Talk:Owlman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Merge?

Perhaps this entry should be merged with or at least bidirectionally linked with Mothman, since both crypid names seem to describe the same sort of creature. Thorne 07:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No I don't think they should be merged because there's no evidence that they're the same thing. They look different, are known by different names, and were seen in different decades on opposite sides of the world. JW 13:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The only similarities reported were the eyes and the wings, there is nothing to indicate the two are connected in any way other than being topics under the main Cryptozoology article. Drago 19:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Added because this article is insufficiently neutral as to whether or not creature actually exists. -- Beland 08:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Howso? It specifically and immediately says that it is a cryptozoological creature; So immediately we know the existence of the creature is disputed. And at the bottom of the article it also mentions that the most straightforward theory concerning it is that it was a type of owl that the witnesses misidentified. Granted, the bit about the prehistoric sites and earth energy along ley lines is a bit over the top but I see nothing to warrant an NPOV tag. Drago 19:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think Beland's point was that the way the entire article is written, it takes the girls' claims as truthful - "The Owlman then flew up into the air, revealing black pincer-like claws.", for instance, phrases the matter in such a way that the reader would theoretically be led to think that whatever they claim to have seen did fly. It also certainly needs to be reorganized... I might get to it myself. Zeppocity 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

O RLY...Hah Ha :|

[edit] Feral Child

Why remove the piece about the owlman being a feral child ? There are lots of known cases of animals raising human children.

As it says at the bottom : "Content must .... be based on verifiable sources." If it's true there shouldn't be a problem with providing a weblink to it but after a google I can find no reference to either a Professor Neil Clay and I know for a fact that there is no such University as Cheam so I'll remain sceptical about it until a reference has been supplied. Valenciano 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So if I create a web page about it then that makes it true, interesting. If only you had remained sceptical about some of the other 'facts' in this story. A 6ft owl indeed, very funny but unfortunately untrue.

As I added the bit about it probably being an escaped aviary owl I quite clearly am to say the least sceptical. If you consider your edit to be funny by the way then I wouldn't give up your day job. For now it comes under the heading of vandalism and I'd knock that on the head if I were you if you want to continue editing wikipedia - just a friendly word of advice. Valenciano 18:20, 17 July 2006

Seriously, escaped owls are not 6ft tall with glowing red eyes. What does making comments about my edit being funny or otherwise have to do with anything ? I'm afraid your unprofessional behaviour may have to be reported. BTW I have a number of log ons on wikepedia.

[edit] Truly Paranormal?

Owlman has been sighted at least three times, one of them he ended up DEAD! So, as one like myself would guess, Owlman is not a paranormal sighting, but in truth, a new species of animal. How this apparent "species" could have come about, I have no clue. But still, if one's dead and there are more sightings, one could say that these Owlmen were an entirly new race, opinions? ~VNinja~ 00:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The dead one was 50 years before the others and might not be connected (it could have simply been a vagrant bird of prey). As for a living species, it still seems confined to the Mawnan church area. I think a man-sized real flying creature with glowing eyes would be seen there every week. Personally I think this is some kind of paranormal entity (even though I wrote all that stuff about eagle owls). This case may never have a definite conclusion. Totnesmartin 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you might be right, yet still you can't doubt that with one "owlman" ending up dead, no one being able to identify it, and more appearences, some people might say this is an entirly new race. 206.176.109.44 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is a cool discussion, even though only two people have posted in it.

It certainly is. Meanwhile, in the absence of that body, or a photograph of it, there can be no certainties. Either of us could be right - or both wrong. Totnesmartin 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes without any details of the other find it could be anything (some large bird o prey escaping from a private zoo?). Owlman has paranormal aspects to it or at least the stories related do. Quite a few undiscovered animals can accumulate such lore through misunderstandings, tall stories, etc. or it could be a supernatural beastie or it could be a hoax (Doc Shiels has always done thigs firmyl tongue in cheek and it is never clear when he is seriou or not - if he knows, when you get in deep the dividing line gets very blurred). There are certainly solid parallels with Mothman, of course it could be, as Nickells suggests a misunderstood sighting of a known species too. So lots of possibilities some parannormal, some a new species and some known species (and the differnt sightings may have different explanations - getting lumped together over time). The truth may be out there but it can't really be resolved at this distace in time. Resolving a modern case may not reflect too strongly on the older ones (unless you can find unequivocal links). (Emperor 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
Okay then, if it is a large bird of prey escaping from a private zoo, wouldn't the zoo report a missing bird of prey? If they did, then it should be in the article. And yes, it could be a mix-up of species, or maybe a prankster scaring people after the first "owlman" ended up dead. Of course, as stated above by Totnesmartin, we all could be wrong, or one of us could be right, you never know. ~VNinja~ 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the dead bird report was from 1926. for any follow-up on that story, you'd have to wade through back numbers of Cornish newspapers. The source in this article isn't even the original newspaper, but a book mentioning the newspaper. And of course, the bird might not have escaped from anywhere - it could have been a wild vagrant, such as the Short-toed Eagle which turned up in the area a few years ago... We'll all just have to accept that we'll never know. Totnesmartin 14:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)