• 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:
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...
Click to expand...
"He publically represents the skeptic movement"? Really? What is the skeptic movement, and how was he chosen to represent it?

As member of "the skeptic movement", I have no particular issues with Joe Nickell. The YouTube video does not run the computer I usually use, but there is nothing said here that makes me want to see it: He apparently suggest a way of flying that is more plausible than actual flying, and you seem to think it lame. So what?
 
jakesteele said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to you simply being a member here makes you a member of the "skeptics movement" therefore you apparently do believe that he represents you.
 
Darat said:
According to you simply being a member here makes you a member of the "skeptics movement" therefore you apparently do believe that he represents you.
Click to expand...

I think he's just explained that one.

My personal estimation is that most skeptics are like old Joe. In fact, dare I put a figure on it? I dare. Ninety nine percent. I long for the day I can read a book of in-depth analysis of paranormal claims not written by a blind believer or a dismissive debunker. Not that such books can't be fun; I'm reading Robert Anton Wilson and Crowley at the moment. Madder than a box of frogs the both of them but highly entertaining.
 
baron said:
My personal estimation is that most skeptics are like old Joe. In fact, dare I put a figure on it? I dare. Ninety nine percent.
Click to expand...
Could that be because paranormal claims are 100% false? How many times do we need to address the same type of claims that we have seen over and over, and always look at them with the curiosity that we once had? "Old Joe" at least addresses the claims. Most of us shrug them off, because we have heard them all before.

Many of us have been interested in the paranormal when young, but the utter failure of all claims have turned us into skeptics.
 
OK, thanks, I saw it. A number of magic tricks, one of which is exposed, and others not, and claims of levitation with the ridiculous hopping yogis getting an equally ridiculous "explanation" by a supposed physicist employed by the temple. And we have Joe Nickell who gives an explanation of a flying monk that sounds ridiculous, but compared with the hopping yogis, certainly not implausible.

What was shameful about this explanation?
 
steenkh said:
OK, thanks, I saw it. A number of magic tricks, one of which is exposed, and others not, and claims of levitation with the ridiculous hopping yogis getting an equally ridiculous "explanation" by a supposed physicist employed by the temple. And we have Joe Nickell who gives an explanation of a flying monk that sounds ridiculous, but compared with the hopping yogis, certainly not implausible.

What was shameful about this explanation?
Click to expand...

It didn't say "OK, you got me, this must have been paranormal."

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think the apointments procedure is similar to the one employed for the Skeptibunkers Hall of Shame.

Dave
Click to expand...

It's recognizable also as a favored ploy in Politics. Name some reprehensible dipstick and straw man him/her as "the darling of the left/right". Other people who agree with your political outlook will then chime in an claim the same thing and four pages later, that's all they're arguing about - the straw man they created.

I happen to have heard of Joe Nickell and have read (and found them to be very good) a variety of his contributions to various publications/sites, but I've never considered him my spokesperson... sorta like I don't root for Antifa nor support Michael Avenatti.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
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?
Click to expand...

jakesteele said:
I'm surprised that you don't know who he is.
Click to expand...
Your surprise, real or feigned, is of no consequence here.

jakesteele said:
He publicly represents the skeptic movement, this site is part of the skeptics movement, therefore...
Click to expand...

Once again, according to whom? I am not aware of having said so myself, nor am I aware of anyone on this forum saying this, apart from you, of course.
I have looked at the link about Nickell, and haven't found anything from him claiming to represent anyone either, least of all me or anyone else on this forum.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just the rather obvious strawman it appears to be?

One more point: do you apply this logic to all movements, or just skeptics? I'm wondering if you consider the KKK to represent all Christians, or whether the likes of Judy Woods, Alex Jones and the Timecube guy represent you? Can I hold you personally responsible for any fringe claim on the internet that I reject, in the same way you hold the skeptics here responsible for a claim you don't like?
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

Because I post here is the reason I'm calling him out. I am the sworn enemy of skeptibunkerism.
 
steenkh said:
"He publically represents the skeptic movement"? Really? What is the skeptic movement, and how was he chosen to represent it?

As member of "the skeptic movement", I have no particular issues with Joe Nickell. The YouTube video does not run the computer I usually use, but there is nothing said here that makes me want to see it: He apparently suggest a way of flying that is more plausible than actual flying, and you seem to think it lame. So what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darat said:
According to you simply being a member here makes you a member of the "skeptics movement" therefore you apparently do believe that he represents you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Your surprise, real or feigned, is of no consequence here.



Once again, according to whom? I am not aware of having said so myself, nor am I aware of anyone on this forum saying this, apart from you, of course.
I have looked at the link about Nickell, and haven't found anything from him claiming to represent anyone either, least of all me or anyone else on this forum.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just the rather obvious strawman it appears to be?

One more point: do you apply this logic to all movements, or just skeptics? I'm wondering if you consider the KKK to represent all Christians, or whether the likes of Judy Woods, Alex Jones and the Timecube guy represent you? Can I hold you personally responsible for any fringe claim on the internet that I reject, in the same way you hold the skeptics here responsible for a claim you don't like?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Your surprise, real or feigned, is of no consequence here.



Once again, according to whom? I am not aware of having said so myself, nor am I aware of anyone on this forum saying this, apart from you, of course.
I have looked at the link about Nickell, and haven't found anything from him claiming to represent anyone either, least of all me or anyone else on this forum.
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just the rather obvious strawman it appears to be?

One more point: do you apply this logic to all movements, or just skeptics? I'm wondering if you consider the KKK to represent all Christians, or whether the likes of Judy Woods, Alex Jones and the Timecube guy represent you? Can I hold you personally responsible for any fringe claim on the internet that I reject, in the same way you hold the skeptics here responsible for a claim you don't like?
Click to expand...

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 main topic; sloppy skeptibunkerism.
 
jakesteele said:
Because I post here is the reason I'm calling him out. I am the sworn enemy of skeptibunkerism.
Click to expand...

I don't know what skeptibunkerism is. Joe Nickell isn't, like Randi, someone who would accept the label of debunker, though. That's a negative label compared to what they actually do.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the vid at 26 minutes plus? If you didn't you should have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom