Who is the most important Ufologist?

[trainedobserver]

... If that is the case, where is the hypothetical evidence to support as much? ...there is plenty of hypothetical evidence to support exactly what Keel contended.

Plenty of hypothetical evidence? What is hypothetical evidence?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Plenty of hypothetical evidence? What is hypothetical evidence?

Descriptive evidence that fits the profile of the proposed theory.

 

[Jimi H.]

Jeff, I also thought you were being very affirmative considering I've seen you diss stuff on the basis of our supposed absolute ignorance.

Please quote me where I stated that I "KNOW" John Keel is correct. ..

.. Keel was 100% right on the money. IMO, he almost completely solved the UFO origin riddle. The only real missing piece is consciousness and how the denizens of the Superspectrum technologically access this reality. That will follow in time, I am certain. ..

I understand the sentence this way: Keel was 100% correct. But he couldn't account for the details, so he couldn't solve it completely. But he was 100% correct nonetheless. I mean, that's what the sentence says.

But thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Jeff, I also thought you were being very affirmative considering I've seen you diss stuff on the basis of our supposed absolute ignorance.




I understand the sentence this way: Keel was 100% correct. But he couldn't account for the details, so he couldn't solve it completely. But that he was 100% correct nonetheless. I mean, that's what the sentence says.

But thanks for the clarification.

Context means a great deal Jimi. It helps those reading to accurately comprehend what they are reading via association. You should try it sometime. This was my quote:

"Keel was 100% right on the money. IMO, he almost completely solved the UFO origin riddle."

Do you know what IMO means Jimi? It means "in my opinion".

Nice try at attempting to devolve yourself into the fictional mass you're pretending to be a part of. Please quote me where I have made such disrespectful references to your, or anyone else for that matter, "absolute ignorance". You can't. Just like last time. But you are pretty good a magical thinking or using your imagination so you'll make something up, I have little doubt. Quite magical actually.

 

[Decker]

Clark *is* a paranormal minimalist that simply has chosen to play it safe. You may choose to call that "rational" if you like. I'll call it what it really is. A very safe guess. You can state whatever you like, but compared to Keel or Vallee, the man is simply an anomalous experience documentarist. Nothing more.

Keel was 100% right on the money. IMO, he almost completely solved the UFO origin riddle. The only real missing piece is consciousness and how the denizens of the Superspectrum technologically access this reality. That will follow in time, I am certain. Scientifically, I would like to hear Clark refute Keel technically. I do not believe he could for a second, apart from his tongue in cheek BS entertainment that he's been spewing about Keel. Which BTW, was due to a professional feud that he and Keel had running throughout Clark's career as an author while Keel was alive. Clark may enjoy poking fun at Keel, too bad he's not even half the researcher that Keel was. Not even close.

As an aside, I will never forget an incident that John Keel relayed to me roughly 22 years ago. (or it might have been 23 years) Vicki and I were in Conn. where Vicki was giving a presentation and afterwards we had dinner with John. We were talking about a number of subjects and I was telling Keel what a huge fan I was of his book Mothman Prophecies and told him that during that time period I only lived a couple of hours from Point Pleasant, WV. I mentioned some of the weird things happening then in my little corner of the universe, UFO sightings, and even cryptid animal sightings. I then asked John about the Silver Bridge incident. He began telling me the things that were then happening, about his weird experiences including MIB incursions, etc. (As an aside Keel had a coterie of fans, erstwhile investigators and hangers on in NYC.) One of those guys was Jerry Clark. Keel chuckled then when he relayed that at the time of the collapse of the Bridge that many in his group were certain that a huge catastrophic event was about to happen and with the collapse of the bridge Clark almost had a total nervous collapse .. that he was terrified almost out of his mind at that point. Of course time moved right along, the earth continued to spin around the sun and the aliens did not invade. I ran into Jerry Clark not too long after that dinner with John Keel and asked him about what Keel relayed to me. Jerry didn't have very much to say about it then. Could this be one of the reasons Clark is not very complimentary of John Keel now? Hmm ....

