• 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!

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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

dyingsun said:
...I hope I am still entitled to my on opinion.
Click to expand...

No! You must conform to the collective or be expelled!

Seriously though, everyone has their opinions about these things and mine have certainly changed over time. I am OK that my opinions change from time to time. I used to think there was some hope that complex crop circles might be something other than human generated art. I didn't find it. If I were to find some evidence that a complex crop circle was not man-made, I'd change my opinion. It is that black and white to me. I'm not seeing it coming from BLT.
 
I listened to this episode yesterday in bits and pieces because I was busy with my 3 and 4 year olds. I probably do not have as much time as many of the regular listeners.

My personal opinion is that at times Gene (do not take offense to this) was really being pretty hard on the interview and would not let Nancy get all her words out. She appeared defensive but I think she was frustrated at his method of interviewing.
When he asked for proof over the interview of Dutch guy's abilities, it changed the dynamic of the interview. Putting people on the spot like that can be a challenge and abilities like he proclaims he has, be it true or not, can not be seen clear in a situation like that. Meditation is often needed in an unstressed environment for visions and such.

I did not enjoy the show and I think the next time maybe this form of interviewing should be lightened and just let the guests talk. It is okay to be a hard ass at times but this seemed too much to me. The listener should make the decision on their own and through personal research if these guys are the real deal.

Sorry but this interview seemed unpleasant and a bit biased in nature in the effort to debunk these folks so the forum members feel gratified because most of the forum members (most but not all) are a bunch of non-believing debunking group of people.

Do not mean to offend, just stating my feelings like everyone else.
 
I think the technical constraints were minimal on that interview. Our biggest problem was that Chris couldn't get a reliable connection on his cell phone. I hoped we'd be past that in 2012.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I think the technical constraints were minimal on that interview. Our biggest problem was that Chris couldn't get a reliable connection on his cell phone. I hoped we'd be past that in 2012.
Click to expand...

Well I think phones being phones, it might be better if an interview is re-scheduled so we can ensure Chris & you won't suffer any complications with your respective agendas. Trying to force a show will only invite the Gremlins to cause mayhem ;)

What I mean is that I'd prefer Chris to be 100% in his 'game' so he can ask the questions many of us want to be asked during a show, and if that can't be possible, then the interview should be put on hold. I don't know if more listeners would agree with me.
 
Coordinating the schedules of several people is difficult. And it's not as if the show airing date can be postponed. The show must go on, and we work the best we can to accommodate everyone.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I think the technical constraints were minimal on that interview. Our biggest problem was that Chris couldn't get a reliable connection on his cell phone. I hoped we'd be past that in 2012.
Click to expand...

I think it was a good show Gene it was just a pity that Nancy was trying to stage manage the interview.

Sorry but this interview seemed unpleasant and a bit biased in nature in the effort to debunk these folks so the forum members feel gratified because most of the forum members (most but not all) are a bunch of non-believing debunking group of people
Click to expand...

No we expect evidence.. if you make an extraordinary claim then evidence must be provided to support such a claim. I am not a debunker but I am not going to drink the cool-aid either.
 
desidragonfly said:
......

Sorry but this interview seemed unpleasant and a bit biased in nature in the effort to debunk these folks so the forum members feel gratified because most of the forum members (most but not all) are a bunch of non-believing debunking group of people.

Do not mean to offend, just stating my feelings like everyone else.
Click to expand...

a bunch of non believing debunkers? thanks! :) thats better than a gullible believer.
 
mikeclr said:
Gee, for someone who never read any books about UFOs, Robbert certainly was awfully familiar with ol' Billy!
Click to expand...
Ya think? :)

Curious, also, how he seized on the statement that Meier may have had real experiences early on, but then fabricated them, including the photos, to extend his 15 minutes of fame. I wonder of Robbert was trying to tell us something there.

On the other hand, if these people are guilty of fakery in any respect, it's hard to take anything they say seriously. They end up discrediting themselves.
 
Late to the party perhaps, but after finally having a chance to look at the photos myself, I have to concur with many previous folks that they are obvious and shameful fakes. In many cases there is no need for high-tech methods like photoshop. The apparition images all seem to be paper cutouts, with the fidelity of said scissoring being very poor, and details get removed (like the edge of the soldier's helmet). The fact that they are paper cutouts also explains why they could be 'warped' as far as registration marks on the major limbs.

I also agree that one need not discard a researcher's entire body of work because of one major mistake. I am not certain, however that this counts as a single mistake. Nancy's refusal to consider other viewpoints, her rabid and embarrassing defense of her subject, and the dozens and dozens of obviously faked photos seems to add up to more than one steaming pile of bad evidence.

It is quite difficult to mine into Nancy's pile for any useful nuggets. Could they exist? Was she ever more critical in her work? Perhaps. But it's dark in there and it smells funny.
 
Judging by the activity on this thread, this is just the kind of podcast that listeners love to hate. Compare this one to the two non-controversial subsequent broadcasts. They're both very quiet.
 
wwkirk said:
Judging by the activity on this thread, this is just the kind of podcast that listeners love to hate. Compare this one to the two non-controversial subsequent broadcasts. They're both very quiet.
Click to expand...

Yes, a pattern that has been commented on before. The more controversial and ridiculous the guest, the more comments and discussions are generated. The Crystal Skull episode is a famous one as well.

Having Robbert van den Broeke and Nancy on was like putting a piñata up in here. Everybody wants a swing at the thing.
 
If this was all really real and if she really deep down thought this was true, it would all be looked at with the same scientific scrutiny afforded to other research topics. Not this dog and pony show business.
 
2 things absolutely prevent me from even entertaining the idea that Robbert is for real.

1. The German soldier photo.
2. The claim Robbert could not even access a computer in 2005:rolleyes:
(1a). His neighbour owning a book in which there is a photo of the German soldier.:eek:
 
Back
Top