Rob McConnell Interviews - JONATHAN WHITCOMB - Are the Global Sightings of Flying Dragons Real or Misidentifications

Jonathan Whitcomb - While viewing an expedition video by Paul Nation, he noticed a high level of credibility in the testimonies of eyewitnesses of what is called the ropen of Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea. He then became involved in living-pterosaur investigations, exploring part of Umboi Island in 2004. Although he failed to see any ropen, he interviewed native eyewitnesses. In 2006, Whitcomb wrote the book Searching for Ropens. In it he criticizes the standard model of universal and ancient pterosaur extinction and criticizes the General Theory of Evolution.In late 2006, Whitcomb interviewed Paul Nation, who had just returned from another expedition on the mainland of Papua New Guinea. Whitcomb made a digital copy of Nation's video footage of two indavalights. This video was later analyzed by the physicist Cliff Paiva; the lights were found to be genuine images and not the result of videotaping meteors, car headlights, or camp fires. Whitcomb then included the findings in the second edition of his book in 2007.After news of the 2004 expeditions became publicized online, reports from American eyewitnesses began to accumulate. Whitcomb compiled and analyzed data from reports received from early-2005 to early-2009. He then wrote the nonfiction book Live Pterosaurs in America , which was published on July 25, 2009. Whitcomb's scientific paper "Reports of Living Pterosaurs in the Southwest Pacific" was published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, Volume 45, Number 3 (Winter 2009).On April 2, 2017, Whitcomb published the nonfiction book Modern Pterosaurs, which explains the evidence for the authenticity of the photograph that is now called Ptp. In the first few months of 2017, he and the physicist Clifford Paiva discovered and pubicized a number of points of evidence that the animal shown in the photo was a real animal and that the photo itself was probably taken before about the year 1870. Those two scientists propose that the animal shown is at least related to a Pteranodon, although they acknowledge some differences in details. They stand by their proclamation that the animal was a modern pterosaur.In 2003, he wrote a shorter work on a mathematical model showing the impracticality of macroevolution: An Evolutionary Boundary.