trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
The fakes look so amateurish (or childish) that I do not understand why anyone has ever given this guy the time of day. I'm amazed at the amount of time that has been wasted on this ridiculous nonsense.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott
- Thread starter trainedobserver
- Start date
Free episodes:
The fakes look so amateurish (or childish) that I do not understand why anyone has ever given this guy the time of day. I'm amazed at the amount of time that has been wasted on this ridiculous nonsense.
He'll be on the show to answer the questions. Feel free to go to the new thread, present the information and request comments. We'll try to cover as many questions as we can.
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
This bodes well for the show because there is just too much information/proof out there that makes Robert Van Den Broeke look like a total fake. Normally I would say, "don't give this man the time of day", but since many here, and I am sure in other areas, are rightfully defensive about the total aspect of Nancy Talbott's work, it's only necessary to do so in order to keep her separate professionalism, and with it reputation effectively warranted.
There's also a tremendous amount of interest in this topic, witness this and the threads of several years ago. This particular episode has been, based on the early download count, one of our most popular episodes in recent months. A fair discussion is called for.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Everyone loves a good train wreck. I can't imagine what can be discussed beyond why Levengood faked credentials doesn't matter to BLT or their "research." That discussion would no doubt shed some light into why an obvious hoaxer like Broeke is being promoted by them. How interesting is that really?
In fact guys the faking is sooo bad I wonder if it isn't part of some gag? Come on, no-one could miss that suspending wire? Surely it's a joke of sorts?
Actually isn't this german soldier business to close to the Meier dinosaur pics?
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
You can see that from your armchair can you? I have to agree with you goggs. It is beyond comical, but it is all being played as real. I think this really shines some light into just how reliable BLT's crop circle research might be, don't you?
Sadly (re BLT), yes. Sadly for two reasons:
I have always taken Nancy as genuine and if she is then it is a shame she should be tainted.
Regardless of BLT research, there are many unanswered questions regarding crop formations. My main ones being that the hoax theory does not hold up because the large complicated formations would take a long time and planning for zero return. Anonymous fame does not account for them all, nor copycats - not at that scale. None of these large ones to my knowledge have been spotted whilst being hoaxed? Doug and Dave have been shown to be frauds themselves in the pay of the UK MOD and I have seen the results of their very messy circles - they don't begin to explain the very complex large ones whose stalks seem to be neatly woven in swooping clockwise and counter-clockwise directions?
I have always taken Nancy as genuine and if she is then it is a shame she should be tainted.
Regardless of BLT research, there are many unanswered questions regarding crop formations. My main ones being that the hoax theory does not hold up because the large complicated formations would take a long time and planning for zero return. Anonymous fame does not account for them all, nor copycats - not at that scale. None of these large ones to my knowledge have been spotted whilst being hoaxed? Doug and Dave have been shown to be frauds themselves in the pay of the UK MOD and I have seen the results of their very messy circles - they don't begin to explain the very complex large ones whose stalks seem to be neatly woven in swooping clockwise and counter-clockwise directions?
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Well goggs, if you will search the forum for my crop circle posts you'll get a better picture of it. You need to listen to real crop circle makers and not crop circle researchers. There is an incredibly different set of motivations between the two groups. Watch Matthew Williams documentary for a start. Every complex crop circle I have looked at has all the hallmarks of being man-made. You can tell this from photographs and Matthew Williams has several instructional videos out on how to do this. Every mysterious killer crop circle that people have presented to me as "proof" winds up being another man-made circle and when you talk to the right people, you find out who made what when.
Perfect crop circles is a complete and total fantasy. I'm sorry, they all have "flaws" and show signs of being man-made. Watch circlemakerstv.org for the real story on crop circles. It's humans with boards, rollers, ropes, and other devices. You can even watch videos of circles being made in the dead of night.
Where exactly were Doug and Dave shown to be frauds and in the pay of UK MOD? They intentionally made crop art to mimic "saucer nests." They were the prototypes. Crop circle making has evolved greatly since they were active.
