:
They’re all human.

May the windows of heaven be opened onto my intellect,
that I may remember what I was thinking ten seconds ago. [2021]

This is me in my youth, playing with my cat; he was really good.

Be grateful when somebody’s driving you crazy, at least
you don’t have to walk to the insane asylum. [2021]

It’s been said that if you can’t say anything nice about somebody
don’t say anything at all, but it seems like a long time since I’ve
heard anybody say anything at all about a lawyer. [Sep 29, 2022]

When you see a man with a sour face, don’t tell him to smile. Give him
a wad of hundred-dollar bills: It will give him a smile and be good for
you. . . . I forgot my wallet. [September 29, 2022]

Basic (or subtle) advice

The biggest fool may be the one who spends a lifetime
trying to appear non-foolish. [2022]

All of us are at least part-time fools, so let’s try
to make foolishness only a part-time occupation. [2021]

When you hear the footsteps of opportunity walking toward
your front porch, don’t wait to hear the doorbell: Open the
front door immediately. [2018]

Don’t judge the depth of the water by what floats on the surface. [March 10, 2019]

Weak is the satisfaction of playing alone; seek to be one of those who
play for the higher satisfaction: As a team, strive to win against the
opposition of human weakness. [September 29, 2022]

Human nature

Trust one eyewitness of a plane crash over the imaginations of a hundred professors who’ve agreed how that kind of plane should fly. [Searching for Ropens and Finding God]

Repentance or self improvement

There’s no bad time to pull up weeds; it’s just inconvenient. [July 31, 2019]

Science

Unrestricted skepticism is an enemy of true science. [June 17, 2021]

When all the experts’ explanations fail, consider the idea
that fits many of the facts but runs contrary to a cultural
assumption of those experts.

Splashing his big toe on the surface of a family swimming pool,
no man can prove or disprove the existence of a giant octopus.
But if that man amplifies the sound of that splash and describes
his action as a preliminary investigation into the depths, he can
speculate whatever he wants. And if he waves a university
diploma over that swimming pool, almost everybody will
believe a giant octopus lives there.

Real science is not necessarily sitting in a box having a label including
the word “science.” It’s in how we look into a box.

.

###

.

Sightings of pterosaurs

This includes, among other things about these shocking flying creatures, hundreds of accounts of non-extinct pterodactyls seen around the world.

.

Pterosaurs are not all extinct

Contrary to a popular Western opinion, the idea that all dinosaurs and pterosaurs became extinct many millions of years ago is not “science” but an assumption.

.

Non-extinct pterodactyls

A nonfiction-cryptozoology author has analyzed reports of non-extinct pterosaurs, commonly called “pterodactyls” or “flying dinosaurs,” and found how sightings relate to thirty-three states (and Washington D.C.) of the United States.

.

By nonfiction author Jonathan Whitcomb

The following, at least in part, will probably be included in my upcoming book One LDS Perspective on Evolution [update on March of 2021: This has been postponed]:

Real science is not what’s in a box having a label including the word “science.” It’s how you look into a box. It’s like a particular pair of reading glasses. They usually help you see better while searching through boxes with labels having words like “biology” and “astronomy,” but that doesn’t mean you can’t wear them while searching through a cryptozoology box.

A box labeled “biology” may invite you to put on your real-science reading glasses, and that label may suggest that some people might have worn those glasses while packing that box, but real science is in how we look at things.

Should we ever take off our real-science reading glasses? Of course, especially while enjoying a lovely landscape by looking out a window. We can use those glasses to clean the windowpane, as long as we remember to remove those reading glasses afterwards, to enjoy the outdoor scenery.

Cryptozoology and Science

Glen Kuban has written much in criticizing my investigation of reports of living pterosaurs. To be brief, he seems to be trying to convince people that the work my associates and I have undertaken is not scientific. David Woetzel and I, however, have written scientific papers on living pterosaurs, published in a peer-reviewed journal:

• “The Fiery Flying Serpent” – by Woetzel
• “Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific” – by Whitcomb

From two scientific papers on modern pterosaurs (Whitcomb and Woetzel)

Kuban, on the other hand, appears to have never written any scientific paper (published in a peer-reviewed journal) on living pterosaurs (LP’s), at least not as of the end of 2018. I now respond to him, since he has brought up the subject of science and cryptozoology, and since he has extensively criticized my writings on LP’s.

