• 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:

mike said:
Not sure about that, if the device used a lense to magnify the image it would be a matter of finding the right spot in the room, and start snaping
As an example a movie theatre projector is a long way from the screen, but using lenses to magnify the images you can get a large picture projected at a distance

I imagine a fairly small device that could fit into a bookcase or pose as a knick knack on a shelf, could with a lense, project a decent sized image about 4 or 5 feet into the room, all you would need to do is stand close to the focal point and then move the camera back and forth using the screen on the back to see when the focus is right


Compact integrated infrared scene projector




Compact integrated infrared scene projector - US Patent 6635892 Description
Click to expand...

Ok, then it would be a matter of Robbert finding the 'sweet spot' focal point of the projector's target and aiming the camera so the image gets registered. Otherwise either the image would cover the entire frame of the photo, or it would not get registered at all. Sounds rather complicated.

Does he take the pictures in the same spot of his room all the time?

What happens when he goes to the homes of his clients, or when he takes pictures outdoors? Wouldn't someone had noticed him carrying a rather enigmatic black case/knick knack? ;)

You know, last night when I was returning home after leaving my last post in this thread, it occurred to me that if you can use the phrase "too good to be true" to discount the veracity of a given evidence, there should also be the opposite phrase "too bad to be false." In which case I think Robbert's photos would be the perfect candidates for that phrase IMO ;)
 
As I listened to this broadcast, I felt like the whole section about the ghost photos was just a typical illusionist trick. Then later in the show, we find out that Robert's best friend is an ex-mentalist, how convenient.
 
Agree Gene it sounds to ? rather think people who might experience something strange tend to be more likely one or two even three if lucky. However, more likely the brain re-interprets our thoughts and fears which mix's the truth from fact days after is a possibility. I did drawings of the so called events not long after of those hooded chaps but was it sleep paralysis who knows that just a theory. Tend to think its more complicated than that and we are like ants on tip of a sand hill of knowledge.

Cheers,
BF
 
trainedobserver said:
BLT and Robbert B. are promoting a modern version of Spiritualism. An old scam made new with modern technology and myth elements like digital cameras and crop circles. There is really nothing new under the sun.
Click to expand...

Not all the mediums of the XIXth-early XXth era were complete scammers. There was Leonora Piper, for example, who was thoroughly investigated by the Society for Psychical Research.

And before anyone bothers to mention Martin Gardner to me, I suggest you read this:

How Martin Gardner Bamboozled the Skeptics.

But I agree with you on one thing: blurry photos are not my idea of spiritual enlightenment either ;)
 
John Gardner said:
As I listened to this broadcast, I felt like the whole section about the ghost photos was just a typical illusionist trick. Then later in the show, we find out that Robert's best friend is an ex-mentalist, how convenient.
Click to expand...
One of the more interesting discoveries during that episode. :)
 
Bingo! Contrary to the impression they appear to want to convey, the Netherlands isn't a third-world country, and Robbert didn't live in an Amish community. When he talked to us on Skype, he had to have broadband Internet. Maybe he didn't own his own computer until 2006, but saying he didn't have access to one is beyond credibility. Or maybe they didn't install running water and electricity until 2005. If he didn't have a way to get onto a PC of some sort, how'd he evaluate those digital photos, on the camera's LCD? Really? The local libraries and schools didn't have any? Give me a break!
 
I think it is plain as the mask on the mudman's face. This is another convoluted story of confidence operators and those who are more than ready and willing to be fooled by them for reasons we can only guess at. The paranormal swamp (I would call it a field but ...) is full of these stories, each one with its appeal to emotion and righteous indignation at being "questioned by the unbeliever".

Mentalists, magicians, and carnies have been doing this sort of thing since the world began but people are still falling for it. I don't hold out any hope that things will change much.
 
I can give a quick possible explanation for Nancy being genuinely fooled by a good bit of slight-of-hand...(I'm not prepared to call Nancy a fraud cos I just don't get that from her interviews. I don't know what to make of her reports of light balls in the garden of Robbert's house).

