April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott

[mike]

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

Thats my first impression, i had a mate who worked at the medicare card printing dept in glebe, who would print us up novelty cards like Frank N Furter.
My first guess was Psychic Bob has a mate who can print up those life sized cardboard cutouts you see in movie promo's etc.
This would mesh nicely with Nancys assertion Bob didnt have a computer or the skills to do this. He wouldnt need to if he had a mate who did
I dont have the blanks, press and other gear needed to create a Frank N Furter medicare card either, but ive got one tucked away somewhere

 

[mike]

One of Bobs alien photos......


and

A very strange thing happened recently on Dutch TV when they broadcast a series featuring a so-called medium, 25-year-old Robbert van den Broeke. At one point he began to reveal – supernaturally, of course! – all sorts of information about a former camera-man on the show who had committed suicide some months ago. His wife was in the studio. Unfortunately for Robbert, he was far too accurate and specific. He told the widow that she’d had another life before this one, as “Hillegien Rozeboom,” who died in 1823. He also gave her the exact date of birth of Hillegien. He said that her husband in that life was named Luwert, who had the profession of “genverbrander.” The “medium” said that he didn’t know what a genverbrander was. Well, nobody knows, because that word does not exist in Dutch. It looks like an existing word, but is not. Robbert must have thought that it was some kind of antique profession with which he was not familiar.

But then there was Google.

Rob Nanninga, editor-in-chief of the magazine Skepter, googled the data about Hillegien Rozeboom and Luwert, and it was all true! There actually was a Hillegien who died in 1823, and so on. And the profession of Luwert? Genverbrander! But this turned out to be a typographical error on the website, and that same mistake was also miraculously made by the ghosts who gave “psychic” Robbert the information! It should have been, “geneverbrander!" The second "e" was lost... Geneverbrander translates as genever-brander, “genever maker,” or of “jenever,” an old Dutch liquor – gin.

It appears that the medium had done some googling before his show, that suspicion reinforced by the following: His reading/prediction on the TV program was:

Hillegien Rozeboom was married to Luwert in Coevorden. March 7 and August 7 were important, as were the years 1793 en 1823. You died when you were thirty, Luwert was a "genverbrander" by profession, I don't know exactly what that is.

Significantly, Google says almost the exact same thing:

Hillegien Rozeboom, born March 17th 1793, died August 7th, 1823. Her husband was Lubbert, married in Coevorden. His profession was "genverbrander."

However, Robbert – or a spirit! – was wrong about her birthday. He said 7 instead of 17, and he said Luwert instead of Lubbert. Those things sound very much alike in Dutch and could be things he didn't quite hear clearly enough through an earpiece – if that’s how he was receiving the data. It’s more probable, however, that he was simply mis-remembering what he’d read before the show on Google.

 

[Burnt State]

I'd love it f somehow he was channeling those photos in some perfect example of our finite information based universe where paranormal explanations parallel those Theories of Everything that Vallee & others have been touting.

But when I started to look more closely at Talbott's science I was suddenly reminded of all those scientists around the workd made all those definitive, scientific explanations of EMF fields etc. regarding the famiusly faked Belgium black Triangle UFO phot. That photo also had witnesses, a great storyline & a host of great scientists that made stunning statements about an obviously powered craft displaying gravity defying unknown propulsion yadda yadda. I think after that i'm starting to understand that Jerome Clark and good theorists make more sense than a history of forgery, snake oil salesmen and innaccurate science.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Thats my first impression, i had a mate who worked at the medicare card printing dept in glebe, who would print us up novelty cards like Frank N Furter.
My first guess was Psychic Bob has a mate who can print up those life sized cardboard cutouts you see in movie promo's etc.
This would mesh nicely with Nancys assertion Bob didnt have a computer or the skills to do this. He wouldnt need to if he had a mate who did
I dont have the blanks, press and other gear needed to create a Frank N Furter medicare card either, but ive got one tucked away somewhere

Well, if we're going to take it in that direction, why believe Robbert when he says he has no computer skills?

 

[PararealitySaint]

I have just finished listening to this week's episode of the Paracast and am thankful to both Gene and Chris for having Nancy Talbott on as a guest. From reading this thread I don’t have to reiterate at what point the presentation began to lose interest for me, yet I did go on to listen to the last hour or so, mainly because I knew that either Gene or Chris would confront Ms. Talbott’s obvious embellishing of a justified phenomena, which normally cannot be so easily explained away as human design or fakery….

But then the entire subject based on the earlier “serious” crop circle discussion vied away to somehow allowing dialogue of this Robbert van den Broeke fellow and I began to cringe. Without initially knowing Nancy Talbott’s background research into this character, I sat there in wonderment at just how on God’s Green Earth someone who has been found to be an obvious fake since the onset, such as Mr. Van den Broeke, is included in an otherwise interesting program dealing with this phenomenon?

