Talk:Owlman

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Truly Paranormal? 

message: At present there appear to be no references to this creature in independent mainstream sources.  All of the sources in the article are apparently specifically cryptozoological publications, which makes them bad for establishing notability.  Nor can I find any third party reliable sources via a google search.  Does anyone know of any to establish notability?
Locke9k (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this reasoning used to call notability into question rather alarming. Simple thought experiment: please provide at least one source for differentiable manifold that is not a specifically mathematical publication! See the problem? The reference list includes at least four books. So because they are written by cryptozoologists they are not acceptable? Seriously, Wikipedia is becoming more depressing every day :( Nude Amazon (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This article (http://www.cfz.org.uk/beta/resources/features/owlman.htm), claims that the girls involved in the second sighting were already aware of the story of the owlman. This would certainly make them more likely to believe that they too had seen the cryptid. I feel this could really throw a spanner in the works of the whole theory that an owlman exists. Angrybeerman (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting

message: Now, I'm not much of a believer in such creatures, but as this place does purport to be an encyclopedia, it probably should not be allowed to pass that a section of the article is placed under a sarcastic ("um, an owl?") heading. Not very encyclopedic, though not surprising, either.--172.191.102.219 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: A lot of the details in this article goes into the that it might be a hoax or misidentification. This is completely unbalanced as regards to other theories on Owlman on whether or not he is real (flesh in blood or supernatural entity), something that several other cryptids have as well. There should be more complete coverage discussing BOTH sides of the argument as well as the events that transpired (if any folklore existed on Owlman before the encounter) and the strange behavior of animals in the area during the time of the sightings. Hopefully this issue is taken care of so that it meets Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly balanced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, what sources would you propose using to expand the article? Bear in mind, in matters of supernatural/paranormal/Forteana, Wikipedia is not neutral with regard to fringe ideas. It's actually biased toward sources that are independent of the fringe claims. We don't present both fringe and non-fringe as equally valid. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: My mate saw the owlman near Grogley Halt a few months ago. Tewdar (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent sighting