• 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!

April 22, 2012 -- Nancy Talbott

Forums New posts
Ah, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Look who just showed up in Robbert's camera a few days ago!

Robert van Broeke strikes again! Now it is Princess Diana | Circular State of Mind

Yes, indeedy, Princess Diana herself complete with a telepathic message that she has finally found her peace in the afterlife away from the media and now acts as ministering angel to the weak and underprivileged still living on earth! (But she was mum about her son Harry's recent naked romp in Las Vegas.)

Robbert van den Broeke \ Verschijning en boodschap van prinses Diana, met een bijzonder teken. 31

Even if you don't know Dutch, do look at these parts of the video which runs 11:43

The video opens with Robbert acting like a Catholic priest saying Mass, invoking the spirits to come visit.
At 1:18, the lights flicker, indicating that Princess Di is on her way.
At 2:30, Princess Di appears. (skip long dialogue with Stan.)
At 8:30, Robbert shows the miraculous burning or branding of a sign onto his forehead --- yes, a rash in the shape of a heart, yet another sign of the presence of Diana, showing her unconditional love for all of humanity.
 
Hollywood Tomfortas said:
Ah, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Look who just showed up in Robbert's camera a few days ago!

Robert van Broeke strikes again! Now it is Princess Diana | Circular State of Mind

Yes, indeedy, Princess Diana herself complete with a telepathic message that she has finally found her peace in the afterlife away from the media and now acts as ministering angel to the weak and underprivileged still living on earth! (But she was mum about her son Harry's recent naked romp in Las Vegas.)
Click to expand...

Well, poor Diana was never too smart about picking the men in her life. Maybe the habit transcended to the afterlife as well ;)
 
How fantastic.

Robbert has not only gone from stealing extra letter b's and using a neighbour's photobook of WWII, but now graduated to getting pyschic images of.....wait for it wait for it.......the single most photographed woman of all time!!! Hurrah! Let's rejoice at Robbbbbbbert's powers....you cannot imagine the effort it must have taken him to cut out a picture of Diana!
 
Anyone who thinks there is anything even remotely genuine about Robbert's and Nancy's claims at this point should get some counselling, life coaching, or something. It is absolutely painful to read, watch, or think about this case it is so damn silly. It's like getting something too sweet or sour in your mouth, you just want to spit it out. It's like watching a television sitcom that is just too silly to watch, it makes you laugh but in the wrong way.
 
trainedobserver said:
Anyone who thinks there is anything even remotely genuine about Robbert's and Nancy's claims at this point should get some counselling, life coaching, or something.
Click to expand...

Not to worry! Colin Andrews is hot on the case like Sherlock Holmes!

Family of Crop Circle Maker David Chorley Issues Warning to Medium

IN THE COMING DAYS, IMPORTANT FINDINGS WILL BE MADE PUBLIC OF A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY EXPERTS INTO CERTAIN CLAIMS MADE BY ROBBERT VAN DEN BROEKE CONCERNING PAT DELGADO AND DAVID CHORLEY SPECIFICALLY.
 
Hollywood Tomfortas said:
Ah, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Look who just showed up in Robbert's camera a few days ago!

Robert van Broeke strikes again! Now it is Princess Diana | Circular State of Mind

Yes, indeedy, Princess Diana herself complete with a telepathic message that she has finally found her peace in the afterlife away from the media and now acts as ministering angel to the weak and underprivileged still living on earth! (But she was mum about her son Harry's recent naked romp in Las Vegas.)

Robbert van den Broeke \ Verschijning en boodschap van prinses Diana, met een bijzonder teken. 31

Even if you don't know Dutch, do look at these parts of the video which runs 11:43

The video opens with Robbert acting like a Catholic priest saying Mass, invoking the spirits to come visit.
At 1:18, the lights flicker, indicating that Princess Di is on her way.
At 2:30, Princess Di appears. (skip long dialogue with Stan.)
At 8:30, Robbert shows the miraculous burning or branding of a sign onto his forehead --- yes, a rash in the shape of a heart, yet another sign of the presence of Diana, showing her unconditional love for all of humanity.
Click to expand...

Does anyone here wonder how someone of the accomplishments of a Nancy Talbot could continue to have anything to do with this guy? It's a wonder which equals the very creation of the universe. Either she has had it with making very little money doing what she's done in the past, or Robbert tricked her into believing his insane antics. Either way, or perhaps even both ways, this one really takes the cake!
 
trainedobserver said:
Anyone who thinks there is anything even remotely genuine about Robbert's and Nancy's claims at this point should get some counselling, life coaching, or something. It is absolutely painful to read, watch, or think about this case it is so damn silly. It's like getting something too sweet or sour in your mouth, you just want to spit it out. It's like watching a television sitcom that is just too silly to watch, it makes you laugh but in the wrong way.
Click to expand...


Or, they could get a copy of 'Hello!' and start cutting...
 
I recently started a correspondence up with Nancy. I had not read any of the forums or content about her before this, so it is a fresh perspective. I will start posting the interchange as it unfolded.

On 09/02/2012 05:04 PM, Nancy Talbott wrote:
> Hi, Daniel,
> It seems that perhaps you have not really READ the Robbert reports? Because in them I repeatedly present my (and many other people's) reasons for believing not only that these totally bizarre events which are constantly occurring around Robbert are really happening (without any trickery on his part), but also why I think they have something to do with the crop circle phenomenon generally. My primary interest is the circles, and has always been--but from the "scientific" point of view it is critical to present ALL the evidence one gathers, not just that which modern science can authenticate and we are "comfortable" with. The only way that progress can be made in human understanding of what we call "reality" is to take into consideration all of the facts--not just those that are acceptable by our current culture and through our current scientific knowledge.
>
> If you will take the time to read through these reports I think you will see that I am simply reporting, in as much detail and precision as I can, events which I personally have witnessed over and over in Robbert's company or situations which are of the same ilk. Also, that I have taken the same care in presenting the Robbert material as I have taken with presenting the scientific results obtained from studying the crop circle plants and soils.
>
> I don't understand what the Robbert material "means." But I would never present it if I were not convinced that it is both real (meaning that these things are actually occurring and that I have been unable to find any evidence of trickery) and significant.
>
> If you do decide to take the time to read and absorb the Robbert reports I would very much like to hear your ideas and thoughts afterward. I think you might end up, as I have, aware that "reality" may be considerably more complicated than any of us originally thought.
>
> One last thought....because we all know that people can make crop circles with planks & boards this does not mean that all crop circles are produced that way. I've been lucky enough to actually see a crop circle form right in front of my eyes (http://www.bltresearch.com/eyewitness/eyewitness1.php)...and I know, in that case for certain, no planks or boards were present.
>
> Best regards,
> Nancy
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2012, at 10:21 AM, wrote:
>
>> name = Daniel
>> email =
>> phone =
>> besttime =
>> country = USA
>> state =
>> town =
>> roads =
>> date =
>> media =
>> description = I am writing not to report a crop circle, but for another reason. I don't understand why there are links to Robbert van den Broeke? His trick photos are so obviously fake a 10 year old could produce them. This reduces the investigative work of BLT to an X-Files episode. Robbert is a fraud, isn't that obvious? If you are trying to reduce crop circle research to this level then you are harming the whole movement.
>> recaptcha_challenge_field = 03AHJ_Vuseto55u3xnjM1JAo03P5OVOBJr2MyxItublha5oPnjQZ4gJJ82v8n-kg_SDWWMfg1hjW9bSSkqthiFaUYET4FK-mLKxzZ80_zvmf-t7rc6uDMEuQtaEXKClmXEh5cZUCh1e-TcoXjy8STIIERroGWI-toEBQ
>> recaptcha_response_field = shasaha for
>> send = send
>> MAX_FILE_SIZE = 2000000
>>
>
> Nancy Talbott
>

>
>
>
 
The next part of the interchange:

Daniel,
Your reply here is thoughtful and I have respect for your point of view...but I am also pretty certain you have not yet read carefully the Robbert reports, or you would have a clearer idea of who he is and some of the reasons why all of this bizarre stuff may be occurring to/through him as a "medium." He and I both have wondered if it is because westernized societies have now become so materialistic, so sensationalistic, so accustomed to the superficial, that it takes very sensational events (and the loud criticisms these events incite) to get people to pay any attention.

I can't, and don't, claim any superior intellect or "spiritual" sophistication....I can only report what I see, what I observe, what I think I have learned...and then allow people to make whatever they choose to of the Robbert material. Just for the record, Robbert has always said, and continues to, that people can only "know" the truth behind these events in their hearts, through their own intuition--that real understanding cannot be achieved through mental reasoning.

And so, each to his own....each to his/her own "method" of understanding whatever we believe to be important.

Thanks for your input, the sharing of your ideas.

Sincerely,
Nancy Talbott




On Sep 2, 2012, at 10:22 PM, Daniel wrote:

> Nancy,
> As a Goethean scientist, or in more modest terms on my Goethean path, I always look at the phenomena and allow it to speak in its archetypal manifestations. "The human being himself, to the extent that he makes sound use of his senses, is the most exact physical apparatus that can exist." (Goethe) - Now where this statement has been misunderstood is also what gives this approach its merit, that being thinking itself. Many people believe they are making "sound use of [their] senses". It is only through thinking that we can truly penetrate the archetypes. But it is rare when thinking is so perfectly applied that this statement is actually true. Thus until as individuals we have breakthroughs that parallel a Goethean discovery, like biological morphology in Goethe's case, we can only claim to be on a "Goethean path", and try to be as exacting as possible.
> In the case of crop circles, we have many phenomena. We can study the physical evidence, but we also can use our thinking to broaden our investigation into how the laws of physics apply and what would allow the laws of physics to be broken? What in the evolution of mankind would make sense in terms of the breaking of the laws of physics? What is the meaning of such an event and how does it fit into our evolutionary history? What does the phenomena actually tell us?
> Now I already realize that I am going to get much too involved into the entire question of the evolution of mankind, so let me narrow this. If I apply my understand of the physics of the earth, from a physical and spiritual perspective, and the evolution of mankind on the earth (physical/spiritual), I tend to be skeptical of the spontaneous corruption of the laws of physics in so dramatic a fashion as some of the evidence reported on your website. As a spiritual scientist myself, I am open to all phenomena that ordinary physics is not, but I see ordinary physics as a subset of spiritual science. In other words, I don't look for spiritual science to break the laws of ordinary physics, rather I look for spiritual science to elaborate them with the fullness of the spiritual worlds. Many laws coincide on the earth, but there is a spiritual dimension that is not recognized by physical scientists.
> So in the case of Robbert, I am fully aware of the history of mediums and paranormal phenomena. I am also aware of Spiritualism and its role in human spiritual history. Let me say that Spiritualism does not have a very dignified role in this history. It is a form of materialism, as proponents of it need the dramatic physical phenomena as a sort of crutch upon which to gain an interest in the spiritual. As a Goethean scientist, every blade of grass is miraculous if we truly penetrate the archetypes. Why do we need cheesy photos of very physical and nonspiritual representations of beings in a digital camera? Even if they had some meaning, what would it be and how would it elaborate and grow our own consciousness? More important, how would we scientifically confirm their authenticity or develop our own relationship to these beings?
> This is the question of epistemology, the science of knowing. Without a firm basis in epistemology, everything else is passing phenomena, unconnected and dissociative. We can only approach the archetypes through knowing, sound reasoning. Some people confuse the rigors of materialistic science with materialism. Not so, as a rigorous scientific method is also true for studying the spiritual. For thinking is itself spiritual.
> I respect the fact that you are trying to apply a scientific approach to the phenomena you are collecting. I have observed videos of you elaborate on your research. However, I suggest you are ignoring your own self as observer in the subject/observer relation.
>
> Regards,
> - Daniel
 
Ancientsaturn said:
...
My primary interest is the circles, and has always been--but from the "scientific" point of view it is critical to present ALL the evidence one gathers, not just that which modern science can authenticate and we are "comfortable" with. The only way that progress can be made in human understanding of what we call "reality" is to take into consideration all of the facts--not just those that are acceptable by our current culture and through our current scientific knowledge and we are comfortable with. The only way that progress can be made in human understanding of what we call "reality" is to take into consideration all of the facts--not just those that are acceptable by our current culture and through our current scientific knowledge.
...
Click to expand...


No that is a "spit your drink out belly laugh" right there. She has demonstrated in very clear terms her complete misunderstanding of science, reality, and the definition of simple words like "facts" and "knowledge" in the space of two sentences.

How facts are differentiated from fiction and knowledge from guess work and assumption, is apparently a complete mystery to her. Anything she experiences or is told is "evidence" and "facts" that must be presented rather than evaluated before hand. She has no pseudo-science and bullshit filters and is proud of it apparently.
 
Nancy Talbott said:
Just for the record, Robbert has always said, and continues to, that people can only "know" the truth behind these events in their hearts, through their own intuition--that real understanding cannot be achieved through mental reasoning.
Click to expand...

Confidence men love that line. Well my intuition says Robbert is a lying sack of useless skin and Nancy is a naive ignoramus. Should I trust my intuition? Before someone jumps on me for calling Nancy a naive ignoramus I think you should look up the actual definition of the words I used.
 
trainedobserver said:
No that is a "spit your drink out belly laugh" right there. She has demonstrated in very clear terms her complete misunderstanding of science, reality, and the definition of simple words like "facts" and "knowledge" in the space of two sentences.

How facts are differentiated from fiction and knowledge from guess work and assumption, is apparently a complete mystery to her. Anything she experiences or is told is "evidence" and "facts" that must be presented rather than evaluated before hand. She has no pseudo-science and bullshit filters and is proud of it apparently.
Click to expand...


Yes, you hit the nail on the head here. Anything she experiences is "evidence" and "facts". That is what I could not quite believe when I started writing to her. If you go to a magic show, there are many things you experience that are not explained, but you don't assume the assistant is being sawed in two and then fixed before your eyes! You assume you do not yet have the counter evidence to explain the phenomena and you start to seek that evidence first. You start with the simple explanation, that the laws of physics are not suspended just for this one show! It is so basic that it blows the mind.

Going back to the magic analogy, there are many years as an adult when I had no idea how they did many magic tricks. Just recently I did a whirlwind review of online demonstrations of all the famous magic tricks. There were some tricks (before review) that were so ingenious that I even slightly wondered, how do they do this, could it be paranormal? But then you have to use other forms of evidence: if they really could do this, think of how rich they would be in manufacturing? They would have Nobel prizes in physics! We would see other evidence and the abilities used in other ways to help mankind. Many people would be able to do the same feats and not only on a stage. This is not just common sense, but is looking at phenomena holistically. It is being a skeptic till there is nothing but the raw expression of real phenomena. It is applying thinking, and remembering that your thinking may be incorrect and have to be adjusted to new facts. But above all else, you have to be open to all sources of evidence and try to explain the phenomena with a simple answer.

Nancy is a child in a magic theater. She takes what is presented as "evidence". Robbert is her magician, and whatever he constructs, on his terms, on his stage, she accepts. It doesn't matter to her that there is not a body of evidence from different sources, for her to research. The magician before her is the one who is "right".

I have actually thought about how I would construct the evidence Robbert is creating, and I could think of most of it just based on magic tricks that are well known. If you watch his videos, you can see some of the lighting effects he really likes to work with. I love home automation, so I know how you can create all kinds of lighting effects with a computer. - Why doesn't Nancy blindfold Robbert and take him to some random restaurant in town? Then have the lights in the restaurant flicker based on his medium-ship! :)
 
wotsup said:
As for the doubtful and out of focus images Robbert produces - again if we are to believe there is such a thing as psychic photography - many of these paranormal photos are blurry too. Maybe it's not easy to produce sharp images from another dimension!

In fact if these pictures are faked, I agree they are such bad fakes, that any hoaxer would be ashamed to put them out there - their 'fakeness' is almost evidence for their genuineness! (There's a quote to be endlessly repeated by my detractors!)
Click to expand...

Yo, wotsup! I reply to your posting of July 9 for a number of reasons.

First I agree with your assessment about how badly the pictures appear. In fact, it’s the inverse of our usual attitude. How many times do we say about some miracle product, cure or any generic con job: “Well, it’s just too good to be true --- Therefore, it must really be false.” But Robbert presents us with the exact opposite. Could we not say: “His images are too bad to be false --- Therefore, they may very well be genuine!”

I feel moved to create a historical time line here with some links because I find the timing of your posting here to be significant and it may give some psychological insight into Robbert himself.


April 14 - The images of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley appear in Robbert’s camera.
BLT Research -- PAT DELGADO and DAVE CHORLEY Images Appear on Video and Digital Cameras

April 22 - Paracast with Nancy Talbott alone as guest

April 29 – Paracast with Nancy, Robbert and Stan.

May 15 – Colin Andrews posts about the reaction of the Delgado family.
The Family of Deceased Crop Circle Researcher Pat Delgado:Statement

June 10- Suzanne Taylor defames Colin Andrews on her blog
Colin Andrews, Crop Circle Culprit, Strikes Again | The Conversation

June 12 - I contact Colin Andrews to inform him of Suzanne’s slander.

June 19 – I discover that the Delgado/Chorley images are “Horizontally Flipped” (mirror-reversed) and inform Colin, who takes it as evidence of trickery.

June 20 – Colin agrees with THRIVE-Debunked that “crop circle wars “ have broken out.
Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources. (UPDATED TWICE!) « Thrive Debunked

June 20 – I discover and sign up for Paracast while googling about Nancy & Robbert.

June 27 – Robert publicly declares his homosexual orientation --- but not for self-liberation, rather to unburden the misery of his childhood and present inner prison of sexual frustration and depression. (I don’t want to get too Oedipal here, but in the present revised version, Robbert has deleted all previous references to his father who sought to “beat the gay out of him.”)
TITLE: Robbert uit de kast = Robbert out of the closet.
Robbert van den Broeke \ Robbert uit de kast 95

July 9 – You, wotsup, comment about Robbert’s palpable fakery as proof of his legitimacy

July 11 – Robbert posts the “Borrowed Images” explanation on his website

July 11 – Colin announces his fraud investigation into Robbert & Stan.

July 13 - Robbert receives the images of Paul Vigay and Dave Kingston who telepathically warn Colin about health problems involving his heart and lung. Not really an overt death threat, but, let’s just say “within the city limits” of one.

==================

Anyway, might be good to stop the timeline here and wait for comments.
 
I was very, very disappointed by George Knapp when I just listened to C2C from January 17th and he had Nancy Talbott as a guest.

Ostensibly there to discuss crop circles it turned into another of her diatribes on the wonders of Robbert and George did (not surprisingly, I guess) little to take her to task while she spewed the same sad, silly BS she did back when they were on the Paracast.

Michal Horn and Billy Meier have nothing on Nancy and Robert!
 
Back
Top