June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[dianadee13]

Yeah, I was drawn to what she was saying but when she went on about this Robert, she totally lost me. Its a shame as I think the crop circle stuff does need to be looked at more, but by credible people not money and fame seeking stunts.

 

[Rocketsauce]

<o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" images="" smilies="" redface.gif="" border="0" alt="" title="Embarrassment" smilieid="2" class="inlineimg"></o:smarttagtype>I found this a really Entertaining show, thanks guys!

I don't know anything about Nancy, any of the work or research she has done, anything about Robert and I'm am dumb when it comes to science.

But...... based on listening to this episode, I think it's possible Robert has legitimate phenomena going on that needs to be checked out by someone with more scientific/technological knowledge but I don't think this will happen.

If Nancy is legit and honest then getting a video camera to film stuff seems the first thing anyone would do and deserves a straight forward answer which at the very least could be, "Well, I haven't done that yet and I don't have a very good reason, but it's something I will consider......" It kind of reminded me of Austin Powers when Dr. Evil's son 'Scott' was like, "Dad, I'll get a gun and shoot the guy, end of story...." While Dr. Evil preferred Sharks with Laser beams and to Scott's suggestion he just told him, "You just don't get it Scott.....".

But it definitely seems like a complicated situation. You potentially have (based on the description) a 29 year old guy who has very serious socialization issues for whatever reason and an over controlling father. Sounds like the family has no problem putting their son out there on TV from the posts on here, but maybe they underestimated the amount of scrutiny their son would get after being on TV and now they have decided it's not worth it and are very picky on whom they let into their son’s life, kind of like the Izzat case in that regards as well. But I obviously don’t know. Certainly, a lot of family dynamics going on and the guy is different.

On the other side I can also see why the tone of the interview eventually got Nancy annoyed. At some point during the interview IMO it seemed a pissing match about pointing out how non technical and non scientific Nancy is, when admittedly from what I remember her saying in the interview she doesn't know much about the technical aspects of imaging or scientific research in general (unless I'm missing something and she claims to have great methods....) She seemed to honestly IMO believe she is doing the best she can with what she has.

I find in listening to the Paracast, that their are often very nice people with good intentions who are not scientists and aren't professionals at documenting things who get involved in some of these potentially compelling cases. If real scientists would get involved this wouldn't have to be the norm!

Kind of reminds of when a child star actor's parents also become their agent and run the kid into the ground. Just because your kid or family member is having legit paranormal experience and there is someone willing to do some amateur research in a subject that people on the whole don't know much about or how to document it, doesn't mean they are going to do a good job of collecting good evidence or explaining their cases in a compelling way to people who are more logical/critical.

Also doesn't mean people who are more logical or critical should take the time to even consider it! I think someone like Nancy could really use a lot of constructive criticism and suggestions, but in a nicer productive tone (assuming the person is being honest unlike the Bill Knell’s of the world!)

 

[marduk]

Oh. My. God.

I was kinda going with the flow of the show until the Robert bit. And logically if Robert is a hoaxer (wittingly or unwittingly) and she's witnessed/been a part of the experience then she must therefore be wittingly or unwittingly wrapped up in this mess.

Seriously he can predict crop circles but his daddy won't let him videotape and release one being made? Or better yet get a gang of people with equipment to get evidence?

Ya, right.

 

[Schuyler]

Wow! How did we get from crop circles to Robert? I didn't get the segway. In any case, I think Nancy is out of her depth. My feeling is that she got defensive when she got caught being sloppy. She SHOULD have documented those photos much better. David called her out on it and THAT is when she first got irritated. I think she was just embarrassed because she knew he was right.

So you have a person who is fairly impressionable and maybe naive running around studying crop circles who stumbles upon Robert and becomes enamored. She had a couple of experiences that overwhelmed her, such as the pictures of her dead brother. The hook is set. She decides she is going to 'study' him, but winds up in a personal relationship with the family. She loses all objectivity by going native. Because she did that she lost her usefulness as an investigator. Kind of a sad case, really.

So where are the pictures of her brother?

 

[Rocketsauce]

Wow! How did we get from crop circles to Robert? I didn't get the segway. In any case, I think Nancy is out of her depth. My feeling is that she got defensive when she got caught being sloppy. She SHOULD have documented those photos much better. David called her out on it and THAT is when she first got irritated. I think she was just embarrassed because she knew he was right.

So you have a person who is fairly impressionable and maybe naive running around studying crop circles who stumbles upon Robert and becomes enamored. She had a couple of experiences that overwhelmed her, such as the pictures of her dead brother. The hook is set. She decides she is going to 'study' him, but winds up in a personal relationship with the family. She loses all objectivity by going native. Because she did that she lost her usefulness as an investigator. Kind of a sad case, really.

