June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[ufojoe]

Ufojoe, you HAVE looked at all the photos Nancy has published from the Robbert, haven't you? How can you ask her to post more? Seriously.

Those are really, really bad. Always blurred, shaky. Trademark fakes. Cmon, David (an expert) has already attested that they are garbage. It does not take an expert to see that, although it is nice to hear one say it.

David said no such thing. He said that a few of the orb photos were dust.
What he DID say is that some of the photos look like a light source was shining into the camera. And Nancy said she was there and there as no light source. You need to listen better.

I've looked at every photo. Some of the photos are blurred? No kidding! They shouldn't have been blurred. That's the supposed anomaly. Read the entire report instead of just looking at the pictures. These same anomalies showed up when William Roll showed up and Robbert used Roll's camera. How did Robbert pull that one off? Care to tell us? The same has happened when he used Nancy's camera.

BTW, how are still photos shaky?

Nancy has photos of alleged deceased people showing up on photos and said she is working on a post about that. I am very curious to see those and hope she posts the photo that is referred to in that report. That's how I can ask her to post more. Very simple.

 

[ufojoe]

Ufojoe, you HAVE looked at all the photos Nancy
Oh, and unless there has been a leap in technology, there is no LED screen on a camera.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046673348.html

But she was probably talking about an LCD screen.

 

[bobheck]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046673348.html

But she was probably talking about an LCD screen.

I did not know that they were that inexpensive that many years ago.

Wow, I stand embarrassingly corrected.

 

[bobheck]

David said no such thing. He said that a few of the orb photos were dust.
What he DID say is that some of the photos look like a light source was shining into the camera. And Nancy said she was there and there as no light source. You need to listen better.

... For example, take a look at these:

http://home.hetnet.nl/~<wbr>lichtbol3/Robbert-Alienpics/<wbr>robbert-alienpics-eng.htm

In my professional opinion, they're junk.

dB

Oh I guess you are differentiating between junk and garbage, I see . Or you need to read more posts. Apparently you have not even read this thread before throwing up nutty posts.

For whatever reason, you are displaying irrational zeal in supporting Robbert.

READ THE THREAD. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

 

[ufojoe]

Oh I guess you are differentiating between junk and garbage, I see . Or you need to read more posts. Apperently you have not even read this thread before throwing up nutty posts.

For whatever reason, you are displaying irrational zeal in supporting Robbert.

READ THE THREAD. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

LOL. I've read the entire thread. Should I write that in caps? Gotta love it.

Read my posts and then try commenting again. I think something is going on BUT I support independent researchers (like Roll) investigating this case to know for sure. Anybody who is against that needs to ask themselves why. If that's zeal then I'm guilty as charged.

Yes, I forgot about the "alien" photos and DB's comments. But if you look at Nancy's website, the overwhelming number of photos feature light anomalies that are hard to explain if Nancy is describing the situation (no light source shining into the camera) accurately.

Nancy apparently witnessed a crop circle form right out the window where she was staying at Robbert's house. So, how do you explain that? Nancy lying? I don't think so and I've already explained why.

There's one poster on this site who got on Nancy's case for not talking about that incident more. That's just plain ignorance since she spoke about it as much as possible when it happened. Too many posters here just aren't familiar with all aspects of this case.

There are photos (alien, solider, nun...) that look to be faked. I knew about them for a few years. I wish the hosts had read up a little more on Robbert so they could have asked Nancy to explain them. Seems they were a bit unprepared for the Robbert stuff. Would have been nice to hear Nancy talk about that and attempt to explain them.

 

[dusty]

The whole thing stinks to high heaven, call me judgmental.

For example, take a look at these:

http://home.hetnet.nl/~<WBR>lichtbol3/Robbert-Alienpics/<WBR>robbert-alienpics-eng.htm

In my professional opinion, they're junk.

dB

After looking at these and having a good laugh, I then looked at the other
Dutch Orb Photographers, pics on the homepage.
Seems to be quite a sport over there, my first thought is maybe they should add the word Evidence, to that title. Then we could all call these guys DOPE's.

And No I haven't read any more about Robert, I think it's pretty obvious I dont need to.

Mark

 

[ufojoe]

After looking at these and having a good laugh, I
And No I haven't read any more about Robert, I think it's pretty obvious I dont need to.

Mark

In other words...

Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

Thanks to Stanton Friedman.

Granted, some of the more important evidence is anecdotal but how do you explain the crop circle forming in front of Nancy's eyes? She wrote up an excellent (free) report when it happened and talked about it on various shows. All of her reports have been free for over a decade. What's her motive for lying?

And the hundreds of photo anomalies are a fact. What caused them is unknown. Is Roll in on it too? Or maybe he was fooled like Nancy has been fooled for twelve years?

Nancy may have been defensive in that interview but I just don't see her as a liar.

 

[bobheck]

In other words...
Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

Granted, some of the more important evidence is anecdotal but how do you explain the crop circle forming in front of Nancy's eyes?

You are the one who is conveniently disregarding facts.

It is a fact that at least some Robbert's photos have been proven to be fakes (e.g. - the mud man). Therefore, the authenticity of his other photos are by default all suspect now. His credibility is gone.

I explain the crop circle forming in front of Nancy's eyes as total BS. Outrageous claims require remarkable evidence. If you are going to make such a claim, especially if you are a researcher, have more than after the fact photos and/or video to support it. Especially when you are dealing with a person who has been known to deceive (again evidence is in the thread).

I can take a picture of a tree in my front yard that is 10 feet tall and tell you it was not there the night before and it appeared overnight in a flash of light while grasshoppers played "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida".

The tree is there, I have a photo. And, I can sure draw you a sketch of what the flash of light looked like. Would you believe me?

She wrote up an excellent (free) report when it happened and talked about it on various shows. All of her reports have been free for over a decade. What's her motive for lying?

Motive?

1. From her own website: "It's clear that a book about Robbert, in English, is needed and I've begun to work on it. I hope it doesn't take me too long to get it written and out to the public."

2. Robbert sells books -- exposure = more sales.

3. Drive traffic to her website, so people can support/donate her research.

And the hundreds of photo anomalies are a fact.

The only facts are that they are photos and there sure are anomalies. It is the authenticity of those anomalies that is highly suspect. We are dealing with a person, Robbert, who is known to have published doctored images.

What caused them is unknown. Is Roll in on it too? Or maybe he was fooled like Nancy has been fooled for twelve years?

Either fooled, or more likely complicit, yes.

 

[bobheck]

I have a great idea how Nancy and Robbert could clear all of this up.

Next time Nancy wants to go to Holland, instead just fly Robbert here. Then, under controlled conditions, like David B in the room, soft lighting, no windows, etc..., and with several different professionally tested and validated "defect free" cameras, sit for a few hours and take hundreds of pictures of Robbert.

Then we'll see what is on the resulting images. How does that sound?

That is easily done and it would put it to rest.

Until that happens, I'm not buying any of it.

 

[dusty]

In other words...

Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

Thanks to Stanton Friedman.

Granted, some of the more important evidence is anecdotal but how do you explain the crop circle forming in front of Nancy's eyes? She wrote up an excellent (free) report when it happened and talked about it on various shows. All of her reports have been free for over a decade. What's her motive for lying?

And the hundreds of photo anomalies are a fact. What caused them is unknown. Is Roll in on it too? Or maybe he was fooled like Nancy has been fooled for twelve years?

Nancy may have been defensive in that interview but I just don't see her as a liar.

Hi ufojoe,

Firstly with regard to, Dont bother me with the facts etc.
Perhaps I am a little confused but I always took that remark from Stanton
to mean, it is Stans opinion of what he often refers to as the Nasty Noisy Negativists attitude and not his own.

Anyway please allow me to explain my position.
As far as Nancy's research into crop circles goes. I haven't read anything by her, all I know of her is what she has had to say on the two occasions she has been on the show. The first time I was interested and impressed by what she had to say and have no issue with her on that score. As far as witnessing one forming in front of her, what can I say? A report like that is amazing but without video evidence it's just that, a report.

Now I am not calling Nancy a liar, but I do find it very hard to take seriously someone so ignorant of cameras and video equipment who is involved in this field (ha ha) of study.
Motivation? who knows, you could turn that around on me for instance. I have been involved in Rock and Roll for 25 years, hardly earned anything
but I enjoy it and I cling to my dream for probably the same sort of reasons Nancy does her own, ie the love of it and the possibility of making some money at some point in the future.

Also your point about there being hundreds of examples of photos of these orbs I cant argue. In fact I have a picture like that on my own user page. I could add to that, by saying that some two or three weeks later some guy drowned at exactly that spot, but I dont make the leap that this was some kind of precognitive image. Like some airheads might.

I dont pretend to know what every example of such an image may be, but personally I am far more convinced by the opinions of someone qualified in the field of image analysis than I am of the beliefs anyone
directly involved in their study. Particularly when that someone seems so obviously attached to the rather sad story of a young dutch guy and his
finance savvy parent.

Dont get me wrong Joe, I am interested in what folk like Nancy have to say and I value their efforts. In essence as far as this particular show goes, it's the whole Robert thing that makes me really wonder about her
objectivity.

Mark

 

[David Biedny]

Sigh...

Robbert had a television show. He states that his abilities are very sensitive, and he can't handle being around a lot of people (or something to that extent, I'm paraphrasing here), but then, he's doing his shtick on a broadcast television show, with an audience? Excuse me for being a native New Yorker, but hell, are you frikking kidding me?

It was canceled when he was caught taking bad information off the net, and passing it along as psychic ability.

These photos are crap. All of them. Rather obviously.

When I compared some of Robbert's light images with those of Dorothy, there's a crucial difference: Dorothy reportedly shot those images with a film motion picture camera, and it would have been impossible for her to achieve her results, especially the frame with her name drawn out. Now, I did not personally examine any of the original film, so I have to go on what we've been told. Dorothy has never personally sought visibility or any financial gain from her experiences.

When I brought up some of the similarities between Dorothy and Robberts' photos, Nancy seemed almost pissed off. She's a researcher, I would expect that there might be just a little, I don't know, curiosity perhaps, given the potential for gaining some insight into the whole phenomenon. Instead, Nancy displayed an intense sense of indignity, which is just, well, weird. And also absolutely, totally out of place. Makes no sense to me.

Robbert takes money for healings and readings, is known to fake photos, and went after the opportunity to have a television show.

Regardless of whatever Nancy states about this case, I have serious concerns with the idea that Robbert is the "real deal". Nancy, as a seasoned investigator, knows what she needs to do to help Robbert prove his claims. If she says that she's not in that position, or that he's not interested cooperating with her to create some objective proof, then why should anyone besides her be interested in the case? She's been visiting Robbert for what, ten years, and has not tried to shoot some clear video of one of these incredible episodes? Makes no sense to me, sorry for being hardheaded about this glaring little problem. And when a field investigator complains about not owning a decent video camera? Give me a break.

Nancy is placing all of her credibility eggs in the Robbert basket, and if it turns out that Robbert is not kosher, it'll really hurt Nancy. Contrary to her email to me claiming that I would relish such a situation, it deeply frustrates me that this is the case, especially given the valuable work she's done in the crop circle field.

And I'll say it again, her defensiveness at some of my questioning about this case just strikes me as bizarre. It gives me enough reason to have concerns with her anecdotal evidence. She's a researcher, she's quite familiar with procedure and parameters. If she wants to take off her research hat and put on a biographer's nonjudgmental hat, fine, but she's chosen a subject that is too close to her field of professional study, and nothing about Robbert can be treated subjectively by her without any thoughtful person questioning her own objectivity towards the subject.

dB

 

[Gareth]

Nancy is placing all of her credibility eggs in the Robbert basket, and if it turns out that Robbert is not kosher, it'll really hurt Nancy. Contrary to her email to me claiming that I would relish such a situation, it deeply frustrates me that this is the case, especially given the valuable work she's done in the crop circle field.

He's here all week folks

Seriously though, that post pretty much sums everything up perfectly. (from my POV anyway)

 

[bobheck]

[Edit: I have to say, after posting this I spent more time going over the earlier research from BLT and it's published papers. There haven't been any since 1999, by the way, the year the corp was founded. And, some of that stuff is really, really, REALLY good. I wish Nancy would ditch this Robbert clown, get born-again in this field, find whomever was working with her in the 1990's and do THAT kind of work again. I really do. ]

Just info, take it and file away.

Interesting tidbit to add when considering motive:

BLT Research, Inc., at least going back to 2003, has had one person acting as President, Treasurer, and Clerk/Secretary -- all Nancy Talbott.

In other words,

Who is ultimately responsible for accepting donations into BLT Research, Inc.? Nancy Talbott

Who is ultimately responsible for the recordkeeping of the received donations? Nancy Talbott

Who has the ultimate authority to spend corporate money and bind the corporation to financial obligations? Nancy Talbott

Who is ultimately responsible for any wages/salaries/return of stockholder equity? Nancy Talbot

Who is ultimately responsible for the recordkeeping of where all corporate dollars are spent? Nancy Talbott

The corporation, as far back as I can check online, had one other Director (but not a corporate officer) up to 2008, and that was Barbara Stronach Perryclear. According to this obit Barbara C. Stronach Perryclear, 94 | CapeCodOnline.com Barbara was Nancy's mother and died on Sept. 22, 2007 (R.I.P.), which is obviously why she was taken off as Director.

So, as far back as can be checked online at least (to 2003), BLT has been all about Nancy, nobody else.

Being a one-person corporation is not too uncommon. But it does lend itself to suspicion because there is by default a lack of internal controls on movement of money and the accounting thereof.

Edit: Her website itself says that BLT Research, Inc. was formed in 1999 as a nonprofit organization to meet requirements to receive funding from Laurance S. Rockefeller. It states that she is president, but says nothing of a one-person corp. In any event, can you blame her for that? No. Get a bag of money and globe-trot researching crop circles -- where do I sign up? But, this part of the discussion is about motive and reasons for Nancy to ... embellish, let's say. Follow the money. More exposure = more people donating. That's how it works. Motive = money.


Now, if only I could find some financials...

=======================
Here are five years of annual filings, which just shows corporate makeup:

 

[ufojoe]

Hi ufojoe,

Firstly with regard to, Dont bother me with the facts etc.
Perhaps I am a little confused but I always took that remark from Stanton
to mean, it is Stans opinion of what he often refers to as the Nasty Noisy Negativists attitude and not his own.

Yes, I know that. And I was referring to the poster who said he wouldn't waste his time looking at the rest of the photos on the BLT site related to Robbert.

Anyway please allow me to explain my position.
As far as Nancy's research into crop circles goes. I haven't read anything by her, all I know of her is what she has had to say on the two occasions she has been on the show. The first time I was interested and impressed by what she had to say and have no issue with her on that score. As far as witnessing one forming in front of her, what can I say? A report like that is amazing but without video evidence it's just that, a report.

You really should read her work and not just go by what she says on the show(s). And it's not just a report. It's a report by somebody who has built up a lot of credibility in the field of crop circle research over a decade. She's always tried to stick to the science. In this case, she happened to see something for herself and became part of the story. I see no reason why she would risk destroying her credibility by making up a story. If that's the case, why hasn't she made up more stories of witnessing circles form and already sold a book about it? Why wait eight years later to start writing one?

I dont pretend to know what every example of such an image may be, but personally I am far more convinced by the opinions of someone qualified in the field of image analysis than I am of the beliefs anyone
directly involved in their study.

Me too. That's why I'm curious to hear what the MIT guy has to say. Nancy offered David a look at some of the photos so he could give his professional opinion of them. He declined. Does that sound like somebody who is hiding something and isn't trying to get experts involved? What else is she supposed to do if people (like DB) won't look at the evidence closer?

Particularly when that someone seems so obviously attached to the rather sad story of a young dutch guy and his finance savvy parent.

No offense Mark but how do you know it's a sad story? You ever spend time with the family to observe how things are with them? You really know nothing about them and neither do I. So, I am trying to stick to the evidence that Nancy has put on the site.

Dont get me wrong Joe, I am interested in what folk like Nancy have to say and I value their efforts. In essence as far as this particular show goes, it's the whole Robert thing that makes me really wonder about her
objectivity.

Mark

I understand. Just keep an open mind and see what else happens with this case.

Check out part of what Nancy wrote after experiencing the circle form. Seems like a very honest reaction/response from someone who is trying to come to grips with what she saw and experienced.

Joe

* * * * *

Was the occurrence of this crop circle related to my frustration over the elusiveness of the phenomenon and my wanting a more obvious indication of the agency involved? It did occur within 10-15 minutes of my having stated my disgust and it did occur in the closest growing plants (stringbeans, the first time a circle has been reported in this corp) to my physical self--the whole incident clearly visible from my room--in fact the very bed I was sleeping in. It was also placed dead-center between the north and south boundary lines of the v/d Broeke property and about as close to their perimeter fence as possible.

Are Robbert and I (and, apparently, many other people) victims of our imaginations? Or is it possible that human faculties are capable, at least in some situation, of recognizing external consciousness and/or purpose in energy-forms or life-forms currently unknown to us and un-named? Robbert and I perceived these light tubes as "on purpose." Was there a consciousness in those light columns? Or, was there a consciousness directing them? Was it our sub-or unconscious? If not ours, was it Jung's collective unconscious? Was it a consciousness inherent in Nature? Or was it from another dimension, galaxy or, perhaps, directly from the Almighty? Robbert and I don't know. What we suspect is that the answers to these questions--in fact the actual pursuit of these answers--will greatly affect human awareness. What we hope is that 21st Century humanity will recognize this possibility soon and join in the effort to uncover new aspects of reality we may currently only faintly imagine.

 

[dusty]

Thanks for all that Joe, points taken,

I will take the time to look into Nancy, and with an open mind.

Mark

 

[SR2]

I know that Nancy is persona non grata on The Paracast, but I'd like to hear her response to the criticism and claims of fraud shown here in this thread. Had Gene and David known then what they know now, it would have made for a totally different interview. She seems to have lost her sense of objectivity in this case. Robbert may be someone who has had unusual experiences in the past and has tried to "add" to the evidence with faked photos and such.

 

[Schuyler]

I know that Nancy is persona non grata on The Paracast, but I'd like to hear her response to the criticism and claims of fraud shown here in this thread. Had Gene and David known then what they know now, it would have made for a totally different interview. She seems to have lost her sense of objectivity in this case. Robbert may be someone who has had unusual experiences in the past and has tried to "add" to the evidence with faked photos and such.

I don't get that sense at all. I sense more a feeling of dismay that a person with such credible research in the crop circle field would be taken in by someone who is a proven charlatan. I don't think Nancy is a 'fraud' AT ALL, even a little bit. I DO think that she has, for some reason, become 'enamored' with Robbert in an unhealthy way, and by that I mean a way that will lead to a loss of credibility. I also think that she was shown to be an uncritical thinker, particularly in her argument with David over the dust particles, which just absolutely floored me. I guess the only way to explain away that one is the tension of the moment and have it suddenly come up. She really wasn't very well prepared.

I guess, in hindsite, what I wish would have happened is that at that point on the interview they would have taken it off-line, had a serious discussion about the implications of what she was saying and how she was arguing, then came back on a little more circumspect. I don't know if you guys would consider that manipulative or not, but it might have saved nancy some grief. Maybe it just doesn't work that way.

I don't think anyone is calling for her blood here; we're just saying WTF happened.?

 

[SR2]

I don't think Nancy is a 'fraud' AT ALL, even a little bit.

Sorry, I think I didn't phrase this correctly. I meant that Robbert is the one who has been accused of fraud by other researchers in Europe. I don't think Nancy is a fraud. I agree with you. She seems to have gotten too close to her subject matter. She also appears to waffle on the point of whether she is actually researching this case with Robbert or simply documenting the goings on in his life, which is a more passive activity. Perhaps she fears that if she digs deeper, she may find out that she has been duped all these years.

 

[ufojoe]

I know that Nancy is persona non grata on The Paracast, but I'd like to hear her response to the criticism and claims of fraud shown here in this thread. Had Gene and David known then what they know now, it would have made for a totally different interview.

Yes! If they had done some reading about the Robbert case beforehand, Nancy could have addressed each "criticism" or alleged cases of fraud, one by one. I wrote her privately and asked her about a few of those and she took the time to write back and explained some of them. Look for the next report from her. I'll post a link when it's on her site.

She seems to have lost her sense of objectivity in this case. Robbert may be someone who has had unusual experiences in the past and has tried to "add" to the evidence with faked photos and such.

Yeah, I thought that too for a bit. There are cases in the past where that seems to have happened. But with some of those cheesy photos or photos that look faked, Nancy was standing right next to Robbert and he was using her camera. So how the hell did he accomplish fakery?

I have no vested interest in defending Nancy. I just feel that his case is an important one on various levels.

And David, you were right to compare the Robbert case to the Izatt case .I see similarities too. And, of course, lots of differences.

 

[ufojoe]

Sorry, I think I didn't phrase this correctly. I meant that Robbert is the one who has been accused of fraud by other researchers in Europe. I don't think Nancy is a fraud. I agree with you. She seems to have gotten too close to her subject matter. She also appears to waffle on the point of whether she is actually researching this case with Robbert or simply documenting the goings on in his life, which is a more passive activity. Perhaps she fears that if she digs deeper, she may find out that she has been duped all these years.

SR2, if you don't think she is a fraud, how do you explain her eyewitness account of a crop circle forming? Did Robbert go out and buy massive equipment to create the illusion?

I know I keep harping on that piece of anecdotal evidence but to me, it's a big one.