A few years after the publication of my scientific paper on extant pterosaurs, I did a study of data that I had accumulated from eyewitness sightings. By early in 2013, I had compiled the data from sighting reports I had received through the end of 2012. The great majority of those 128 reports were from communications between me and the eyewitnesses, in other words first-hand accounts.

Using simple math, I found three independent characteristics of the data, each of them counting seriously against any possibility that hoaxes had any major impact in those 128 reported sightings:

• How sure eyewitnesses were of lack of feathers
• Wingspan estimates
• Long tails of the flying creatures

.

From page 300 of the book Searching for Ropens and Finding God (nonfiction)

I was not imagining what might have happened 65 million years ago. I simply looked at the present, using mathematics to try to learn how plausible it might be for hoaxes to have played any major part in the 128 reports. I discovered that three characteristics proved that hoaxes could not explain the overall sightings.

The Scientist Lord Kelvin

The first British scientist to be elevated to the House of Lords, the mathematical physicist and engineer Lord Kelvin once said the following:

“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”

I suggest that writers who would ridicule those supporting living-pterosaur investigations think twice. Real science can thrive when scientists use math to make discoveries, and that is what I’ve done in this little-known branch of cryptozoology.

###

.

Living pterosaurs in a scientific paper

. . . be aware that much of my scientific paper is about two expeditions on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, in 2004. I led the first expedition, with my native interpreter Luke Paina; David Woetzel and Garth Guessman were assisted, a few weeks later, by the native interpreter Jacob Kepas.

.

Glen Kuban and Living Pterosaurs

I will not take the time to counter everything negative that Kuban says about me and my writings. I do not have a thousand hours or so that would be necessary to spend on it. I’ll just say that much of it is mostly false, some of it is almost entirely false, and a smaller portion of it is 100% false.

.

Scientific Paper on Modern Pterosaurs

I also include here a few details about some of my cryptozoology books, for the scientific paper is only 13 pages long, and my books have much more information. In addition, the books are more-recently published and contain more-recent sighting reports.

.

Those who search for living pterosaurs

These explorers including, but are not limited to, Jonathan Whitcomb, Garth Guessman, David Woetzel, and Paul Nation.

.

Flying creatures like pterodactyls

Eyewitness reports of living pterosaurs worldwide

.

By the investigative journalist Jonathan Whitcomb

My new nonfiction is for middle-grade children and many (but not all) teenagers: The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur. This is a short cryptozoology book, not about religion but about eyewitness sightings of apparent living pterosaurs. It invites you to seek the truth behind what people around the world report observing.

I highly recommend my new book to young LDS readers, yet it really is for English-speaking people of all faiths. I hope that readers will send in comments, either through something like Amazon customer reviews or through my contact page.

I gave this book a general age recommendation for readers: eight to fourteen years old. The most-delighted readers are more likely to be 10-12 year-olds, however. I expect a greater number of them will find the book both rewarding and easy to understand.

Here are some of the benefits I believe are available to young readers of The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur:

1. This book does not indoctrinate the reader into what must be believed; it invites the reader to consider what people report observing.
2. It does not ridicule the obvious interpretation of what people have seen; it compares one sighting with others, inviting the reader to use critical thinking.
3. It does not rely on the imagination of professors regarding what may have happened (or did not happen) millions of years ago; it tells the reader what is seen today.

Here’s the URL for this “dinosaur” book for children and teens on Amazon.

.

The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur (short nonfiction)

Is This for LDS Readers?

Although this short nonfiction was not written with LDS youth in mind, I feel confident that many of them can find my new cryptozoology book delightful.

###

.

New ‘Dinosaur’ Book for Young Readers

The non-fiction paperback The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur introduces a new field of cryptozoology to kids and teens who are about eight to fourteen years old.

.

Promoting Pterodactyls and the ‘Mormon Religion’

A biology professor in Minnesota wrote a blog post, the other week, blasting my research and investigations into sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs (AKA pterodactyls). Most of his declarations about my intentions, however, were false. His mistake about my purposes in writing that page on lds-nonfiction-dot-com, however, was interesting to me; I was actually writing to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who might enjoy reading my most recent book, Searching for Ropens and Finding God (every person deserves to know the truth). That’s why the page is on lds-nonfiction, instead of something like “Christian Nonfiction-Book Readers” or something like that. . . .

.

The Girl who saw a Flying Dinosaur

The new non-fiction plus several other books about modern pterosaurs

.

Non-extinct pterodactyls

Modern pterodactyls in the United States

This relates to concepts about the “age of dinosaurs,” but let’s put aside that concept for the moment. Have you ever encountered a statement similar to the following?

“Evolution is a proven scientific fact.”

True scientific progress requires working with details, and “evolution” (meaning Darwinian theory) has been compared to a room full of smoke, according to David Berlinski, in the documentary Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed:

One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian Theory is: man that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke. Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined and delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematical Physics. And Mathematical Physics lacks all of the rigor one expects from Mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual decent down the level of intelligibility, until we reach Evolutionary Biology.

Unlimited Common Ancestry

We can blow away some of that smoke by being specific. Many persons assume there is only one concept of biological evolution and they just call it “evolution.” But the General Theory of Evolution mainly involves the philosophy of unlimited common ancestry, so let’s look deeper. Yes indeed it is philosophy and not science, although many persons have assumed it is pure science.

What is unlimited common ancestry? (I like to use that phrase for it is specific.) It’s when a person assumes that when two different biological organisms may have had a common ancestor then they did have one. That is not scientific, it is philosophical.

Darwin used that approach in his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and countless of his followers have continued to use that philosophy. One of the big problems is that this philosophy has been forced into our consciousness (or subconsciousness) in the name of “science.”

When I say unlimited common ancestry (we’ll use UCA), I don’t mean insistence that all living organisms must have had one common ancestor; it’s not quite that. The concept that all plant life had one common and all animal life had another common ancestor—that could fit well into the philosophy of UCA, if the evidence was convincing enough that the two basic forms of life had different original ancestors. The point of this philosophy, in that case, would be insisting we then assume that there were not more than two original ancestors. Notice the insistence.

What do we learn from Genesis? Biological details are scarce indeed, but it seems that this planet originally had many original ancestors of modern organisms, perhaps thousands of original life forms. That’s a far cry from both the insistence of UCA and the countless species that now exist in our wonderful world. Hardly anybody denies all forms of evolution, for humans themselves have caused a wide variety living things to come forth, for example: domesticated animals, including many varieties of cattle, horses, dogs, and cats. But those many kinds came about by human intelligence and from a variety or original ancestors. We did not start with mud puddles but with wonderful early forms of animals. Environment may play a part in shaping some characteristics in animal life, over long periods of time, but the shaping was done in selecting from among many of the wonderful genes that had already existed “after their kind.”

Dating Problems With Dinosaurs

I refer to carbon-14 radiometric dating problems, not dinosaur extinction from those animals hanging out in groups and avoiding serious courtship dating.

The two problems with C14 testing of dinosaur bones comes from two perspectives:

1. The dates are shocking
2. The dating has been discontinued, because of shock

Soon after the 2012 geology conference in Singapore, carbon-dating laboratories, at least in the United States, stopped testing any materials that might be dinosaur remains.

Why? It could make them look silly, for the dates always turn out to be in the range of tens of thousands of years, with radioactive carbon always present. How shocking!

Directly testing the ages of dinosaurs bones always shows them to be only a tiny fraction of the ages that we have been indoctrinated into believing. Dinosaurs really did live alongside humans, and that knowledge comes from carbon-14 dating.

###

.

Carbon Radiometric Dating of Dinosaur Bones

Scientific methods and instrumentation have greatly improved since the earlier days of dinosaur dating, and those old assumptions are now being tested.

Carbon dated dinosaur fossils

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

The Gospel and the Scientific View

The worldwide flood of Noah’s time has been accepted as a benchmark historical event by Jews and Christians for thousands of years—and similar traditions appear among the Greeks, Mesopotamians, and some American Indian tribes.

Evolutionary Boundary

Darwin’s Natural Selection actually PREVENTS ANY major biological-development change in ANY organism.

LDS Nonfiction Book

Three nonfiction books by the L.D.S. author Jonathan Whitcomb—each can take you into an astonishing world of cryptozoology, into a narrow field of the paranormal-like investigations of eyewitness accounts of apparent living pterosaurs.

