One hopes, and it's rather interesting that when looking at their work, and their qualities, it sees like they must have had some outstanding superhuman feature in their character (and maybe so).
But what I can say about Keel, is that he had integrity and common sense, and curiosity. In other words, he simply kept on asking pertinent questions and evaluate the answers. A lot of researchers, probably the great majority, and not only in this field, seem to start their quest to validate their own answers, they start the quest with an answer instead of with a question, if that makes sense.
Yes, what you say relates to what JK says which seems to me to be something that extends to all walks of life by mentioning that "there is a natural tendency to concentrate only on the facets that seem most interesting" and "man's tendency to create a deep and inflexible belief on the basis of little or no evidence."
Because it was complicated to conceal the scope of his findings he was downgraded to just another web mystery hunter, it stands out that it was the easier option. The interest in his work revolves solely around men in black and the mothman as if talking about just another horror story, overshadowing his integrity and the value his way of communicating and researching would bring. Once again, it only attracts people mostly interested only in the result, not in the method, the hard work to have arrived at those results, which is contradictory for someone who presents himself as a researcher.
It makes me think that when working on validating sacred cows, the person just circles around their herd of ideas. If one is not observing objectively one will not ask the relevant question and if there is no relevant question there is no advancement in the development of the experience to new observations. Which partly explains why most researchers, even though they claim to work within "good intentions" always present the same thing, a stagnation that helps to bury more of the truth they supposedly claim to want to find. Must go to the open field.
The advancement related to the seeker's honest intent also seems to open up interaction, at times, even directly with those working for the opposing force with possible consequences inherent in their actions that could be very negative to the seeker. The typical assistance offered by these forces as the temptation of the direct response that many have desired, where every action taken opens up new possibilities for the seeker to easily expose himself or herself as well as to protect himself or herself. Hence the importance of evaluating the answers in order to formulate better questions, to sharpen discernment. To see how each thing is an extension of another and not separately, as is usually presumed.
It reminds me of the movie "The Ninth Gate", with Johnny Depp: "Venture too far and danger will descend upon you from above", "Even hell has its heroes, sir".
