Searching for Ropens

The first few comments from readers, in the summer of 2006,

I found interesting. Each Amazon review  was  either  a glowing  endorsement or  a goring indict-ment. Without middle ground, each reader evaluated my book with  either  the  maximum or minimum number of stars, but, to me, this was not surprising. The book contains an indictment of the idea that Naturalism philosophy  is “science.” It is not. It appears that the bluntness of my approach has offended some people who have taken  the  General  Theory  of Evolution  as  part  of  their personal philosophy.


Searching for Ropens is more than just a book about a cryptid, although the cryptozoological expeditions for apparent living pterosaurs play a major part. The religious or spiritual message is that God should be given credit for earth life. Naturalism, or the idea that God has never created anything miraculously, has been adopted as the foundational axiom of standard models of modern science. It is, however, an axiom, not itself proven.

Why did one critic say, “The author starts off with . . . agenda about how idiotic Darwinism is.”? Nothing in the book even hints that believers in Darwinism are incapable of intelligent thought. But the word “idiotic” does hint at the  concept  of  one  person criticizing another’s intelligence. Perhaps  this critic  has taken Naturalism philosophy to heart, reacting in anger to the scientific approaches against the General Theory of Evolution. Regardless, I never intended that any part of my book would mock any person’s intelligence (or philosophy).


Another critic has said, “This book is more about religion and believing,  and  not  a  serious research about Ropens.” If the point was not sufficiently  made in my book, I’ll make it here: The existence of living dinosaurs and pterosaurs refutes  the  standard-model  assertion or implication that  dinosaur  and  pterosaur  fossils  are  evidence supporting the General Theory of Evolution.  The book  is  about religion and believing—and also about science and ropens.

A reply to critics of the

first edition of the book

If you have read the book and wish to make comments or suggestions, email to:

Expanded Second Edition:


Searching for Ropens, at 263 pages, has 17 chapters, 140 images, a 50-page appendix,

and a 21-page index.


Although it has no daylight photograph of any ropen (only distant images of two glowing indavas), the book has a composite sketch from eyewitness testimonies.

Read the second edition of Searching for Ropens


From readers of the first edition:


“I read the book cover to cover in the first 48 hours after I received it (it was hard  to  put  down). The author does  a great job of  laying out   the  known facts about the Ropen.


“I was equally fascinated with his personal account of summoning up the courage to go on the trip in the first place. The book was as much . . . about finding the courage within you to do something extraordinary as it was about a possible cryptozoological event.”


Alex Aguila, Florida




“I sat up till nearly 4 a.m. reading your book.

. . . personally I think you have done a brilliant

job of it. Its full of humor and spirituality.

Every page was interesting! Your honesty in the book really shone through and it was just such

good reading. Loved it!”


Penny, Australia


From the Author

Read an introduction to bioluminescence.

This is one revolutionary characteristic

of the creature known in Papua New Guinea

as ropen, duwas, seklo-bali, and wawanar.

Living Pterodactyls and Umboi Island


The second edition gives you new exciting

developments such as the late 2006 expedition

in which two indavas were videotaped one

night as they were about to take off into the

air. Other new sighting reports are covered,

as well as new insights into living pterosaurs.

A common criticism of the living-pterosaur

investigations is that the natives are super-stitious. One problem with that approach is that the native eyewitnesses rarely mention any superstitious details (such as legends) when they relate what they have seen. Another problem with that approach is that is fails to take into account

testimonies of Westerners. What about the

Australian psychologist who saw a “prehistoric”

creature flying over Bougainville Island?


What about the web page of Glen Kuban, his suggestion that at least some of the sightings are actually just Flying Fox fruit bats? Groundless!