Since Doug and Dave there have been numerous other teams, some large, that make crop circles. It is a graffiti art form plain and simple, illegal art that is exploited by others (the researchers).
Ok Trained - I shall follow where you have pointed as with all these topics, my mind is far from made up! I hope there is an explanation and demonstration of the construction done in the reported single night-time?
Regarding Doug and Dave - I don't know if you watched as they made a circle for the cameras as the story broke about them taking responsibility but the circle was a sham and very small. They never demonstrated anything other than the most simple rope and plank of wood circle. I read in Jim Marrs' 'Alien Agenda' that it was discovered that a public relations company was paying for all of Doug and Dave's travel round Europe while they were being invited everywhere to show and explain their circles. This company did not exist as stated and turned out to be a company that is involved in top secret defence contracts in the UK.
Also, regardless of whether the phenomena is real or not, Doug and Dave claimed ownership of so many circles they would have been having to make them at a ridiculous near impossible rate. Travelling hundreds of miles per week etc - the arithmetic did not add up, in fact, apart from their claim, there is no real proof that they made all the circles they claimed to and certainly those two men never demonstrated making anything complicated whatsoever, never mind in the conditions claimed.
Many landowners and farmers came forward in the 90's to say that they had experienced circles going back some decades - I don't know if they are all fake or not but I am pretty sure that Doug and Dave were not responsible for all they claimed which is strange enough - why claim such a thing if there is no truth to non-human made circles?
I will check out that doc. though, cheers.
Regarding Doug and Dave - I don't know if you watched as they made a circle for the cameras as the story broke about them taking responsibility but the circle was a sham and very small. They never demonstrated anything other than the most simple rope and plank of wood circle. I read in Jim Marrs' 'Alien Agenda' that it was discovered that a public relations company was paying for all of Doug and Dave's travel round Europe while they were being invited everywhere to show and explain their circles. This company did not exist as stated and turned out to be a company that is involved in top secret defence contracts in the UK.
Also, regardless of whether the phenomena is real or not, Doug and Dave claimed ownership of so many circles they would have been having to make them at a ridiculous near impossible rate. Travelling hundreds of miles per week etc - the arithmetic did not add up, in fact, apart from their claim, there is no real proof that they made all the circles they claimed to and certainly those two men never demonstrated making anything complicated whatsoever, never mind in the conditions claimed.
Many landowners and farmers came forward in the 90's to say that they had experienced circles going back some decades - I don't know if they are all fake or not but I am pretty sure that Doug and Dave were not responsible for all they claimed which is strange enough - why claim such a thing if there is no truth to non-human made circles?
I will check out that doc. though, cheers.
wwkirk
Paranormal Adept
Despite the skeptical doubts that have been raised, Nancy seemed very diligent, honest, and sincere to me. Robbert produced the pictures in her presence using her own camera. Unless her basic credibility is to be questioned, then the photos are truly anomalous.
I certainly look forward to possibly having Robbert on the show. He MIGHT be a fraud, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion.
I certainly look forward to possibly having Robbert on the show. He MIGHT be a fraud, but I'm not ready to draw that conclusion.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I think that I have done that by pointing out that one third of BLT is a known fraud. Her continued association with and reliance on the work of someone who faked his credentials speaks volumes don't you think? I mean seriously now.
Am I wrong? Was Randle wrong about Levengood? Are my eyes (ok, eye, the left one isn't working so well) lying to me when I look at these pictures and see cutouts from magazines, websites, and other photographs? [blink, blink]
P
pixelsmith
Guest
crop circles... yup.. if i managed to travel light years to earth the first thing i would do is attempt cereal communications with the locals. 
wwkirk
Paranormal Adept
The following is Nancy's reply to the Levengood credentials controversy.
"
January, 2003
Dear Dave....
At the end of November when I got back to Cambridge from the
Tempe, AZ Crop Circle Conference your email, and many others -
asking for more information about Levengood's credentials -
were waiting for me, along with the piece which I think was on
UFO Updates by JJS. I was sorry to see these questions raised in
the manner they were, but can certainly understand the concern
people have. Here's what I can tell you.
