Forums

Posted: 27-06-2003 12:53 Post subject:

I've no idea whether or not John Keel is a crank; I've only read The Mothman Prophecies (the post-movie abridged version -- I know, I know but I'm too poor/stingey to buy the original print...), BUT I have to say that the fact that he cites a British source's address as "Oxford, Berkshire" made me question his research methods and really changed my feeling about the entire book.

[For our US friends; there is no Oxford in Berkshire -- Oxford is in Oxfordshire. It's like saying New York City is in Illinois...]

Posted: 27-06-2003 13:27 Post subject:

Yeah, Keel's a crank. But he's the good kind.

Posted: 27-06-2003 16:44 Post subject:

This is the most interesting and intelligent thread I've read on the net for a long long time. Very interesting theories and all inspired by the work of one man. I think Keel borders on k/crankishness, but just think, where would ufology, or come to think of it, forteana in general be without the likes of him - and him in particular?

Posted: 13-05-2004 05:18 Post subject:

I don't think Keel is a crank at all; rather, an imaginative and talented writer who knows what his audience wants, and gives it to them - for a price. I have a sneaking suspicion that Keel doesn't believe a word of what he puts forth, and is laughing his arse off at all those who do.

Posted: 13-05-2004 06:07 Post subject: Deleted

Deleted

Posted: 21-05-2004 20:21 Post subject:

So just how much of Mothman Prophecies (the book) WAS fiction after all? Has anyone ever really sat down and figured this out?

Posted: 22-05-2004 02:59 Post subject:

What I found curious about The Mothman Prophecies was how all of his contacts were women, and he convinced them to drive out into the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night to "look for UFOs".

He's either a legend or a perv.

Posted: 22-05-2004 06:19 Post subject:

Um, probably both.
Smile

Posted: 02-06-2004 21:55 Post subject:

"What I found curious about The Mothman Prophecies was how all of his contacts were gerbils, and he convinced them to drive out into the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night to "look for UFOs".

He's either a legend or a perv."

Sorry, I'm confusing fact and fiction here. :p

I've just found Keel's "Why UFOs" - I think this is the same as Operation
Trojan Horse, which appears as a subtitle in this 1975 US paperback.

The first thing to note is that he pleads lack of space as the reason for not
citing sources. The second thing to note is that his prose is distinctly modelled
on Charles Fort, strikingly so at times.

My impression is that Keel tries to carve a niche for himself between extra-terrestrial
hypothesis believers and sceptics. It's an area where a niche quickly becomes a Black Hole
and there are signs in the book of someone on the edge of one.

I need to read further and find the full version of the Mothman book. confused

Posted: 04-06-2004 19:14 Post subject:

I have a very low tolerance of cranks, and though I have always thought Mr Keel to be a bit of one, at the same time I found his writings terribly insightful.

(I have `Trojan Horse` `Cosmic connection` and `strange creatures`)

One resercher (was it P Devereux? dont quote me on that) said that since he suffered from diabetes, he had mood swings that affected his outlook.

Posted: 22-10-2004 18:15 Post subject: expergated Mothman?

I've been reading a lot on the boards about the new edition of The Mothman Prophesies being abridged, but the copy I bought (so far impossible to find old Keel in the used bookstores in Toronto) makes no mention of this on the copyright page, and I was under the impression that it must be stated.

Is it possible there has been a 'newer' new edition that has the expergated sections added back in? Or was this just a rumour?

If I do, indeed, have the expergated version, what exactly am I missing?

-Fitz

Posted: 23-10-2004 12:07 Post subject:

These kind of "crank" slurs generally come from Ufologists who wish to portray themselves as scientific authorities working in a field otherwise dominated by nutters (ie, anyone who doesn't agree with them.)

Unfortunately, the fact is that the entire UFO and entity phenomenon seems essentially paranormal in nature and simply doesn't lend itself to traditional scientific examination. Until we can trap a UFO or entity in a laboratory and dissect it, all theories on the subject will be purely speculative, and equally worth considering. This is why most true scientists don't want to get involved in researching UFOs - there simply is nothing concrete to study.

Even Dr Allen Hynek - one of the very few UFO researchers to have a genuinely scientific background - (and who, incidentally, remarked that "ridicule is not part of the scientific method") stated "I am very much afraid that UFO's are related to certain psychic phenomena-----I am more inclined to think in terms of something metaterrestrial, a sort of parallel reality". Thus, having started out as an outright sceptic, and then seriously considered the extraterrestrial hypothesis, Hynek ended up taking a position not dissimilar to Keels (although I doubt we'll be seeing any articles from Clark denouncing Hynek as a crank!)