July 12, 2009 - John Keel Retrospective - w/ all-star round table

[~Foo Fighter~]

Further observations...Keel really popularized the meta question "What part does the paranormal/UFO experiencer play in the event?" Or does the viewer have some effect on what is viewed? That was a new concept to me in the 70's/80's...that there might be some internal component or a reflective component. Salvatore Friexado also took this tact but he seemed to wonder if the viewer might not be manifesting the phenomenon where Keel seemed to feel that there was an external "thing" but that we played some part in putting a venier in a way that made some cultural sense to the viewer.

Where Vallee also influenced me a lot seemed to look at events from an external meta viewpoint. I.e., what similar phenomena occured in the past. He also wondered what part intellegence agencies played in encounters...again, like Keel, shifting the frame from the prevailing nuts and bolts mindset.

Thanks for listening to my rantings.

~Foo Fighter~

 

[7 String]

Was it just me, or did it seem that the work that John did ended up coming across as "shotty" at best? I know little of his work, but can't really see what that hype was all about.

From what I gathered in the interview he seemed to be quite the charecter. 3 hours of my life I never get back.... but that's cool I learned something about him so it's probably more like 2.5 hours of my life....

~A

 

[Vomitor]

I was happy about this show. First of all it was good entertainment...its great listening to the old veterans joking around, especially jim mosely who is always a blast

I was a bit disappointed about the direction the discussion took at first though, but as you had 6 people interejecting views that wasnt too far off each other, you realized that it must have been the most realistic look into how john keel was that one can get. I just recently started getting into his writings (that which isnt overly expensive or hard to find), and its good to get some kind of "reality check" from people around the same time and from the same social circles when going through keel stuff.

Now we wait for the documentaries...

 

[Gareth]

I agree vomitor.

Personally, I wont be wasting my money on anything Keel ever wrote. Well, maybe if I see something in a bricks'n'mortar, but thats about it.

Jerry Clarke made it pretty he clear what he thought of the man, and the group seemed to agree.

 

[~Foo Fighter~]

I agree vomitor.

Personally, I wont be wasting my money on anything Keel ever wrote. Well, maybe if I see something in a bricks'n'mortar, but thats about it.

Jerry Clark made it pretty he clear what he thought of the man, and the group seemed to agree.

I understand why you think that but it is an unfourtunate attitude to take away from the show.

I think the negative personal commentary of the show overshadowed a generally salutory attitude toward Keel's work and impact (excepting Clark). The others on the panel did pay him praise in the way the refered to aspects of his work as if it was so well known they didn't have to explain the reference...kind of like someone would refer to "Thriller" by Michael Jackson understanding that the album was so well known and popular an explanaition was not neccesary. That is praise in itself.

But, Keel was a writer first and foremost...on a par with Coleman and Steiger. So they can't take that away from him. I read all of them and none made the impression Keel did ESPECIALLY not Clark.

Secondly, as posted earlier, Keel made popular a different way of approaching everything from spiritualism, to bigfoot, to UFO's.

Because he was such a good writer he could make people look at old subjects in a new light. That was a significante accomplishment and his life and work should not be described as garbage because of some sordid private squabbles.

I may be wrong but I think David was trying to draw the distinction between Keel the unsavory man, and Keel the writer.

In anycase, read his work before judging.

~Foo Fighter~

 

[atomic_annie]

Further observations...Keel really popularized the meta question "What part does the paranormal/UFO experiencer play in the event?" Or does the viewer have some effect on what is viewed? That was a new concept to me in the 70's/80's...that there might be some internal component or a reflective component. Salvatore Friexado also took this tact but he seemed to wonder if the viewer might not be manifesting the phenomenon where Keel seemed to feel that there was an external "thing" but that we played some part in putting a venier in a way that made some cultural sense to the viewer.

Where Vallee also influenced me a lot seemed to look at events from an external meta viewpoint. I.e., what similar phenomena occured in the past. He also wondered what part intellegence agencies played in encounters...again, like Keel, shifting the frame from the prevailing nuts and bolts mindset.

Thanks for listening to my rantings.

~Foo Fighter~

Once again, you really hit it on the nose Foo Fighter as to why Keel was such a source of awe and fascination to us. Thanks for reminding us of that and please DO rant anytime you want because I enjoy reading whatever you have to say!

 

[~Foo Fighter~]

Once again, you really hit it on the nose Foo Fighter as to why Keel was such a source of awe and fascination to us. Thanks for reminding us of that and please DO rant anytime you want because I enjoy reading whatever you have to say!

Thanks! I'm a little disheartened that people are taking the show as a repudiation of Keel's work. It acutally wasn't.

Maybe there is a parallel here with Michael Jackson...his personal picadillo's have no bearing on his work, such as Thriller.

If Clarke was trying to deminish Jackson's work in the same way he trashed Keel's he'd be laughed out of the room for the petty prick he was. It's patently absured to say that none of Keel's work has value. And the other panel members did NOT generally agree.

~Foo Fighter~
(sorry all about ranting I'm fired up...last post)

 

[Vomitor]

I also wont let it affect my reading of keel too much, and i agree his writing style and storytelling is captivating. I read so far Mothman Prophecies, The complete guide to mysterious beings and Our Haunted Planet, and i see what made him so influential. But definetely mothman prophecies must be taken with a grain of salt, i realized that while reading it...actually i wonder why Jerome Clark thought that book was the only one of keel's worth reading, when (as i understand) is the one most prone to fiction...hmm

In any way...im still curious to read some of his other stuff, especially id like to read jadoo and operation trojan horse...only now i will probably now not be as carried away with the details

 

[Schuyler]

I think you have to take Jerome's comments in context. Clark's approach is very straightforward. He has done the best UFO Encyclopedia on the planet (there have been several). He takes a no-nonsense approach to produce documented studies. If you've actually read even a few entries in his books, you know what I mean. I'm not entirely sure he's a 'nuts & bolts' guy, but let's just say I wouldn't be surprised.

Keel, on the other hand, mixes fact and fiction and is likely to call the Loch Ness Monster a 'demon.' In fact, I don't think Keel ever met a demon he didn't like. Plus there's the fact that Keel took an active dislike to people considering themselves in the field of Ufology. I acknowledge his contributions, particularly his 'outside the box' thinking back when everyone was going for the ETH.

But I can see why he two wouldn't get along, particularly when Keel made that all but impossible in the first place. I have a copy of Mothman. Looks like it's time to get it out and read it again.

 

[atomic_annie]

I've always respected Jerome Clark even though he's an ardent ETH-er (or is he? I'm still not sure but one thing I am sure about is that he's an enigma). But whatever the case may be, it seems like he could have been a little less strident in those thoughts and comments he had about Keel's work simply because he was participating in a show that included some of Keel's best long time friends only a few days after Keel had passed over. I'm seeing a lack of sensitivity there on his part because of that but I still consider him to be the best UFO historian in the field.

 

[Schuyler]

But whatever the case may be, it seems like he could have been a little less strident in those thoughts and comments he had about Keel's work simply because he was participating in a show that included some of Keel's best long time friends

That idea has been expressed prior and I completely acknowledge it. I was expressing what I thought the reasons why Clark felt this way--not attempting to excuse it. Keel treated his "best long time friends" pretty badly, which was part of the point. Had he treated them 'in a more gentlemanlike manner' they never would have said those things about him. There would have been no reason to. The special thing about this show was that it got to Keel, the personality. It wasn't simply a retrospective on his written work. We see him portrayed as an irascible old coot, which is far more interesting than someone who never pushed the envelope.

Much as it offends some folk's sentiments, Clark's assessment of Keel's reputation long term is very probably accurate. Compared to researchers who attempt to get a handle on the subject, Keel's demons are not going to set well over time. They don't now, but Keel's status as a pioneer cannot be disputed. He was in essence a popular writer rather than in an insightful researcher. He also wrote for a different era. I enjoyed references to True and Argosy, for example, 'men's' magazines (hunting, fishing, and good clean jokes--not girls) from a bygone era, my father's only vice at the weekly grocery store visit, where a budget for a family of four was $30.00. When my mother raised it to $35.00 I thought we were rich. My Dad got a raise to $500 per month, so she thought we could splurge. That was Keel's Golden Age.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well said Schuyler. While nothing should be taken from Keel, his influence and impact on the UFO community as a whole, the opinions of his long time friends as to his character and personality cannot be diminished either.
It sometimes upsets us to know that our heroes are as flawed and vulnerable as we are.

 

[atomic_annie]

Just turning in now but thanks both of you for your wonderfully entertaining feedback on my most recent comments in this thread!
Certainly puts things in perspective but whatever the case may be, for a lot of us, John Keel was our 'Indiana Jones'. That he ended up a curmudgeon in his later years is not surprising for someone who lived for the next adventure only to be slowed down by illness and old age. No matter what more we find out about Keel, in my book he will always remain my hero. :redface:

 

[Experiencer7]

That idea has been expressed prior and I completely acknowledge it. I was expressing what I thought the reasons why Clark felt this way--not attempting to excuse it. Keel treated his "best long time friends" pretty badly, which was part of the point. Had he treated them 'in a more gentlemanlike manner' they never would have said those things about him. There would have been no reason to. The special thing about this show was that it got to Keel, the personality. It wasn't simply a retrospective on his written work. We see him portrayed as an irascible old coot, which is far more interesting than someone who never pushed the envelope.

