For those of you who for some reason has missed who John Keel is, here's a wiki-link:
Now, first of all, I have read some of Keel's books, and in all honesty they were pretty entertaining, the best one is undoubtedly The Mothman
, which did indeed expand (at least) my view from UFO's-only to include "monsters" and other things in the paranormal realm.
Having said that, and re-reading his works, I actually have some pretty heavy criticism on him. This isn't to step on his grave or something, but I
believe he has got far too much praise for little. Authors name him and take example of him and such, and I really have no idea why.
Take his claim on the Black Knight, supposedly a mysterious object that hovered above the arctic (in space) - where was his source for that? Or was it
something he heard? The only discussion I've managed to find refers back to him. I get the impression that he heard it from a person, then wrote it
in the book.
His insistance on Atlantis and lost civilizations. In one book, he unforgivably flames science and anthropology to death, saying he lived in Egypt for
a year and has seen and touched the pyramids, and boasts that he knows much more than the whole scientific community.
"Flip-flopping". In one book, Keel seems to praise Erich von Däniken, saying he has done so much more than just reading anthropology. In the
following book, he calls Däniken a fraud. Why the sudden change?
All this is unfortunate - the glowing example being his feelings on Däniken - because it gives the impression that he has only read the surface and
not really investigated his own claims. This also gets one thinking about his other outstanding work, such as Mothman Prophecies. How much of that was
tall tales told by humoruos people? That he went to Point Pleasant I don't question, but how much is factual?
Now, once again, I'm fully aware that facts might change in the course of time, and what was true a century ago might be laughable now. Just like
everything in the paranormal, it should not be taken as the ultimate truth, this is also obvious. But Keel is, once again, praised by other authors in
almost the highest regard, and I simply don't see his writings holding the standard to be regarded in such a high position. It is entertaining, yes,
and it does make you think of higher and bigger things, but he didn't market his work as fiction or philosophy.
What is your opinion?