"Why would anyone kill a scientist? What did we ever do?" ~ Dr. Walter Bishop, 'Fringe'

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Mothballs and Otters


Joe Nickell, called a "paranormal investigator" (!) on tonight's Monster Quest. Not clear if he calls himself that, or it was Monster Quest's idea, but hell no! Nickell is not a "paranormal investigator." He is a "professional skeptic," a "professional debunker," a pathological skeptibunkie, well, you know. But not a "paranormal investigator" and please, keep your semantic hare splitting comments to yourself thank you very much.

So, tonight's episode of MQ was interesting. Giant flesh eating eels ---- yeeeeeeeewwwwwwww. Scary. Creepy. Cool. No one's talking paranormal here or anything else, just good old fashioned Really Big Creatures That Can Eat You Whole stuff. Joe Nickell of course wants it to be more. Like all skeptoids.

Here's a link to a video clip of Loren Coleman and Nickell on CNN discussing a sea serpent. There's footage. Coleman quite reasonably says it's hard to say what it is, and he makes no so-called 'bleever statement that it's a sea monster. Nickell ignores the rational open minded Coleman, and goes off anyway.


Back to MQ. First of all, MQ was doing a good job of not having skekptoids on, a very welcome and nice thing. I think they're changing their policy; they seem to be having more of these pathological debunkers on. So Nickell does his whole "they're not sea serpents or giant eels they're otters" routine. Or maybe logs. Logs that float up from the deep. To prove this, he demonstrates for us with a mothball in a clear bowl of carbonated water.

He also does his smug little dance with witnesses. He puts a log out there in the water, and has the witnesses estimate how long the log is. They all did pretty well, the log was 18 feet, and estimates were in that range. Nickell actually seemed disappointed they did so well, and begrudgingly admitted they did do well.

And then there was his absolutely over the top comment at the end of the program that perfectly underscores the innate belief of the pathological skeptoid: that everyone is out to lie, fool themselves, and what's more, that everyone is so ignorant and stupid and shallow, we'll do anything to keep mysteries mysteries. To paraphrase, he said that "people want to believe, and would rather keep the mystery than solve it."

This assumes that someone who sees something unusual is mistaken, and since they won't believe the "explanations" someone like Nickell offers them,-- who wasn't there, doesn't live in the area, isn't familiar with the local flora and fauna, -- they're like little kids who believe in Tinkerbell.

Well, at least Nickell didn't suggest the things people have been seeing in the water for hundreds of years were owls.

Check out my published content!

4 comments:

Joseph Capp said...

Dear Regan,
I first want to say was going to check your post out before I maid a mental note of it only I forgot I have to brain to put it in, anyway when I saw that Monster Quest I thought I bet that is what she was talking about.
I,m going to make mince meat out of that guy. He shows still photographs of otters taken out of videos. I want to watch the videos of the otter, after all, that is closer to real life; we don't see in still images. Lets see the video, let the witnesses view it and at the end, asked them what they have viewed. He's a bushy, what I call a good front man. It's nice to look at but there is no beef. His assumption is, because these people are not trained observers and smart enough they were mistaken(fools).
You should do a post about it, just kidding.
What he did was quite deceitful. Off course a photo graph can show many things but what they like us to think is that we see that way.

I think I am going to find a video of otters take some photo shots out, where they look like sharks, and claim people should be seeing sharks in that lake.
The witnesses, God love them, usually don't come well on this type show, but as you say they did pretty dame good.
Their not perfect, no ones is saying they are, but they basically tell the truth.

I have a video I put up on You Tube where I have a very scary clip of this guy describing what type of people we are. His face is scary. He was commenting on how these sightings of... what ever, get around, causing more sightings. He describes us; witnesses of these phenomenon, in almost peon terms. The impression he gave me was, we were just a bother nothing more. It was on "In Search Of". This guy excuse my French has been pissing me off for some time. He deserves a closer look.

Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog

<b>Alfred Lehmberg</b> said...

Oh -- you mean a klasskurtxian! [g].

alienview@roadrunner.com
> www.AlienView.net
>> AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
>>> U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com

B. Thompson said...

Hi, there. Semi-frequent object of your scorn Brian Thompson here. I didn't see this episode of Monster Quest, so I won't try to defend Joe Nickell's methods here. However, I have spoken to the guy and interviewed him for my podcast, which you can listen to here:
http://www.amateurscientist.org/2008/02/amateur-scientist-podcast-episode-14.html

Painting him as being condescending to witnesses and believers is simply wrong. His position, which has been restated many times by both him and his colleague Benjamin Radford, is that while some witnesses to the fantastic or seemingly paranormal are frauds or mentally disturbed, the vast majority of them are simply intelligent people who are mistaken. I think you'll agree that even the smartest of us can be fooled, especially if we've never learned about how easily the mind can play tricks.

Nickell and Radford both cringe at being called debunkers, but I personally don't see anything wrong with the term. You deride Nickell as a "professional skeptic", but isn't that what any investigator is supposed to be? If a detective believes everything a witness tells him without question, do you think he'd solve many cases?

No matter the motivation going into an investigation (to prove a paranormal event or debunk it), the evidence that is presented from the investigation should be the only rubric. You can dismiss Nickell as a "debunker", but your judgment of his results should be based solely on the strength of his evidence.

Or are you content with such biting and insightful criticism as Mr. Capp's comment above? "His face is scary"? What does that even mean?

Regan Lee said...

Thompson: the only thing I'll respond to is your comment, in your comment, about Capp's comment -- he made it, I didn't. I find it ironic and funny you would find something wrong with an ad hom about someone's face, seeing as how you make ad homs yourself all the time, and, freely acknowledge doing so, with glee, with relish, with delight.