Decker

 

[Jeff Davis]

As an aside, I will never forget an incident that John Keel relayed to me roughly 22 years ago. (or it might have been 23 years) Vicki and I were in Conn. where Vicki was giving a presentation and afterwards we had dinner with John. We were talking about a number of subjects and I was telling Keel what a huge fan I was of his book Mothman Prophecies and told him that during that time period I only lived a couple of hours from Point Pleasant, WV. I mentioned some of the weird things happening then in my little corner of the universe, UFO sightings, and even cryptid animal sightings. I then asked John about the Silver Bridge incident. He began telling me the things that were then happening, about his weird experiences including MIB incursions, etc. (As an aside Keel had a coterie of fans, erstwhile investigators and hangers on in NYC.) One of those guys was Jerry Clark. Keel chuckled then when he relayed that at the time of the collapse of the Bridge that many in his group were certain that a huge catastrophic event was about to happen and with the collapse of the bridge Clark almost had a total nervous collapse .. that he was terrified almost out of his mind at that point. Of course time moved right along, the earth continued to spin around the sun and the aliens did not invade. I ran into Jerry Clark not too long after that dinner with John Keel and asked him about what Keel relayed to me. Jerry didn't have very much to say about it then. Could this be one of the reasons Clark is not very complimentary of John Keel now? Hmm ....

Decker

Forgive me Don, but I don't get what you are stating here. Are you stating that Keel was chuckling like he was joking and Clark took him seriously in error? Or was Keel purposefully playing a trick on him? Why was Jerry so frightened?

 

[Decker]

Forgive me Don, but I don't get what you are stating here. Are you stating that Keel was chuckling like he was joking and Clark took him seriously in error? Or was Keel purposefully playing a trick on him? Why was Jerry so frightened?

Excuse me if I was not clear. At that time events seemed to be building up to what appeared to be a climax. In other words (and if you have not read Mothman or have not read it in a very long time .. allow me to suggest you re-read it) events, weirdness, emotions were out of control. Even Keel thought there might be an impending ... something ... and according to Keel Clark seemed to take all this to another level. He was, according to John Keel, freaking out that something horrible was about to happen. Once again, to get the "flavor" of those times, re-read Mothman. I think it will then become clearer to you.

Decker

 

[Burnt State]

Clark *is* a paranormal minimalist that simply has chosen to play it safe. You may choose to call that "rational" if you like. I'll call it what it really is. A very safe guess. You can state whatever you like, but compared to Keel or Vallee, the man is simply an anomalous experience documentarist. Nothing more.

Keel was 100% right on the money. IMO, he almost completely solved the UFO origin riddle. The only real missing piece is consciousness and how the denizens of the Superspectrum technologically access this reality. That will follow in time, I am certain. Scientifically, I would like to hear Clark refute Keel technically. I do not believe he could for a second, apart from his tongue in cheek BS entertainment that he's been spewing about Keel. Which BTW, was due to a professional feud that he and Keel had running throughout Clark's career as an author while Keel was alive. Clark may enjoy poking fun at Keel, too bad he's not even half the researcher that Keel was. Not even close.

Clark, instead of guessing at what may lie behind the shadowy curtain of the liminal world, or outright making things up as Keel does blatantly, is at least investigating the phenomenon in a way that allows everyone to have reasonable conversations so we can carry the ball down the field.

When someone suddenly runs onto the field carrying a wild turkey and yells, 'Hey, anyone know how to play Flying with Mothman?' we can all have a good laugh and join in on the new game, but we'll be mostly running in circles, and then hopefully drinking good beer afterwards.

There's nothing wrong with considering the Superspectrum. But any proof? Keel as the better researcher? I don't think so. If I were to place bets alongside Keel's money, who died in poverty and loneliness, I'd be broke within the year. I'd rather have Manxman's carefully plotted system carry out my gambling, if i was a bettin' man.

I just don't see how, aside from very imaginative ways of considering what the liminal world could be all about, Keel helps to get us further down the line, or how he's got it all mostly wrapped up. If that was the case, and there was real merit in his ideas, then where are the descendants who have built off of his stable structure?