So where are the pictures of her brother?

Ha! That sounds about right. Very concise summary, almost what you'd see on the back of the Nancy Talbot DVD you'd rent at Blockbuster

 

[Gareth]

Wow! How did we get from crop circles to Robert? I didn't get the segway.
...

So where are the pictures of her brother?

I believe she first learnt of Robbert because of his alleged ability to predict crop circles. I remember hearing her talk about him last time with this apparent ability the focus of the conversation.

And yeah I was hoping she would show the pics of her brother too.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I was mostly interested in the pictures on Nancy's website...the ones Robert took and I have to say this, the pictures of the orbs completely threw me. Pathetic. As a ghost hunter, and one who's been researching and conducting investigations for over a year, I can honestly and truthfully say that 99.9% of all orbs caught on camera are utterly normal. They are either dust or moisture droplets. The ones that Robert supposedly caught are just these as well. Oh, Nancy tried to "duplicate" the dust by shaking something in the air and it, of course, looked difference since the air was utterly filled with orbs, but what she should have done was given it about 10 minutes, then take a picture. She would have caught those few remaining orbs that would have looked all haunting and such. As for orbs that "glow," well like astroids and comets in space, dust particles tend to be made up of different elements and materials as well and, as such, some of those particles will reflect light based on their composition. It's easy to take the orbs that happen to reflect the flash or seem to have pictures of Jesus in them when you zoom in to 576% and look at them with one eye closed. Orbs = BS.

As far as the other light anomalies where Robert looks like he's casting a spell? that reeks of fraud. Nancy seems honest enough so I'm willing to chalk it up that she's just naive which has been pointed out in these forums. I concur.

Though I'm not a clinical psychologist I have taken several classes during my college career, and I have children so I've educated myself on more common psychological problems that kids face these days; either themselves or within their friends. To me, from what I'm hearing, Robert is autistic; intently creative yet a social outcast. It fits the bill nicely, and yes, his family is taking serious advantage of him. It's BS that his father is so protective that a video camera is locked away like it's some kind of weapon because, of course, to someone faking paranormal activity, a device that offers proof or debunking so easily is the equivalent of a weapon. The fact that Roberts father let him appear on several TV shows is clear evidence that he's not quite a protective of his son as Nancy seems to believe. Of course the "respect of privacy" and the "Robert doesn't see things the way we do" excuses are just that, convenient excuses that keep the nay-sayers and debunkers away. These excuses leave us doubters empty handed, and force anybody curious to accept nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Oh, as far as the other pictures, Nancy states that Robert knows nothing of tech and could never alter them on a computer. Well who say's Robert has to be the one doing the altering? I'm sure a friend or family member, such as his father, could do a very capable job of faking it as well. Personally I've seen pictures like those light anomalies, mostly taken with camera straps or the like.

All-in-all the entire case reeks of suspicion and fraud. The family wants no one close for a simple reason, they don't want to be exposed as fakes and phonies. Plain and simple. No more attention should be given to these people, and certainly no more money wasted in trying to research them, even if it's for exposure.

My 2 cents.

 

[Apocalypto]

The first time I ever saw Talbot was in the crop circle movie "Crop Circles: Quest for Truth". Most of what she talked about involved the effects and studies surrounding plant growth patterns around the circles. I thought she was a pretty compelling and interesting investigator. The movie is a worthy watch for anyone who is interested in crop circles: Crop Circles: Quest for Truth (2002)

But listening to her talk about this "psychic" fellow Robert left me cold. Both cold on her, and the story surrounding Robbert. One of the things that I don't quite understand is how there seems to be no commitment on her part (or the family's part) to call what she is doing research.

She says she isn't really researching this guy, but more of a documenter of the strangeness. Yet she's writing a book about him? I don't get it....

Almost fittingly, Robert's English isn't that good, so we (other investigators, interested parties etc) can't talk to him directly. He "doesn't travel, at all". His father "does not want this". He doesn't "want this", yet Talbot is "writing all this stuff" about him, and eventually writing a book... man, that's a conflict of interest right there... and lots of mystery around this guy. Too much. Basically, I get very skeptical when people insist on always having the "research" done on their terms - and their terms only. Robert and his dad fall into that category.

So Robert has all of these amazing psychic powers, yet he doesn't know why, and he's not that interested in doing any real research to find out? (i.e. third party witnesses, videographers etc) So Talbot talks about him because she has exclusive rights to his story? Help me out here.

