April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott

[trainedobserver]

Chris,

Oops! You called Levengood a doctor.

From Saucer Smear Volume 49, No. 10December 1st, 2002
"Finally, we have a hilarious story from the (cursed) Net, regarding "Doctor" William Levengood of BLT Research Team, Inc., a small group that has done a great deal of useful research on crop circles and cattle mutilations, with rather spectacular results.
When Levengood's doctorate was recently called into question by Dr. Kevin Randle, (of Roswell fame) and others, LeVengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This would be fine if it were true, but when that prestigious body was contacted, they made it known that the NAS is not a academic institution and does not issue "degree equivalents" of any kind. This sort of leaves "Dr." Levengood out on a limb!
Another problem is that BLT's spectacular results have not been duplicated elsewhere, either because of lack of funding, lack of interest, or possibly because these results are not valid! We don't know who the "B" in "BLT" is, but the "T" is a lady named Nancy Talbott. We have met her and seen her slide show, and she makes a very good presentation indeed, based mainly on the research of "Dr. Levegood. Stay tuned!"

Matthew Williams talks about it in the video Dr William Levengood is a FAKE heres the proof why.

 

[trainedobserver]

Dr. Levengood did publish his evidence for super-heating and changes in the cellular structure of crops within these formations in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, "Physiologia Plantarum." His findings not only failed to bring the debate to a close, but in fact, were largely ignored by the Scientific community. Given Levengood's experience, what are your thoughts about the role peer-reviewed scientific journals play in bringing legitimacy to frontier science within the scientific community?

Levengood is ignored because he is a fraud. He doesn't have a Phd. After Randle exposed him some years ago BLT stopped referring to him as a "doctor." It is all B.S.. That is why the scientific community ignores his "research." This is another Imbrogno situation.

 

[trainedobserver]

Robbert van den Broeke is a fraud as well.

The Levengood fraud has been known of since 2002 and Collins Andrews spoke about the Broeke fraud in 2009.

Imbrogno continues to make appearances in Ancient Aliens and who knows where else and Butch Witkowski continues on in the UFO talk show circuit. Even when frauds and confidence operators are exposed the community still tolerates and promotes them and we wonder, "Why aren't UFOs and the Paranormal taken seriously by more people?" Why? I think it is because when you scratch the surface of some of this "research" you find frauds are not only involved but they are tolerated and even celebrated.

 

[trainedobserver]

More Robbert van den Broeke fraud. You don't need a translator to see what that is about.

Go down the page here until you see Paper evidence. This page is in English.

 

[trainedobserver]

This episode was a real "winner" from the initial "Dr. Levengood" all the way to the end where science is criticized for not researching the interests of people who misrepresent their credentials or create ridiculous photographic hoaxes like Broeke's Mudman. Come on now! Look at this! Photo on the left is a stock photo, the photo in the middle is the "magic photo" and the rightmost is the stock photo desrezed to match the cut and past job in the middle. It is so painfully and embarrassing obvious I don't really have words for it although tripe comes to mind.

 

[Ian]

If you really want to know about crop circles in the south-west UK, get yourself involved with Young Farmers' groups meeting in pubs in the West Country...

Regards,

Ian

 

[Forest Lake]

hey there guys from Australia!

love the show, only a new listener but i am hooked already!

listening the to April 22 show with Nancy Talbott... i hate to be rude
but i did think she was quite intelligent and interesting until she
started talking about the photos.. quite strange how the images in the
pictures never move from picture to picture and are always in the same
position! all that guy did was shake a cardboard cut out in front of the camera!

once again, cheers from Australia,
Forest Lake

 

[trainedobserver]

...quite strange how the images in the
pictures never move from picture to picture and are always in the same
position! all that guy did was shake a cardboard cut out in front of the camera!

It is so painfully and embarrassing obvious what is going on there that I am stunned that anyone would fall for it. Shades of the Fox sisters hoax!

 

[Forest Lake]

It is so painfully and embarrassing obvious what is going on there that I am stunned that anyone would fall for it. Shades of the Fox sisters hoax!

i am so glad that i happened to be in front of the computer at the time to see these pictures! thank god for technology ;p

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Levengood is a fraud too? Shit, once again, for reasons unknown, someone in the paranormal field has chosen to lie about themselves regarding their academic achievements.
Really is very sad indeed. The only thing his work is worth to the wider scientific community is the price he'd get to recycle the paper it's printed on. Even then the transport costs would be more than the value of the paper!

From this point on really, anyone who tries to fake their credentials is an ass of an even higher order than someone who did it decades ago......reason being that with the internet it is easy enough for even the laziest of people to check out a background.

I was under the impression BLT could not get any seed companies interested in their research - well, if before they were erring on the side of caution, after whenever they found out of the fake credentials they are not going to give him- or anyone else at BLT -the time of day. That is particularly sad for anyone associated with the group as the name is soiled.

Another one bites the dust.....

 

[Burnt State]

I just listened to the episode this afternoon & was really excited by the story Talbott told, until I went to her website to look at the photos of the dead etc. Now in case anyone missed it, the Billy Meier photo comparison that appeared there really said it all. Looking at all the bad photoshop work only confirms that this was really just a story. I found this to be beyond disappointing. Has the paracast lost it's edge? What happened to the critical voice, the pursuit of science, facts, real evidence? This materal is so obviously fake, but what is really disappointing is that she got on the show with a clean pass & no real challenges from our hosts.

