• 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!

Return Engagement -- Nancy Talbott with Robbert van den Broeke

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

If he can do this on a whim at any time. Why not go for the James Randi challenge and prove to the world he has paranormal abilities? Many of Roberts paranormal experiences have been captured on camera, as they were happening allegedly, and with no hint of foul play seen by anyone. So if that is the case. It will not be too difficult to prove if these images are been faked by him.

One of the images i saw shows a German wehrmacht standing in a room ( who's no longer living)

Ok what prove is there this guy in the image died during World War 2 and why would he still be wearing a German Uniform (have they not got a change of clothes in the afterlife?) This dead supposed German soldier could easily be a wax work. Anyway to wrap this up i have little faith Robert is the real deal. Some the images i saw honestly look ridiculously stupid and probably were doctored.
 
Does anyone else see a pattern of researchers of the paranormal being drawn into more and more dubious fields? It's like 'mission creep' in military terms.

Mind you, is it any different than someone finding religion and then taking that religious conviction further and further ? e.g speaking in tongues, handling snakes etc - possibly not good examples though.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
My questions: How much Apple stock do you own? Did you buy it when it was down to $4? If so many of your "evidence" is obviously fake, why should we care about anything you tell us?



A
Click to expand...
Seriously, here's my personal answer. We'll let the guests speak for themselves: When Apple's stock was in the dumps, I was also a tech journalist working for such major media outlets as CNET and USA Today. It would have been unethical for me to hold their stock. Since I continue to host a tech radio show (since 2002 in fact), I would continue to regard it as unethical. But I have to think that if I spent $5,000 on Apple stock in the 1990s, I'd be in pretty decent shape today. :)

As far as psychics are concerned, curious that they will often say they do not wish to use their skills to predict stock price increases, or decreases, lottery numbers, or who is going to win the Kentucky Derby. They would not regard that as a moral use of their abilities, but they aren't shy to collect money for their services. Oh well.
 
1. With debilitating impairments, savants like Kim Peek, Stephen Wiltshire and Daniel Tammet are able to perceive our world in an extraordinary way. Other individuals with noted psychic abilities like Cayce, Geller and Stanford all had physically traumatic events (i.e. head injuries) in childhood. Does Robbert recall a head injury or other event in youth that may have triggered this heightened perception in some way?

2. If funding were available, would Robbert consider MRI testing or other real-time scientific measurement to observe brain function when perceiving entities or capturing images on film?
 
These seems like a reasonable test. Criticisms and suggestions? The who, when, where would be pretty important of course.
  1. Videotape the whole process .
  2. Order a new camera and a separate memory card from amazon and leave in the box when they arrive.
  3. Go to a neutral location.
  4. Unwrap and mark each item. Video should be a one shot from here on out.
  5. Assemble them.
  6. Hand Robbert the camera.
  7. Have him snap several photos without stepping away.
  8. Retrieve the camera.
  9. Check the marks on camera and card.
  10. View photos on the camera.
 
I would like to know if Robbert would say if he has ever been exposed to the Billy Meier material. If so, what does he think of it and if not how does he explain the similarities between it and some of his (supposed) evidence?
 
The episode is "in the can" as they say in the movie business. We did ask the most important questions and concerns you've posed here. And I want you all to listen very carefully to the last couple of segments of the episode when it's broadcast for interesting and telltale clues that we'll talk about on next week's show. 'Nuff said. :)
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The episode is "in the can" as they say in the movie business. We did ask the most important questions and concerns you've posed here. And I want you all to listen very carefully to the last couple of segments of the episode when it's broadcast for interesting and telltale clues that we'll talk about on next week's show. 'Nuff said. :)
Click to expand...

Fantastic Gene, can't wait to hear the episode.
 
trainedobserver said:
These seems like a reasonable test. Criticisms and suggestions? The who, when, where would be pretty important of course.
  1. Videotape the whole process .
  2. Order a new camera and a separate memory card from amazon and leave in the box when they arrive.
  3. Go to a neutral location.
  4. Unwrap and mark each item. Video should be a one shot from here on out.
  5. Assemble them.
  6. Hand Robbert the camera.
  7. Have him snap several photos without stepping away.
  8. Retrieve the camera.
  9. Check the marks on camera and card.
  10. View photos on the camera.
Click to expand...

I would add to this :

Note: All video cameras should have the date/time synchronized. When the camera is unwrapped at the test site it should be immediately synchronized with the video camera date/time.

