• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

I still think the Prescott blog makes some very good points. I honestly feel that (as I've said before) we all heap teachers to our own ears. I am not a follower nor do I know much about Serios. But, lets face it Alien abduction has been thoroughly debunked but some still believe they are taken in the middle of the night. U.f.o's have so far been shown to most peoples satisfaction to have mundane explanations. But, still there is enough mystery to keep us searching and I honestly can't say I know for sure what happens to abducties. I honestly don't have a dog in the hunt. I don't have any grant money or group I"m beholding to. But, there are always two sides to every story.
 
Yeah ol' Nancy put me off a little. I can't tell if it was her Large Marge-esque voice filled with smoky residue or her overall bitchiness. Toss up there.

You can always tell when people are full of it when they get upset and frustrated when you ask them for evidence to back up a claim. Sorry Nancy, not all of us are as creative as you when it comes to wasting our lives.
 
Like many of your posters, I'm on the fence on this one.
But I have known Nancy Talbott for a number of years - she is not a nutcase and I do find it difficult to believe that she could be taken in by a trickster over so many years.
That said, history is replete with cases where brilliant minds have been fooled.
Reading through this long thread I need to make the point that Nancy accepts fully that the photos Robbert allegedly produces may be copies of existing photographs. But she believes they are psychic copies and not hoaxed by Robbert with cut outs or photoshop etc.
In the history of psychic photography this is not unusual - in fact it's common for researchers to claim that 'spirit' for some reason finds it more simple to materialise existing work rather than produce a new photo or object.
Research the Scole experiment for instance and you'll find they've managed to trace most of the paranormal photos which were produced.
As for the doubtful and out of focus images Robbert produces - again if we are to believe there is such a thing as psychic photography - many of these paranormal photos are blurry too. Maybe it's not easy to produce sharp images from another dimension!
In fact if these pictures are faked, I agree they are such bad fakes, that any hoaxer would be ashamed to put them out there - their 'fakeness' is almost evidence for their genuiness! (There's a quote to be endlessly repeated by my detractors!)
I may be out of date here because I don't know whether later you got Robbert on Paracast and now all is settled one way or the other - although I doubt it.
With relation to the computer issue I might point out that Robbert went to special schools because he is educationally below-par (I don't know whether he's autistic but am aware he has some abnormal behaviours) so he may well not have been exposed to computers.
The revelation here that his friend Stan has been a magician is pretty damning unless of course that does make him an expert to judge a really paranormal event.
This whole case is very much swings and roundabouts - the only way it will be really settled is for enough people to witness Robbert's claims in situ with multi video cameras etc.
Unfortunately Nancy's opinion of sceptics is that whatever she does, won't convince, so my multi-witness scenario is unlikely to happen.
 
Thanks guys - will listen to the prog and get back.
As I'm new here could somebody post a link to the Forum discussion which no doubt followed Robbert and Stan's broadcast?
 
wotsup said:
Like many of your posters, I'm on the fence on this one.
But I have known Nancy Talbott for a number of years - she is not a nutcase and I do find it difficult to believe that she could be taken in by a trickster over so many years.
That said, history is replete with cases where brilliant minds have been fooled.
Reading through this long thread I need to make the point that Nancy accepts fully that the photos Robbert allegedly produces may be copies of existing photographs. .
Click to expand...

I accept that and can actually give that one to her, but what about the fact that Robbert was actually caught faking a reading on a British show? This was proven with the word usage he made in comparison to a "word" which didn't even exist by his intent. The very point I believe most people are making here isn't whether or not Nancy Talbot is a quack....misguided maybe, but whether or not anyone should take this aspect of her investigatory work seriously. The reason is quite simple. She decides to defend this man AND CONTINUES TO even when the proof is positive that he is a faker and a liar.
 
Good point Parareality Saint. This was one question over this TV show that wasn't asked on this interview and I really wish it had been - maybe it will be if Robbert's ever on here again.

Or maybe he's answered it on another website or forum - does anybody know?

But when it comes down to it Randi says that on that TV show Robbert says 'genverbrander' instead of 'geneverbrander'.

Omitting a short syllable like that is common in speech and in itself is pretty weak evidence of fraud.

Of course Randi's point is that he finds in a Google search that the same syllable is missing from a story which it's assumed Robbert - or somebody on his behalf - has also used to obtain his information.

It could be co-incidence - but it's an odd one.

It deserves to be answered by Robbert.
 
wotsup said:
Good point Parareality Saint. This was one question over this TV show that wasn't asked on this interview and I really wish it had been - maybe it will be if Robbert's ever on here again.

Or maybe he's answered it on another website or forum - does anybody know?

But when it comes down to it Randi says that on that TV show Robbert says 'genverbrander' instead of 'geneverbrander'.

Omitting a short syllable like that is common in speech and in itself is pretty weak evidence of fraud.

Of course Randi's point is that he finds in a Google search that the same syllable is missing from a story which it's assumed Robbert - or somebody on his behalf - has also used to obtain his information.

It could be co-incidence - but it's an odd one.

It deserves to be answered by Robbert.
Click to expand...

I think it is best that we clearly state for all who read this thread just what I meant by his fakery, so this way everyone can clearly understand Robbert for the Charlatan he is:

James Randi's Swift - January 6, 2006

And once you read this bit of a ditty, we can re-review just how much "psychical" ability Robbert faked here:

Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources. (UPDATED!) « Thrive Debunked

Dear God, what more does anyone need to clearly see what kind of damage this man is doing to the paranormal field, and what Nancy Talbot is doing to the very same by condoning it?
 
PararealitySaint said:
I accept that and can actually give that one to her, but what about the fact that Robbert was actually caught faking a reading on a British show? This was proven with the word usage he made in comparison to a "word" which didn't even exist by his intent. The very point I believe most people are making here isn't whether or not Nancy Talbot is a quack....misguided maybe, but whether or not anyone should take this aspect of her investigatory work seriously. The reason is quite simple. She decides to defend this man AND CONTINUES TO even when the proof is positive that he is a faker and a liar.
Click to expand...
We cant forget also that were all stupid or idiots according to Nancy.
 
PararealitySaint said:
I think it is best that we clearly state for all who read this thread just what I meant by his fakery, so this way everyone can clearly understand Robbert for the Charlatan he is:

James Randi's Swift - January 6, 2006

And once you read this bit of a ditty, we can re-review just how much "psychical" ability Robbert faked here:

Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources. (UPDATED!) « Thrive Debunked

Dear God, what more does anyone need to clearly see what kind of damage this man is doing to the paranormal field, and what Nancy Talbot is doing to the very same by condoning it?
Click to expand...

Wow! I just read that article, I'm sorry but it takes a truly horrible piece of crap to manipulate an image of dead people into a video to try and prove their a psychic. How effing sick can you be? How about a thought for the dead persons relatives? How do you think they feel about their deceased loved ones images being manipulated to advance your dumb psychic agenda? What a douche. I've never heard of Thrive, I'll have to check that out and have a laugh.
 
Muadib said:
Wow! I just read that article, I'm sorry but it takes a truly horrible piece of crap to manipulate an image of dead people into a video to try and prove their a psychic. How effing sick can you be? How about a thought for the dead persons relatives? How do you think they feel about their deceased loved ones images being manipulated to advance your dumb psychic agenda? What a douche. I've never heard of Thrive, I'll have to check that out and have a laugh.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it made me pretty sick as well. Normally I am not overtly adamant about calling out someone like this, but I couldn't help noticing all the crap this guy has done. And to think that Nancy continues to stand by his every fete is too much sometimes.
 
PararealitySaint said:
Yeah, it made me pretty sick as well. Normally I am not overtly adamant about calling out someone like this, but I couldn't help noticing all the crap this guy has done. And to think that Nancy continues to stand by his every fete is too much sometimes.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way but imo this is just disgusting and complete nonsense to boot. It's offensive to anyone who has had someone close to them die, I can't even imagine how pissed I would be if it were one of my loved ones.
 
Muadib said:
I'm the same way but imo this is just disgusting and complete nonsense to boot. It's offensive to anyone who has had someone close to them die, I can't even imagine how pissed I would be if it were one of my loved ones.
Click to expand...

The paranormal field seems to be an attractive hunting ground for scum of the earth types who prey on other folk's most intimate ruin. Why is that? I think I know. They know they will find people who are fantasy prone, credulous, and searching for something outside of themselves. These manipulative scum behave in a sociopathic manner seemingly not possessing the normal empathy healthy human beings feel for one another. Humanity has actually institutionalized this phenomenon though the establishment of political parties, societies, cults, sects, religions, and "research organizations."

BLT Research is a scam plain and simple.
 
goggsmackay said:
Like many others I really like Nancy in the past and I know she is a friend of Chris' but this Robbert stuff is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

I don't get it. I keep hearing how Nancy and BLT have done good research in the past but I don't see any evidence of that at their website. It must be hidden somewhere.
 
Probably you are right. A few people I've talked to say that they find it hard to think Nancy is a deliberate hoaxer. Perhaps she is guilty of extreme gullibility and shoddy research but both those things don't make her a bad person or a fraud. Just severely misled?
Having only high-school biology I don't think I can comment on the quality of crop research. It does seem such amazing results would be trumpeted worldwide but they are not, which is weird in itself - unless one goes for all the conspiracy theories of big-seed companies (guess who!) stamping out possible threats to their monopoly.

Regardless, post-Robbert, Nancy is well and truly a spent force in my brain. I am no longer interested in what she says - for eff sake, she tried to explain those Nazi soldier phots!!:confused:
 
Back
Top