Occam's Razor Cuts Living Pterosaurs Critics

How does Occam's Razor relate to theory and hypothesis, and how does it relate to living pterosaurs? Norman Huntington (in his post "Occam's Razor and Marfa Lights") explains:

Isaac Newton said that "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Perhaps a definition more popular to modern scientists would be something like this: “when comparing two competing theories or hypotheses that make the same predictions, the simpler one is given priority.” That does not mean we should automatically flush down the loser. We simply give more time and attention to the winner.

James Bunnell (author of Hunting Marfa Lights) makes it clear that the CE lights are nothing like car headlights, even when the well-publicized night mirage effects are taken into account. In particular, the CE-III lights have sometimes been triangulated and tracked: They travel just above the bushes (I prefer the word "fly") where there is no road or highway, in one instance in a straight line for eleven miles. Car headlights differ so greatly from CE lights that they do not even deserve a place in the competition: They have been eliminated in the preliminary round. (Unfortunately, some blog writers and commenters who enjoy ridicule, like Richard Connelly, are oblivious to this.)

So how does Occam's Razor cut critics of investigations of living pterosaurs? One case involves interpretations of Marfa Lights, in particular the ones that have caught the attention of scientists like James Bunnell and Edson Hendricks, the truly mysterious CE-III flying lights. Huntington's long post on this subject is worth a brief summary here:

Of the four hypotheses offered by Bunnell, the best is number four: Electromagnetic Vortexes. The other hypotheses have too many problems or a problem that is too serious. The problem with the fourth relates to Occam's Razor: It is too complex, requiring two simultaneous things that are both questionable; it's quite possible that neither one exists in a way that would cause those strange lights, yet both must be present. Newton would scoff.

Compare that hypothesis by Bunnell (the best one that he mentioned in his book, and by the way, he admits the speculative nature of it) with my hypothesis of a group of bioluminescent flying predators. It also involves two elements: those flying predators and their prey. But mice, bats, snakes, and other small animals are well known in southwest Texas. There is only one questionable element: nocturnal glowing predators that are unclassified in biology. In that sense, at least, Occam's Razor cuts down the Electromagnetic-Vortexes hypothesis, for both of those parts are questionable.