Five or six years ago (mid-l990s) I was writing some material
for the press and general public about the BLT crop circle work
and wanted to include short bios on myself, John Burke and W.C.
Levengood (at the time the primary members of the team). Because
the material was being designed for public/media dissemination,
and because I felt that absolute clarity regarding each of our
individual credentials was of primary importance, I asked
Levengood for a copy of his vitae, which he supplied. On it was
the "PhD-equivalent" designation...which I had never seen
before, but which I accepted - copying precisely the bio that
Levengood had supplied to me onto the bio sheet for the new "BLT
Info Pak."
At some point subsequently, a year or so later I think, it
occurred to me that I needed to understand exactly what this
equivalency was, and I phoned Levengood about it. He told me
that he had, many years ago, been asked to present a paper to
the National Academy of Science (NAS) and that, among the papers
they had sent him about this presentation, he was informed that
only people who had a PhD or who were "PhD-equivalent" could
present. Apparently because of the Ph.D level course-work
Levengood had completed and the number of his papers which had
already been published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific
journals, he was considered by them to be Ph.D-equivalent. I
knew that it was a considerable honor to present one's work to
the NAS, but I still wasn't absolutely clear as to just how I
should refer to Levengood in print, or in public, so I did just
what JJS did - I called the NAS for more information.
The NAS told me exactly what they told JJS: the NAS does not
confer degrees. Really confused at this point, I called
Levengood back. He sounded irritated by my continuing questions
- perhaps because, in the scientific arena it is one's work, not
one's credentials, that counts (note that in all mainstream
scientific journals no degrees are indicated after author's
names at all). Also, Levengood never had much interest in the
media and, clearly, was not as concerned as I was with the
presentation of his work to them (I was the person who had to
deal with reporters).
Subsequently, a colleague of Levengood's told me the following:
(1) Levengood did complete the required course-work for his Ph.D
in biophysics; (2) he did write a paper as a Ph.D thesis, which
was published in August, l973: "Bioelectric Currents and Oxidant
Levels in Plant Systems," J.Experimental Botany, Vol. 24, No.
81, pp. 626-39; (3) however, for personal reasons, he had not
completed his Orals examination, the final requirement for the
Ph.D degree. Consequently he had not received the formal Ph.D,
instead receiving a second Master's degree from the University
of Michigan.
The fact that Levengood went on to publish more than 50 papers
in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals (including
multiple papers in Nature and Science) is further evidence that,
among his colleagues, he is considered to be professionally
competent and credible. In science, it is one's work that
matters...and a great deal of his work has been accepted by his
peers.
However, the fact that Levengood uses the PhD-equivalency on his
Vitae was a real problem for me, since it was my interest to
legitimate the study of crop circles for the general public, and
to do this I have to deal with the media all the time. I knew
that the media might see this PhD-equivalency as an attempt on
Levengood's part to misrepresent his educational backround and
capabilities, and that if they did so they would then be highly
likely to dismiss all of his results in this area. This would
then affect not only Levengood, but all of the rest of us who
were helping him in one way or another - not to mention the way
in which the crop circle phenomenon itself might be perceived.
Because the study of crop circles is considered "fringe" by the
media and because one has to be very very precise
("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs) about all
work in areas like this - and because I could foresee the very
likely possibility that any question about credentials could
undermine credibility in Levengood's work, I decided to stop
listing the "PhD-equivalency" in the written materials put out
by BLT. I removed the reference from all of our printed
materials, removed all references to "Dr." Levengood, and
stopped using the title "Dr." in my lectures, etc. When I put
together the web-site (this last May) I did not include the PhD-
equivalency, listing only his M.A. in Bioscience (1961, Ball
State University) and his M.S. in biophysics (l970, University
of Michigan) degrees. Further, I began informing the people in
the crop circle community with whom I work regularly, so that
they would also know how to accurately represent Levengood to
the media, when they had reason to refer to him. I did this out
of respect for the phenomenon itself, as well as the sincerity
of the hundreds of lay-people who have been involved in helping
Levengood and BLT with the research, and in an attempt to avoid
any questioning, ultimately, of the inherent value of
Levengood's work in the public media.
