Nancy Talbott, Robbert van den Broeke, April 29, 2012

[Kieran]

Nancy, Roberts friend, and others all seem very confident Robert is producing these images on camera legitimately. Rest assured i would love that to be the god honest truth. But his photographic evidence (to my untrained eye) does look kind of phoney. I'm willing to give Robert the benefit of doubt on this, but his got to convince me in another way he has this psychic ability.

Like how large would the budget need to be, to enable him to travel to the United States. Surely funding could easily be found somewhere, if their was this will shown by Nancy and Robert? Not more than 2 to 3 thousand dollars would be needed for him to travel from Holland to the States for about a week or two (in my view) Nancy currently lives in the United States, so room and board, for Robert might not be issue at all. Skeptical organisations all around the world today offer payments to people who can prove paranormal abilities. If he's believe in this ability is that strong what's stopping him here from collecting one of those cash prizes challenges? If he won any loans that were borrowed beforehand to fund this trip would be easily be paid back!!

No offence to Nancy, but their is a large camp of people, who listen to the Paracast on a regular basis, are sick to death of people like you Nancy, who come on radio stations like this, tell their story, and ask us to believe it without question. But when asked to prove it say its not up to us to prove anything.

Whos your audience Nancy the BLT and Roberts new site are only seen by a handful of people from all around the world. Don't you think it would be better if this ability was known to a larger audience of people from around the world?. People who believe in UFO's have been arguing for years their is a reality to this phenomenon and have got lot of criticism for believing in such nonsense. And here you have Robert producing UFO images on camera allegedly in real time. Do you not think this would be helpful, if Robert could reproduce this again, with James Randi and Michael Shermer in attendance to see it and both gentlemen not being able to deny it? Get Robert into a studio least a live setting lets film it with an audience and lets go from there.

 

[trainedobserver]

So are you guys really wanting to go with "It is nitpicking" to point out that Levengood was being presented as a doctor when he wasn't? The whole PhD equivalency thing is a sham and that doesn't or shouldn't have any effect on how we should view his work? That is incredible guys. How do you justify that?


Crop Circles: "Nancy Talbott and BLT got it wrong and they should just admit it" Two Crop Circle Experts Lock Horns
"Writes Colin: "Mr. Levengood concluded that the plants from this circle were among the best examples of the real phenomenon and showed the highest crop circle making energy. But the team and I knew differently. Whatever the science and protocols, whatever his findings, the plants came from a man made crop circle. The results showed whatever they showed but the interpretation was wrong"

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Based on Talbott's message, posted in another thread, it appears she didn't make a big deal of this alleged PhD, or whether it was equivalent to a "real" PhD. She didn't regard him as "Dr. Levengood."

See here: April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums

People will call themselves "Doctor" even with honorary or other less-than-certified degrees. No big deal, unless Levengood had a history of attempting to make more of this title than it deserved. It appears he had a pretty decent educational background even when this "equivalency" wasn't part of the picture. If he really falsified that background, we'd have another Imbrogno situation in the making, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

If someone mistakenly refers to him by a title he doesn't deserve, that's not a big deal either. The real issue is the caliber of his work. That's what counts here. Can we talk about that now? Any further discussion about the minutiae of the degree's equivalence is much ado about nothing, and I'll just close the thread.

 

[Forest Lake]

Ok, listening to the Nancy and Robert interview... For someone who thinks she is "scientific" she gets quite defensive over Robert and his silly pictures. I have said it before and i will say it again, because of her belief in these pictures and her defensive and rude attitude i cannot believe anything the two of them say... Sorry, but that is how i feel...

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Forest Lake]

She keeps referring to the report, can't she talk without referring to her report? The report means nothing with those photos, i want to hear it from her mouth, on the spot, with no time time prepare an answer... But no, she gets defensive

Go home Nancy, nobody cares!

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[trainedobserver]

The real issue is the caliber of his work. That's what counts here. Can we talk about that now? Any further discussion about the minutiae of the degree's equivalence is much ado about nothing, and I'll just close the thread.

I see. I added a bit to my post that references the fact that Mr. Levengood has made some pretty erroneous claims about crop circles. If Mr. Levengood's science can't tell the difference between man made crop formations and those that supposedly aren't, what good is it?

How is that? Is that fair?

 

[Forest Lake]

Sorry, one more post, the only way i will even start to believe it is if i see one continuous piece of video showing what he sees in front of him AND the screen of the camera at the same time as the picture is taken

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I also tried to engage Talbott in a private discussion via email, where I attempted to point out the very serious issues with those photos, but she doesn't understand what Photoshop is and how it's used. She presented an analysis by an alleged "expert" that merely determined whether or not the pictures in the books and magazine articles were 100% the same as the ones in the photos, without understanding how Photoshop can manipulate a scanned image in all sorts of ways to make that image seem different. You'll notice that I delivered a two-minute monologue on the show about Photoshop and what it does, and she had no response.

Not recorded was a comment she made during a segment break that I won't discuss here, for now, but may mention on next week's episode when you hear my take of the situation.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I see. I added a bit to my post that references the fact that Mr. Levengood has made some pretty erroneous claims about crop circles. If Mr. Levengood's science can't tell the difference between man made crop formations and those that supposedly aren't, what good is it?

How is that? Is that fair?

That is a real issue that should be discussed, past the worth of the PhD. If the work is of poor caliber, the educational background doesn't make a difference. Steve Jobs' entire college background was to sit in on a few classes apparently without officially enrolling. But nobody disputes the caliber of his work.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Sorry, one more post, the only way i will even start to believe it is if i see one continuous piece of video showing what he sees in front of him AND the screen of the camera at the same time as the picture is taken

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

If the editing is done by a computer expert or guru, you may not even be able to readily detect whether it's a single take, or several, so long as the movement appears to be seamless. You'd need the original, unedited footage, and even then you may not know if it's truly "original." But that's O'Brien's area of expertise more than mine.

 

[Forest Lake]

Yeah very true Gene, the only real way to know would be if your were standing there for sure... i am listening to it now as i post and i am getting more frustrated as i listen

I believe in many things but i am finding this hard to believe

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Forest Lake]

I think she knows well and good what photoshop is surely you cannot be the first person in the universe to mention it to her, especially since she has her own site!

I look forward to the next show!

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think there may be some gray areas to this story, but certainly Robbert's dreadful childhood (remember he was institutionalized for a year) contributed to some very serious issues. Remember, too, that he is technically disabled, at least according to the government of the Netherlands. In saying that, I did ask him a few questions where you might receive a few clues about what might be going on.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think she knows well and good what photoshop is surely you cannot be the first person in the universe to mention it to her, especially since she has her own site!

I look forward to the next show!

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

That she knows how to paste in images for a Web site doesn't mean she necessarily understands how the program actually works beyond maybe doing a few simple things in it. She may even use a Web authoring app to bring in images and other content. Very likely the site was just made for her and she uses a template in Adobe Dreamweaver or whatever app she works with.

 

[wwkirk]

I hope this is not out of line, but might Robbert be schizophrenic? Either the dead people are really there, or he is seeing things. I tend to doubt that he is simply lying. Are there really dead people all around us, or do they congregate around those who can see them? Or is it merely hallucination?

 

[trainedobserver]

Crop Circles: "Nancy Talbott and BLT got it wrong and they should just admit it" Two Crop Circle Experts Lock Horns was last updated in 2010. So this is pretty old news. The upheaval in the crop circle community has been going on for a while now.

 

[Forest Lake]

Oh i'm not saying she knows how to use photoshop or a similar program but she keeps mentioning these so called apparitions are different from the magazine pictures and uses that as her argument for proof of their validity despite them being always in the same poses as the magazine

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I hope this is not out of line, but might Robbert be schizophrenic? Either the dead people are really there, or he is seeing things. I tend to doubt that he is simply lying. Are there really dead people all around us, or do they congregate around those who can see them? Or is it merely hallucination?

Well some of the things he allegedly does go way beyond just hearing voices and seeing things. But it appears true that his hospitalization involved taking drugs that obviously had serious impact, based on how he described the situation. Antipsychotic drugs would do that, of course. But being asked to take that medication doesn't mean he really had the condition they were designed to treat. Doctors would simply have gone by the book.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Oh i'm not saying she knows how to use photoshop or a similar program but she keeps mentioning these so called apparitions are different from the magazine pictures and uses that as her argument for proof of their validity despite them being always in the same poses as the magazine

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk 2

The differences appear to be the result of making minor changes in an editing program or doing a clumsy cut and paste job. She's assuming that you can take the photo and place the original picture over it, and have it come out 100% the same, and if it's not 100%, the figure in the photo must came from a different source. That's the crux of the problem, and why I say she doesn't understand how Photoshop works.

 

[wwkirk]

There are really plenty of people who don't know how to use Photoshop. I'm one of them. I've never used or seen the program though I have used lesser image editing programs. Not everyone is up to the task of creating plausible fakes.