JOHN KEEL NOT AN AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING

http://ashmann.uk/2009/02/ Earlier, I posted Jaye Paro’s sketch of “Agar,” the librarian (and companion of Mr. Apol) mentioned in Chapter 15 of The Mothman Prophecies.  In the comments, S. L. Jones pointed out that John called her “Lia” in the book, and wanted to know about the contradiction.

On looking through John’s notes, I see that Lia was another of Paro’s purported contacts.  Agar was described as olive-skinned, with black hair and eyes; Lia as blond and pregnant.  Here’s a description of their meeting, from John’s notes (this was in 1967):

I don’t know why John conflated Agar and Lia; writing several years later, he probably simply didn’t remember which was which.  There is, after all, some confusion over names in all of this.  The experiences ascribed to “Jane” in the book were actually those of Paro; I suppose John put a different name to some of her more unusual experiences to avoid her unwanted publicity.  She was, after all, a “silent contactee” in a public job.  Paro herself was really named Joanne Perranno; “Jaye P. Paro” was her professional name as a radio personality on WBAB, in Babylon, NY.  To complicate matters further, her contacts often called her “Tim’na.”

Paro claimed contact with a number of aliens and/or androids.  Agar was also known as Aggarr or Aggrr, and first identified herself as Afalyes of Trek.  Apol spelled his name in different ways, including Appell.  There were, at one time, two Agars, each claiming the other was an impostor.  And there were others, including one called Rubin, whom John found particularly irritating.

John never saw or talked with any of these beings himself: all interaction was through Paro.  Sometimes she passed along letters from them; sometimes she channeled them, both through voice and writing.  Sometimes John talked to them over the phone, but always through Paro, who relayed their answers.  I doubt that they had any independent existence outside Paro’s psyche.  John suspected so too, but was also baffled by some particulars — in those phone conversations, for example, he often heard a muffled voice in the background.  But he was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of high strangeness he was receiving that year, and, like a good reporter, just kept investigating.

John Keel, Doug Skinner, and Mamie Caton crowd into a photo booth at Coney Island.  I provided the traditional rabbit ears, by special request.

Mack & Myer For Hire was a short slapstick TV show from 1963. It was produced by Sandy Howard Productions, for Trans-Lux in NYC. Mickey Deems starred as Mack, and Joey Faye as Myer; both were showbiz veterans, with long careers in nightclubs, burlesque, and legit. Each show was about ten minutes, and was often packaged with other shorts and cartoons; it was meant strictly for kids.

John wrote many of the shows. He remembered that they had a small prop budget, and kept trying to come up with gags for cheap items–balloons, for example. He also recalled that Margaret Hamilton was cast in one episode, and had no objection to knockabout comedy, as long as she didn’t have to play a witch.

A few of the episodes have been archived here, if you’re curious. They’re not exactly deathless comedy; but do have a period charm, and are remembered fondly by those who watched them as kids. Watch for John’s screen credit; he’s listed as “script editor.”

John Keel with one of his favorite people, the prolific writer/researcher/speaker Rosemary Ellen Guiley.

John Keel and Jacques Vallee, side by side, at the “Congreso Internacional: 100 años de investigaciones de los grandes misterios del hombre,” in San José, Costa Rica, October 14-19, 1985.  Can anyone out there identify the others?

The twelfth figure, the last in the booklet, shows us birds in flight.  There are two in the upper part; one looks to me like an owl.  Perhaps the other is a crow, like those in Figure 9.  There are three birds flying over the horizon at the bottom left; I don’t know what that sketch below it shows, possibly a seated figure.  And at the bottom right is a standing winged figure.  It could be an angel, or even Mothman, given that this was 1967.  The line on the figure’s right side (our left) may be an incomplete wing.  Perhaps the semi-circle in which it stands is significant, given the circles in Figures 6 and 8, and the dome in Figures 5 and 11.  Flying birds suggest freedom to me, and seem to end the series with an image of liberation — from what, I don’t know.

One of my reasons for posting these was to see if anyone else had seen them, since John’s note suggests that he circulated them among other researchers.  So, let me know if you know anything more about them.

I do suspect that the ordering of the pictures is part of their meaning; that there is a narrative, or some kind of progression.  They seem to have little to do with UFOs, although some of them could be interpreted as pictures of aliens or craft.  Instead, we have crows, campfires, bugs and people running in circles.  We begin with a baby and end with an angel, so perhaps a life cycle is intended.

The themes of birth and family have always been part of the UFO story, as well as the fairy lore with which it has so much in common.  It may be, though, that these pictures have more to do with the inner conflicts of the artist.  As I said at the outset, I think they were drawn by Jaye Paro, but I’m not sure.  It would help if we knew where they came from.

For the eleventh drawing, we return to the dome, or cave, or whatever it was, that we saw earlier, for the other half of Figure 5.

If this is a voyage, we may have returned; and the family can scale that ladder and go on with its life.  It may be significant that the focus was on the family earlier in the series, and is now on that curious pair to the left.

The tenth drawing doesn’t add much information.  Again, we have a campfire.  The campfire certainly seems to take on more importance in these drawings than in most contactee artwork.  The creature with the bearlike head is back, unless it’s a different one, or the snouted head is just a stylistic quirk of the artist.  The other being is vaguer, but does remind me of the couple who confronted our little family group back in the fifth picture.

Animals in dreams may also be a symbol of the dreamer’s more physical side, of lusts, appetites, and fears.  In that case, the other figure might be a stand-in for the soul; and we might see this as a meeting of the body and soul, over the domestic or alchemical fire.

We have another campfire.  Fire may signify home, and the family unit; it could also refer to purification.  And there are two birds; the “caw” probably identifies them as crows, or ravens.  The two small animals next to them are more problematic.

The crow is as potent a totem animal as the stag (from the second picture), although in a different way.  Although the two ravens that accompanied Odin were associated with thought and memory, they’re usually linked in folklore to disappointment, disaster, and unhappiness.  For Native Americans, the crow is a creator and trickster; in the Talmud, it’s punished for copulating on the Ark.  And corvids are among the most intelligent of animals.

We again have a pair of couples: is there a parallel with the two couples in the fifth/eleventh picture?  It seems as if the crows are talking to one another, while the other figures listen in.

There is also a structure in the back, with a figure in it.  Is the figure sleeping, perhaps dreaming?.

This creature looks familiar; we’ve seen something like it in Figures 3 and 5.  Does that mean that it’s the same, or that the artist has a limited range?  It’s crouching over a bug, which seems to be running in circles, like the being in Figure 6.  Knowing what kind of a bug it is would help with our interpretation.  It might not be running after all: it could be a water beetle, swimming in a pond; or a spider, spinning a web.  Or that most significant of insects, the scarab.  Whatever it is, the crouching creature seems to like it, and the heart-shaped flower is a sweet touch.