Clearly, Levengood has other ideas. He is a maverick, I would
guess in more ways than one. This is his prerogative. It would
be a lot easier for me if he were more conventional in this
matter. But if he were a more conventional individual, perhaps
he would not have been as interested in subjects mostly ignored
by mainstream scientists.
What the interested public needs to consider is that Levengood
is a career scientist. He has had extensive graduate academic
training. He has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed
scientific journals. He is highly intelligent, well-trained, and
is rigorous in his methodology. His laboratory work is solid -
there is no reason whatsoever for him to present inaccurate
data and every reason not to (I will be able to demonstrate
additional proof of this very clearly as soon as the new clay-
mineral crystallization study can be posted on the BLT web-
site). Whether his theoretical ideas are correct I don't
know... but time will certainly tell.
The fact that he chooses to use the NAS's PhD-equivalency
standards is an eccentricity - it is unusual - and it appears
that it does result in some people questioning both his
personality and his work. But nowhere is it written that
scientific insight and capability necessarily come hand-in-hand
with traditional values or customs; in fact, they frequently
don't. It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the
bath-water. As much as some of us might, upon occasion, want to.
Nancy Talbott
BLT Research Team Inc.
P.S. In all the years I knew and worked with Levengood he never
requested that I address him as "Dr." Levengood... in fact, he
always preferred to be called "Lefty." "
Source: Levengood Credentials
"
January, 2003
Dear Dave....
At the end of November when I got back to Cambridge from the
Tempe, AZ Crop Circle Conference your email, and many others -
asking for more information about Levengood's credentials -
were waiting for me, along with the piece which I think was on
UFO Updates by JJS. I was sorry to see these questions raised in
the manner they were, but can certainly understand the concern
people have. Here's what I can tell you.
Five or six years ago (mid-l990s) I was writing some material
for the press and general public about the BLT crop circle work
and wanted to include short bios on myself, John Burke and W.C.
Levengood (at the time the primary members of the team). Because
the material was being designed for public/media dissemination,
and because I felt that absolute clarity regarding each of our
individual credentials was of primary importance, I asked
Levengood for a copy of his vitae, which he supplied. On it was
the "PhD-equivalent" designation...which I had never seen
before, but which I accepted - copying precisely the bio that
Levengood had supplied to me onto the bio sheet for the new "BLT
Info Pak."
At some point subsequently, a year or so later I think, it
occurred to me that I needed to understand exactly what this
equivalency was, and I phoned Levengood about it. He told me
that he had, many years ago, been asked to present a paper to
the National Academy of Science (NAS) and that, among the papers
they had sent him about this presentation, he was informed that
only people who had a PhD or who were "PhD-equivalent" could
present. Apparently because of the Ph.D level course-work
Levengood had completed and the number of his papers which had
already been published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific
journals, he was considered by them to be Ph.D-equivalent. I
knew that it was a considerable honor to present one's work to
the NAS, but I still wasn't absolutely clear as to just how I
should refer to Levengood in print, or in public, so I did just
what JJS did - I called the NAS for more information.
The NAS told me exactly what they told JJS: the NAS does not
confer degrees. Really confused at this point, I called
Levengood back. He sounded irritated by my continuing questions
- perhaps because, in the scientific arena it is one's work, not
one's credentials, that counts (note that in all mainstream
scientific journals no degrees are indicated after author's
names at all). Also, Levengood never had much interest in the
media and, clearly, was not as concerned as I was with the
presentation of his work to them (I was the person who had to
deal with reporters).
Subsequently, a colleague of Levengood's told me the following:
(1) Levengood did complete the required course-work for his Ph.D
in biophysics; (2) he did write a paper as a Ph.D thesis, which
was published in August, l973: "Bioelectric Currents and Oxidant
Levels in Plant Systems," J.Experimental Botany, Vol. 24, No.
81, pp. 626-39; (3) however, for personal reasons, he had not
completed his Orals examination, the final requirement for the
Ph.D degree. Consequently he had not received the formal Ph.D,
instead receiving a second Master's degree from the University
of Michigan.
