From the blog post “Bulverism Revisited” Blog Live Pterosaur When someone publishes a web site with a URL that includes the words “stupid” and “lies,” and the point of the site is to ridicule those who promote the idea of living dinosaurs or living pterosaurs, “bulverism” probably fits . . . Of course “libel” also fits, but . . . Individuals are attacked, real persons, me and my associates. Quotations of what we say can be hard to find on that site; the attacker’s portrayal of our motivations, easy to find. An average reader who gets very far on that site is unlikely to search out the actual words and deeds of living-pterosaur investigators. Why search for the writings of people who are both stupid and liars? But what if the critical mistake is in the one making accusations? Let’s look at the various ideas offered and compare conflicting ideas through reasoning. Most writers have something useful to say, even when error is mixed with truth, so let’s concentrate on the merits, or lack thereof, of ideas and not the weaknesses, real or not, of those who write. “Finding him credible supports your agenda” Is it reasonable that everyone who disagrees with us, on any subject, must have unworthy motivations? Why should . . . living pterosaurs be different, with only believers [in them] having an “agenda?” [American author Jonathan Whitcomb supports openness, not bulverism] Copyright © Jonathan Whitcomb 2011 The American cryptozoologist Jonathan D. Whitcomb obtained an exact digital copy of the video footage that Paul Nation recorded (late 2006) near Tawa Village, Papua New Guinea. This video was given to Clifford Paiva, a missile defense physicist, who did a thorough analysis of the two lights. They could not be resolved into any shape of the creatures that created those lights, but they were proven to not have been made by any common sourse (not fires, flashlights, etc). Scientific analysis, by a missile defense physicist, of the indava-lights video