Again, very interesting reading, but nothing for me to be able to build on. But, hey, everyone wears their ufological stripes and polka dots any way they choose.

 

[Burnt State]

As an aside, I will never forget an incident that John Keel relayed to me roughly 22 years ago. (or it might have been 23 years) Vicki and I were in Conn. where Vicki was giving a presentation and afterwards we had dinner with John. We were talking about a number of subjects and I was telling Keel what a huge fan I was of his book Mothman Prophecies and told him that during that time period I only lived a couple of hours from Point Pleasant, WV. I mentioned some of the weird things happening then in my little corner of the universe, UFO sightings, and even cryptid animal sightings. I then asked John about the Silver Bridge incident. He began telling me the things that were then happening, about his weird experiences including MIB incursions, etc. (As an aside Keel had a coterie of fans, erstwhile investigators and hangers on in NYC.) One of those guys was Jerry Clark. Keel chuckled then when he relayed that at the time of the collapse of the Bridge that many in his group were certain that a huge catastrophic event was about to happen and with the collapse of the bridge Clark almost had a total nervous collapse .. that he was terrified almost out of his mind at that point. Of course time moved right along, the earth continued to spin around the sun and the aliens did not invade. I ran into Jerry Clark not too long after that dinner with John Keel and asked him about what Keel relayed to me. Jerry didn't have very much to say about it then. Could this be one of the reasons Clark is not very complimentary of John Keel now? Hmm ....

Decker

Thanks for sharing that story, Don. I appreciate how you have lived through this history and can provide such good real life details. At a certain point in Clark's career he switches from inter dimensional theorist to more ETH, and strays away from demons and Mothmen. I've heard Clark talk before about other people getting destabilized by paranormal/Ufological investigation. I did not know that he too had a bit of a nervous break with reality. When people experience mental decompensation they often return to the world to be much more grounded and wary of fanciful thought shall we say, or become more prone to re-experiencing altered realities and other ways of thinking.

Do you think it was following Clark's involvement with Keel that shifted him emotionally and psychologically to become more conservative in his interpretations and observations about the field? He still is rivited by the experience anomaly and still tries to grasp this slippery eel, but seems to be much more down to earth in his speculations and admits that we just don't have the right tools, perceptions, faculties, words etc. to get a handle on it.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Excuse me if I was not clear. At that time events seemed to be building up to what appeared to be a climax. In other words (and if you have not read Mothman or have not read it in a very long time .. allow me to suggest you re-read it) events, weirdness, emotions were out of control. Even Keel thought there might be an impending ... something ... and according to Keel Clark seemed to take all this to another level. He was, according to John Keel, freaking out that something horrible was about to happen. Once again, to get the "flavor" of those times, re-read Mothman. I think it will then become clearer to you.

Decker[/QUOTE

This is priceless! I just didn't understand if it was matter of Clark over hearing Keel or not. Now I understand. Time re-read the Mothman. First I have to finish Chris's excellent new book.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Clark, instead of guessing at what may lie behind the shadowy curtain of the liminal world, or outright making things up as Keel does blatantly, is at least investigating the phenomenon in a way that allows everyone to have reasonable conversations so we can carry the ball down the field.

When someone suddenly runs onto the field carrying a wild turkey and yells, 'Hey, anyone know how to play Flying with Mothman?' we can all have a good laugh and join in on the new game, but we'll be mostly running in circles, and then hopefully drinking good beer afterwards.

There's nothing wrong with considering the Superspectrum. But any proof? Keel as the better researcher? I don't think so. If I were to place bets alongside Keel's money, who died in poverty and loneliness, I'd be broke within the year. I'd rather have Manxman's carefully plotted system carry out my gambling, if i was a bettin' man.

I just don't see how, aside from very imaginative ways of considering what the liminal world could be all about, Keel helps to get us further down the line, or how he's got it all mostly wrapped up. If that was the case, and there was real merit in his ideas, then where are the descendants who have built off of his stable structure?

