Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[nameless]

 

[manxman]

silicone free

who the feck would want to drink that weak pee.

nah, buy the AI some super charged RAM, get the fecker dancing.

 

[Jeff Davis]

i don't deny the inventiveness of Keel, but as a researcher - i know he was diligent, but it also seems that his anti-science approach allows for a much more "colourful" approach to the UFO question. From an earlier article with Clark critiquing Keel there's this:

If you believe John Keel, you also believe this: Supernatural gods (ultraterrestrials, hereafter UTs) once ruled directly over the earth but then returned to their abode, the superspectrum (the upper reaches of the electro-magnetic spectrum ), after human beings began to populate the planet. Displeased with the intrusion, the UTs engaged in protracted conflict with Homo sapiens in an effort to resolve this territorial dispute. (Keel does not explain why such presumably superior entities would have to wage the dispute over thousands of years.) The UTs also battled each other, and one group assumed human form so that it could more easily communicate with the Neanderthals, whom it sought to enlist in its physical army.

“The unintended result was sexual intercourse and the creation of the human race as we know it.[iii] This produced strange responses in the offsprings materialized nervous system,” Keel wrote. “Emotions were born. Frequencies were changed. The direct control of the superintelligence was driven from their bodies. They were trapped on Earth, unable to ascend the electromagnetic scale and reenter their etheric world. With the loss of control, they became animals, albeit highly intelligent animals.” [iv]​

According to Keel, humanity’s long interaction with the supernatural, as well as the timely intervention of enigmatic, unearthly strangers in the lives of historical personages such as Thomas Jefferson and Malcolm X, testifies to the continuing presence of the gods of old, including God, who dwell in the superspectrum. Its manifestations include UFOs and their occupants, monsters, demons, angels, poltergeists, ghosts, and voices in the head.

“The Devil’s emissaries of yesterday have been replaced by the mysterious men in black,” he stated. “The quasi-angels of Biblical times have become magnificent spacemen. The demons, devils, and false angels were recognized as liars and plunderers by early man. The same impostors now appear as long-haired Venusians.” [v]​

So i don't know - the whole demonic thing seems to be a central feature of his. I don't buy his version of mothman at all. I think he took come personal experiences, invented some of his own and came to frightening conclusions. That doesn't mean they are not interesting conclusions.

JOHN KEEL vs UFOLOGY « eye of the cyclone

I honestly think that Clark feels as though if we use our imagination in an intelligent attempt to logically tie any of this together, we are "making things up". That we are attempting to "cheat" the plethora of phenomena that he himself reports and feels should be left up to the experiencer to describe verbatim. I am not so sure that just hypothetically positioning and further theorizing your views the exact same way that every ufologist since Keyhoe has done, is "making things up". Every ufologist worth their salt has thrown their facts and reported experiences against a back drop that superimposes the phenomena in accord with interpretation. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, and in fact, it may be presently impossible not to do. Does Clark think these matters will resolve themselves and that until they do we are hopeless to speculate about them? If you ask me, MR. Clark is afraid of failure or taking risks. BTW, Keel was in no way anti-science, just anti judgmental elitists that pretend they know anymore about what UFOs actually are. Keels views make sense with respect to world history, cross cultural studies, religion, and folklore. Keel is right IMO. Nothing has changed whatsoever apart from the names we give to the paranormal contextually.

 

[nameless]

silicone free

who the feck would want to drink that weak pee.

nah, buy the AI some super charged RAM, get the fecker dancing.

The same twat who would buy a Blue Wicked.

 

[Constance]

i don't deny the inventiveness of Keel, but as a researcher - i know he was diligent, but it also seems that his anti-science approach allows for a much more "colourful" approach to the UFO question. From an earlier article with Clark critiquing Keel there's this . . . .

Thanks for this post and the link you provided, Burnt. I was just about to ask someone promoting Keel's ideas to refer me to a source presenting or representing them. I'd heard of Keel but have never read him. What do you consider to be his own most persuasive presentation of his theory?

 

[marduk]

Thanks for this post and the link you provided, Burnt. I was just about to ask someone promoting Keel's ideas to refer me to a source presenting or representing them. I'd heard of Keel but have never read him. What do you consider to be his own most persuasive presentation of his theory?

I wouldn't say that Keel has a coherent theory at all, except perhaps "we are property," just a collection of very colourful stories.

Think a paranormal version of Hunter S. Thompson.

