Monster, Machine... or an Owl ?

(can anyone provide attribution for this etching
allegedly from the SIM article referenced)

Was it a Monster-Owl... or a Machine?

by Alfred Lehmberg


Joe Nickell of the former partisan paranormal investigation group CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), now CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), wrote what has passed for a "Flatwoods Monster" article, lo these many years, in the Nov/Dec. 2000 issue of the Skeptical Enquirer magazine. Nickell, an English teacher who once tipped Flatwoods waitresses with actual wooden nickels, claimed that the “monster” these witnesses had seen and reported under penalty of perjury... was actually a "barn owl." The waitresses, by report, were not amused.

Later on, noxious gasses reported produced by the monster would be excused as "Indian-summer" flower fumes or hallucinatory volcanic gasses... all of these things happening neither before nor since this singular night... no, and decidedly, no roc-sized owls, smelly flowers, or volcanic gasses... Besides! Generations of these people knew what a barn owl in a tree looked like... and their owls never lit up on their own, silently hovered around, or gave off toxic gasses.

"Owl" is the labored conclusion that this ostensible skeptic writer Nickell claimed in his article titled, "The Flatwoods UFO Monster." He wrote, "...And so a spooked barn owl in turn spooked the interlopers and a monster was born." Easy if unsupported dismissal of excitable kids and a hillbilly parent so effortlessly done, case closed, and excelsior! Onward to the next "skeptibunkery"! You can bet Dr. (immaterial) Nickell was just touching himself at his glibness.

In hubris-larded summation he would further state, "We may conclude (adapting an old adage) that if it looked like a barn owl, acted like a barn owl, and hissed, then it was most likely a barn owl." We might also conclude that what "looks, acts, and hisses" like an uninformed partisan hack may be as likely to be that hack. We digress.

Now follow this closely reader. It seems that Joe Nickell's skeptical "owl" conclusion was by NO means an original idea, at all. 

See, he was merely echoing the ludicrous conclusion offered by the USAF! They had concluded this when they attempted THEIR cover-up of the incident some 47 years earlier! 

Observe that in January of 1953, pioneer UFO researcher Major Donald Keyhoe spoke to USAF Senior Public Liaison, Albert Chop about the Flatwoods case. In Keyhoe's book, "Flying Saucers From Outer Space." Chop explained the following to Keyhoe, "The group did see two glowing eyes, probably those of a large owl perched on a limb. Underbrush below may have given the impression of a giant figure, and in their excitement they may have imagined the rest." Ok... though... how original does an English teacher have to be? ...And at least he reads... even as he doesn't give attribution.

Besides, if you look closer at Nickell's mawkish wording you will see that his "barn owl" conclusion was only speculative! He wrote, "it was most likely a barn owl." 

This is the same speculative "owl" conclusion as was made by Chop earlier in 1953 when he said the "glowing eyes" were "probably those of a large owl." Then Chop uses the speculative words, "may have given" and "they may have" in his conclusion about the "giant figure." Lots of room for license. 

Chop is quoted, "Underbrush below may have given the impression of a giant figure, and in their excitement they may have imagined the rest." Reexamine the speculative words used by these two men, "MOST LIKELY" and "PROBABLY" and "MAY HAVE GIVEN" in addition to, "MAY HAVE." Where would stuff like these qualifiers come from? Then, the following information clears some things up! 

Edward J. Ruppelt, the Chief of Project Blue Book in 1952, spoke to Major Keyhoe about UFO cover stories. Keyhoe covered all this in his book, "Aliens From Space." 

Ruppelt told Keyhoe, and get this... "We're ordered to hide sightings when possible, but if a strong report does get out, we have to publish a fast explanation—make up something to kill the report in a hurry. We must also ridicule the witness, especially if we can't figure a plausible answer." Captain Ruppelt's words here seem to have been the template for the Flatwoods case, especially when we remember the complicity of the local police to facilitate this "tamp-down" and about which we had written about earlier. 

What does the reader believe? Was the "Flatwoods Monster" an "owl," or was it an otherworldly mechanical space suit that resembled a hovercraft? Please leave your thoughts as they pertain to this ET air war, in the comments below.