Again, very interesting reading, but nothing for me to be able to build on. But, hey, everyone wears their ufological stripes and polka dots any way they choose.

Burnt, Burnt....Burnt.
Got ANY substantiation for your claims concerning Keel's made up BS?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Thanks for sharing that story, Don. I appreciate how you have lived through this history and can provide such good real life details. At a certain point in Clark's career he switches from inter dimensional theorist to more ETH, and strays away from demons and Mothmen. I've heard Clark talk before about other people getting destabilized by paranormal/Ufological investigation. I did not know that he too had a bit of a nervous break with reality. When people experience mental decompensation they often return to the world to be much more grounded and wary of fanciful thought shall we say, or become more prone to re-experiencing altered realities and other ways of thinking.

Do you think it was following Clark's involvement with Keel that shifted him emotionally and psychologically to become more conservative in his interpretations and observations about the field? He still is rivited by the experience anomaly and still tries to grasp this slippery eel, but seems to be much more down to earth in his speculations and admits that we just don't have the right tools, perceptions, faculties, words etc. to get a handle on it.

Oh great. Now Burnt is going to claim that Keel psychologically damaged Clark. This is TRULY priceless. Poor wittle Jerry...ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[nameless]

There's nothing wrong with considering the Superspectrum. But any proof? Keel as the better researcher? I don't think so. If I were to place bets alongside Keel's money, who died in poverty and loneliness, I'd be broke within the year. I'd rather have Manxman's carefully plotted system carry out my gambling, if i was a bettin' man.
.

...things are getting a bit out of hand.

 

[nameless]

oh well another pointless dead end.

Littered with disappointment.

Since when has data entry, running a programme and a mathematical outcome been an analogy for or simile for investigative research. One requires as little to no human interaction, in fact the less human interaction the better where as the other requires instinct, integrity, experience, knowledge and the art of human faculty that seems to be beyond the ken of even the most supposedly learned. I am an armchair expert that knows diddlysquat about any of this crap other than what has been placed in front of me by researchers and field investigators, people who actually go out there and do the work. My opinions count for jack all and are just re-hashings and suppositions, if anything I defer to the summation of more learned individuals and from what I get from people who actually spend years doing this stuff who sift through theses cases with a wealth of anomalous and life experience is that shit gets fucking strange.

 

[trainedobserver]

Descriptive evidence that fits the profile of the proposed theory.

I still don't get it. What is "descriptive evidence" vs. empirical evidence? Something that you "talk about" rather than experience?

 

[Jeff Davis]

oh well another pointless dead end.

Littered with disappointment.

Since when has data entry, running a programme and a mathematical outcome been an analogy for or simile for investigative research. One requires as little to no human interaction, in fact the less human interaction the better where as the other requires instinct, integrity, experience, knowledge and the art of human faculty that seems to be beyond the ken of even the most supposedly learned. I am an armchair expert that knows diddlysquat about any of this crap other than what has been placed in front of me by researchers and field investigators, people who actually go out there and do the work. My opinions count for jack all and are just re-hashings and suppositions, if anything I defer to the summation of more learned individuals and from what I get from people who actually spend years doing this stuff who sift through theses cases with a wealth of anomalous and life experience is that shit gets fucking strange.

All one can do is choose where, and with whom, one's instincts align themselves. Keel honestly makes sense to me. I do not know why. But everything I read by him in terms of his championed causes, feel like my own, and precisely how I would choose to express myself in relation to them. I think this is VERY common among the UFO interested out there. It means absolutely NOTHING with respect for the integrity or quality of someone's work, when someone tragically dies alone and in poverty. Frankly, this is extremely common with people of great talent. Ask Tesla.

Yes, I can tell Burnt has taken offense partially, or at least he has taken to being falsely accusatory in Clark's defense. I am just as guilty. I take offense, even though I should not, when people call Keel a liar or a fraud. I won't stand for that. How could anyone, with any integrity, that is an honest Keel fan? Do you run up to your favorite football team's nemesis and tell them they smell funny because they are not your personal favorite?

