Speaking of Joe Nickell, he has a new book out as of yesterday, Prometheus Books (May 7, 2013): The Science of Miracles: Investigating the Incredible (ISBN-13: 978-1616147419): Joe Nickell
Here is the Prometheus’ description:.
Conveying the sense of adventure surrounding the investigation of any mystery, this is both entertaining reading and a comprehensive, science-based study of miracle claims. Is the Shroud of Turin really the burial cloth of Jesus, produced by a miraculous burst of radiant energy at the moment of Resurrection? What happens at faith-healing services to provide apparently miraculous cures? Steering between the twin pillars of belief and disbelief, experienced paranormal investigator Joe Nickell examines these claims and more. Relying on his forty-plus years of experience in tracking down the solutions to mysteries, Nickell uses on-site examinations, lab experiments, and other detective methods to uncover the facts behind the most incredible claims. He evaluates the evidence in six major categories of miracle claims: miraculous images (such as "weeping" icons); magical relics (like the Shroud of Turin and the Holy Grail); miracle healings (at Lourdes or at the hands of healers like Benny Hinn); visionary experiences (including near-death experiences); saintly powers (such as stigmata); and "the devil’s work" (such as demonic possession).
And of Joe Nickell, the publisher says:
Joe Nickell (Amherst, NY) has been called "the modern Sherlock Holmes" and "the real-life Scully" (from The X Files). Since 1995 he has been the world’s only full-time, professional, science-based paranormal investigator. His careful, often-innovative investigations have won him international respect in a field charged with controversy. He is the author of numerous books, including most recently The Science of Ghosts: Searching for Spirits of the Dead. See http://www.joenickell.com for more.
No reviews yet that I have seen. It is available in paperback for $11.99 and $8.69 in Kindle.
Science-based paranormal investigator? Parapsychology is recognised by the UN and one wonders if Nickel has taken into account the very important fact that genuine parapsychological phenomena are spontaneous and can not therefore be tested in a laboratory. He also does not seem to have taken considered other phenomena in his on-site examinations.
Notice how the publisher in its blurb uses the word “magical” in conjunction with the Shroud. “Magical,” of course, is a loaded word. Nickell’s summary of the Shroud saga is basically a rehash of older material. His reference includes many books and articles from the 70s, 80s and 90s. Recent material includes a recap of Garlaschelli’s replica, which Garlaschelli says “has all the characteristics of the Shroud of Turin.” Nickell says it “shows shroud science trumped by real science.” Amazingly, Nickell does not even mention Ray Rogers or his paper in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta in 2005, not even to debunk it. I’m surprised at that, since he has written about it in the past. Needless to say, that’s an integral part of the story–but apparently not of Nickell’s version. Also not mentioned is the fact that some scientists published material showing how Garlaschelli’s replica, first revealed to the world by the popular press, does not have all the features of the Shroud. What constitutes “real science” depends on your point of view.
“Nickell does not even mention Ray Rogers or his paper in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta in 2005,”
One wonders what meaning can be attached to “peer-reviewed” in that instance, given that Rogers played a key role in the start-up of ‘Thermochimica Acta” and had served on its Editorial Board for many years, vetting other people’s paper. What’s more, his attempts to debunk the radiocarbon dating, based on a single thread from the Shroud of uncertain provenance, and by his own admission, a clumsy end-to-end splice of two different threads, was in no way a contribution to thermochemical science, so had no business being submitted to that journal in the first place (far less accepted, given the token and somewhat dubious source material).
If it looks like cronyism, smells like cronyism, then it probably is cronyism…
And what might have been Roger’s motivation been for partaking in this ‘cronyism’? Given he was dying at the time do you suspect it was career advancement?
The sad part is, some people will actually buy his book.
R
Further to #1, one wonders if Nickell would judge honest Abe (Lincoln) to be a liar. It is known that people with psychic abilities can suffer a lot, they do not ask to be born with these “gifts”. Why, then, be surprised if Mary Todd said that her husband looked “dreadfully solemn”? Look at his face in that photograph taken in Antietam, where he appears with General McClernand and detective Pinkerton, totally aloof, down to earth because he knows he has to do his best for his countrymen but with his head “in the clouds”, suffering because of his psychic abilities.
