Is John Keel A Crank?

[dr wu]

On Dr Vallee....I suspect his credentials helped quite a bit and he was involved with Dr Hynek on an investigative level as well as having military connections later in his career.
Keel was a journalist, reporter, and writer and did write some fairly unusual books from the beginning which probably cemented his rep as an unusual character ala Charles Fort.

 

[packshaud]

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead because I have a serious issue with abridged books.

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

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...]

Yes, I'm interested to know about this too. Does an abridged version of the book actually exist?

This concept may be the key to understanding Keel -- one of many UFO/paranormal investigators who seem to "go 'round the bend" at some point. Some recover, some don't.

Related to my worries on abridged editions, I have some comments on Clarke's Unexplained editions. Clarke is for me a full krank, with this spelling suggested in prior posts, for his commitment to the ETH. The third edition of Unexplained is infamous for having most of the weirder cases, that are not fitting to the ETH, purged from it by Clarke himself. The second one can be considered as the proper edition.

I will repost here a review from Amazon (just in case the site is broken in a future antitrust intervention).
Source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RBFEIA7S94CLK

★★★☆☆ 3.0 out of 5 stars
IMO: Second Edition is better. 177 pages shorter, a lot of info removed.
Reviewed in the United States on October 13, 2018
Verified Purchase
When I first got the Third Edition I immediately noticed it was smaller than the Second. In fact, it's 177 pages shorter. I supposed it was due to editing or information being invalidated....but in fact, the Foreword mentions this:
"...this third edition in contrast to its predecessors, does not include chapters on UFOs, Sasquatch, and the Loch Ness Monster." ....wow......it also removes many other fascinating subjects (real or fake) that were in the last edition.
Clark goes on to say that these subjects are essentially too popular to include.
He also condensed the chapters from a wide variety of 8 subjects to just 3 (Mysteries, Curiosities, and Fables). It's unfortunate to see Clark doesnt really add more to his book as much as add some and take a lot away.

The cover of the second edition is also of a superior quality. It's that rubberized paperback style, while the third edition is just a regular paperback, more prone to bending and ripping.

However, setting aside the fact that this edition is stripped down and that I don't like the cover style, these books are fantastic. The second edition was one of my favorite books when i was a kid. I do highly recommend them. I suppose for the 21st century the Third Edition is more appropriate, but i'll always love my Second more.

 

[WanderingFox]

Gonna paste my Goodreads review of The Mothman Prophecies in here, since it does touch on my thoughts about Keel himself. If mods believe there's a more appropriate thread among the multitude that seem to exist about the red-eyed, winged beastie, feel free to relocate.

John Keel was unquestionably a capable communicator and writer, his prose clear, strong and engaging. The events described are as bizarre as they are compelling, and handled with impressive clarity; the Silver Bridge disaster is detailed with particular skill, leaving you with little doubt of how harrowing an event it must have been. It's a thoroughly engrossing read.

The flip side is that Keel sometimes comes across as a little self-important, a touch self-centred. It's also hard to escape a sneaking suspicion that he was guilty of the same mistakes, the same confirmation bias, the same tunnel vision, as the people he disparages so frequently throughout the book, just with a different focus. The theory he espouses is intriguing, but never truly comes together, not least thanks to his noticeable avoidance of a vital question: why?

The result is a book that, while certainly a rewarding and interesting read, ultimately leaves you just a little wanting.

Is Keel a crank? Seems a touch strong, but I do believe he got somewhat lost in his theory, and lost objectivity. I certainly feel a different perspective on the events in Point Pleasant would be useful if I'm to coalesce any proper thoughts about them.