Recent statistics have been analyzed for sighting data that goes back several decades. It is amazing what can be learned from the ninety-eight reports, especially from the fifty-seven wingspan estimates.
Why examine the possibility that a significant portion of the sighting reports might have come from hoaxers who were trying to convince people that they had seen Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs? For several years, at least since before the middle of 2005, it has been obvious, to cryptozoologist who specialize in pterosaur-sightings, that most eyewitnesses report long tails on the flying creatures that they report. In addition, many of those who report long tails also report a structure at the end of the tail, suggesting a Rhamphorhynchoid tail vane. But a detailed evaluation of the data reveals a major problem with that kind of hoax conjecture: Too many wingspan estimates are too large to precisely coorelate with Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur fossils, and the downward slope for larger wingspans is too shallow, much too shallow.
To put it in a nutshell, the fifty-seven wingspan estimates show a fairly smooth curve downwards toward the giant wingspans, and it is far too shallow a curve to have come from hoaxers who would have tried to fool people into thinking that the hoaxers had seen long-tailed pterosaurs. The reason for that is that those Rhamphorhynchoids are commonly believed to have been smaller pterosaurs with wingspans generally less than seven feet. The statistics show something far different.