highstrangeness
Paranormal Novice
Gene & Dave,
I don't believe that a very complete picture of the life & works of John Keel were represented by the panel on the Paracast. It has always seemed to me, for what it's worth, that the both of you have had at least some respect for some of the ideas that Mr. Keel has brought forth in his writtings. I'm sure he was an individual that you would have loved to have interviewed & delved into some of his research & beliefs about the underlying causes behind the phenomena. While I believe that you expected a wide range of opinions & comments about John, I had to wonder if you quite expected the level of negitivity. I think we got something less than a very complete picture of John Keel.
For people to grasp something of what Keel brought to the field, I think that they might want look back at the state of Ufology back in the
60's. I remember getting my subscription of Jim Mosleys' Saucer News & reading Frank Edwards anthologys on the unexplained. All the way through the early 70's I was enthralled with the reports of little silver-suited men jumping out of egg-shapped spacecraft grabbing soil samples and occasionally zapping some happless earthman with a paralizing beam of light. In the UFO groups I was in we would discuss endlessly things like "what planet do they come from?" -- "how are their spaceships propelled?" .... Enter John Keel & "UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse".
I had read other books by Keel & many of his articles, but I was not prepaired for the ideas expressed in "Trojan Horse". Keel linked UFOs, crypitds, poltergeist phenomena, MIBs (sprit mimics?), ghost encounters, & other types of manifestations of the paranormal that before had been put into separate boxes. He didn't just jam all these things together -- he made, I thought, a credible argument that these things were in fact connected. I had firmily believed that UFOs were nuts & bolts craft & that people that claimed haunting & other types of paranormal experiences were a bit credulous. This book set my thinking in new directions, but it took some time for me to throw off my old beliefs. Instead of continuing to read authors that promoted the ETH theory I discovered authors like Vallee, "Passport to Magonia", William Roll, "The Poltergeist" --- stuff by Rogo & even early Clark & Coleman.
I think that the general ideas Keel presented -- that is the connectedness of these experiences & the unlikelyhood of a purely "nuts & bolts" explaination still hold up today -- one has only to look at areas of "highstrangeness" like Marley Woods, The Skinwalker Ranch, the Bridgewater Triangle, the connections between Bigfoot & UFOs (in some cases), the Bradshaw Ranch, etc. Many of us today I think naturally accept the idea of many of these types of phenomena seem to have connections when a few decades ago this was definately not the case. Keel did make us think.
When you go deeper past Keels general Hypothesis (connecting various types of aspects of the paranormal together) you find that he presented many interesting ideas that are worth notice. For example, he suggested that some of the unexplained lights people reported in the sky may have been the only thing "real" about the experience. He felt that the rest of the experience may have been hallucinatory -- appearing as a nuts & bolts craft, a winged crypid, or something else, but the the core reality of the phenomenon was still hidden.
Some on the panel criticized Keels conclusions about the cause of the phenomena. I was never able to buy the Ultraterrestrial Theory as he presented it & had other ideas, but even if his conclusions about the "thing" behind the manifestations was off base, Keels legacy will always be the guy that made us not just think, but also made us view the paranormal & the unexplained differently -- way outside the box of traditional thinking of the time. I'm not sure that viewing the ETH as the "core" explaination or ignoring the apparent paranormal overtones in some creature reports & promoting a "flesh & blood" Bigfoot wandering the mid-west is any more or less valid than Keels attempt at an explaination.
There a couple of brief mentions of Keels contribtion during the show. As I recall, once by David & also by Jim Mosley. With the less than cordial relationship that Mosley & Keel had over all those years, it was worth noting that Jim was intellectually honest & commented that Keel had offered an alternative to the idea of "saucers" being nuts & bolts spacecraft & seemed to believe that idea had value. It seemed however that the general trend of the program was an attempt to diminish Keel as a man & as a thinker.
Mr. Clark stated that Keel not only had not contributed anything of value to the field, but also had a negitive impact on Ufology --- say what? I have to admit I was completedly floored when I heard that. Especially coming from someone who co wrote 2 great books in the 70's
on the subject, "The Unidentified" & "Creatures from the Outer Edge". I wish Mr. Clark had explained his view in more detail As it stands I do not think it is valid. Clark also tried to diminish Keels ideas by giving more credit to Trevor Constible, but I don't believe that view is tenable because at that time Constable was receiving channeled messages from "Ashtar" for some of his information. I think study of his works will demonstrate that it is very unlikely that he was an influence on Keel, except perhaps to demonstrate that information coming from the "superspectrum" is deceptive & not coming from the space brothers.
We didn't need an indepth description to the last days of John Keel as Mr. Coleman gave us. I have had relitives that suffered from dementia & know just how devistating that situation can be & I think the Paracast would have been better served if we were simply told that John had dementia in his last days & he didn't take care of himself or keep up his apartment. This would have given us the facts without the unnessary details. I am also more than skeptical that John Keel as was claimed was responsible for Linda Scarrberys nervious breakdown. I wonder why the 2 men that owe the most to John Keel (at least in the begining of their careers if not in later years) were the ones who seemed the most to want to cast a completely negitive spin on his character & his writings.
I have to stop here for a moment & point out that I am not a Keel "groupie" that is oblivious to his many character flaws, his personality clashes, & inaccuracies in his books. (Some of those inaccuracies are due to editors tampering --- like the "Yeti" encounter & the "Bandit" story) -- but that is another "thread". Suffice to say that I did not expect or desire a "tribute" to John Keel that was minus the warts & blemishes that come with people like John who ruffle a lot of tail feathers by force of their personality & their writtings. That being said, while I never met John Keel I do know several people who did know him in these last several years & the view heald by those (of about half a dozen people) is completely positive. I purchased some DVDs a few years ago on E Bay with about 8 talks given by Keel which I think are still available & if you view them you will have a view of Keel that was not repersented by the Paracast panel.
I was most disapointed by Brad Steiger. It pains me to say this because I have followed Mr. Steiger since Strangers from the Sky" came on the scene which I read on a rainy afternoon one summer in the middle 60's. Here's why. The question came up as to whether or not Keel really had the bizzare phone experiences & other encounters that he claimed in books like "The Mothman Prophesies". Brad Steiger has claimed several "Keelesque" experiences in his life --- phone manipulation, motel reservations in advance, even "sprit mimic" type oncounters. Stuff that would rival Keels claims & possibly even surpass. He has discussed this on other talk shows in the past. So, why not mention this as part of the conversation? Of course it wouldn't have proved anything concerning Keels veracity, which was the subject of the conversation, but it would have demonstrated that these crazy incidents may have at least been possible --especially coming from someone as credible as Mr. Steiger.
So I respectfull ask you, Gene & David for a John Keel Tribute Part 2 at some unspecified point on the future. -- maybe on the anniversary of his death, or possibly even before before. There are plenty of people that knew him that probably could give a more objective view of John Keel & his impact. I'm not looking for "ballance" per se -- to me that implies a forced or contrived positive/ negitive scorecard where try to make the good & bad ballance out in a way that may not reflect reality. I'm not looking for bunch of "Mothman Prophesies Thumping" disciples either but it would be desireable if a future panel included people that at least did not have as strong a personal dislike of Keel as a few of the pannelists seemed to.
I was pretty angry when I first listened to the podcast. I guess that happens on the Paracast from time to time. I took a few deep breaths, re-read the fourm rules of conduct & wrote this thread. I'm going to close by paraphrasing Emerson.
What a man is or was speaks so loudly that I can not hear his detractors. --- R.I.P. John Keel.
----- Steve.
I don't believe that a very complete picture of the life & works of John Keel were represented by the panel on the Paracast. It has always seemed to me, for what it's worth, that the both of you have had at least some respect for some of the ideas that Mr. Keel has brought forth in his writtings. I'm sure he was an individual that you would have loved to have interviewed & delved into some of his research & beliefs about the underlying causes behind the phenomena. While I believe that you expected a wide range of opinions & comments about John, I had to wonder if you quite expected the level of negitivity. I think we got something less than a very complete picture of John Keel.
For people to grasp something of what Keel brought to the field, I think that they might want look back at the state of Ufology back in the
60's. I remember getting my subscription of Jim Mosleys' Saucer News & reading Frank Edwards anthologys on the unexplained. All the way through the early 70's I was enthralled with the reports of little silver-suited men jumping out of egg-shapped spacecraft grabbing soil samples and occasionally zapping some happless earthman with a paralizing beam of light. In the UFO groups I was in we would discuss endlessly things like "what planet do they come from?" -- "how are their spaceships propelled?" .... Enter John Keel & "UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse".
I had read other books by Keel & many of his articles, but I was not prepaired for the ideas expressed in "Trojan Horse". Keel linked UFOs, crypitds, poltergeist phenomena, MIBs (sprit mimics?), ghost encounters, & other types of manifestations of the paranormal that before had been put into separate boxes. He didn't just jam all these things together -- he made, I thought, a credible argument that these things were in fact connected. I had firmily believed that UFOs were nuts & bolts craft & that people that claimed haunting & other types of paranormal experiences were a bit credulous. This book set my thinking in new directions, but it took some time for me to throw off my old beliefs. Instead of continuing to read authors that promoted the ETH theory I discovered authors like Vallee, "Passport to Magonia", William Roll, "The Poltergeist" --- stuff by Rogo & even early Clark & Coleman.
I think that the general ideas Keel presented -- that is the connectedness of these experiences & the unlikelyhood of a purely "nuts & bolts" explaination still hold up today -- one has only to look at areas of "highstrangeness" like Marley Woods, The Skinwalker Ranch, the Bridgewater Triangle, the connections between Bigfoot & UFOs (in some cases), the Bradshaw Ranch, etc. Many of us today I think naturally accept the idea of many of these types of phenomena seem to have connections when a few decades ago this was definately not the case. Keel did make us think.