Much as it offends some folk's sentiments, Clark's assessment of Keel's reputation long term is very probably accurate. Compared to researchers who attempt to get a handle on the subject, Keel's demons are not going to set well over time. They don't now, but Keel's status as a pioneer cannot be disputed. He was in essence a popular writer rather than in an insightful researcher. He also wrote for a different era. I enjoyed references to True and Argosy, for example, 'men's' magazines (hunting, fishing, and good clean jokes--not girls) from a bygone era, my father's only vice at the weekly grocery store visit, where a budget for a family of four was $30.00. When my mother raised it to $35.00 I thought we were rich. My Dad got a raise to $500 per month, so she thought we could splurge. That was Keel's Golden Age.

Ty Cobb.8)

 

[Fcseven]

Great show and I enjoyed all three hours of it.

I always find it fascinating to hear about complex personalities.In my opinion they always seem to be the ones who make the greatest contributions to their fields.

 

[Gareth]

I was initially skeptical of taking Clarkes comments as gospel, but after raising the issue twice in this thread no one responded, so I took that to mean most agreed with Clarke's assessment. I found that confusing as it seems a little odd to make such a big deal out ofd someone that didnt deserve it (according to Clarke).

What I specifically found strange was the claim that Keel was a primitive and unimaginative thinker. Now I undersrtand if all he did was go around calling everything demons (and from what I gather he kinda do that), but wasnt also one of the first to try and frame this UFO/non-human phenomena in something other than the ETH? It sounds like he was quite ahead of his time, if only at the beginning of his career.

*shrugs*

 

[Kieran]

I was initially skeptical of taking Clarkes comments as gospel, but after raising the issue twice in this thread no one responded, so I took that to mean most agreed with Clarke's assessment. I found that confusing as it seems a little odd to make such a big deal out ofd someone that didnt deserve it (according to Clarke).

What I specifically found strange was the claim that Keel was a primitive and unimaginative thinker. Now I undersrtand if all he did was go around calling everything demons (and from what I gather he kinda do that), but wasnt also one of the first to try and frame this UFO/non-human phenomena in something other than the ETH? It sounds like he was quite ahead of his time, if only at the beginning of his career.

*shrugs*

I like Jerome Clark, he has done great work in the field, but sometimes with clark i find him vey narrowminded. I think keel and vallee have been very valuable in broading people minds to other possibilitys.

The abduction cases of today and of our recent past do have similaritys to the tales of abduction by fairys and other creatures.
Nobody can say for sure if all the storys are true, but there is a link which cant be denied.

Clarke believe's the ETH theory is the correct one, maybe he is right. I think as humans, a technology that is from another world that is a million years ahead, i care to think would be beyond our understanding, we be fools to thing otherwise, so The ETH theory can never be dismissed just for that reason.

To me as just a observer and a witness, the ufo phenomen is far more complex. I Think we have a number of different phenomen happening around us with ETH Being just one part, maybe?

 

[itsthenoise]

Great episode, had me smiling all the way through pretty much; I felt like a little kid priviledged to be listening in on his cool uncles conversations.

next time you have a line up like that, you could make a movie about it.

 

[zingaro]

I enjoyed the show a lot. Did find Jerome Clark's presence a little odd for a memorial -- why not Allan Greenfield, or Doug Skinner, who probably knew Keel as well as anyone? I respect Clark's encyclopedia but think his treatment of Keel and especially Vallee is pretty dubious. As he mentioned near the end of the show, Clark is pretty convinced of the ETH, and his discussion of other hypotheses is not always particularly fair, in my opinion.

Still, it made for a lively three hours.

I knew Keel a little bit and interviewed him a couple times (wish I could find those tapes). I always found him charming and funny, but it probably helped that we talked as much about movies as paranormal stuff. (I don't want to overstate my acquaintance, in addition to the interviews and some hanging around at Fort-fest it basically amounted to five or six long phone calls about 10 years ago.)

I've never regarded his books as completely reliable: he had a prankster's spirit, and expected a bit of the same from his readers. I don't regard them as all lies either. I think he experienced some very frightening phenomena and was marked by them.

Here's a nice tribute from one of his friends: http://www.illusiongenius.com/articles/Keel-Obit.html

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Speaking of dedication round table discussions it seems to me that since a special was done for John Keel that one has to be done for Richard Hall since Richard Hall > John Keel by a considerable margin. Oh btw, for those who didn't yet know theufochronicles.com is where I heard that Richard Hall has died.