• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Shameless Joe Nickel

jakesteele said:
You need to see the video to see how implausible his explanation is. What he proposes is just as farfetched as levitating. In fact, what Shameless Joe suggests could only be accomplished by levitating.
Click to expand...

Well, I did see the video, and I did note that when people can believe that the flying yogis are levitating, they can believe anything, and Nickell's attempt at an explanation of levitation does not seem implausible at all.

Why do you use the word shameless? He is not supporting fraud and taking money from the gullible. People who claim that the flying yogis are levitating are shameless.
 
jakesteele said:
You need to see the video to see how implausible his explanation is. What he proposes is just as farfetched as levitating. In fact, what Shameless Joe suggests could only be accomplished by levitating.
Click to expand...
In no case is it as far fetched as the claims themselves, and it is far fetched at all only if one assumes both that the most extreme of the claims are objectively accurate as a description of the phenomenon observed and that what was edited out of Nickell's comments does not expand on the comments shown. Neither is likely true.

The shamelessness is exhibited by the gentleman claiming the levitation as established fact and that the proper way to greater understanding is to assume the truth of the claims.

jakesteele said:
Which is why I'm exposing him. I want to be on the record as calling him out because I don't think he is fit to be doing what he does.
Click to expand...
Then you either know almost nothing about him or you have access to the full, unedited transcript and it is damning in a way unlike nearly all unedited transcripts of those who attempt to be objective about such claims.


Steve001 said:
Did you watch the vid at 26 minutes plus? If you didn't you should have.
Click to expand...
I'd go back before that. The gullible bits about the Mahareshi are astoundingly disingenuous. Even more astounding is the bit starting at about 24:14 with the person "levitating" in lotus position with his arm resting on a staff. There are no skeptical remarks about the man but loads of implied belief. This is remarkable given that the effect is a conceptually easy one and be manufactured with a bit of skill and materials or purchased commercially.
 
Back in college, Maharishi visited campus one day pushing TM. There were maybe about 20 of us gathered around at the student center. He started talking about how advanced TM allowed practitioners to fly. Rather spontaneously, the group started chuckling. He was taken aback briefly then joined in.
 
Garrette said:
Even more astounding is the bit starting at about 24:14 with the person "levitating" in lotus position with his arm resting on a staff. There are no skeptical remarks about the man but loads of implied belief. This is remarkable given that the effect is a conceptually easy one and be manufactured with a bit of skill and materials or purchased commercially.
Click to expand...
* cough * Despite the apparently gullible remarks about this levitation, the entire trick is exposed in the video a little afterwards, and the contraption is examined.
 
steenkh said:
* cough * Despite the apparently gullible remarks about this levitation, the entire trick is exposed in the video a little afterwards, and the contraption is examined.
Click to expand...
Umm... In my defense, I am frequently stupid.

I wrote the above before a complete watching. Shows wat that gets you. Apologies.
 
Garrette said:
In no case is it as far fetched as the claims themselves, and it is far fetched at all only if one assumes both that the most extreme of the claims are objectively accurate as a description of the phenomenon observed and that what was edited out of Nickell's comments does not expand on the comments shown. Neither is likely true.

The shamelessness is exhibited by the gentleman claiming the levitation as established fact and that the proper way to greater understanding is to assume the truth of the claims.

Then you either know almost nothing about him or you have access to the full, unedited transcript and it is damning in a way unlike nearly all unedited transcripts of those who attempt to be objective about such claims.


I'd go back before that. The gullible bits about the Mahareshi are astoundingly disingenuous. Even more astounding is the bit starting at about 24:14 with the person "levitating" in lotus position with his arm resting on a staff. There are no skeptical remarks about the man but loads of implied belief. This is remarkable given that the effect is a conceptually easy one and be manufactured with a bit of skill and materials or purchased commercially.
Click to expand...

The point I was pointing out is Joe brings up two more reasons why supernatural levitation is not the likely explanation. It seems Jake ignored that or never watched this vid much beyond the 14 minute mark.
 
Last edited:
Steve001 said:
The point I was pointing out is Joe brings up two more reasons why supernatural levitation is not the likely explanation. It seems Jake ignored that or never watched this vid much beyond the 14 minute mark.
Click to expand...
I actually got that -- just didn't comment. No slight intended.
 