When you go deeper past Keels general Hypothesis (connecting various types of aspects of the paranormal together) you find that he presented many interesting ideas that are worth notice. For example, he suggested that some of the unexplained lights people reported in the sky may have been the only thing "real" about the experience. He felt that the rest of the experience may have been hallucinatory -- appearing as a nuts & bolts craft, a winged crypid, or something else, but the the core reality of the phenomenon was still hidden.
Some on the panel criticized Keels conclusions about the cause of the phenomena. I was never able to buy the Ultraterrestrial Theory as he presented it & had other ideas, but even if his conclusions about the "thing" behind the manifestations was off base, Keels legacy will always be the guy that made us not just think, but also made us view the paranormal & the unexplained differently -- way outside the box of traditional thinking of the time. I'm not sure that viewing the ETH as the "core" explaination or ignoring the apparent paranormal overtones in some creature reports & promoting a "flesh & blood" Bigfoot wandering the mid-west is any more or less valid than Keels attempt at an explaination.
There a couple of brief mentions of Keels contribtion during the show. As I recall, once by David & also by Jim Mosley. With the less than cordial relationship that Mosley & Keel had over all those years, it was worth noting that Jim was intellectually honest & commented that Keel had offered an alternative to the idea of "saucers" being nuts & bolts spacecraft & seemed to believe that idea had value. It seemed however that the general trend of the program was an attempt to diminish Keel as a man & as a thinker.
Mr. Clark stated that Keel not only had not contributed anything of value to the field, but also had a negitive impact on Ufology --- say what? I have to admit I was completedly floored when I heard that. Especially coming from someone who co wrote 2 great books in the 70's
on the subject, "The Unidentified" & "Creatures from the Outer Edge". I wish Mr. Clark had explained his view in more detail As it stands I do not think it is valid. Clark also tried to diminish Keels ideas by giving more credit to Trevor Constible, but I don't believe that view is tenable because at that time Constable was receiving channeled messages from "Ashtar" for some of his information. I think study of his works will demonstrate that it is very unlikely that he was an influence on Keel, except perhaps to demonstrate that information coming from the "superspectrum" is deceptive & not coming from the space brothers.
We didn't need an indepth description to the last days of John Keel as Mr. Coleman gave us. I have had relitives that suffered from dementia & know just how devistating that situation can be & I think the Paracast would have been better served if we were simply told that John had dementia in his last days & he didn't take care of himself or keep up his apartment. This would have given us the facts without the unnessary details. I am also more than skeptical that John Keel as was claimed was responsible for Linda Scarrberys nervious breakdown. I wonder why the 2 men that owe the most to John Keel (at least in the begining of their careers if not in later years) were the ones who seemed the most to want to cast a completely negitive spin on his character & his writings.
I have to stop here for a moment & point out that I am not a Keel "groupie" that is oblivious to his many character flaws, his personality clashes, & inaccuracies in his books. (Some of those inaccuracies are due to editors tampering --- like the "Yeti" encounter & the "Bandit" story) -- but that is another "thread". Suffice to say that I did not expect or desire a "tribute" to John Keel that was minus the warts & blemishes that come with people like John who ruffle a lot of tail feathers by force of their personality & their writtings. That being said, while I never met John Keel I do know several people who did know him in these last several years & the view heald by those (of about half a dozen people) is completely positive. I purchased some DVDs a few years ago on E Bay with about 8 talks given by Keel which I think are still available & if you view them you will have a view of Keel that was not repersented by the Paracast panel.
I was most disapointed by Brad Steiger. It pains me to say this because I have followed Mr. Steiger since Strangers from the Sky" came on the scene which I read on a rainy afternoon one summer in the middle 60's. Here's why. The question came up as to whether or not Keel really had the bizzare phone experiences & other encounters that he claimed in books like "The Mothman Prophesies". Brad Steiger has claimed several "Keelesque" experiences in his life --- phone manipulation, motel reservations in advance, even "sprit mimic" type oncounters. Stuff that would rival Keels claims & possibly even surpass. He has discussed this on other talk shows in the past. So, why not mention this as part of the conversation? Of course it wouldn't have proved anything concerning Keels veracity, which was the subject of the conversation, but it would have demonstrated that these crazy incidents may have at least been possible --especially coming from someone as credible as Mr. Steiger.
So I respectfull ask you, Gene & David for a John Keel Tribute Part 2 at some unspecified point on the future. -- maybe on the anniversary of his death, or possibly even before before. There are plenty of people that knew him that probably could give a more objective view of John Keel & his impact. I'm not looking for "ballance" per se -- to me that implies a forced or contrived positive/ negitive scorecard where try to make the good & bad ballance out in a way that may not reflect reality. I'm not looking for bunch of "Mothman Prophesies Thumping" disciples either but it would be desireable if a future panel included people that at least did not have as strong a personal dislike of Keel as a few of the pannelists seemed to.
I was pretty angry when I first listened to the podcast. I guess that happens on the Paracast from time to time. I took a few deep breaths, re-read the fourm rules of conduct & wrote this thread. I'm going to close by paraphrasing Emerson.
What a man is or was speaks so loudly that I can not hear his detractors. --- R.I.P. John Keel.
----- Steve.