Keel is my choice for most important Ufologist of all time. That and a quarter will buy you...will get you...well, it used to buy you a cup of coffee, but now you're lucky if it'd get you a gumball.

My feelings are: There is no right or wrong here apart from opinion and side taking, so don't call my guy wrong and your guy right just because he seems more so credible to you. Again, that and a quarter...

 

[Jeff Davis]

I still don't get it. What is "descriptive evidence" vs. empirical evidence? Something that you "talk about" rather than experience?

TO, don't make a big deal on a play on words. Circumstantial evidence, what the bleep ever. Hypothetical evidence, whatever. You KNOW precisely what I am stating, so why even ask?

 

[trainedobserver]

TO, don't make a big deal on a play on words. Circumstantial evidence, what the bleep ever. Hypothetical evidence, whatever. You KNOW precisely what I am stating, so why even ask?

I am trying to understand you. Words are all we are dealing with here Jeff. If I understood you, I wouldn't have asked you the question.

If you are talking about circumstantial evidence, then it doesn't "prove" anything. I am assuming that you know that.

 

[trainedobserver]

On John Keel. Can someone conjure up the photograph of him wrestling the boa constrictor? My google superpowers are failing me. If need be, I can scan it in from the Fortean Magazine's tribute.

 

[Burnt State]

oh well another pointless dead end.

Littered with disappointment.

Since when has data entry, running a programme and a mathematical outcome been an analogy for or simile for investigative research. One requires as little to no human interaction, in fact the less human interaction the better where as the other requires instinct, integrity, experience, knowledge and the art of human faculty that seems to be beyond the ken of even the most supposedly learned. I am an armchair expert that knows diddlysquat about any of this crap other than what has been placed in front of me by researchers and field investigators, people who actually go out there and do the work. My opinions count for jack all and are just re-hashings and suppositions, if anything I defer to the summation of more learned individuals and from what I get from people who actually spend years doing this stuff who sift through theses cases with a wealth of anomalous and life experience is that shit gets fucking strange.

From my estimation, which is armchair neophyte, I think that the true investigator can only be admired up to the point that you can agree with their framework, methodology and consolidations. That's why Vallée is so popular; he is highly imaginative, an extremely strong field and paper researcher and can pull the threads he's unravelled into a skein you can imagine as being quite tangible. He operates in a more suggestive manner that is less Keelian-conformational in his approach, but is open to many possibilities, and presents these in very palatable, non-fiction prose. He also acknowledges the great limitations that we have in trying to scratch out ideas from this mystery.

While I don't revere Keel for his consolidations, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. I feel some of his work reads more like Grimm's fairy tales, with all the same ethereal oddness that permeates such stories that rise out of Black Forest prose more than academic non-fiction. I feel he creates some guesses and is fine with such finalizations as drawn out of the various witness reports and experiences, which may or may not have happened to him. In Mothman he talks about the destabilizations of others yet his own writing suggests more than just a touch of personal paranoia.

What I was alluding to was not that we should use computers to investigate the weird, though dispassionate data accumulation can provide some very interesting truths. What I we playing with was the metaphor of Keel being "right on the money" and playing with the previous notion of what we can "bet on" in the roulette wheel of inquiries into the twilight zone. I think I can bet on red, black, and when I'm feeling loose, #1-18, but I wouldn't bet on Keel's final estimations, as much as I enjoy the story he has to tell.

Yes, some of it is intensely strange shit...and then what. Can we categorize strangeness, describe its features, explore the mechanisms of perception and consciousness that may intersect with the categories of experience that we discover? If we could do that, before we say it's Mothman, or an archetypal christian demon, could we perhaps at least look a little more closely at a cross cultural exploration of the data, of the categories (I know, very Vallée), and see what that first bit of universal examination of the phenomenon looks like, before we claim that we know exactly what's going on? or that we know nothing about what's going on?

Of those better, more learned folk, who are in the field, scratching away, yes, much admiration, but there is a context and a milieu that they build, a human cauldron that percolates these ideas. They cook up a wondrous tapestry on the loom of the weird. Threads should be pulled, plucked, cut and played till the tune rings a little more clear.