Shameless Joe Nickel

[Checkmite]

I started ignoring Joe Nickell when it became apparent he seemed to be on this bizarre National Treasure kick where every modern myth or legend was invented by Freemasons. Even the Chase Vault - the mausoleum on Barbados where coffins were supposedly moving around by themselves whenever the door was sealed - Nickell says Freemasons made up that story.

 

[jakesteele]

What do you say about him representing you?

He doesn't represent at all. I'm not a van of pseudoskepticism.

 

[jakesteele]

Would you like to publish a few of the details on how this honour was allocated? I note that a Google search on "Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame" yields no hits right at the moment, so I suspect it's not exactly a well-known award.



I say I can't be bothered to watch your video, or respond seriously to a post that comprises nothing but content-free sneering; how about you actually post some comment about the "asinine conclusion" that you're choosing this roundabout and borderline abusive way to introduce into debate?

Dave

I'm the one who created the Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame. It a dubious honor reserved for egrious debunking that is so patently absurd that a child could see through it.

 

[jakesteele]

He said that the alleged levitation of this monk was achieved through an unusual level of athleticism that so over-awed the witnesses that they believed him to be indulging in supernatural flight. Quite amusing, really. It just shows that you need no more critical thinking skills to be a skeptic than you do to be a peddler of woo.

Well said.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

He doesn't represent at all. I'm not a van of pseudoskepticism.

He doesn't represent me either. Never heard of him.
Have you found anyone on this forum he actually does claim to represent, or anyone on this forum who claims Nickell is representing them?

 

[Darat]

He doesn't represent at all. I'm not a van of pseudoskepticism.

Your vehicle nature aside, according to your opening posts members here are represented by him. You are a member here, therefore the question you posed can be posed to yourself.

 

[Darat]

He's not. Monks don't run and jump around churches except in comedy skits. There's no need for such absurd assumptions, religious ecstasy and the spiritual mindset of observers is all that's necessary, together with the appropriate suggestions.

Have you never seen the videos of the TMers levitating? Look on YouTube for yogic or transcendental meditation levitation. You will think they are comedy skits, but they aren't you will see monks jumping around. Never underestimate the power of social and peer pressure to make people accept the most ludicrous acts.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm the one who created the Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame. It a dubious honor reserved for egrious debunking that is so patently absurd that a child could see through it.

So basically you're appealing to your own authority. Got it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

For some reason it's commonly assumed that people living more than a couple of centuries ago were retarded and didn't know what they were looking at, in this case mistaking some old geezer jumping off a pew for a man levitating into the rafters for half an hour at a time. They would no more mistake such an event than you or I would.

But for some reason it's OK to assume that people living more than a couple of centuries ago were so gullible that they would believe anything they were told if the explanation invoked God. Both are, in one way or another, based on the assumption that people were idiots in the Middle Ages. And yet, to this day, clever charlatans can still fool people into believing they can perform paranormal acts; were fakers less intelligent in the Middle Ages too?

Dave

 

[catsmate]

Who?

Don’t know what’s in the video, but here’s Joe Nickell writing about the levitation of St Joseph:
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/secr...r_did_st._joseph_of_copertino_really_levitate

Woo pushers can't spell very well.

 

[catsmate]

He doesn't represent at all. I'm not a van of pseudoskepticism.

I'm glad to hear it, the parking would be difficult.

 

[baron]

Have you never seen the videos of the TMers levitating? Look on YouTube for yogic or transcendental meditation levitation. You will think they are comedy skits, but they aren't you will see monks jumping around. Never underestimate the power of social and peer pressure to make people accept the most ludicrous acts.

That's actually a fair point, countered by the fact the dynamics (literal and situational) of monks of varying religious persuasions are very different. Some allegedly Buddhist monks (I say 'allegedly' because Buddhists aren't generally given to egotistical displays) are always jumping around for one reason or another, and a minority claim suspect powers, but this behaviour cannot be simply transplanted into a Catholic setting. There are numerous other differences, not least the reported antics of the Flying Friar were not restricted to hovering some inches above the ground in semi-darkness but zooming a dozen yards off the floor and hanging in the air for extended periods of time.

But for some reason it's OK to assume that people living more than a couple of centuries ago were so gullible that they would believe anything they were told if the explanation invoked God.

That's not my claim. You do realise that religious services can involve altered states of mind, right? It's not just a bunch of people watching a bloke leap over a pew then say, "God did that!" Throughout history crowds of many thousands believed they have witnessed physical miracles (mainly although not exclusively concerning the BVM) on account of being in altered states of consciousness and being influenced by the narrative surrounding whatever holy person or place is the centre of their attention.

