Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

[Wade]

While I do agree to a certain extent with the general feeling on keel in this thread, at the same time having read the cryptoterestrials by mac tonnies I have to say I don't see a lot of difference between him and keel and yet mac seems to be universally praised. I know mac's blog is still up but I've yet to peruse it. Am I being shortsighted in my sumnation?

 

[Burnt State]

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?

Sure it's right here on the page before this one, second paragraph and the start of the third: Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

I'll post a more detailed look at his theory on the latest episode of The Paracast regarding the experience anomaly - what happened in our head and can't be proven, and the event anomaly - what left evidence behind and is verifiable as an actual event. One lives only in witness testimony and living memory while the latter can be recorded historically as a provable event.

The definitive source is always the horse's mouth. Here's Clark in part 1/4 easily traceable on YouTube where he outlines his theory quite completely. It's a reasonable discussion. His previous Paracast episodes where it's just him as guest also provide good insight into his own philosophy. As a core difference between him and Keel, Clark would say, yes these people appear to have had an incredible experience whereas Keel would then go on to explain exactly what it was and where it came from, even though there's no proof for that position.

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.

Yes I suppose we could continue to bat around the idea that Keel was right, but I don't know how you go about proving that at all. Are you able to prove mothman's existence, other dimensions, or that what's really behind UFO's are demonic entities from those realms? That's actually more in line with Ray Palmer than with trying to develop some form of inquiry into a subject in a way that can be practically built upon. Even Tonnies identifies his own cryptoterrestrial work is a thought experiment and not facts.

Keel celebrates the possibility of the fantastic and I appreciate that much.

I find his calling card to be ironically about self-deprecation which ultimately culminates in a sad, lonely death, shunning himself from a society, a recluse living in an impoverished manner. I think it's a curious thing to explore which of the paranormal cabal end up in poverty, isolated and often wanting nothing to do with the paranormal ever again, as if they did their best to scratch a false reality into existence but it ultimately did not wash. Perhaps creativity and risk taking only gets us so far in some fields of endeavour?

Of course Keel would say to me, as you do, Poppycock, can't you come up with anything more inventive than that to say?! And while I enjoy my imaginative brain blasts as much as the next Keelian, I'm also critical about professing wry invention as proof of anything more than having a good imagination.

"Intellectual cowardice is only one of the problems of the scientific community. Fort rubbed their noses in the swill generated by their gibberish and illiteracy. It was no secret then and now that academic publications are designed to protect the inept and to conceal ignorance. People with nothing to say, who even lack the ability to say nothing, can hide behind the academic method for a lifetime."

Also Keel from, Disneyland of the Gods

 

[Wade]

my slant on keel is that he does toss a lot of things out there for people to mull over and that's not necessarily a bad thing. let them decide which path to take. he brings up possibilities...however he arrived at...that I might not have even considered.

 

[Burnt State]

Wade, I think the distinction I would make between Keel and Tonnies is that Keel in slightly paranoid states believed in very strange things and that these things were even happening around him. Tonnies was much more separated from the phenomenon and engaged in what he called thought experiments - intellectual investigations. Keel would not bother to place such a warning label on his work.

And I agree very much with your point about Keel giving us things to mull over. He was a Class A ruminator, no bones about it.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sure it's right here on the page before this one, second paragraph and the start of the third: Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

I'll post a more detailed look at his theory on the latest episode of The Paracast regarding the experience anomaly - what happened in our head and can't be proven, and the event anomaly - what left evidence behind and is veritable as an actual event. One lives only in witness testimony and living memory while the latter can be recorded historically as a provable event.

The definitive source is always the horse's mouth. Here's Clark in part 1/4 easily traceable on YouTube where he outlines his theory quite completely. It's a reasonable discussion. His previous Paracast episodes where it's just him as guest also provide good insight into his own philosophy. As a core difference between him and Keel, Clark would say, yes these people appear to have had an incredible experece whereas Keel would then go on to explain exactly what it was and where it came from, even though there's no proof for that position.

Yes I suppose we could continue to bat around the idea that Keel was right, but I don't know how you go about proving that at all. Are you able to prove mothman's existence, other dimensions, or that what's really behind UFO's are demonic entities from those realms? That's actually more in line with Ray Palmer than with trying to develop some form of inquiry into a subject in a way that can be practically built upon. Even Tonnies identifies his own cryptoterrestrial work is a trout experiment and not facts.

Keel celebrates the possibility of the fantastic and I appreciate that much.

I find his calling card to be ironlly about self-deprecation which ultimately culminates in a sad, lonely death, shunning himself from a society, a recluse living in an impoverished manner. I think it's a curious thing to explore which of the paranormal cabal end up in poverty, isolated and often wanting nothing to do with the paranormal ever again, as if they did their best to scratch a false reality into existence but it ultimately did not wash. Perhaps creativity and risk taking only gets us so far in some fields of endeavour?

Of course Keel would say to me, as you do, Poppycock, can't you come up with anything more inventive than that to say?! And while I enjoy my imaginative brain blasts as much as the next Keelian, I'm also critical about professing wry invention as proof of anything more than having a good imagination.

"Intellectual cowardice is only one of the problems of the scientific community. Fort rubbed their noses in the swill generated by their gibberish and illiteracy. It was no secret then and now that academic publications are designed to protect the inept and to conceal ignorance. People with nothing to say, who even lack the ability to say nothing, can hide behind the academic method for a lifetime."

Also Keel from, Disneyland of the Gods

This is Clark's concise theory?

but i confess to being a Clark disciple, and feel that there are in fact two types of anomalies: event anomalies where not only do you get to measure the ray gun, but you get a good picture of it with a ruler, or a small stuffed penguin perhaps, beside it for scale. these cases with trace evidence are the hardcore cases so to speak, and are worth a lot more perusal.

everything else is an experience anomaly and these things really can't be proven at all - they exist only in the memory of the witness. their testimony is subject to shapeshifting as we float on down the ages, through telling after retelling, and that's why i find Turner to be difficult to appreciate, just like Keel - unless you like creative thinking and spooky stories. on the other hand, this eyewitness testimony is what is responsible for some of the most incredible stories be it hoop snakes, mermaids, lizard men and UFO's with aliens parked on the side of the highway with gills coming out their backs. all that stuff just gets filed under "curious" and is fodder for the "let's speculate" in all of us.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Wade, I think the distinction I would make between Keel and Tonnies is that Keel in slightly paranoid states believed in very strange things and that these things were even happening around him. Tonnies was much more separated from the phenomenon and engaged in what he called thought experiments - intellectual investigations. Keel would not bother to place such a warning label on his work.

Burnt,
Don't you honestly think you are getting into a bit of dead people mind reading here? I mean you're being judgmental without a REAL working understanding. Calling Keel Paranoid when he constantly cited factual sources and correlations to support his views?

 

[Burnt State]

Burnt,
Don't you honestly think you are getting into a bit of dead people mind reading here? I mean you're being judgmental without a REAL working understanding. Calling Keel Paranoid when he constantly cited factual sources and correlations to support his views?

Do you remember the phone clicks and issues he was constantly having in Mothman with the phone, complaining to authorities that his phone was tapped etc.? And then he decides, no my phone is not tapped - ok let's invent something really surreal to help explain what's happening - contact from another dimension.

That's not communication with the dead at all - that's Keel. Or how about those manifestations of MIB's in his room. No, he definitely pushed himself into some pretty strange spaces. I have no doubt that Clark's most recent article about him is about eviscerating the man based on many strange personal statements and beliefs - that's how Clark roles, and he does not ever paint a pretty picture when he decides to pluck someone apart.

I don't necessarily always agree with that method, especially if no one is being hurt. But after Ecker's article on the Heaven's Gate Cult I'm starting to rethink just how innocent the wild and wooly theories are and what kind of mentally corrupting effects pursuits of the paranormal can have. Do you see Keel as a stable figure? He did shut himself away from the world...so yes I suppose I am being judgmental, but kind compared to Clark's slicing and dicing.

Anyone have access to Clark's latest cut up of Keel and share?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Sure it's right here on the page before this one, second paragraph and the start of the third: Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group

I'll post a more detailed look at his theory on the latest episode of The Paracast regarding the experience anomaly - what happened in our head and can't be proven, and the event anomaly - what left evidence behind and is verifiable as an actual event. One lives only in witness testimony and living memory while the latter can be recorded historically as a provable event.

