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

[PararealitySaint]

Gene asked near the end of this episode how Nancy Talbott could get "mainstream scientists" interested in Robbert's story. I can respond as one of those "mainstream scientists" that there's little chance any professional will want to follow through on the claims of Robbert and his posse. As has been emphasized numerous times in this thread, the photos from Robbert are silly hoaxes that could have been produced in a number of ways, the simplest being to surreptitiously wave a cut-out picture in front of the camera. The testimonies from "hundreds of Robbert's clients" (in Talbott's words) mean nothing. (By the way, "clients"? Surely much money flows through Robbert's con here.) Talbott's own testimony is so credulous as to beggar belief. She would credit Houdini himself with supernatural powers. Her explanations in the BLT online "report" of the obviously fraudulent images are the very definition of special pleading. Why would any scientist bother with this hot mess?

I've followed Nancy Talbott's work for a long time. I've been fascinated by the pseudoscientific language she uses to describe observations of UFOs, crop circles and now Robbert's miracles. It all is crafted to convince the listener that she follows standard protocol, but that is far from the case. Her wonder at finding "99.99% Pure Hydromagnesite" in a Dutch crop circle shows her naivete. How does this very earthly substance clearly dumped on the grass take a crop circle from human-produced to paranormal? Who knows -- but it sounds like science. Her fascination with Robbert shows that she lacks true critical capacities on these topics. For that matter, continually touting the expertise of William Roll, the late parapsychologist, as a scientific source is ineffective as well. Roll was fooled many times. For example, look at his role (sorry!) in the Tina Resch case ("The Columbus Poltergeist") in 1984. Few people are easier to fool than parapsychologists.

Did anyone notice besides Gene that Robbert's "computer guru" is a "former mentalist"? Shouldn't that ring some alarm bells? Maybe loud enough to wake even Chris from his slumber here?

I have to say Paleontologist it is a pleasure to read you posts. Your emphasis to this insanity is like a breath of fresh air and your explanations are clear and very accurate. Thanks for being a part of this forum.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Chris I suggest you consider supporting a Bovine Excrement Study in regards to these guys.

lol, yer one funny dude Pixelsmacker!

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I've tried to point out that is exactly the case. If BLT misidentifies crop circles made by their own sample team as one made by mysterious crop circle making energies then it pretty much fails to pass the test.

OK, so we are talking about one crop-circle that tested positive but was known to be a hoax? If this is true, does that completely invalidate all the other diagnostic work BLT has performed? Like the UT case that Nancy spoke of during her solo visit a couple of shows back? I wouldn't think so...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Why I asked about multiple examples, Chris. And even if some investigative body makes mistakes here and there -- and nobody is perfect -- should that necessarily mean that everything they do is flawed?

 

[pixelsmith]

Why I asked about multiple examples, Chris. And even if some investigative body makes mistakes here and there -- and nobody is perfect -- should that necessarily mean that everything they do is flawed?

Yes, yes it should.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

So nobody is entitled to a mistake?

 

[trainedobserver]

OK, so we are talking about one crop-circle that tested positive but was known to be a hoax? If this is true, does that completely invalidate all the other diagnostic work BLT has performed? Like the UT case that Nancy spoke of during her solo visit a couple of shows back? I wouldn't think so...

Does it automatically invalidate it? No.

Should it call for a serious reevaluation of their claims? I think so.

Can we brush away evidence that suggests that whatever markers they are looking at in their testing as an indicator of high strangeness is not uncommon or the result of mysterious energies?

 

[trainedobserver]

So nobody is entitled to a mistake?

Did you read Colin Andrew's report on that? It seems more than just a blip, especially in how it was handled.

 

[pixelsmith]

sure! you are entitled to the mistake of having Talbott back on.

 

[ward]

Just finished the interview. I've listen to Nancy for years, so i truly do want to thank Nancy and Robert for doing this interview. It is clear to me now, without a doubt for me personally, i no longer have to spend any more of my time looking at her data or the Robbert van den Broeke case. Thanks to Gene and Chris as well for a very illuminating interview.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

sure! you are entitled to the mistake of having Talbott back on.

I do not think it was a mistake. A lot of illuminating material came out of that interview. That material doesn't favor Robbert, of course, but it gives me a good idea of what's actually going on. I think others agree, but if not, at least we can set him aside and get on with our business.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I don't think it was a mistake either - you gave them some rope to hang themselves with.

 

[mike]

I think Lance nailed it with his post, the degree of critical scrutiny must be increased in circumstances like these.

But id also make the point that one bad apple doesnt have to spoil the whole barrel.

Purely hypothetical here, but lets say for the sake of the demonstration, there was a genuine alien made formation somewhere that Andrews or any other researcher looked at.
Lets not concern ourselves with how they got here, or why they did it.

So for the sake of the argument lets say andrews sees a genuine ET made CC.