 

[Constance]

I wouldn't say that Keel has a coherent theory at all, except perhaps "we are property," just a collection of very colourful stories.

That's been my impression and the reason why I haven't read Keel. I appreciate your posting your viewpoint on his writing.

 

[marduk]

That's been my impression and the reason why I haven't read Keel. I appreciate your posting your viewpoint on his writing.

Oh, he's a helluva read. Highly recommended.

Just with a grain of salt the size of a boulder.

 

[Stagger Lee]

about the Walton incident, and the several witnesses.. I understand this supposed event created a multi-million $ franchise. What puzzles me, is the time period long before "Fire in the Sky" -can you imagine the ridicule these young men must have endured through out the 70's and 80's? Not just from the likes of Klass. I find it almost impossible that one of the witnesses didn't crack under such pressure, if not for the payout of doing so. Imagine a scenario where 7 guys committ a terrible crime. The cops know they were all involved, but can't yet prove it. Chances are, at least one of these criminals will crack under pressure in hopes of getting a deal with the prosecutor. (I'm not calling the logging crew criminals, or insinuating any crime was committed- just using an example of how difficult it would be for all these young men to stick to their story, unless they believed they actually witnessed what they claim) Could Walton himself have been able to create such an elaborate set-up involving a lifelike saucer, complete with a targeted beam of light- so detailed, his crew drove off without him? Is it possible Walton was able to hoax his crew? All of whom have stuck to the same version of events, even back when the cash wasn't flowing and the likes of Klass were all but stalking for an admission of hoax? Just can't wrap my head around these details.

 

[Constance]

Oh, he's a helluva read. Highly recommended.

Just with a grain of salt the size of a boulder.

After reading Clark on {edit} Keel, I think I'll pass.

. . . Keel has been more widely read, and it is largely through him that ufologists and Forteans, or at least some of them, have plunged into the thickets of occultism and obscurantism, into a realm where words like elemental and superspectrum and ultraterrestrial and transmogrification are actually supposed to mean something.[xvi] Into, in other words, a domain of incoherent theory and dubious data and, finally, numbing irrelevance. If Keel were a humorist like Charles Fort rather than a windmill-tilter like Tiffany Thayer,[xvii] one could smile and shrug it off as an ongoing, offbeat joke. No Fortean, to my knowledge, has ever championed Fort’s sky islands or Ambrose-collectors, knowing that Fort wasn’t championing them, either. But Keel is deadly, gloomily, blusteringly, spittle-spewingly in earnest. Though usually politer and calmer about it, so are the legions of acolytes who since then have dropped a ton of Keelist doctrine on all our heads."

 

[underwinger]

b

 

[Burnt State]

. Does Clark think these matters will resolve themselves and that until they do we are hopeless to speculate about them? If you ask me, MR. Clark is afraid of failure or taking risks. BTW, Keel was in no way anti-science, just anti judgmental elitists that pretend they know anymore about what UFOs actually are. Keels views make sense with respect to world history, cross cultural studies, religion, and folklore. Keel is right IMO. Nothing has changed whatsoever apart from the names we give to the paranormal contextually.

No, Clark just provides a very conservative theory of how to contend with what is measurable - an actual provable event, vs. what is an experience, something that happens in the mind of the experiencer and is unprovable. He then slices through the rest of the field with a degree of sharp cuts that tolerate little by way of those cross-cultural intersections that participate clearly in our experiences and how we describe these. In this way Mothman, a classic demonic figure, becomes a representation for how to perceive uncanny events and how to unify a disconnected narrative. I'll be honest, i don't subscribe to that, but i do subscribe to taking risks - something that Clark does not do because it's just not in his character to do so. i don't think it's failure Clark fears but criticism, and he prefers to admire and record impossible events, but makes far less outlandish descriptions of what's behind such strange intersections with the liminal world. Keel seems to be very certain of his colourful perceptions, and while enjoyable, imaginative and really the only person who took enough time to study through the materials and determine the best day and time to see a UFO. But then on the other hand...

“On the other hand, there exists a large and vocal group of men who are unreliable and often irresponsible. Over the past several years our work has brought us into almost constant contact with this group. They call themselves ”scientists” and they usually put a Ph.D. after their names. Science has become a sacred cow in this generation but that term is a misnomer. The gender is wrong. Science, by and large, is a lot of bull.”