The definitive source is always the horse's mouth. Here's Clark in part 1/4 easily traceable on YouTube where he outlines his theory quite completely. It's a reasonable discussion. His previous Paracast episodes where it's just him as guest also provide good insight into his own philosophy. As a core difference between him and Keel, Clark would say, yes these people appear to have had an incredible experience whereas Keel would then go on to explain exactly what it was and where it came from, even though there's no proof for that position.

Yes I suppose we could continue to bat around the idea that Keel was right, but I don't know how you go about proving that at all. Are you able to prove mothman's existence, other dimensions, or that what's really behind UFO's are demonic entities from those realms? That's actually more in line with Ray Palmer than with trying to develop some form of inquiry into a subject in a way that can be practically built upon. Even Tonnies identifies his own cryptoterrestrial work is a thought experiment and not facts.

Keel celebrates the possibility of the fantastic and I appreciate that much.

I find his calling card to be ironically about self-deprecation which ultimately culminates in a sad, lonely death, shunning himself from a society, a recluse living in an impoverished manner. I think it's a curious thing to explore which of the paranormal cabal end up in poverty, isolated and often wanting nothing to do with the paranormal ever again, as if they did their best to scratch a false reality into existence but it ultimately did not wash. Perhaps creativity and risk taking only gets us so far in some fields of endeavour?

Of course Keel would say to me, as you do, Poppycock, can't you come up with anything more inventive than that to say?! And while I enjoy my imaginative brain blasts as much as the next Keelian, I'm also critical about professing wry invention as proof of anything more than having a good imagination.

"Intellectual cowardice is only one of the problems of the scientific community. Fort rubbed their noses in the swill generated by their gibberish and illiteracy. It was no secret then and now that academic publications are designed to protect the inept and to conceal ignorance. People with nothing to say, who even lack the ability to say nothing, can hide behind the academic method for a lifetime."

Also Keel from, Disneyland of the Gods

One of the last times that I listened to Jerry on the Paracast, he stated that he didn't like the word "paranormal" and didn't feel it should be used in the context of reporting UFOs. He praised science which is just about as convoluted and corrupt a commercial mess as would be possible. He basically came up sounding like he had ZERO theory apart from described experience. I will watch this when I get home. Thanks for providing as much. I like Jerry's work and have many of his books. He just has never had much of a personal voice in the matter and I admire personal conviction and integrity. Keel had that in spades.

 

[Burnt State]

This is Clark's concise theory?

You asked for concise and I gave you two lines for it. You want more - listen to the show or watch the vids. I can't make it any more clear than that. In fact his experience anomaly seems to run parallel to your own posting about the witnessing of UFO's and paranormal experiences - a truth only owned by the witness.

 

[Burnt State]

One of the last times that I listened to Jerry on the Paracast, he stated that he didn't like the word "paranormal" and didn't feel it should be used in the context of reporting UFOs. He praised science which is just about as convoluted and corrupt a commercial mess as would be possible. He basically came up sounding like he had ZERO theory apart from described experience. I will watch this when I get home. Thanks for providing as much. I like Jerry's work and have many of his books. He just has never had much of a personal voice in the matter and I admire personal conviction and integrity. Keel had that in spades.

For Clark, a mostly hardcore ETH guy, though once swam in other pools, he separates, as do many others out here, paranormal experiences from UFO experiences & events, believing that this is an area worth pumping science into, something he's been a staunch advocate of for years. I think you'll enjoy his whole SSE talk - tell me what you think afterwards.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Do you remember the phone clicks and issues he was constantly having in Mothman with the phone, complaining to authorities that his phone was tapped etc.? And then he decides, no my phone is not tapped - ok let's invent something really surreal to help explain what's happening - contact from another dimension.

That's not communication with the dead at all - that's Keel. Or how about those manifestations of MIB's in his room. No, he definitely pushed himself into some pretty strange spaces. I have no doubt that Clark's most recent article about him is about eviscerating the man based on many strange personal statements and beliefs - that's how Clark roles, and he does not ever paint a pretty picture when he decides to pluck someone apart.