A week later the BBC hook book and cook him with a fake.
That would not magically change the propertys of the first circle.

Falling for a fake circle wouldnt rewrite the timeline and make the first one a prank with a plank.

Any more than being fooled by a fake Picasso, would make all Picasso's fake

Knowing there are fake Picasso's out there, some so good they fool experts.......

Mr Blundell, 55, has admitted being the real hand behind hundreds of paintings signed by famous Australian painters from Arthur Streeton to Charles Blackman, Sidney Nolan and Russell Drysdale which fooled experts including those at the National Gallery
including one signed by Monet and another by Picasso

Judge gives go-ahead to sell 1000 fake paintings - smh.com.au

Just means one has to employ an enhanced sense of scrutiny when looking at the "picture"

 

[Burnt State]

Did you read Colin Andrew's report on that? It seems more than just a blip, especially in how it was handled.

In fact the first thorough volley of comments from listeners to the first show clearly outlined it was more than a blip - this mistake was indentfied by 'Dr.' L. as the best example to date, collectors of the samples cited how disillusioned they had become & it was identified that the BLT team refused to test blind samples, as if somehow their brand of 'science' could not properly process random samples.

So while their may have been real research at work once, as Chris asserts, all I see are heaping piles of data & reports at BLT like somehow the more darts you throw, the better shot you have at winning the really big Pooh bear at the carnival, as opposed to just looking at, or like pooh.

I really do question all of it including the XRD materal; there really is nothing real here except for what people feel appears to be real, or evidence, if you want to call it that.

What I do find most bizarre, as Chris points out, that unlike the Meier schtick, who backpeddles after the fakery is exposed, this tale actually showed you what the hoax was based on & then fabricated a reality out of that up front. It is just utterly surreal that they get air time when you are being offered a clear choice: "believe what I tell you because I'm telling you the truth" vs. "are you going to call me a liar?"

Since when does that sort of offer carry currency?

The cut out photos & really bad photoshop work, as pointed by many, does not really merit a discussion, but it certainly does infuriate many. I really wish more of a pronounced trashing of this obvious fakery took pace instead of just those few moments of anger & defensiveness.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Also remember that we go nowhere if we just force the guest off the air. Issues aren't discussed. By fleshing out the Robbert story, with issues that aren't being discussed elsewhere -- such as his friend the computer guru/mentalist, his hospitalization for mental illness, etc. -- the real issues were clearly defined.

And one more thing: Arguing whether a guest should have been invited on the show is a non-issue once that decision is made. For better or worse, this is my sandbox. Some guests disappoint, some guests enlighten us, and some guests predictably reveal their own flaws for all to see.

 

[mike]

I pre chilled a couple of bottles of extra strong home brew, and fortified with dutch courage lol
i listened to the show...............

Nancy didnt cover herself in glory, she was getting angry with the scenario which clearly wasnt how she wanted to answer questions, her version of i will give you all the answers, so you dont need to ask questions is not how these things should ever be conducted.
That format is for the lecture circuit not a show like this.

For me one of the critical moments was when van den meier agreed the ghost image shows up in the camera after each shot.
When we look at the video nancy touts as being proof, his face shows no emotion as the pictures are taken and displayed, its only when Stan comes and looks at the stored images they both jump and Bob pretends to be surprised and delighted at what hes produced.

That makes no sense, he would have seen delgado during the photo taking sequence, but he doesnt react at all, instead we see what i reckon is a classic poker face.

The fact that he jumped with stan after seeing the images which would have been for the second time for him,(by his own admission on the show, he sees the ghosts after each shot is taken) tells me hes faking the reaction.

He would have already seen those images as he was taking the series of photos, the surprise and delight we see in the video looking at them for the second time with stan, strikes me as an act

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The conclusion being, then, that Stan the man or Stan the mentalist is the enabler or the worker bee who makes all this pseudo-magic occur.

 

[mike]

I think Stan is involved yes, in a YT comment he claims to know every trick in the book and that Bobs results could easily be faked.

Its not uncommon for the stage magician to have an assistant, and i think thats his role here.

Nancy mentioned the three knocks on the door, ghost ? or assistant saying we are set up to do the trick.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

In this case, Stan may BE the stage magician. A role reversal, so maybe Robbert is the diversion. I don't claim to be an expert on such matters -- far from it -- but the stage magician's trick is to misdirect you so you look at something else while the magician is busy performing the real stunt.

 

[mike]

I think its a fair bet stan is the brains behind the operation for sure.

heres a couple of photos ive taken with a standard digital camera

first here is my TV remote with the IR LED facing the camera, its inactive

Now here is a shot with me pressing the volume button

Note the LED is visible as being lit up......

But if you were to look at it with the naked eye you would not see it lit up, it would look the same as the first pic

if you were to project an image using this sort of LED you would see nothing with the naked eye, but a digital camera would see it