As usual, David asks the pertinent questions and brings up the relevant issues, for example, he brings up the pragmatism of the Dutch. But her response, "That's the way it is..." sorry, I don't buy that. It's not the way it is unless you let it be that way. It's the easiest way to create an aura of mystery around this man (and he's not a kid, he's 29, he's a man) after which you can write a book and sell it. Okay.

And of course skeptics and debunkers are going to attack you. Guess what? That's reality. It's very common. So why did you ever publicize his abilities at all? They're just going to attack you, so what's the point?

As David says, "In order to take something seriously you have to understand it..." and Talbot's reply is, "I don't understand it..." Yet there is a book on the way? What's going to be in the book? A bunch of questions?

Another interesting point David made was the photo where there was a reflection and there had to be light interacting with the optics of the camera. In short, he called her on what is likely a bullshit photo. That leads in to the question of why - once again - there isn't more documentation being done on this guy from outside sources, and I don't buy the whole "he doesn't like their vibe" shit. Give me a break. Stop being so sensitive, for God's sake. If you've got nothing to hide, don't be so timid.

I'm thinking there might be some telekinesis involved here, and I'm not sure why Talbot is so quick to push against that. Didn't she say she doesn't know what's going on here? Then how can she be so sure it's not some form of telekinesis? Bah.

One last thing. Is anyone else getting sick and tired of non-experts telling David he's wrong about his professional analysis of photos? I'm referring to the air-suspended dust in front of the lens shot. So tired of it. So you're so unprofessional that you claim to not know anything about cameras, she "finally went out and bought a camera" etc. She's knows fark-all about cameras. So why is she so sure that Biedny, an expert in the field, is wrong?

Whatever. done.

 

[Gareth]

Well said Apocolypto.

Im also interested in this ring photo with a reflection. This simply HAS to be a true physical object correct?

Would plasma leave a reflection like that? I think it probably would.

 

[themacx]

Well said Apocolypto.

Im also interested in this ring photo with a reflection. This simply HAS to be a true physical object correct?

Would plasma leave a reflection like that? I think it probably would.

or it's just a 'trick shot" ... I'm very sure I could fake it. but then I'm saying Nancy is into this hoax and people don't seem to like that... she such a nice lady ahhwww

anyway, has anybody really seen proof cropcircles are not man made? I don't think so. the video revered to doesn't proof anything, all it does is show her point of view and her view is very bias. Especially now she's claiming that her dear robbert can predict them...come on people! All I know is we can't even predict the weather (or know how it works in detail) so wtf!


ok.. as for plasma... do people know what plasma is? you might wanna read up on the definition:

Wikimedia Error)

for me it seems people think that what they said in ghostbusters was based on facts... (no offence)

 

[Gareth]

but then I'm saying Nancy is into this hoax and people don't seem to like that... she such a nice lady ahhwww

I trust my intuition more than you, that's all. I dont actually care either way. You're not going to hurt my feelings by insulting Nancy Talbot.

I just happen to believe based on what Ive heard of her that there is no way She is conspiring with Robbert to commit fraud or a hoax.

If Im wrong ill eat crow.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I trust my intuition more than you, that's all. I dont actually care either way. You're not going to hurt my feelings by insulting Nancy Talbot.

I just happen to believe based on what Ive heard of her that there is no way She is conspiring with Robbert to commit fraud or a hoax.

If Im wrong ill eat crow.

Regarding Nancy's personality and credibility, I, too, have to say that based on the beginning of the episode she seemed a very reasonable, rational, and logical individual. However even reasonable, rational, and logical individuals can become caught up in things like this in a very emotional and attached way. That can cloud said-individual's judgement a bit. Clouded judgement can cause you to do things such as participate in a hoax, or on a far less accusitory scale, believe things you normally wouldn't accept as fact. Based on what I heard of Nancy, I'm thinking the latter may be true, here. She's caught up in the charm of Robbert so she's willing to set critical thinking and logic aside for a time.

Being human I can't blame her. Being a paranormal researcher/investigator myself, I certainly blame her. The only choice we really have there is to see what Nancy saw and that would mean travel to the Netherlands and observe/investigate Robbert ourselves. Who's with me? OH WAIT, that's right; his over-protective father won't let us near him for fear that we might expose....er...rather exploit him.

Sorry, the bitter disbelief just had to slip through there.

 

[Grokl]

Well I have to admit that hearing Mrs BaconLettuceTomato made me really think of all those other shows I have heard and seen her on, being far more credible than this episode. It was a chore. Personally it sounded like Dave had a tough questions, she didnt want to directly reespond to his questions and poor Gene sat in there trying to figure our WTF does this go to next...