The fact that Levengood went on to publish more than 50 papers
in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals (including
multiple papers in Nature and Science) is further evidence that,
among his colleagues, he is considered to be professionally
competent and credible. In science, it is one's work that
matters...and a great deal of his work has been accepted by his
peers.
However, the fact that Levengood uses the PhD-equivalency on his
Vitae was a real problem for me, since it was my interest to
legitimate the study of crop circles for the general public, and
to do this I have to deal with the media all the time. I knew
that the media might see this PhD-equivalency as an attempt on
Levengood's part to misrepresent his educational backround and
capabilities, and that if they did so they would then be highly
likely to dismiss all of his results in this area. This would
then affect not only Levengood, but all of the rest of us who
were helping him in one way or another - not to mention the way
in which the crop circle phenomenon itself might be perceived.
Because the study of crop circles is considered "fringe" by the
media and because one has to be very very precise
("extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs) about all
work in areas like this - and because I could foresee the very
likely possibility that any question about credentials could
undermine credibility in Levengood's work, I decided to stop
listing the "PhD-equivalency" in the written materials put out
by BLT. I removed the reference from all of our printed
materials, removed all references to "Dr." Levengood, and
stopped using the title "Dr." in my lectures, etc. When I put
together the web-site (this last May) I did not include the PhD-
equivalency, listing only his M.A. in Bioscience (1961, Ball
State University) and his M.S. in biophysics (l970, University
of Michigan) degrees. Further, I began informing the people in
the crop circle community with whom I work regularly, so that
they would also know how to accurately represent Levengood to
the media, when they had reason to refer to him. I did this out
of respect for the phenomenon itself, as well as the sincerity
of the hundreds of lay-people who have been involved in helping
Levengood and BLT with the research, and in an attempt to avoid
any questioning, ultimately, of the inherent value of
Levengood's work in the public media.
Clearly, Levengood has other ideas. He is a maverick, I would
guess in more ways than one. This is his prerogative. It would
be a lot easier for me if he were more conventional in this
matter. But if he were a more conventional individual, perhaps
he would not have been as interested in subjects mostly ignored
by mainstream scientists.
What the interested public needs to consider is that Levengood
is a career scientist. He has had extensive graduate academic
training. He has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed
scientific journals. He is highly intelligent, well-trained, and
is rigorous in his methodology. His laboratory work is solid -
there is no reason whatsoever for him to present inaccurate
data and every reason not to (I will be able to demonstrate
additional proof of this very clearly as soon as the new clay-
mineral crystallization study can be posted on the BLT web-
site). Whether his theoretical ideas are correct I don't
know... but time will certainly tell.
The fact that he chooses to use the NAS's PhD-equivalency
standards is an eccentricity - it is unusual - and it appears
that it does result in some people questioning both his
personality and his work. But nowhere is it written that
scientific insight and capability necessarily come hand-in-hand
with traditional values or customs; in fact, they frequently
don't. It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the
bath-water. As much as some of us might, upon occasion, want to.
Nancy Talbott
BLT Research Team Inc.
P.S. In all the years I knew and worked with Levengood he never
requested that I address him as "Dr." Levengood... in fact, he
always preferred to be called "Lefty." "
Source: Levengood Credentials
For starters i dont have any armchairs in this house, and i have read the material at Nancys site and discussions about it at many other sites, including ATS and OMF and JREF
Years ago for that matter, this is old news
Never heard of Dr Roll, so i wonder where the Historys top parapsychologists comes into play.
Im neither a skeptic or a debunker, but those photos of the german soldiers are laughable.
Their own "expert" says of one
We have to take his word for it he didnt have access to and or the skills to use a computer, and even if this were true, there exists the explanation that a friend might have the equipment and skills to do this.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
skills? LMAO!
Lance, didn't you write up something about some issues with the new leadership at MUFON? Can ya tell us in a different thread?
How so?
Ah, yes, the Mile High Club entrepreneur is the new director, right? What's the story about "losing face"?