Anyway, because I think at least the 'german soldier' photo was just a cut-out held in front of the camera, Nancy could quite easily have handed Robbert a camera of hers, thinking it was loaded with film or had no digital images on it etc. So after handing the camera to Robbert, he appears to just point and shoot indoors and hey presto! a german soldier's image is on the shot.
All that needed to be done was for Robbert to 'palm' a small cut-out and for him to quickly hold it in front of the lens while taking a photo, hiding it again before returning the camera to Nancy.

Even a really shit magician could pull that off easily. A really good close-up magician could pull that off with panache' !! What's so hard to believe about that method? It explains why the soldier is out of focus and why we don't see his boots - cos Robbert's fingers would have obscured them! Case solved...;)
 
Yes Gene, for better or worse, Nancy I think, is just a believer. If anyone can ever get a true sense of whether someone is lying or not, then from her appearances on the show I have never got the impression the Nancy is herself a fraud. Quite the contrary, I think Nancy is investigating her areas of interest to the best of her abilities.
I'll take a gullible honest person over a deliberate fraudster anyday.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I don't see how Talbott can possibly be profiting from Robbert. It's not as if she's necessarily marketing his readings or other services on her site, or at least I didn't notice. I think she's a true believer, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I think she has become too emotionally attached to Robbert, and that hinders her objectivity. Maybe it's the fate of all researchers of the unknown in they linger too much in these murky waters, and also as they approach the twilight of their life. As was mentioned in the previous thread, it's difficult not to think of parallelisms with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

I honestly think that if Nancy believes Robbert's case is worthy of scientific scrutiny, that she should pass the baton to other researchers, preferably some that are computer savvy and willing to look upon this case with a fresh and objective insight. Nancy has done all she could in bringing Robbert to the public attention. I don't see how she plans to move forward in understanding the true nature of Robbert's ability to predict the apparition of a crop circle --if his abilities are genuine, of course.
 
red_pill_junkie said:
I think she has become too emotionally attached to Robbert, and that hinders her objectivity. Maybe it's the fate of all researchers of the unknown in they linger too much in these murky waters, and also as they approach the twilight of their life. As was mentioned in the previous thread, it's difficult not to think of parallelisms with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

I honestly think that if Nancy believes Robbert's case is worthy of scientific scrutiny, that she should pass the baton to other researchers, preferably some that are computer savvy and willing to look upon this case with a fresh and objective insight. Nancy has done all she could in bringing Robbert to the public attention. I don't see how she plans to move forward in understanding the true nature of Robbert's ability to predict the apparition of a crop circle --if his abilities are genuine, of course.
Click to expand...
I went over this with her, but she wants to believe that they do not need to convince anybody else of the reality of Robbert's powers. At the same time, that hasn't stopped her from going on radio shows and stage managing Robbert's appearances.
 
On that last point Gene, I felt that Nancy was often too quick to answer on Robbert's behalf, even though it was probably not necessary given Robbert's apparent ability to speak in English, which I felt was more than adequate to articulate his answers.
I was reminded of TV shows in which detectives have to silence a parent intent on answering for their child!
I am sure I am not the only person to feel Nancy was quite like an over-protective parent with Robbert!

If what Nancy reports is true, it seems almost like anyone could go and visit Robbert and have some paranormal happenings that related directly or indirectly to the observer present? I wonder if an average joe like myself could go and meet him for a 'reading' or some photography? There is a direct flight to Holland from where I live and I've visited Holland several times in the past - there is always something to do in Amsterdam.;)
 
Well, if you're volunteering to visit him, maybe we could have the experts in our audience guide you as to what to look for, particularly if there's "stage magic" involved in his alleged exhibitions of paranormal abilities.
 
You never know. I would hope that regardless of what I've said/posted about BLT/Robbert in the last few weeks, I'd go with an open mind. Wary of fraud but an open mind.

You've got to think though, that if Robbert's claims were a crime, the police would be very interested in Robbert's 'best friend' being an admitted mentalist/magician - the exact skills one would want to perpetrate a fraud of this kind! You couldn't make this up!
 
Back
Top