June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[themacx]

He speaks very clear but there's something off, you clearly notice he's not 100% normal. Each time the host goes along with his story you see a twinkle in his eye enjoying the attention. You see his emotional need for this whole fantasy and in a very sad way chasing it. The body language is pretty obvious.

When David started to ask some good (followup) questions Nancy made him look more and more like a drewling idiot. Trying to explain why she couldn't answer any single reasonable question.

Please don't mistake my comment with bashing anyone who isn't "normal", what's normal? I'm a very compassionate person but when we analyse these incredible stories we need to tell it like it is.

You can also see him doing tv sessions on googlevideo. They really groomed him nice, did some good editing to make him look pretty believable when he does his coldreading. But in this talkshow it all falls apart and his true person is visible, they really have no shame in tv land.

He's clearly not a Uri Geller type of person, that guy knows he's just doing a (bad) trick show for money.

It's his father... his mother.. they where there all the time.

 

[dude-with-no-life]

I found a nice story about Nancy from this link, the sceptic website.
They uncover the fraud, he cuts out pictures of books and makes photographs.

Trucfoto's van Robbert van den Broeke

Translation:
Robbert also made a picture of a soldier that turned out to be of a book. The American cropcircle investigator Nancy Talbott, who was staying at the family van den Broeke, went to the neighbour, a retired soldier. She was hoping he could tell her what kind of soldier it was. He was able to answer this question, because he has the same German worldwar 2 soldier in one of his books. This wasn't seen as fraud. They rather believed that he copied it through another dimension or some supernatural way. Everything that looks like a fraud is actually paranormal!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Daar komt nog bij dat Robbert ook een soldaat op de foto zette die in een boek bleek te staan. De Amerikaanse graancirkelonderzoekster Nancy Talbott, die bij de familie Van den Broeke logeerde, was met deze foto naar een buurman van Robbert gegaan, een gepensioneerde militair. Ze hoopte dat hij kon vertellen om wat voor soldaat het ging. Dat kon hij inderdaad, want hij had dezelfde Duitse soldaat uit WO II in een boek staan. Dit werd echter niet gezien als een bewijs van bedrog. Men nam liever aan dat Robbert de foto via een andere dimensie of op andere paranormale of bovennatuurlijke wijze had gekopiëerd. Alles wat op bedrog lijkt, is dus in werkelijkheid juist paranormaal!

[/FONT]

Mudman picture from a readers digest book

 

[themacx]

It realy makes me wonder how on earth Nancy could buy this crap... she's an investigator? sad.

CASE CLOSED.... moving on....

 

[dude-with-no-life]

Should we feel shame exposing frauds and hoaxers?

*end of rant*

Well, i just see a very confused person and it makes me feel bad saying bad things about him. It really makes no sense saying mom and dad are into it for the money. I don't think there's that much money involved besides, financially they look pretty well off.

Still, they should be exposed.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

This show started out OK, and then just slid into the toilet.

She was getting very defensive when David started asking her technical questions. He sure has more patience than me... if she said one more time about "if you read the report..."

Oh, and they keep the cameras locked up... oh boy.

 

[David Biedny]

I've been busy with some family emergencies over the last few days, haven't had a chance to post here, but I would like to thank all of you for the extensive commentaries, and to our Dutch participants, I deeply appreciate the fact that you've all chimed in here with your very valuable perspective on this matter, and for posting those Dutch links.

The fact that Nancy became so intensely defensive when asked what I would consider to be reasonable questions, speaks volumes of her total and absolute lack of any sort of objectivity or intellectual honesty. As the interview went into the second hour, I began to realize that she was essentially destroying her own reputation with this "case", and those links to the rather crass Dutch television shows with Robbert seeking adoration and attention, totally undermine her claims of the parents protective attitude and Robbert's motivations in this whole thing.

It's sad, Nancy has indeed been involved in some valuable research work regarding crop circles, but I feel that in this interview, she displayed a side that it just riddled with problems, and her credibility has gone down so much in my eyes, that I would no longer put any significant trust in anything that came out of her. And I can also say the following: this was her second, and last appearance on The Paracast. She will no longer be invited on this show.

dB

 

[Drew UK]

It appears that once again, the whole drive of this (and other related) topics is being led by amateurish enquirers.

I feel that being drawn into this on a personal/sentimental basis is not the way to go - and I feel Nancy attaches to much bias to this reasoning and is not dedicated enough to force a compelling case.