As for Rogers, the only point difficult to accept is in a paper where he seemed to imply that evolution is an automatic process, not taking into account that there is rationality behind it. That aside, he demonstrated much more science than what Nickell is showing today. Prometheus is agenda-based, and ignores a lot more we know.
Well, you may have put your finger on why Rogers chose to submiit that extraordinary knocking copy to what – for a thermochemist – was essentially an in-house journal, hisjournal, the one he helped set up and manage. If he was in a race against time, poor fella, then it’s understandable that he might have chosen to take the path of least likely resistance, to say nothing of delay. The important thing is for folk to be aware of his personal circumstances and long association with Thermochimica Acta before making a big hoo-ha about his final publication appearing in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal.
Agreed. Rogers could have published his findings on a napkin at that point and it should have been accepted. The man was faced with a discovery that he realized altered the landscape about the Shroud re: the carbon dating. He’d expected to debunk the invisible weave claim and instead was convinced by it. He was in a race against time to ensure this discovery, now corroborated by his own examination, was documented. He turned to his trusted colleague Barry and a familiar journal to do that. Best practice from a scientific standpoint? No. Selfish cronyism? Only if you believe Rogers was a man lacking personal and professional integrity.
My apologies, again it’s me, David Goulet – clearly WordPress-challenged.
Colin, are skpetics so unable to trust others? Are you suggesting that Rogers’ paper is like, shall be say, “Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin” by the University of Arizona’s Rachel Freer-Waters and Prof. Timothy Jull, published in the December 2010 issue of the peer reviewed journal, Radiocarbon. “The important thing is for folk to be aware of his personal circumstances,” (to use your words and we are talking about Jull now), since Jull was the editor of the journal. No conflict of interest there, right? And if that was not enough for folk to be aware of, remember that in this paper, selected to be the lead paper in that particular issue, Jull is defending work in which he was involved and a department he headed (and still does).
No, honest skeptics are not like you. They don’t attack personal character and poison the well like you do in lieu of arguing substance.
Why have you brought Jull into this thread (being the first to do so)? Why have you weaponized him to get at me? Why is it that you habitually use this site mainly to spring out the woodwork against me? In short, why do your persist in your very passable imitation of an internet troll? (Don’t expect a reply, since like many others, I have a policy of never feeding anyone who looks or sounds remotely like an internet troll).
Or there was Walter McCrone publishing in The Microscope. Shall I go on. You were caught trying to poison the well by planting suspicion like a back fence gossip.
Let’s cool it a few degrees.
Dan, are you a public defender of our foodie, the besserwisser? Every time somebody uses his own weapon against him, you step in – but you are not there if your client attacks others.
No wonder it has been said — in a Shroud publication — that there are no Christians among the Shroudies!
Colin wrote <>
Rogers was not the only one who found cotton. In a paper by Archaeologist Paul Maloney presented at a conference held in 2008 at The Ohio State University, he wrote:
“It is now clear that the presence of cotton spun inside linen yarns in the Raes’ Corner [i.e., the C-14 sample area] is supported by the findings of five separate and independent investigators:
*Gilbert Raes, (1973-1974);
*STURP’s own early analyses reported by STURP spokeswoman, Joan Janney, (1981);
*Investigators at Precision Processes (Textile lab) Ltd. in England, 1988;
*Ray Rogers’ 2004 investigations;
*John Brown at Georgia Tech (2004).”
In addition, a 9-person team at Los Alamos National Laboratories also confirmed Rogers’ findings.
If multiple scientists find cotton, it unravels like cotton and otherwise tests as cotton, then it probably is cotton.
I tried to reproduce Colin’s quote in my posting but it didn’t show. It’s Colin’s posting from May 9, 2:35, posting # 3 in the thread.