~ John Keel

 

[Burnt State]

Thanks for this post and the link you provided, Burnt. I was just about to ask someone promoting Keel's ideas to refer me to a source presenting or representing them. I'd heard of Keel but have never read him. What do you consider to be his own most persuasive presentation of his theory?

the theories are as many and wide-ranging as his books which may often include personal developments and biographical elements which he is processing simultaneously. there is also, from i know, which isn't a thorough amount - i have not read enough to call myself a Keel scholar by any stretch of the imagination, an evolution of thinking for Keel as he moves through his books, professions and various writings. some are speculative, not all are ufological, though those ones are imaginative and some even try to hit you over the head with science.

This is a good bit of insight into him through an interview: John Keel R.I.P. | Interviews | Features | Fortean Times UK

Here's a site with some unique insight as it has a good focussed exploration of a unique relationship with Keel: John A. Keel: A Brief Biography « JOHN KEEL: NOT AN AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING

But as far trying to define Keel, I think he did it best through his own calling card:

 

[Jeff Davis]

No, Clark just provides a very conservative theory of how to contend with what is measurable - an actual provable event, vs. what is an experience, something that happens in the mind of the experiencer and is unprovable. He then slices through the rest of the field with a degree of sharp cuts that tolerate little by way of those cross-cultural intersections that participate clearly in our experiences and how we describe these. In this way Mothman, a classic demonic figure, becomes a representation for how to perceive uncanny events and how to unify a disconnected narrative. I'll be honest, i don't subscribe to that, but i do subscribe to taking risks - something that Clark does not do because it's just not in his character to do so. i don't think it's failure Clark fears but criticism, and he prefers to admire and record impossible events, but makes far less outlandish descriptions of what's behind such strange intersections with the liminal world. Keel seems to be very certain of his colourful perceptions, and while enjoyable, imaginative and really the only person who took enough time to study through the materials and determine the best day and time to see a UFO. But then on the other hand...

“On the other hand, there exists a large and vocal group of men who are unreliable and often irresponsible. Over the past several years our work has brought us into almost constant contact with this group. They call themselves ”scientists” and they usually put a Ph.D. after their names. Science has become a sacred cow in this generation but that term is a misnomer. The gender is wrong. Science, by and large, is a lot of bull.”

~ John Keel

Burnt,
Could you provide this concise and conservative theory of Clark's? I guess Clark is more so satisfied referring to it all as "illusory", and that which is contained solely within the mind of the observer apart from "true" reality. Himself included with respect to his own experiences of this nature?


@Constance. Your short take on Keel does not surprise me. Considering how you ignorantly tout disclosure and charlatans in the AAP, it's to be expected.

Keel was a very honest man that resided well outside the confines of narrow minded ignorance. That was his monicker from the start. "Not An Authority on Any Thing" You don't get that do you? Do you know any "experts" or authorities" on UFOs Burnt? I don't. BTW, any actual context to go with your anti science Keel quote? The comment may not have even been referring to real science, but rather those that pretend to be more so "authorities" on UFOs due to their Ph.D. For all the nuts and bolts guys, here is a little dose of contemporary reality. Get a clue, KEEL WAS CORRECT.

Florida witness describes 'morphing UFO' at close range - National ufo | Examiner.com

 

[Constance]

@Constance. Your short take on Keel does not surprise me. Considering how you ignorantly tout disclosure and charlatans in the AAP, it's to be expected.

[/QUOTE]

Jeff, could you please be more specific about what you're referring to in the underscored phrase above? I'm not sure what statements of mine you're referring to. Thanks.

 

[marduk]

After reading Clark on {edit} Keel, I think I'll pass.

Read it like I do. Like a work of fiction. Or an X-Files rerun.

Seriously, they're fun.

 

[Constance]

Read it like I do. Like a work of fiction. Or an X-Files rerun.

Seriously, they're fun.

OK, I'll read some of Keel.

Would appreciate it if Burnt or Jeff or anyone else who follows Keel would link me to online versions of what they consider his most persuasive and significant writing concerning ufos.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, could you please be more specific about what you're referring to in the underscored phrase above? I'm not sure what statements of mine you're referring to. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

No Constance I won't. Your memory is not that short and frankly games are not something I enjoy playing when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Constance]

Sorry to hear you feel this way. I am not playing games with you or anyone. I also take the subject we're discussing here very seriously.

 

[Jeff Davis]

More of those benevolent space brethren, I'm sure. Triangle UFO hovers 300 feet over Ohio family - National ufo | Examiner.com