I will not here quote any sarcasm from critics of the living-pterosaur interpretation of Marfa Lights; sarcasm is easy enough to find without me giving reference to it. I’ve noticed that the words “dinosaurs” and “big bird” are sometimes used sarcastically by those critics. Let’s take this one step at a time, with more careful use of the English language.
“Predator” is the first word to consider with Marfa Lights. In general, those mystery lights that James Bunnell classifies as “CE-III” behave consistantly with the predator-interpretation, assuming large bioluminescent flying creatures can live in southwest Texas. A good example is given in what I call the “Huntington Hypothesis” of a particular sighting by Mr. Bunnell, in 2003:
Note that other observations of CE-III mystery lights (a designation Bunnell gives to certain lights around Marfa: lights that travel and exhibit combustion-like attributes) sometimes involve light “splitting.” Whitcomb’s Marfa Light hypothesis includes the proposition that this is a sort of optical illusion for distant human observers: There were two objects, one glowing but not the other; the non-glowing one turns on its bioluminescence just before the two flying creatures separate.
. . . ML (D), observed by Bunnell on May 8, 2003, and photographed by more than one camera, could have involved two flying predators, with only one of them glowing at a time. . . . The distance from start point to end point was, according to Bunnell’s triangulation calculations, eleven miles, and the time of travel was eighteen minutes. That makes the average speed about 37 mph . . . Barn owls are not known for flying straight for many miles, even if one of them could keep up a pace of 37 mph. But the ropen of Papua New Guinea is said to fly “faster than birds but slower than airplanes.”
Now, assuming Marfa Lights are flying creatures somewhat similar to ropens, what would cause a large bioluminescent flying creature to fly eleven miles straight at 37 miles per hour? Only one possibility comes to my mind: A frightened intruding male is being chased by a dominant male who is protecting his females.
The second step is to admit the possibility of a relationship with a cryptid of Papua New Guinea. The word is “ropen.” Not one of the investigators who has explored in Papua New Guinea, searching for ropens, uses the word “dinosaur” instead of pterosaur. The next word to use is “pterosaur.”
The third step is to consider those critics who have written, not brief sarcasm, lengthy blog posts. In general, in the end they admit that there is a possibility of another “living pterosaur” or surviving ancient organism. In other words, it is not impossible for a species of pterosaur to still be living in the twenty-first century. Those critics emphasize that such a discovery would have no significance regarding the credibility of “evolution.” They also emphasize their conviction that a living pterosaur is very unlikely and that sightings of apparent pterosaurs are misidentifications. The credibility of the General Theory of Evolution is a deep subject (I won’t go into it here), but it seems too convenient for critics to dismiss all sightings that suggest living pterosaurs, sightings from around the world, from peoples of various religious and educational backgrounds, of various cultural and philosophical backgrounds. And if those critics, despite their finesse in political rear-end protection, are eventually shown to have been wrong about extinction, why believe that their personal evolution philosophies must be correct?