Wasnt she on UFO hunters once?

 

[themacx]

The only choice we really have there is to see what Nancy saw and that would mean travel to the Netherlands and observe/investigate Robbert ourselves. Who's with me? OH WAIT, that's right; his over-protective father won't let us near him for fear that we might expose....er...rather exploit him.

Sorry, the bitter disbelief just had to slip through there.

If that where so i'd agree... but that is NOT the case.. Robbert does do interviews he even had a TV show (that failed and I wonder why).. now if that isn't exploiting i don't know what is... but here's the problem..... He only talks to people who seem to believe him. The kind that also follow people like Greer or Adamski.. there I said the 'A' word now... I have no personal problems with Nancy if she likes the guy OK but don't try and push that crap down our throat please. If she so gulible I don't care but mixing this with serious stuf is down right criminal.

I just checked an interview he did in 2007 where he claimed to have FOR THE FIRST TIME he had 2 witnesses seeing an cropcirle appear right in front of them.... guess who the witnesses where..... that's right... His mother and a girlfriend... amazing!

He also claimed he has a infra red camera where he took some pictures with (orbs).... no technology huh?

You have to understand that holland for the past hmm 8 years is bombarded with mediums and what not... mostly by people like Char, Ogilvie and even a talent hunt TV show for mediums (sadly very popular) .. all I see in robbert is a Char wannabee. And poor Nancy has been suckerd in by them. The technics they use are very profesional and can also be found in CIA manuals.. It's called neurolinguistic programming. A form of hypnosis designed to fool people to believe incredible things. You might like to investigate that before going to ANY medium.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Regarding my previous post about the orb photographs; I'd not listened to the last 20 minutes of the episode prior to posting that. Of course, within those last 20 minutes David pointedly addressed the fact that those orbs were particles of dust, a claim that Nancy protested even after she'd admitted earlier in the show to not having very much photographic technical knowledge. It really marr's your creditbility to admit you don't know a lot about something, then go up against an expert in that something and tell that expert they're wrong. At that point I think Nancy was just too self-defensive and was intentionally being argumentitive, but again, that's human nature.

 

[dude-with-no-life]

Check this out, he's on a David Letterman type of show.
Skip to 14:00 and he shows a film of an alien shadow in his bedroom. Keep watching untill he starts to make pictures inside the studio, you don't need to understand Dutch to see how sad this is.

They also show a clip of him in a Oprah Winfrey type of show when he was 18 and dad speaks about how they were losing their son. That's around 05:00

This idea of being protected is crap, you also see him in a crop circle carrying a dangerous camera

15-03 Robbert van den Broeke

 

[Jeff Crowell]

15-03 Robbert van den Broeke

I watched this eating lunch and threw up in my mouth a little bit. Yeah, he's protected alright. I get the flashbacks of the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy not to look behind the curtain or you'll see the illusion.
I also take back my assumption that he may be autistic. No way he could sit through an interview like that even with a mild form of autism and if he were even medicated.

 

[themacx]

He's smart enough to fool stupid people... in anyway his manager/daddy is.

 

[dude-with-no-life]

He speaks very clear but there's something off, you clearly notice he's not 100% normal. Each time the host goes along with his story you see a twinkle in his eye enjoying the attention. You see his emotional need for this whole fantasy and in a very sad way chasing it. The body language is pretty obvious.

When David started to ask some good (followup) questions Nancy made him look more and more like a drewling idiot. Trying to explain why she couldn't answer any single reasonable question.

Please don't mistake my comment with bashing anyone who isn't "normal", what's normal? I'm a very compassionate person but when we analyse these incredible stories we need to tell it like it is.

You can also see him doing tv sessions on googlevideo. They really groomed him nice, did some good editing to make him look pretty believable when he does his coldreading. But in this talkshow it all falls apart and his true person is visible, they really have no shame in tv land.

He's clearly not a Uri Geller type of person, that guy knows he's just doing a (bad) trick show for money.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

You can also see him doing tv sessions on googlevideo. They really groomed him nice, did some good editing to make him look pretty believable when he does his coldreading. But in this talkshow it all falls apart and his true person is visible, they really have no shame in tv land.

Should we feel shame exposing frauds and hoaxers? In regard to the signal-to-noise saying, this guy is a lot of noise as far as paranormal research goes. I mean when someone claims to have these abilities then shy's away from video cameras and the like? Come on. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of the excuses. Like David said, if you have something that's replicable and fairly predictable, why not pepper his house with video cameras and show the world? Don't give me this "privacy" crap. If he wanted privacy he wouldn't be on these TV shows!

*end of rant*