• 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:

Nancy and Robbert absolutely failed to do anything but dig themselves in deeper.

From the comments so far I would say that it obvious to everyone that listened. I honestly cannot see how anyone can cling to the idea that the photographs are not faked and that Robbert is not a fraud. The credibility of BLT research, already damaged by incorrectly identifying their own sample as one made by mysterious energies, really tanks in the endorsement of this hoax.
 
This is a bit off topic, and I don't have much to say about these two shows, except that there's an element of sadness, as someone else alluded. My question has to do with how guests are obtained for the show, the leg work, process, percentage of no, I don't want to go on if asked, wow, you bet, gene, love to, how a pool of possibilities is compiled, sort of the nuts and bolts of it all. Just curious on several levels, partly and frankly awed by the perspicacity and even persistence that goes into the show and getting guests. Also, generally if you can't be specific, the type of guests you'd like to get on, but because perhaps of fear of peers in, say, the academic community, you've not found generous pickings. It would be good to get some real high powered guests, big names in terms of bona fide work or research, or even skeptics of renown, who would be interesting. Why not a SETI scientist, for example? In a way, I'm saying that I think the parameters of the show can be broadened, and also enlarged in that the guests wouldn't become such easy pickings here. I think some love to sink their teeth into others as a means to show their hard rationality and smarts, but the guests are sometimes too easy, so all the naysayers win, in their minds at least, the big prize of look at me, I'm so smart, look what I won't believe. I happen to not believe in intelligent extraterrestrials, or, as I've discussed on some threads, I think many scientists believe it is well nigh impossible that the anthropomorphized aliens shooting radio signals that SETI scientists seem to hope exist, in fact do. So why not get Seth Shostak on? I don't recall him on the show, I've heard him on others, but long ago. I respect a lot of what he says. I'm just saying it would be great to get some real bona fide, but feet on terra firma guests on the show. Kim
 
Some guests go on show after show, tell the same stories, however questionable, and get a pass. If we don't ask the right questions, who will?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Interesting that I'm not hearing from any supporters. Maybe there aren't many. :)
Click to expand...

I'm still impressed that some of the photographs were produced in a second party's camera with the person looking on. Maybe there's sleight of hand involved, but Robbert doesn't seem overwhelmingly competent in that respect. His overall deficiency in ordinary skills like computer use and regular job skills speaks to some degree to his integrity. Overall, I don't consider him as an absolute charlatan or a ridiculous person. He seems like a person around whom some unexplained things have happened. That's as far as can go in endorsing him. As for Nancy, I still consider her as honest and thought her letter gave a respectable reply to the Levengood controversy. That being said, I don't endorse her research outright. I simply take it as interesting and decline to dismiss it.

This is my general stance towards most paranormal subjects. I don't believe, but I don't necessarily disbelieve either.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Some guests go on show after show, tell the same stories, however questionable, and get a pass. If we don't ask the right questions, who will?
Click to expand...
I support the Paracast's policy in often selecting paranormal oriented and offbeat guests. That seems to me to be, in part, the point of the show. (Hence the name.) But that needn't exclude some more mainstream guests. Hypothetically, this show's ultimate competitor is C2C. Although they have plenty of far out guests, they also have a sprinkling of more mainstream scientists and researchers, most notably Michio Kaku. So I think both categories of guest are desirable.
 
wwkirk said:
I'm still impressed that some of the photographs were produced in a second party's camera with the person looking on. Maybe there's sleight of hand involved, but Robbert doesn't seem overwhelmingly competent in that respect. His overall deficiency in ordinary skills like computer use and regular job skills speaks to some degree to his integrity.
Click to expand...

Those are large assumptions aren't they? We must take their word for it. The word of folks showing us the mudman photo and asking us to believe it is a manifestation of paranormal activity. I mean, how on Earth do you prove that he doesn't have any experience with a computer or access to someone who does? Given the guys history as he outlines it, is it reasonable to question whether or not someone is encouraging or aiding this guy or dare I say exploiting him?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
So after listening to the whole episode, it's seems like a strong possibility that there is a history of mental illness in Robert's family. Talbot is not helping matters by enabling his delusions.

Is there anyone that actually believes him?
Click to expand...
I believe him when he says he sees dead people. He was sincere enough in this testimony that he got locked away for a year. That being said, I have a lot of doubt that the dead people are really there. No wonder he is on disability.
 
icculus said:
Why spend two shows on what is clearly a total fraud? :confused:
Click to expand...

Paradoxically the weirder and less believable the guest, the more response there is to the show! This has been observed by Gene and Chris on more than one occasion. I'm guessing the patron saints of the weird (as I've come to think of them) produce more lively debate and consequently more web traffic and downloads of the show itself. This was actually the first Paracast that I can recall listening to as it was aired for the first time for example.
 
I suppose some might suggest people love listening to train wrecks. But I think we also illuminated some of the real issues involving Talbott and Robbert. We can move past it now and on to something else.

As I said before, if we don't attempt to expose these people, what other radio show will?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I suppose some might suggest people love listening to train wrecks. But I think we also illuminated some of the real issues involving Talbott and Robbert. We can move past it now and on to something else.

As I said before, if we don't attempt to expose these people, what other radio show will?
Click to expand...


Who is next up on the show?
 
A lighter episode, with Mark Phillips, producer of "My Ghost Story," a popular cable TV program aired on the Biography channel in the U.S. I'll have a Question Bank thread up for it shortly.
 
Back
Top