When doing a little online search engine research following up the show I found a site which sums it up pretty well: http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html

Again Gene and Chris, I thank you for providing us with what you deem the best in the subject of the Paranormal, and understand that sometimes this type of mistake can slip by. It’s not always easy to put on a show week after week without sometimes finding breeches in the usual Gold Standard of paranormal content slipping in which you cannot control. After 5 minutes or so with doing further searches (using Start Page because Google remembers) it became all too apparent that even his own people (with the help of a translator from Dutch to English and thanks given to IM Translator at Im Translator : Free Translation Service) that the man is someone to practically laugh at in the Para-reality field.

I would advise anyone who hasn't done so to listen to the show and form your own opinion.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I have problems with the photos. But Talbott says she was there and witnessed weird phenomena in Robbert's presence. So she's either faking it or was being fooled, if we assume none of that stuff is real.

Honestly I didn't expect her to jump to that subject so soon or so extensively. That wasn't a major part of the original agenda. But once we entered that tunnel, it wasn't so easy to reverse direction.

 

[PararealitySaint]

I have problems with the photos. But Talbott says she was there and witnessed weird phenomena in Robbert's presence. So she's either faking it or was being fooled, if we assume none of that stuff is real.

Honestly I didn't expect her to jump to that subject so soon or so extensively. That wasn't a major part of the original agenda. But once we entered that tunnel, it wasn't so easy to reverse direction.

Gene, did you read the article I posted....Very sad. It seems that this guy was embellishing as well....Geez.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gene, did you read the article I posted....Very sad.

My response says it all. I didn't expect Robbert to play such a big part in the episode; it wasn't on our agenda. But allowing Talbott to present her personal encounters is what opened this up for discussion. Good skeptical points are being raised that we'd like her to answer.

Remember we even gave a certain Meier supporter two shows to present a case before we ripped it apart. Patience people. We want to be fair.

 

[mike]

Well, if we're going to take it in that direction, why believe Robbert when he says he has no computer skills?

I couldnt agree more Gene,

This assertion

He states that "soldier #2 is a closer match [which] perhaps could have been derived somehow from the book photo" (perhaps using paste and scissors and Photoshop manipulation?)--the two primary problems here being (a) that Robbert had never seen the book at the time these photos were taken, and (b) Robbert didn't have a computer in 2004, much less the expertise required to work in Photoshop.

Requires the audience to accept that claim as fact,
We are also asked to accept robert had never seen the book

Wanting to learn what he could about the soldier in these photographs Robbert's father (Peter) decided to ask a retired Army General who had very recently moved into the neighborhood for help. Peter showed the military neighbor the clearest photo of the set, which the retired General immediately identified as a German infantry soldier from WW II.

The General said he had a book upstairs which would help him identify the soldier's regiment, and he went upstairs to find it. When he came back with the book he put it down on a table and--to both men's surprise--the book opened to the exact page upon which, it turned out, Robbert's soldier was pictured.

But a copy had recently come into the neigbourhood.
So we have the pictures in a book in his neigbourhood
The fact that the book opened to the exact page........ this can happen when the spine gets damaged while being placed open in a photocopier or scanner

And its a dutch book

If i had to calculate the odds he'd seen this book or another copy of it, i'd say they were pretty good

If we disregard the witness testimony for a moment and look at the physical evidence, we have a photo of a spirit, which matches a photo in a book that is in their neighbourhood.
What we know for sure is there is a photo of a german soldier and a book which they have access too with the same picture..........

 

[PararealitySaint]

My response says it all. I didn't expect Robbert to play such a big part in the episode; it wasn't on our agenda. But allowing Talbott to present her personal encounters is what opened this up for discussion. Good skeptical points are being raised that we'd like her to answer.

Remember we even gave a certain Meier supporter two shows to present a case before we ripped it apart. Patience people. We want to be fair.

I agree here Gene. I would have liked to have seen more time in the program for her to be given the questions necessary based on the information both myself and others have provided here today. Perhaps one day you will have her back and then we can get some of the answers we seek....or better yet, perhaps Robert? I noticed you asked if that was possible...but alas, only certain amount of time in the day.

 

[trainedobserver]

Complex crop circles are made by people. Get some actual Crop Circle Makers on the show to talk about the reality of crop circles rather than the trumped up B.S. the proven frauds want to pass off. I posted endlessly about this in the past. Get Matthew Williams and Collin Andrews on the show, please.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

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.

As with many of you. you obviously have not taken the time to READ the material at Nancy's site. Looking at weird-ass pictures does not an investigator make. I have known Nancy for almost 20 years and have found her to be a thorough investigator not easily taken in. For instance: All this talk about photoshop and (according to Nancy) the kid has never had a computer. It is so easy to sniff and dismiss something from your armchair, it is completely another matter to to take the time to become FULLY familiar with a case. One of history's top parapsychologists, Dr. William Roll, was very impressed w/ Robbert. Was he a fool--easily taken in? IMO, There is more to this case than meets the eye.