And he would've gotten away with it too, if not for you pesky kids and that darned dog!


The Maitre'd of the Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame (a tradition in his imagination for over 1/93rd of a century) got it, 'ow you say..... COMPLETELY WRONG.


Well I'm shocked.
 
Watched full episode. Centuries' old stories claim miraculous feats of "flight" by religious folks as reported by other religious folks. Modern skeptic counters that people back then could be quite gullible about such things and perhaps the flying was more like parkour. OP doesn't like the parkour hypothesis and that's what this thread is about?
 
jakesteele said:
This thread is about Shameless Joe Nickel, one of the more prominent public faces of the skeptics’ movement. Shameless Joe also holds the dubious honor of being the first ever inductee into the Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame. He earned his spot with this ludicrous explanation for the following Implausible Plausibile™ in this documentary about Human Levitation:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1gmys3

Go to the 14 min. mark and watch for yourselves how Shameless Joe bumbles his way through his debunking of the Flying Friar and ends up with the most asinine conclusion I’ve ever heard.

I’m surprised no one has called him out on this kind of drivel before. After all, he’s out there representing you guys as one of the more prominent faces of the Skeptics’ movement. So what say you?
Click to expand...

jakesteele said:
You are invoking the Debunkers’ Law of the Bantered Semantic™ – quibbling over subtle differences and interpretations of a word or a phrase as a way to avoid the main topic.

Stick to the topic at hand; sloppy skeptibunkerism.
Click to expand...

If you didn't want it discussed, perhaps you shouldn't have put it in your OP?

I guess this is as close as we'll ever get to an admission from you that Joe Nickell isn't out there representing "us guys" at all.
 
jakesteele said:
Because I post here is the reason I'm calling him out. I am the sworn enemy of skeptibunkerism.
Click to expand...

Personally, I prefer to oppose such real-world issues as injustice, intolerance and inequality, but hey, each to their own.
You've used the term before, and I even named a thread after it, but, just for clarity's sake, would you mind defining 'skeptibunkerism'? I'm interested to see what kind of mast you've nailed your colours to.
 
Seems Jake has picked a fight he ain't gonna win. Not knowing him or curious to read his other threads is this his typical modus operandi?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Personally, I prefer to oppose such real-world issues as injustice, intolerance and inequality, but hey, each to their own.
You've used the term before, and I even named a thread after it, but, just for clarity's sake, would you mind defining 'skeptibunkerism'? I'm interested to see what kind of mast you've nailed your colours to.
Click to expand...

A skeptibunker is someone who is part skeptic and part debunker.

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking but start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

Shameless Joe is a classical example of a skeptibunker. He is a forensic document examiner and I'm sure he does a bang up job on that. But he is also a debunker in that he comes up with an implausible plausible rather than acknowledge, as remote as it may be, that the guy could have been levitating.

If you notice, he was doing fine by saying that it could be forklore or superstition or whatever, but then he puts on his debunker hat and gets irrational by suggestiong something that is as remote as levitating itself. No human being on record could ever come close to traveling those kind of distances and heights by athletic ability.

As I said, he is a major face of the skeptics movement, this site is part of that movement. If you don't think he represents you in particular, that's fine. But I do think he represents this site and several other skeptical sites such as SGU and others.
 
Steve001 said:
Seems Jake has picked a fight he ain't gonna win. Not knowing him or curious to read his other threads is this his typical modus operandi?
Click to expand...

How am I not going to with what you call a fight? I've seen nothing yet that would indicate that. There's a bit of rat packing going on but that's to be expected because I did start the thread.

Rat packing - three or more people attacking or challenging a person at once.
 
jakesteele said:
Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics.
Click to expand...
So someone who has suspended judgement and inquired about the veracity of a claim, having concluded that a prosaic explanation successfully addresses the claim, is no longer a skeptic? Can a skeptic ever resolve a claim without earning the pejorative debunker?

Meanwhile, the hopping dingleberries ("flying yogis") are worth the price of admission for that clip!
 
In Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations he argues that words get their meanings from the way they are used by groups of language users and rejects the idea of a private language where "The words of this language are to refer to what can be known only to the speaker; to his immediate, private, sensations. So another cannot understand the language.” Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom