On April 25, I had the pleasure of talking with arch skeptic, Joe Nickell for a few
hours before driving him to speak to  PhACT for our annual luncheon.  Joe is
not your "average Joe", by nature of former occupations of : undercover detective,
teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician, investigator
and spokesperson.  We owe a special debt to Joe for speaking at our seminal meeting
4 years ago.   Joe describes himself as having been raised to be fantasy prone. He
has admitted he would honestly prefer that the shroud be the real thing - and the
same for ETs.  Joe seems to be a sensitive person hurt by the chilling reception he
often receives from believers.  He has been known to respond to rude "shroudies"
with,, "I wish y'all would treat me in a more Christian manner".

  Joe impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator.  Joe
seems to have no significant credentials just as his mentor: James Randi.
In both cases, the lack of single significant credentials is much more
than offset by a more important broad area of knowledge.  Joe remarks that a scientist
tends to approach an investigation from the narrow view of his own specialty - where
as a "jack of all trades" would come up with more avenues of investigation.  Joe feels
that the most important thing in investigating is the up front planning of an "investigative
strategy"  This is a seasoned approach one takes to look into a claim. It may rely on
information from libraries, other experts, snooping around, witnesses, help from other
skeptics, etc.  Joe has credited help from a very wide range of experts and encourages
skeptics that such people can easily be cajoled into leading some gratis help just for
a little credit and "a piece of the action".  Joe (like Randi) is quick to reject the appellation,
"debunker" for the more palatable title of "investigator".  A debunker would just tend
to start with an  assumption and line up information to support such a conclusion (the mere
flip side of a disingenuous true believer) - where as a investigator, no matter how jaded
by experience, is after the facts and could be persuaded by valid evidence of a claim.  Joe
provided me with a timely example of recently having fairly well validated some Titanic
jetsam.
   In addition to having done investigations since he was 10, Joe has penned 16 books -
his favorites being "Pen & Ink Evidence" and a book my kids love, "The Magic Detectives".
Joe deftly backs away from the subject of politics within skepticism - and offers that
he tires of skeptics who nit pick other skeptics rather than investigate.   He recommends
that budding skeptics be willing to "pay their dues", find a topic that really isn't
covered and become the expert on it.  Joe's significant areas of expertise have been the
shroud, the Nazca lines, ghosts, and document authenticity.
   In frequent media contacts, when Joe is asked, "Do you believe in XYZ", he insists the
question be rephrased as, "is there enough evidence to believe in XYZ?". He was recently
very disappointed that Time magazine descended to having a very one sided review
of the shroud.  Shroudies have long shopped for experts - simply ignoring experts who
admit that "evidence" is most shoddy. Joe offers a number of reasons to be  a
"doubting Thomas" about the shroud:

• there is ample evidence the image is just paint
• all credible tests for blood have failed
• the image fails to show an expected "wrap around" effect
• the man is over 6 foot high which would be near unheard of for the time
• there is no evidence of the biblically recorded spices used on the body
• the fake blood painted near the scalp appears dripping where as scalp wounds mat
• there is ample written evidence recording it being exposed  as  a hoax in  the 1300's
• the hands are not crossed over the heart as done at the time
• the biblical record tells of a number of strips used to wrap a body
• the radio carbon dating date it to the time it was known to be forged

-this can be found as http://www.phact.org/e/skeptic/nickell.htm