John Keel on Fort and Forteans

Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
12,023
Likes
150
Points
114
#31
graylien said:
In which case maybe we should adopt Beckjord as our new figurehead. He does plenty of field research and he certainly isn't trammelled by the narrow-minded paradigms of conventional science.
Perhaps you should start your own Website in his honour? ;)
 

fortist

Fresh Blood
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
24
Likes
0
Points
17
#32
stuneville said:
Perhaps Fort wasn't Fortean enough either, then...
I think that if Fort ever had "become" Fortean then he would have done a quick one-hundred and eighty degree turn and embraced scientific heterodoxy; he refused to be established or marked out as being this or that...he said as much to one of his correspondants.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,437
Likes
4,158
Points
234
#33
I know, I was just being facetious. It's amazing how much passion sometimes gets invoked in Fort's name, when the man himself would probably have had none of it.

Inevitable, perhaps, that the messenger and the perceived message part company at a relatively early juncture. Christ and Christianity, Mohammed and Islam, Fort and Forteanism. And all three, in an abstract we'll call the afterlife, sitting around saying "I never said that! When did I say that?"

I hope that what we have here is in his spirit: just because science doesn't accept it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but blind credence is just as unsatisfactory. Each case on it's own merit, and think for yourself.

And refuse to be pigeonholed :D.
 
Top