Forums

Posted: 23-10-2004 14:01 Post subject:

No, `he` wasnt a crank....

Posted: 15-03-2005 14:25 Post subject:

Very interesting discussion but I think the question "is Keel a crank" may be a red herring. At least one post mentioned Robert Anton Wilson, as soon as I saw this poll R.A.W.'s writings about "e-prime" or english without the verb "to be" sprang to mind. To paraphrase, I don't, and can't, know whether John Keel *is* or *is not* a crank, I only know how he *seems* to me. But on the basis that in one form of e-prime *negative* is-statements are acceptable, I've voted no in the poll.

Aside from questions of "is-ness", should we as forteans really be using pejorative terms like "crank" to characterise people we disagree with? Isn't it rather the sort of term many would use of forteans in general?

Anyway I've learnt from this thread that I really should read some of Keel's books, and Jung as well. It's all fascinating stuff if you don't take it *too* seriously...

Posted: 16-03-2005 23:55 Post subject: People in glass houses...

Certainly anyone who proposes that we are being invaded by flying saucers full of aliens (as does Jerome Clark) is in no position to call anyone a crank.

Forteans who regularily browse the UFO Updates mailing list (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/) will surely be disappointed to discover that many Ufologists seem to spend as much time sniping at rival Ufologists as they do actually investigating anything. Jerome Clark himself seems to be reponsible for many of the lists most childish and petty posts, including the following on Keel: (Link to source)

Posted: 17-03-2005 00:45 Post subject: Re: Is John Keel a crank?

[quote="Justin Anstey"]Jerome '[sic]-boy' Clark seems to think so according to his article 'Keel Vs Ufology' in FT156, but just how seriously does Keel actually take all that Ultraterrestrial stuff?

Taking off my Fortean hat and putting on my professional philosophers one (well I do get paid sometimes for it!), I'd also question the term crank.

If it means not being rational, I don't think you can accuse Keel of that at all, he seems one of the most rational people in this field I've yet read.
I've heard tales that he has entertained some imaginative hypotheses that many have found strange or unsupported by evidence, but he always seems to have refrained from publishing these. His published thesis on Ultraterrestrials seems to fit the data he has and he seems to apply a rational analysis to it. It just doesn't fit the current scientific world view and that disturbs some people. But this doesn't mean its not true. And
as others have said Mr Clarke believes in ET's for which there isn't the slightest scrap of evidence. Quite an irrational belief then and certainly
one that would fit the crank definition proposed here.

There have also been accusations of bad methodological, but I hardly think that defined crankery, if it did half the scientists on the planet would be cranks.

Crank often means someone with a fanatical belief system though one that doesn't change no matter how much evidence is stacked against it, like believing that aliens are visiting the Earth, and it seems to me that Keels approach is far more flexible than this.

Crank is often used to mean someone who defies accepted belief systems, but given that we've reached a phase in culture in which everything is uncertain (including Science) it seems strange to deploy the term in this way. A crank might today be someone who was certain they know the way the world actually was (whether from a scientistic or ideological stance) and denounced others who disagreed.

However you define Clarke seems to come out as the crank in all this rather than Keel.

Keel to be seems to be rather like Fort, a person who challenges conventional belief and the hegemony of 'science' and its mythos and exposes the anamolies that do not fit the 'scientific' worldview, and does so in a relatively scientific way.

Steve

Posted: 18-03-2005 00:17 Post subject:

Keel isn't a crank, and Clark isn't a crank, but they have incompatible personalities. Keel is recklessly exuberant, Clark is studiously bland.

Posted: 18-03-2005 01:46 Post subject:

I haven't seen it mentioned here, so far, but apparently John A. Keel is also a keen amateur conjurer.

Posted: 18-03-2005 06:19 Post subject:

I voted "no" way back when-I've always enjoyed Keel, and think his Ideas make ya think- he's sort of the America version of that french guy , Jock Valley- (author of one of my favs "messengers of depression" ) Shocked

Posted: 20-03-2005 23:06 Post subject:

The Mothman Prophecies was my rough and tumble introduction to a plethora of non-ETH notions about ufos and other Forteana. Even if, as the late Karla Turner said " He just makes things up", he's a master at it. No, not a crank, but a treasure.

Posted: 21-03-2005 15:52 Post subject:

Hey, it's nice to see one of my old threads still alive and kicking. Three years! Crikey!

I just spotted this in the latest Saucer Smear:

Posted: 21-03-2005 19:18 Post subject:

I am currently re-reading Keel's "Disneyland of the Gods"...
and I feel I need to clarify my previous post:

I referred to him as an "armchair researcher"... I did NOT mean
to imply that he doesn't do his fieldwork. Few researchers
have done as much on-the-spot investigation as Mr. Keel.

I meant that he is still doing research by collecting
news/magazine clippings of true Fortean events
(although, I'm sure he has moved to the internet by now.)

Keel is a true pioneer in that he sees all aspects of paranormal
phenomenon as being part of one grand metaphysical cause.
Although he sees Wilhelm Reich and Orgone Energy as being
pioneering research as well... Shocked

TVgeek

Posted: 21-03-2005 19:32 Post subject:

I think he is fantastic, I only wish he provided footnotes.

-Fitz

Posted: 21-03-2005 19:41 Post subject:

Posted: 21-03-2005 22:15 Post subject:

I believe that entry should actually read:

"Eric Beckjord: Bigfoot nut, Mensa member, and self-proclaimed Mothman. And Mensa member."

(see: http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/news.html and scroll down. And down. Then down some more.)

Posted: 15-05-2005 07:32 Post subject: is keel a crank?

No, because his writings are based on experience and research...actually being out there. A krank is someone who hides behind a screen name and has no first hand experience........ Embarassed

.oops!

Posted: 05-09-2013 19:22 Post subject:

Based on that brutal takedown by Jerome Clark in the latest FT, I guess the answer is 'yes' (unless it's 'no, crank is too generous') but ultimately, how much does it matter? He sure made a lot of people think about stuff they might not have previously considered. The Mothman Prophecies may be 80% made up for all I know, that doesn't make it not a classic (of a certain kind).

(And as I suggested over eight [!!] years ago, he was apparently so *difficult* on an interpersonal level it does seem hard for those who interacted with him to evaluate his work dispassionately. Though TBH, all UFOlogy disputes seem to end up rather less pleasant than your average civil war.)