I don't necessarily always agree with that method, especially if no one is being hurt. But after Ecker's article on the Heaven's Gate Cult I'm starting to rethink just how innocent the wild and wooly theories are and what kind of mentally corrupting effects pursuits of the paranormal can have. Do you see Keel as a stable figure? He did shut himself away from the world...so yes I suppose I am being judgmental, but kind compared to Clark's slicing and dicing.

Anyone have access to Clark's latest cut up of Keel and share?

There was much, MUCH, more to the phone communications in the mothman than what you are simplifying for us here. Sure you're not confusing Richard Greer with John Keel here Burnt? Sounds like it. Keel NEVER immediately, as you are insinuating here, lied and jumped to "profitable" conclusions concerning the mothman. That's just BS. Keel is far and away not the only one, right up to this day among present UFO researchers, that make claims that malevolent forces interfered with phone conversations.

 

[Jeff Davis]

For Clark, a mostly hardcore ETH guy, though once swam in other pools, he separates, as do many others out here, paranormal experiences from UFO experiences & events, believing that this is an area worth pumping science into, something he's been a staunch advocate of for years. I think you'll enjoy his whole SSE talk - tell me what you think afterwards.

So in all reality, Clark DOES have an INTERPRETATION, that he himself cannot prove one bit more likely than what John contends. Imagine that.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You asked for concise and I gave you two lines for it. You want more - listen to the show or watch the vids. I can't make it any more clear than that. In fact his experience anomaly seems to run parallel to your own posting about the witnessing of UFO's and paranormal experiences - a truth only owned by the witness.

Actually, I would be happy with just the two lines. Copy and paste them please.

 

[marduk]

Actually, I would be happy with just the two lines. Copy and paste them please.

I find this very amusing when just a few posts ago you refused to do this very thing for someone else.

Banned From The UFO Collective Google Group | Page 23 | The Paracast Community Forums

What's up dude? Why is this so personal for you? Everything ok?

 

[Wade]

Constance thete are
[QUof OTE="Constance, post: 189525, member: 6124"]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.[/QUOTE]

Constance, there is A whole bunch of pdf's...many of them free... of reprints of john's works from the various mags of the era on scribd.com if you can't access them let me know and I can email a bunch of them to you.

 

[marduk]

While I do agree to a certain extent with the general feeling on keel in this thread, at the same time having read the cryptoterestrials by mac tonnies I have to say I don't see a lot of difference between him and keel and yet mac seems to be universally praised. I know mac's blog is still up but I've yet to peruse it. Am I being shortsighted in my sumnation?

#1 Tonnies was a far more skillful writer than Keel was in my opinion.
#2 Keel blatantly made some stuff up in the name of a good story. Tonnies didn't as far as I'm aware.
#3 Tonnies didn't necessarily believe his crypto terrestrial theory, I think he just wanted to make people think.

 

[Wade]

In particular, look for any document uploaded by the user jerry hamm, most if not all of his are free, some others you may have to purchase a 24 hr. pass

 

[Wade]

#1 Tonnies was a far more skillful writer than Keel was in my opinion.
#2 Keel blatantly made some stuff up in the name of a good story. Tonnies didn't as far as I'm aware.
#3 Tonnies didn't necessarily believe his crypto terrestrial theory, I think he just wanted to make people think.

As far as #2, no argument. I've heard a few times that the mothman chronicles was cobbled together from several sources As far as #3 didn't keel himself doubt or question his own ideas? It's been a few years since I've read john's books and maybe time to go back again. But I seem to recall his writing to be somewhat rhetorical as in "what if" or "consider that...."

 

[Wade]

Seems as good a place as any to post this
July 12, 2009 — John Keel Remembered with Tim Beckley, Jerome Clark, Loren Coleman, Jim Moseley, Brad Steiger and Curt Sutherly | The Paracast — The Gold Standard of Paranormal Radio

boy, talk about character assassination
I seem to recall one of the panelists involved even making a joke about it, saying " I hope you guys don't talk like this about me when I'm dead"

but they were earnest, honest and heartfelt

 

[Constance]

Constance thete are
[QUof OTE="Constance, post: 189525, member: 6124"]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.

Constance, there is A whole bunch of pdf's...many of them free... of reprints of john's works from the various mags of the era on scribd.com if you can't access them let me know and I can email a bunch of them to you.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, Wade. I appreciate that. I'll go see if I can get to the papers at scribd.