On the other hand, dB put on too much pressure with the technical side, and perhaps it is better to do that off-line and get that information up front beforehand. She obviously wasn't even acquainted with jpeg - so any discussion in the photo-tech realm seemed pointless, also gS's valuble input was missing on this one.

I would have preferred the conclusions to be drawn after and not during the interview - this is not stabbing people in the back, this is profressional examination (and by all means dB's expertise accredits him to that status).

Getting back to what Nancy was saying, regarding the RVDB character - and his disposition under his parents - and I would have believed this more since I know that there is a significant minority of young people/adults that live in isolated villages in the western world protected by traditions and culture who cradle the simple life - but his (see above posts) appearance on TV shows and familarity with technology surrounded by comfortable wealth provided by his father caused me to hesitate. He did not fit into the "shrinking violet" caricature conjured up by Nancy.



But here it leads on to the same old point, the "armchair researcher" promoted by a vacuum of real science and research takes the pulpit - putting forward cases based on bias and feelings and utilising snippets of science/technology to "fudge" some kind of reasoning/case.

The way in which the EDS and IR spectral analysis is fantastic (real science conducted by real profressionals) - with spectral graphs and images indicating reasonably conclusively - pure MgCO3 and traces of Ca.

But questions need to be asked about - sampling conditions? - weather/moisture/pH/exact location/formation and soil chemistry.
And how does MgCO3 form - remember the Mg strips we burned in school? Bright intense lights/flares - magic balls?

Wheres the nearest supply of pure Mg? Who's been obtaining it and why?

Then you have the clay mica issue - crystalline alterations not possible unless you heat the ground up to 600 - 800C - cannot be possible say the researchers - since the crop would burn away.

Who's saying that this was done in situ? Take the soil away, put it through a furnace and sprinkle it back on the site. Surely it would be collected in that 20cm deep cup.

It doesn't matter how good the analysis is, or how much respect and expertise the component analysts have - without proper investigation, tools and skillsets from start to finish observing the big picture (similar to investigating a crime scene) it will return results like any set of data - you put shit in, you will get shit out.

If anyone does have loads of time on there hands - getting information on RVDB relatives and there background/education (esp. scientific) could be useful.

 

[cottonzway]

I'm about an hour and twenty minutes in and I just HAVE to turn it off. Just too much. It's like listening to a female Alfred Webre.

 

[cre8tivewmn]

It's very possible he has Aspergers. People with Aspergers can be very verbal when talking about THEIR pet subjects, but they have other aspects of autism such as social problems and problems with over-stimulation. (Remember how she said sometimes she has to take him home because there's too much...?" The part about him having his own concerns and not being interested in "normal" things sounds like Aspergers too.

I wasn't able to watch the video, so I'm basing this on descriptions. I am very familiar with Aspergers. My son has it.

 

[Mr. Hummer]

Wow, that episode was tough to listen to.
I don't know how David managed to keep calm on this one.
This Robert sounds like a lunatic and/or fraud and Nancy his delusional follower.
I don't buy any of it.

 

[cottonzway]

Replace Peter with nancy.....

 

[Artyom]

Well, I wish this episode was recorded as two separate episodes. I mean the one about crop circles research and another one about Robert and so I wouldn't listen the second one

The first part was good because I heard Nancy talking using reasonable, with no intension to jump to conclusions approach, wa-a-a-y better than the guest in the previous episode about crop circles. And I would really like to see from here more hard data (video footage in HD, scientific data gathered by scientists neutral to the subject, which she claims she has but I can't see it on her site atm) from her as it resembles me Ted Philips work, except I do not have any doubts about his work and reputation but that's not the case with Nancy.

Phew...I don't know are there any crop circles researchers which haven't been compromised by any case like with this guy Robert? I agree with Gareth - she doesn't lie about her crop circle research but I guess her logic and rationality have been completely turned off in the case with Robert. I can't get it - how you can be a crop circle researcher but a sort of a biographer for this fellow Robert. I've just started to browse her site and wanted to read about this Robert case but then... after looking at 'orbs' photos I really don't know if it's worth to spend my time on it or not.

I've just watched some videos with him on YouTube, of course I don't know Dutch language but by looking at him I don't have a sense that he is an autist. I think there is genuine phenomena which happens with a smart guy who found a way to make money on it. I'm not sure how well Nancy knows his life but I think she doesn't know enough to understand his and sure his father real motivation or doesn't want to see things as they are. Perhaps there is a some sort of an agreement between her and Robert in a way that she should never publicly doubt any info about him and in return he helps her to find place where crop circles will accure, which I think he actually can do. If you have such abilities it doesn't mean automatically that you are an honest, sincere person.


PS. I wish she met other Robert, Robert Tilton ().

 

[bobheck]

My thoughts on this episode:

Edit: Not the job by Gene and David, mind you -- my thoughts are on the quality of the guests. As stated elsewhere, Gene and David were doing well with the material they had.

 

[Gareth]

It realy makes me wonder how on earth Nancy could buy this crap... she's an investigator? sad.

CASE CLOSED.... moving on....

Seconded...

CASE CLOSED

I stand by my assessment of Nancy. She may be gullible and lacking in objectivity, but I don't think shes involved in deliberate deception.

Her Dutch friend on the other hand.... well, the writing appears to be on the wall.

 

[subject x]

Just finished listening to this episode.

I kinda liked what she had to say about crop circles, I think. It's hard to remember what she was saying after the whole Robert deal.

Maybe it's just me, but everything she had to say about him and his situation sounded kinda fishy. However, in an effort to maintain an open mind, I went and looked at the pictures on her site.

Once again, maybe it's me, but I think I saw a version of every single fake ghost picture I've ever seen in that collection. The lights. The smoke. The "orbs". Blurry crap that looks like some kind of double exposure. Robert in all the classic medium/psychic poses.

Give me a freakin' break!

It would be so damned simple to bring some video gear to the next few crop circle prediction sites and film that shit. There's only one realistic reason why they don't, and it's not because the camera's locked up.
If they could just produce some decent video of a couple of circles being made (not with boards and ropes), that would go a long, long way towards proving that it's not just a hoax.

All that aside, G&D did a good job, considering what they had to work with.

 

[actpohom]

You guys were very gracious. I can't believe you were talking to the same person in both segments. Discussion about crop circles included all sorts of awareness about investigative due diligence, control groups, measurement of dispersal patterns, collecting and protecting samples, yada yada... all of which totally went out the window when the discussion shifted to documenting Robert's experiences. And she got defensive when you pushed the issue and tried to throw her a bone about willingness to bring to bear any and all aparatus to help investigate a situation. Bottom line is that she totally blew her credibility on the latter issue. She's gotten too close to the subject, and like the reported dad, has set herself up as the "gatekeeper". All of which does bupkus in actually getting toward the veracity of what's going on with the guy.

 

[MrBass]

Having read now pages and pages of character assasination of the most inane and juvenile sort from the Gene and David groupies,a few things come to mind. I have read Nancy T. and the BLT researchers crop circle research for a number of years.It is not without flaws,but it is real science,probably the best science being done on crop circles in America. If David intends,as he says,to exclude her or the other members of the team from the show, fine, but that will be the show's loss, not hers. She also clearly demarcated between her crop circle research,which she talked at length on, and her association with this Robert,who she makes no claims to have researched,either scientifically or otherwise. She talked about her experiences with him, and what she made of them. As far as I can tell, she is not trying to sell you anything,make of it what you will.It may well be the case that she has been taken in by a faker-you might want to ask Stan Friedmann, Kevin Randle,and virtually every other living UFOlogist who have investigated cases first hand about how easily that happens.It says nothing about the validity of her other work.Moreover,the show has in recent weeks featured a good deal of verbal preening and strutting about how their mission is to "separate the signal from the noise" and to be the "gold standard" of paranormal radio. This sense of mission seems to have infected David Biedny particularily,so that his questions have a cocky,arrogant and insinuating tone even on matters where he is plainly not expert. It doesn't do anything for the reputation of this show to become a long winded "gotcha" contest.Ask the hard questions,absolutely, but do it with respect and courtesy, and do it with the knowledge of who it is you are talking to and your own limitations.People like Nancy Talbott have made real contributions
and received comparatively little reward for it.One teacher of mine put it best- he said" at the end of the day,you should ask yourself not if someone taught you everything, but if they taught you something".

 

[David Biedny]

Sigh...

So, "Mr. Bass", please tell me how I was "cocky and arrogant" to ask:

- Why there are no videos of Robbert generating crop circles, when he supposedly knows when they're going to happen.

