Some of John’s fans may be unfamiliar with his non-fortean side. He was an old-school commercial writer who prided himself on his ability to write just about anything: poetry, light verse, TV and radio scripts, short stories. He wrote quickie paperback novels, game shows, and humor pieces for “Screw.” He once printed up business cards that read simply: “John Keel. He writes.”

Thanks for the tribute, Loren; and thanks for all that writing, John!

Footnotes are a thing usually avoided by mainstream publishers, even if an author wants to include them. Mainstream publishers have the philosophy that notes scare away the mainstream reader/consumer – hence decreasing sales. As to the sources in Keel’s books: I just re-read his UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse, and there is not a page without Keel mentioning his sources in the form of newspapers, other researchers, books or magazines, which he placed in the bodytexts of his chapters. Anyone who is equipped to undertake research and understands how this is done, will find that keel’s oeuvre gives enough sources and notes to proceed.

Take, for instance, the case that he describes on pages 58 – 59 of the pocketbook edition of the title mentioned above (the pocketbook edition is titled Why UFOs, Manorbooks). Keel lists the New York, Syracuse, Herald-Journal, 21 December 1967 as source. So, as a test, today I used one of the digital newspaper archives I am subsribed to. I found the account in a second in said newspaper. Comparing Keel’s text with the newspaper account, Keel had quoted the text almost ad verbatim, with no embellishments or fanciful additions as some writers have been known to do.

In fact, one of my private projects is to trace his sources for the last six or seven years now, and it is quite doable. Then there is the website titled The Mothman Annotations by Michael D. Winkle, who has done much the same for Keel’s most famous book.

Keel might not have been an academic, but merely placing footnotes or having a large reference section does not one an academic make. I wonder if an academic would have been able to write such a book anyway (compare the criticism on the late John Mack, when he wrote his abduction book, or take the tragic life and end of it of James Mc Donald as an example). Aside from that, Charles Fort was no academic, he erred in some of his sources, but what legacy he left for us to ponder upon!

Re-reading Keel’s UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse after so many years (I began re-reading it yesterday), I am amazed at the clarity of Keel’s writings, the depth or research (all pre-internet) he undertook and the logical conclusions he arrived at. Amazed in the sense that I have come to read so much criticism on his works that it is easy to forget how original, audacious and breath taking his oeuvre was, when it first appeared in the 1970′s in book form.

We know now, many years and many, many man hours invested by subsequent researchers in unearthing more primary sources on for instance the early airship and ghost plane waves, that some of Keel’s conclusions are erroneous – but they were logical if one takes into account the quantity of the sources that he based his views on, and the fact that proto-ufology, meaning, the assessment and study of the phenomenon before 1947, had only just begun. We know that Keel fell for a couple of hoaxes – but which researcher hasn’t at one ime in his or her career?

We also know that Keel was certainly not well liked in certain ufological circles, in fact, just take a look around on the internet. Where are all the eulogies by the leading, respectable ufologists of today? All I perceive is a deafening silence and that should say enough. It’s the days of NICAP and the 1950′s all over again, only this time not the Air Force, but Barack Obama should hand over all the secretly kept ufo files pronto. Other than that it’s still the ETH that reigns supreme, and Roswell is still a hotly debated holy grail. Counting how many angels can dance on a pin.

But is Keel’s theory – i.e. that there is a definite link between the phenomenon and the field of the paranormal – so far fetched? Even Allen Hynek thought so [for part of his life], although there are not many ufologists who care to admit that.

Did Keel destroy the field from within, as some poster here commented? That depends on how you define field. If the field is a territory in constant flux, evolving and maturing, gaining new lands with room for new theories that can be debated respectfully, I’d say no. Then Keel was a big help in stretching the boundaries and offering us new tools to look at certain puzzling data. Now if the field is an orthodoxy, a religion, a set of beliefs, doctrine and dogma, than I am only too glad that Keel demolished it. My study of anomalous phenomena is not a religion. It is a deeply felt curiousity that comes with belonging to this most puzzling species: mankind.

Anyway, I hope that my rant above helps setting the record straight.

Nevertheless, in some of his books, he did include some of his sources in the text, as Charles Fort had.

Keel was a genius, an intellectual, but he was also self-made, having dropped out of high school and running away to Greenwich Village. He could care less about sharing his sources with his readers in any sort of technical fashion. He was a classic Bohemian survivor. Not a gatherer of footnotes.

I was very intrigued by Keel’s research, but am puzzled by the lack of footnotes, as I mentioned before. Did he have sources? If so, why not include them as footnotes, so that his material (which most people would find fantastic) could be checked against the original source?

I loved Keel’s work, and he certainly seemed convincing. However, without footnotes it’s hard not to be at least somewhat skeptical.

I have one interesting Keel story:
I lived a mere four blocks from Keel in NYC for 6 years and never knew it. I did see him a couple of times walking in the Murray Hill area, but was too insecure to bother him. I finally got up the courage to invite him to be a speaker at my “Emergence Conference” my brother and I had planned for October 2001. I called him and asked if he would consider coming down to Chiapas. Much to my surprise, he agreed and we talked at length. At one point he asked me if I was “ready to end up in jail.” I was taken aback and asked him what he was talking about. He answered: “If I go down to your conference, you know I’m going to get you in a lot of trouble, and you might end up in jail.” He sounded serious! I told him it was well worth the risk. The unfortunate events of 911 caused us to cancel the conference, but Keel had agreed to present, and my conversation with him about all things fortean is one of the highlights of my investigative process.

He was an unsung hero that didn’t receive a fraction of the respect and admiration he deserved. He will be greatly missed by those of us who aren’t satisfied with simple answers to difficult questions.
—Christopher O’Brien

For new details on his last days, please see the recently added “Keel Ends Life Rather Alone.”.