 

[PararealitySaint]

As with many of you. you obviously have not taken the time to READ the material at Nancy's site. Looking at weird-ass pictures does not an investigator make. I have known Nancy for almost 20 years and have found her to be a thorough investigator not easily taken in. For instance: All this talk about photoshop and (according to Nancy) the kid has never had a computer. It is so easy to sniff and dismiss something from your armchair, it is completely another matter to to take the time to become FULLY familiar with a case. One of history's top parapsychologists, Dr. William Roll, was very impressed w/ Robbert. Was he a fool--easily taken in? IMO, There is more to this case than meets the eye.

Not to sound like a broken record here Chris, but did you get the chance to see this site:
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010606netherlands.html
Here there is some information about the "doctored" images, but there is even more about "the kids" utter disregard for true discernment as a medium. It bodes poorly for Nancy to use this person as an example to present her case for the Crop Circle investigatory work she has completed, as I am sure she has done much more outside of her presence with Mr. Van den Broeke; a man who has now been shown to fake his own supposed paranormal work.

As discussed with Gene here, I would have much rather have heard Nancy continue on in the subject of Crop Circles without the allowance of her discussion of this faker, and to put it as genuinely poignant as possible, resolve to continue in her genre without losing face. A face mind you which no one can honestly argue is very knowledgeable about Crop formations and their "scientific" awareness.

 

[trainedobserver]

As with many of you. you obviously have not taken the time to READ the material at Nancy's site. Looking at weird-ass pictures does not an investigator make. I have known Nancy for almost 20 years and have found her to be a thorough investigator not easily taken in. For instance: All this talk about photoshop and (according to Nancy) the kid has never had a computer. It is so easy to sniff and dismiss something from your armchair, it is completely another matter to to take the time to become FULLY familiar with a case. One of history's top parapsychologists, Dr. William Roll, was very impressed w/ Robbert. Was he a fool--easily taken in? IMO, There is more to this case than meets the eye.

Well, I have listened to this fellow interviewed, I've listened to Nancy talk about him, I've read the pro and con stuff that is out there that is in English at least. I have to tell you Chris, Robbert's and Nancy's claims are pretty weak.

The whole business of Levengood's non-doctorate is bad enough. It should and does call into question anything that has every come out of him or BLT on the subject of crop circles. When you combine that dodgy business with these incredibly badly faked photographs ...it's not a pretty picture (no pun intended). The phoney doctorate never came up during the show. I regret not paying closer attention to the question bank or I certainly would have asked questions about that.

From my armchair here I can see that some of the photographs look like they are made by holding cutouts in front of the camera and employing false perspective, which probably explains some of the blur. Photoshop may not even be necessary. What differentiates these photos from the Meier dinosaur photograph or the Fox sisters fairy pictures in your view?

But the thing is this is old news. Type ROBBERT VAN DEN BROEKE and fraud into a search engine and you'll get things like Robbert van den broeke scam exposed from over at Red Ice Radio and so forth.

Just what is so interesting or unexplainable about all of this that would get someone out of their armchair and in a field somewhere with Robbert? No offense Chris but if Nancy is the investigator that you say, I have to wonder why is she still closely associated with someone who hoaxed his credentials and why is she promoting another hoaxer? Is that a fair question?

Appealing to the authority of Dr. William Roll or anyone else in no way overcomes the incredible difficulties that the Broeke case presents. My lying eyes tell me it is a crude photographic hoax.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Whatever one thinks of Broeke and his claims, it seems to me that Talbott believes him. I do not think she is just faking it, witness one moment on the show where, upon mentioning her late brother and an episode involving Broeke, she almost broke down emotionally. I'm surprised this isn't being mentioned in the comments about the show. She also says she personally witnessed some of the strange things he is supposedly able to do. So make of that what you will.

Yes, we're having him on the show with Talbott, so you'll be able to post your questions. But not here. I'll open a separate thread for that.

 

[trainedobserver]

Whatever one thinks of Broeke and his claims, it seems to me that Talbott believes him. I do not think she is just faking it, witness one moment on the show where, upon mentioning her late brother and an episode involving Broeke, she almost broke down emotionally. I'm surprised this isn't being mentioned in the comments about the show. She also says she personally witnessed some of the strange things he is supposedly able to do. So make of that what you will.

Yes, we're having him on the show with Talbott, so you'll be able to post your questions. But not here. I'll open a separate thread for that.

Having who, Broeke? Go listen to the Open Minds interview with him before you sign up to that. Have Randle and Talbott, or Williams and Talbott.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

We aren't like the other shows. We will be asking him serious questions, and not allow anyone to fawn over him. You'll have your chance to get your licks in when we put up the thread for questions.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

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

It's peculiar, really. According to Talbott, he doesn't charge for his services, but that doesn't mean he'd refuse a donation I suppose. So make of that what you will. On the other hand, he has to be making money from something, unless his banker father covers the bills.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I will Mike - he is a faker but not a very good one!

 

[trainedobserver]

Listening the the Open Minds interview with them both is excruciating.

Again, I ask, "What is so compelling about these photographs?" The story surrounding their creation? The photographs do not substantiate the stories about their creation.

We've already posted enough in this thread to show that these are cut paste jobs of some sort. Whether they were done on a computer, in camera, on a copier, or where have you is irrelevant to me personally.