Joe Nickell (1944–2025)

The author is a former stage magician and private investigator (jacket blurb). The book is, in the words of Dan Ackroyd, deliciously bad. Nickell tries to group authentic Catholic phenomena with paranormal claims and thereby discredit both. The only claims he seems to accept as valid are from the Old Testament such as the Witch of Endor and the hungry and thirsty idol of Baal which Daniel proved to be a hoax. Nickell feels that he has debunked the Tilma of Guadalupe (modeled and stolen from show more Spain), Catherine of Siena (anorexic), Bernadette Soubirous (healing water won't always cure), St Francis of Assisi, Nickell wrongly calls La Verna (location of the appearance of the stigmata), Mount Alverno, and says that there are differing accounts of the event. Apparently Nickell doesn't know that the Four Gospels do not all coincide either in every detail. Nickell says that Francis' stigmata came at a time of morbid fascination with the crucifixion of Christ, thereby disposing all to believe it whether or not it was true.
The aim of the book is to show that people are gullible and that frauds exist to take advantage of the gullible. To believe in miracles is to look for them and by looking for them anywhere, including those validated by the Catholic Church, is asking to be defrauded. Roman Catholicism is therefore categorized with the paranormal and to be dismissed as such. Simplistic and not worth reading by any serious person. show less

My reaction to reading this in 1993.

I enjoyed this book as much, if not more, than Nickell’s Ambrose Bierce is Missing.

Nickell is an impressive figure: an investigtor of many varying enigmas and anomalies, a PhD in literature, an ex-private detective, ex-reporter, ex-stage magician. As usual with most matters hawked by mystery mongerers, conspiracy mongerors, paranormalists, and writers to Fate magazine (though “The Case of the Shrinking Bullet” results from a medical examiner jumping show more to an honest, but hasty conclusion and calling a suicide a murder), the mystery evaporates when the basic facts (documents, witnesses, physical evidence) are examined, and the engimas turn out to be contradicted by reality or a multitude of facts pointing to a more prosaic reality are brought to light. Perhaps even worse than the hoaxes uncovered are the people who persist in self-delusion. I liked reading about the multitude of investigatory techniques and resources available (from forensic monographs to monographs on how to use a balance beam scale from looking at Lee Harvey Oswald’s ears to positively verify the dead assassin’s identity. I particularly liked the detailed stylometric analysis of the forged MJ-12 documents and comparing them to an identical Harry S. Truman document lifted from another government document. Facts in alleged cases of spontaneous combustion were examined. A computer analysis shows a suspicious concentration of crop circles in Hampshire County England. I liked the many odd tidbits I picked up besides basic investigatory techniques: ears as ID; why Charles Dawson, discoverer of Piltdown Man, is the best candidate for the hoaxer; keyhole bullet wounds in bone; and the vast bulk of evidence showing crop circles are a hoax. show less

I was thinking this was going to be more of an encyclopedic record of various "man-beasts", not necessarily a refutation of their existence. Also Nickell's frequent references to his previous writing got a little annoying. It made me wonder why he wrote this book at all.

This book had me all excited the very first moment I read its title. I have a great ''affection'' for the paranormal and supernatural, especially for the scientific aspect of it. I started reading The Science of Ghosts at a slow pace to absorb the details and the plethora of information that Joe Nickell provided. So far, so good, eh? Not. By the time I had reached about half of the book, my excitement began to wear off.

Nickell's effort is remarkable; each chapter is embellished with photos show more of the people and the places ''under investigation'' and the research is meticulous. However, it is one thing to state the scientific evidence in an attempt to bust the myths and another to be so dismissive, so abrupt, to accept no other truth but your own. I am aware that the writer wanted to envoke his deep scepticism over the paranormal evidence, but I strongly disliked his constant "calling names" attitude. I found his treatment of the people involved rude, full of contempt, hardly an example of what I perceive as ''scientific'' writing. Instead, it reveils one who is too full of himself. It comes across as bitter and, frankly, I don't believe that each and every experience described can be explained as a result of "waking dreams''. After all, what is the evidence for it? show less