.

Did I promote the “Mormon Religion” by publishing my web page “Searching for Ropens and Finding God?” I would be delighted if a reader not yet a member of my church investigated the LDS faith after reading that page, yet that was not on my mind when I wrote it. This needs explaining.

A biology professor in Minnesota wrote a blog post, the other week, blasting my research and investigations into sighting reports of apparent pterosaurs (AKA pterodactyls). Most of his declarations about my intentions, however, were false. His mistake about my purposes in writing that page on lds-nonfiction-dot-com, however, was interesting to me; I was actually writing to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who might enjoy reading my most recent book, Searching for Ropens and Finding God (every person deserves to know the truth). That’s why the page is on lds-nonfiction, instead of something like “Christian Nonfiction-Book Readers” or something like that. I was simply targeting members of my own church.

I suggest blog writers stick to issues rather than pin imagined motivations onto the names of those with whom they disagree. Bulverism may be getting worse, since C. S. Lewis invented that name. Since the biology professor in Minnesota was trying to discourage readers from considering my writings, using bulverism, I’ll quote, on the subject of bulverism, from the third edition of Searching for Ropens and Finding God:

The Smithsonian post suggests that Jim Blume and David Woetzel are themselves a problem, as they attempt to persuade people that dinosaurs and pterosaurs are still living. Switek says they’re creationist explorers, which nobody denies, but that labeling implies we should doubt modern pterosaurs could exist. Be aware: most eyewitnesses are non-creationists, a fact unknown to many skeptics. (Thus many eyewitnesses are shocked at what they see.) Let’s avoid even a hint of bulverism, examining ideas for their own strengths and weaknesses. Keep to the subject, the concept that one or more species of pterosaur may be still living. [page 295]

C. S. Lewis gave us “bulverism,” lamenting the decline of human reasoning. He defined the word in the mid-twentieth century: “The modern method is to assume without discussion that he [someone whose opinion you dislike] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.” How much better to talk about the subject at hand! [page 326]

###

Evidence for Pterosaurs and Honesty

For modern living pterosaurs, however, we have BOTH physical evidence and eyewitness evidence. The difficulty some persons have with it, however, is that reported eyewitness encounters with living pterosaurs dominate the physical evidence, in both quantity and quality. So if you quickly scan a few sentences on one or two web pages, on modern pterosaurs, you’ll see only one or two sighting accounts, probably eyewitness evidence, not physical.

Live Pterodactyl

In daylight, seven native boys or teenagers climbed up to a crater lake, around 1994, on Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, with no worry about the legendary ropen. Why fear the ropen, for the flying creature comes out at night, rarely in daylight; but this day was different.

Strange Flying Creatures and Bulverism

“Bulverism” C. S. Lewis labeled the slick ploy of avoiding reasoning on a subject by pointing out the reason ones opponent is so silly. Do some criticisms of living-pterosaur investigations qualify as bulverism? I believe so.

.

Nonfiction spiritual/true-life-adventure/cryptozoology book by Whitcomb

Searching for Ropens and Finding God

This cross-genre book is becoming known as “the Bible of modern pterosaurs.”

In nonfiction writing, how should we hand out criticism? When we find that a person is really in error, we must remember this is a real person, someone whose life in general may have only limited relevance to that error. Consider the alternative you have to offer, and be willing to acknowledge how he may be correct in some detail, in spite of his mistake. By all means concentrate on the truth. An example is in order.

Are Reports of Living Pterosaurs Anecdotes?

In this post, I referred to a critic who disputed the validity of a report of an apparent living pterosaur. I left out the name of the critic, not even linking to his web site. This may be the safest way to point out a weakness in someone else’s written idea, but I also offer this as an example of how not to criticize, for that critic mentioned the name of the U.S. Marine Eskin Kuhn and then flatly declared that his report was a hoax. Since “hoax” includes “lie,” that could be a case of libel; since I found Kuhn to be highly credible (I interviewed him by phone), that criticism of the U.S. Marine appears to be the worst form of criticism.

In part, the critic said in his blog, “I had been planning on writing a post called ‘Thoughts on Eskin Kuhn’s Pterosaur Sighting’ . . . an American soldier named Eskin Kuhn saw a pterosaur while stationed in Cuba. The claim is a hoax. I no longer have the patience for dealing with creationist-related debunkings and I have no intention of actually writing up one for this topic.”

The critic who seems to have carelessly handed out libel wrote only a short paragraph, with no indication of having done any research or detailed analysis. He was then confronted by an unexpected response from an angry Mr. Kuhn. I think the critic could have avoided that confrontation by using common sense and writing responsibly.

This case deserves an explanation. In 1971, Eskin Kuhn was assigned to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (a U.S. military installation). One clear day, while he was taking a break outside, he saw two long-tailed creatures flying together, at close range and low altitude, with no obstruction to his view. Being a talented realistic artist, that same day he drew a sketch of the two apparent pterosaurs. He later gave a detailed report for cryptozoologists. For four decades he has stood by his account of his experience, in spite of occasional criticisms or brusque dismissals.

I began my investigations in cryptozoology while actively working as an independent forensic videographer, working with attorney firms, mostly in Southern California. My experiences interviewing accident victims, their caregivers, and others, gave me some foundation for interviewing eyewitnesses of apparent living pterosaurs (not that the accidents were monstrous experiences; I just learned to listen openly and ask appropriate questions for each situation). Early in 2010, I phoned Eskin Kuhn; he had no warning. I questioned him about his 1971 sighting, with the same approach I normally use for those interviews: unlike an attorney questioning a witness in court, more like a detective questioning someone on the street. That approach leaves open all possibilities for discoveries: potential truth in the witness account and potential errors in perception, credibility issues both positive and negative. The person so interviewed rightly perceives I am open to hearing truth, but the questioning subtly allows me to later catch potential problems with credibility and perception, as I review my record and memory of the interview.

Both during my telephone interview with Eskin Kuhn and after reviewing it later, I found him to be highly credible. If there were any hoax, he would have spoken differently than he did, so the careless critic appears to have been completely wrong in his accusation. Since I was not Mr. Kuhn’s attorney, bringing his case to court, I felt no need to mention the name of that critic, although in other cases (other critics of eyewitness accounts) I have mentioned names. But that’s for another post.

__________________________________________________________

Child care in Long Beach

Whether you write fiction or nonfiction, understand your choices involving truth and error in human characters and in human beliefs. Consider a balance between extremes, not to ever compromise the truth but to perceive and elucidate, sometimes separate and label, the truths and errors that sometimes cause conflict between opposing camps, including conflicts between opposing human philosophies.

How refreshing to enjoy a family movie in which most of the characters are reasonably human! That balance generally comes not from the acting talent: The script writer created that balance. Compare that with a movie in which each character is firmly entrenched in one of two camps: bad guys who want to destroy the universe versus good guys who want to save it.

But bad-versus-good (which can be considered a version of “truth-versus-error”), has a competitor, in nonfiction writing in particular: competition between philosophical camps in which both sides have a mixture of truth and error. I write from experience, for both of my books relate to a contest of philosophies in American culture, and both philosophies have a mixture of truth and error.

Before delving into details about my own writings, consider what every LDS author should know about “bulverism,” a word invented by C. S. Lewis. Wikipedia quotes him thus:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. [Lewis recognized that as proper and that what follows is wrong.] The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

Perhaps you have never been guilty of commiting bulverism yourself; but what if you become a victim of someone else’s bulverism? Become aware of this problem, this faulty unfair approach that avoids reasoning, and when you become a victim don’t retaliate with your own bulverism but stear back to reasoning. Plow into the subject itself, straight into it, without questioning your opponents motivations or intelligence or qualifications. At the end of the field, after finishing that straight furrow, you might take a few seconds or so to chase away the rat that’s trying to make a nest in your field; never before finishing a furrow.

I write nonfiction cryptozoology books. I rarely mention Loch Ness or Bigfoot, for I specialize in eyewitness accounts of apparent living pterosaurs. I know that’s abscure, having written two books to become the world’s most prolific writer on the subject. Truth-plus-error has become an important part of my approach, for most of my associates in living-pterosaur investigations are Young Earth Creationists, believing the universe to be not much older than six thousand years. I strongly support the truths they recognize in the Bible, including the beginning of the human family with Adam and Eve; I do not support the idea of a young universe. Writing sometimes requires delicate balancing.