- Why Nancy hasn't even looked into the similarities between some of the Robbert photos and the Izatt pictures.

- If she has tested for moisture absorbance characteristics of crop circle dirt.

- And so many other questions I put to her.

I've NEVER said that the other members of the BLT "team" would never be invited on the show - but have you noticed that B and L seem to have nothing more to do with Nancy on an ongoing basis? I've wondered about that myself. And I would LOVE to have them on the show, anytime. So stop saying shit that isn't true.

And who exactly was arrogant and cocky when the issue of the DUST PARTICLE pictures came up?

Was I arrogant to ask about the total disconnect between her claim that Robbert "wants people to understand" about his "spiritual insights", yet seems to display little intellectual curiosity of his own regarding what's happening to him?

Who's the one who got totally, irrationally defensive when asked the most basic questions about the case?

I mean, if you want to come on here and accuse me of being disrespectful, for fuck's sake, back it up with something substantial, otherwise, you're just another anonymous, faceless dweeb out there in Internetland, lashing out without any kind of substantiation. We gave Nancy every opportunity to actually explain herself - she bills herself as a researcher, so it would be nice if she actually behaved as one. And look at her site, Bass, she's not making any effort to differentiate her writing about Robbert from her other research, so it's research, unless she specifically says it's not, which she's never done, and certainly did NOT do on the show. I've never referred to myself as anything but an experiencer looking to understand this stuff. Frankly, I'm a student, and as a good student, I try to understand what the teacher is saying, and will ask questions when I see problems with the teacher's material. That's called being involved in the class.

BTW, at the bottom of the page about the Robbert "reports" (AKA research), is this text:

Help Support BLT Research with a Tax-Deductible Donation

So if we send money to her, then does she not use that money to travel to the Netherlands and spend more time with Robbert, 'cause she's not researching him?

I did not hammer Nancy on her crop circle research, if you actually LISTEN to the episode, I even offered her another way to see the iron pellets that she's found on in certain circles, and she acknowledged that she had never looked at this evidence from that point of view. How is that attacking her, exactly? I respect her crop circle work. I have serious doubts about her methods regarding the research around Robbert.

And I've never claimed to be an expert in any area EXCEPT image analysis, and when I brought up my informed opinion on the DUST PARTICLES pictures, Nancy was both arrogant and disrespectful, and dismissed my commentary with extreme prejudice.

Why do I waste precious time typing these words out to faceless shmeckies? You want to attack me for something, there's fodder for ya.

dB

 

[Gareth]

Having read now pages and pages of character assasination of the most inane and juvenile sort from the Gene and David groupies,a few things come to mind. I have read Nancy T. and the BLT researchers crop circle research for a number of years.It is not without flaws,but it is real science,probably the best science being done on crop circles in America. If David intends,as he says,to exclude her or the other members of the team from the show, fine, but that will be the show's loss, not hers. She also clearly demarcated between her crop circle research,which she talked at length on, and her association with this Robert,who she makes no claims to have researched,either scientifically or otherwise. She talked about her experiences with him, and what she made of them. As far as I can tell, she is not trying to sell you anything,make of it what you will.It may well be the case that she has been taken in by a faker-you might want to ask Stan Friedmann, Kevin Randle,and virtually every other living UFOlogist who have investigated cases first hand about how easily that happens.It says nothing about the validity of her other work.Moreover,the show has in recent weeks featured a good deal of verbal preening and strutting about how their mission is to "separate the signal from the noise" and to be the "gold standard" of paranormal radio. This sense of mission seems to have infected David Biedny particularily,so that his questions have a cocky,arrogant and insinuating tone even on matters where he is plainly not expert. It doesn't do anything for the reputation of this show to become a long winded "gotcha" contest.Ask the hard questions,absolutely, but do it with respect and courtesy, and do it with the knowledge of who it is you are talking to and your own limitations.People like Nancy Talbott have made real contributions
and received comparatively little reward for it.One teacher of mine put it best- he said" at the end of the day,you should ask yourself not if someone taught you everything, but if they taught you something".

Actually her crop circle research has always had a fair amount of respect on the Paracast. I certainly find her research in that area compelling.

David: I could be wrong, but I though the "T" in "BLT Research" was Nancy Talbot.

 

[David Biedny]

David: I could be wrong, but I though the "T" in "BLT Research" was Nancy Talbot.

You are indeed correct, and I've edited that. Thanks, Gareth.

dB