What hooked me into the paracast in the first place was its critical lens, the willingness of the hosts to challenge loose evidence. Anyone looking at this material can see how weak it is - let's get back to being critical guys. It's hard to tune in for weak fakery - please stick to your original values & what made the show strong! When this material gets a pass you might as well bring back he who should not be mentioned as there is no difference between them that I can tell.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

What I see from some of those "ghost" photos is that she posts several versions with deliberate enhancements to place the focus on the the alleged phenomenon or apparition. They aren't movies, which is why the alleged apparition is in the same place from picture to picture. The "mud men" and the UFO photos mentioned here aren't on Talbott's site (or I missed them if they are). I didn't see them on Broeke's site either, though I may have missed that too (although the links posted here are not from either site). I have only examined some of his material. Had I seen those right off the bat I would have certainly taken notice, since they don't pass even casual muster.

But the real point is something we've often said on the show, which is that ANY photo can be faked, if that's what you want to do. You have to depend on other evidence to support a claim.

Talbott has also posted loads of evidence, including measurements of crop circles and so on and so forth. Some of this material has been available on her site for a number of years. She's been on the show before, so now that the question is raised, does anyone want to look at that material -- and not just the blurs or shapes in some photos on her sites and elsewhere -- and reach any conclusions?

 

[Burnt State]

I think what I found most disingenuous was all of the poor attempts at photo analysis & excessive explanations of how these photos could not be faked. Normally, when we explore cases involving photo evidence we only have one or two photos to look at, not such an excessive collection of material that is truly poor Photoshop work. Unfortunately the false doctor credentials, the montage of the mudman & guy with his hands in his pocket, & Talbott's own comparison to Billy's forgeries really sour all the other fascinating material shown on the website. The consequence for me is that the entire collection of evidentiary material is totally suspect. I think I'd rather hear more about all the stuff that Phillips & Stanford don't show us...but will one day....

Oh well, i'm sure there will be future guests with something more juicy to sink our paranormal teeth into. just really missed your normal hard go over when guests are bringing in a story as absolutely dramatic as this one.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Fakery isn't the issue, since that's not hard to do, but where is Talbott promoting mudman? Did you have a link for that? Not the mudman link, but one in which she supports those pictures.

 

[Burnt State]

BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE Apparition Photos Report, Part 2

In here Ms. Talbott makes clear assertions that while the mudmen do look like the Reader's Digest photos they are not 'exactly' the same due to the registry red outline comparisons,(despite the fact that use of the blur tool some simple transformations, cut & paste work etc. would easily yield these results). This leaves the notion witnesses to this event assert that Robbert is making these images appear through some paranormal mechanism. Now since we are all familiar with the fakery of Meier & copies of magazine cutouts one is left to question Talbott's assertions that there is no technical forgery or manipulatin taking place & that the witnesses exist.

The same assertions are made regarding the German Soldier photo series with the same blob missing from his right thigh in each image as seen in the text. Despite Talbott's protestations to the contrary all this 'evidence' is beyond acceptability. I don't believe a word of what is being said here specifically because of all the hard efforts to assert that these images are not exactly 'identical.' Other skeptic sites posted above that have identified similar forgeries by Robbert just makes the whole thing beyond consideration. This case & her assertions regarding the photos strain credulity. It would have made a much better story with just the white powder present in the crop circles.

 

[mike]

I admire anyone who pursues their passion, but i have to say when nancy started endorsing this robbert van den broeke, it sent up red flags.
These are from the BLT site

The clearest of Robbert's soldier photos (Soldier #3). Note dark semi-circle on
right thigh & missing area of right elbow--compare to photo in book.

Blown-up Xerox copy of soldier photo in book. The second soldier in the line
(outlined in black rectangle) is the one who repeatedly appeared
in Robbert's photos. Xerox: Peter v/d Broeke

BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE Apparition Photos Report, Part 1

Now there is considerable explanation as to why these are not direct copys, but ........

Here is one of robberts ufo pics

More here
BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE "UFO" PHOTOS, Part 1

I wont tell you hes a faker, you can make your own minds up, but i am suspicious

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thanks for the link. There's so much up there, it's hard to make sense of it all, or focus on any specific one due to the vague titles. Of course whether or not the images are acquired from Reader's Digest is a red herring. They could otherwise be easily faked. As to blobs in photos, well they can be anything of course.

These are issues we hope to ask Talbott and maybe even Robbert about.

 

[mike]

I admire anyone who pursues their passion, but i have to say when nancy started endorsing this robbert van den broeke, it sent up red flags.
These are from the BLT site

The clearest of Robbert's soldier photos (Soldier #3). Note dark semi-circle on
right thigh & missing area of right elbow--compare to photo in book.

Blown-up Xerox copy of soldier photo in book. The second soldier in the line
(outlined in black rectangle) is the one who repeatedly appeared
in Robbert's photos. Xerox: Peter v/d Broeke

BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE Apparition Photos Report, Part 1

Now there is considerable explanation as to why these are not direct copys, but ........

Now the lack of flares on the helmet could just be a sloppy cut and paste, what does it for me is the semi circular dark patch on the leg, thats identical to the photo.
Playing devils advocate here, lets say he really was chanelling this dead soldier onto a photo, why would this dark cut out be there, to me the logic says its the same picture

Here is one of robberts ufo pics

More here
BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE "UFO" PHOTOS, Part 1

I wont tell you hes a faker, you can make your own minds up, but i am suspicious

 

[Gene Steinberg]

More UFO photos that can be anything of course.

 

[mike]

Its well known i subscribe to the possibility some CC's are not made with planks.
And ive always found some of the BLT data regarding this compelling.

But i have to say hitching the wagon to Psychic Bob isnt helpful imo

Between the UFO that looks like its hanging on a string, and the other photos , im sus of Bob, i presume he's selling his psychic services, showing people pictures of dead daughters etc.

I dont know, maybe he can, using psychic powers transfer an image to film, like geller bending a spoon.
But i'm dubious