1a. Separate video camera over the shoulder of the primary video operator.
6a. A third video camera over the shoulder of Robbert.
 
Dave Murphy said:
2. If funding were available, would Robbert consider MRI testing or other real-time scientific measurement to observe brain function when perceiving entities or capturing images on film?
Click to expand...

Why would you want to spend the money on MRI testing before running adequate experiments to determine if he actually doing this at all in the first place? You are putting the cart before the horse.
 
PararealitySaint said:
The main question I would love to ask, is based on a reference I have found and for Robert. The following site clearly explains a "mistake" in his supposed medium-ship. I refer to the following:

James Randi's Swift - January 6, 2006

On the site there is a clear misunderstanding on Robert's part of the word he used to explain employment of a reincarnation of a man who was the husband of a lady he was speaking to. The word was, "Genverbrander."

And I quote: "But this turned out to be a typographical error on the website, and that same mistake was also miraculously made by the ghosts who gave “psychic” Robbert the information! It should have been, “geneverbrander!" The second "e" was lost... Geneverbrander translates as genever-brander, “genever maker,” or of “jenever,” an old Dutch liquor – gin.

If this is not a blatant attempt at trickery, based on the simple misuse of a word which seems to have been looked up on the Google search engine beforehand, then please ask Robert how this mistake was made.
Click to expand...

I hate to do this, but why wasn't this question asked during the show. It is without doubt one of the most obvious of Robert's fake highlights and I thought we were going to have the chance to ask questions pertaining to his serious neglect of what is real paranormal phenomena? You ask us every week to post questions which are pertinent to the show, but time after time I have posted pretty referenced and quite accurate queries, yet for some reason they aren't asked. I am not looking to be a pain in the ass about this, but man Gene, I was the first person on the question bank for this week's show, the question was directly shown to be a given proof of the man's neglect, and as the proof in this case was really in the package a lot more directly than mud man or any other photo questions they could easily squirm out of.....Nothing.
 
That would be a hard question to phrase in a simple fashion. Robbert isn't that capable in English. This is also the sort of thing that could just be denied or maybe chalked up to coincidence.

If we see a pattern, there would be something to talk about. But it goes without saying that Google is a great resource for cold readings.

There was so much else to discuss. I think introducing Stan, the former mentalist and computer guru, was a larger achievement. The implications are obvious.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
That would be a hard question to phrase in a simple fashion. Robbert isn't that capable in English. This is also the sort of thing that could just be denied or maybe chalked up to coincidence.

If we see a pattern, there would be something to talk about. But it goes without saying that Google is a great resource for cold readings.

There was so much else to discuss. I think introducing Stan, the former mentalist and computer guru, was a larger achievement. The implications are obvious.
Click to expand...

Gene,

I would have normally agreed with you here but this was a cold hard fact. He actually did this and attempted to fool one of his own newscasters residing in his home country. He did this as a blatant attempt at falsifying his supposed psychic abilities. You inferred about "mudman" but for some reason this was too hard to form into a question? I cannot believe that he is that dumb, or that Nancy couldn't do her usual interrupting and explanation for him.

No, he was let off easy on this one. This wasn't some "maybe" circumstance of his faking (anyone can Photoshop, etc.)....This was an actual recorded FAKE attempt at fooling people out there who initially believed in him enough to get him to that level of an interview. It was verified by the news agency and presented as a cold hard fact.

I state for the record here that the man is a charlatan and until he can answer the question that I posed, one which came from a direct involvement of his, that no other conclusion can be met with any viable certainty or credit.

Lastly, this "Stan" character was something I agree placed the icing on the cake, but my question was without doubt relevant and should have been asked before inferring "Mudman" or anything else he was charged with abusing.
 
I am satisfied that we gave him enough rope to hang himself. After our summary on the next episode, I don't think we'd need to visit it again. Do you really expect him to just confess?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I think introducing Stan, the former mentalist and computer guru, was a larger achievement. The implications are obvious.
Click to expand...



Photography and stage magic have a long association.

Magic: Stage Illusions, Special Effects and Trick Photography - Albert A. Hopkins - Google Books

Standard work on classic stage illusions performed by Robert-Houdin, Bautier de Kolta, Maskelyne and others. Detailed descriptions of techniques of fire eaters, sword swallowers, jugglers, acrobats, etc. Also ancient magic, automatons, magic photography, much more.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top