 

[Pixel42]

Monks don't run and jump around churches except in comedy skits.

As a native of Malmesbury, I beg to differ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eilmer_of_Malmesbury

William records that, in Eilmer's youth, he had read and believed the Greek fable of Daedalus. Thus, Eilmer fixed wings to his hands and feet and launched himself from the top of a tower at Malmesbury Abbey:

He was a man learned for those times, of ripe old age, and in his early youth had hazarded a deed of remarkable boldness. He had by some means, I scarcely know what, fastened wings to his hands and feet so that, mistaking fable for truth, he might fly like Daedalus, and, collecting the breeze upon the summit of a tower, flew for more than a furlong [201 metres]. But agitated by the violence of the wind and the swirling of air, as well as by the awareness of his rash attempt, he fell, broke both his legs and was lame ever after. He used to relate as the cause of his failure, his forgetting to provide himself a tail.[3]

 

[Worm]

Ah, good old Eilmer.

As another Malmesbury native, I preferred the Flying Monk pub (while it was open) rather than the actual flying monk.

Didn't some guy try to recreate his flight int he 60's or did I imagine that?

Still while the narrative around the floating friar is clearly ludicrous, and I think the easier approach is a straightforward refutation, I give Nickel some credit for trying to come up with a plausible explanation. No idea how likely it is to be true, but it's a good effort.

 

[zooterkin]

Ah, good old Eilmer.

As another Malmesbury native, I preferred the Flying Monk pub (while it was open) rather than the actual flying monk.

Didn't some guy try to recreate his flight int he 60's or did I imagine that?

Still while the narrative around the floating friar is clearly ludicrous, and I think the easier approach is a straightforward refutation, I give Nickel some credit for trying to come up with a plausible explanation. No idea how likely it is to be true, but it's a good effort.

Indeed. As he points out, the more exaggerated claims come a long time after the event, the more contemporaneous accounts are more believable. Since none of them are, as far as I know, actual eyewitness accounts written at the time of the events, the idea that St Joseph did something slightly unusual that got embellished in the telling seems eminently plausible. Whether St Joe was intentionally setting out to deceive the viewers is another matter that I don't think we have enough information to decide. (Joe Nickell may have a view, based on what he's seen in Spiritualist churches, for example, where basic magic tricks such as 'one-ahead' reading are used as a matter of course. Cold reading is also something used there, but it is possible to do that without being aware that's what you're doing; less so when dealing with sealed envelopes.)

 

[Giordano]

Indeed. As he points out, the more exaggerated claims come a long time after the event, the more contemporaneous accounts are more believable. Since none of them are, as far as I know, actual eyewitness accounts written at the time of the events, the idea that St Joseph did something slightly unusual that got embellished in the telling seems eminently plausible. Whether St Joe was intentionally setting out to deceive the viewers is another matter that I don't think we have enough information to decide. (Joe Nickell may have a view, based on what he's seen in Spiritualist churches, for example, where basic magic tricks such as 'one-ahead' reading are used as a matter of course. Cold reading is also something used there, but it is possible to do that without being aware that's what you're doing; less so when dealing with sealed envelopes.)

Exactly my thoughts: accounts of flying saints of the past are hardly worth the effort to try to debunk now. Just another series of modestly odd but easily explainable events amplified and distorted by the witnesses' religious fervor and the desire to believe in/participate in a miracle, with the events even more greatly exaggerated with the re-telling and with time. Fine if Joe Nickell wished to assign specific magic tricks to the levitations, but the claims are weak enough that I don't even see the need.

 

[zooterkin]

Woo pushers can't spell very well.

Not sure who you're saying is a woo pusher, but the guy's name happens to be Joe Nickell, with two 'L's; the thread title is incorrect.

 

[jakesteele]

He doesn't represent me either. Never heard of him.
Have you found anyone on this forum he actually does claim to represent, or anyone on this forum who claims Nickell is representing them?

I'm surprised that you don't know who he is. He publicly represents the skeptic movement, this site is part of the skeptics movement, therefore...

 

[jakesteele]

Your vehicle nature aside, according to your opening posts members here are represented by him. You are a member here, therefore the question you posed can be posed to yourself.

I'm not a member of the skeptics' movement. I most often play devil's advocate and/or a contrarian. Remember, I'm the one calling Shamless Joe out on his b.s.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He publicly represents the skeptic movement, this site is part of the skeptics movement, therefore...

I'm not a member of the skeptics' movement.

And yet you post on this site, which as you've said is part of the skeptics' movement. By your own logic we can conclude that Joe Nickell publicly represents either you too, or none of us.

Dave