• 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!

June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
I don't like it when people putt me in a groupie...:cool: I never bashed her crop circle work.. I merely question her credibility after this debacle.
 
I got the distinct impression that most people were with her on her work with crop circles. It's her association with this shady character that people are questioning. I also don't think it has anything to do with being a Paracast groupie, more just being a logical person who isn't naive.
 
After listening to the entire episode, and digesting it over the past day or so I have some thoughts/observations that might be pertinent to this discussion.

Nancy Talbot's work in the crop circle research field, in my opinion, has been valuable and credible. I like the facts and data that she presents. There is certainly something to this phenomena other than "two guys in a field with boards on a string."

The second part of the interview reminded me 100% of "he who shall not be named." Any time a guest says things like "you had to be there to understand it" or "you can't say that until you've met him," all credibility/objectivity in the case is gone. Defensiveness can also be a sign of loss of objectivity. When Nancy snapped "Why are we talking about Dorothy [Izatt]..." at David, I realized that any and all signs of logic, reason and objectivity were gone. Nancy, whether knowingly or not, has joined "Cult Robert."

To be honest this interview is the first I've heard of this Robert character, and hopefully the last as well. I went to the website and perused the information and photographs. I don't know what to think about the photographs. I am not an image analyst. I don't even own a copy of photoshop, let alone know how to use it; but if I take a photograph with pictures of "orbs" in it, and an expert tells me with 100% certainty that they are motes of dust suspended in air, I'll believe him.

Is it possible that most of the photographic anomalies are unexplainable? I think so. But it's also possible that SOME of the anomalies are completely explainable. I do not see why that distinction is unacceptable to some people.

With regards to Robert's "ability" to sketch crop circles BEFORE they occur, I would like to see more information before I make a judgement call. The information that Nancy presented in the interview did not match up with the information posted on the website.

All in all Nancy's credibility has gone to nil with me. I do not see how she can remain objectivein this field at all in the face of her relationship with Robert and his family.
 
MrBass said:
Having read now pages and pages of character assasination of the most inane and juvenile sort from the Gene and David groupies,a few things come to mind.
Click to expand...

I resent being called a Gene and David groupie. I'm NO one's groupie. I also resent the implied meeting in this quote that you have a mind. I give my very own opinion when I make these posts, whether or not Gene or David agree or respect those posts. For the most part I share the sides and opinion's of Gene and David, though I do slightly agree with "Mr B ass" that there is a certain level of respect that can be afforded even when asking those hard questions.

Being an un-experiencer, I have a problem with crop circles but believe Mrs. Talbott presented her case for them, in the first half of the show, very well. Like most other people posting, the show degraded greatly when the talk turned toward Robertt, though no fault of Gene nor David's. So enough of this Robertt, guy. I say we sweep him under the rug and pray he goes away. Next time Nancy's on, please keep the conversation focused on the crop circles.
 
MrBass said:
Having read now pages and pages of character assasination of the most inane and juvenile sort from the Gene and David groupies...
Click to expand...

MrBass, in all seriousness, your zealous defense of Talbot puts you in the camp of "groupie", not the members of this forum. By the end of the episode, if you can stand it, any reasonable person would have to surmise that Nancy Talbot has taken leave of her senses.

There is no way her astonishment of and reverence to this cultish Robert fellow can be explained otherwise. Her crop circle work notwithstanding, this has to lead -- again any reasonable person -- to question her ability to rationalize and reach conclusions that are valid on any subject.

I, for one, did like her crop circle work in the past. She just flushed all that down the drain. This lady now needs a keeper.

Turn the page.
 
I thought the crop circle part was very interesting, and was looking forward to the interview.

I didn't time it, but it seemed like a much smaller part of the show, compared to the part about Robert. I wasn't even having too much of a problem with that in the beginning, but it really went down hill rapidly. I started having a problem with her when she didn't seem to be putting as much rational thought into this case as with the crop circles. She started to make less and less sense, and then I realized she had an emotional investment in that case, and wasn't able to look at it subjectively.

I would have enjoyed if the whole show was on crop circles, and she should be invited back if she is just going to stick with that subject.
 
Like everyone else...she won me with her crop circle analysis...but then Robert.

Observations:
- she knows startlingly little about photography especially compared to her plant/soil/plasma discussion. Yet she puts so much confidence on the pictures. I mean c'mon...she doesn't know that her camera very likely take's JPEG's?! She should stop talking about the photo's altogether until she is a bit more educated in that arena.

- David's idea of using two (or more) camera's simultaneously to capture these anomalies is great. A correlated 3D result would be impressive. If this Robert or a Dorothy Izatt could do that then they sure would have my attention. The fact nobody has thought of something that is really so obvious makes me rather suspicious of the whole thing...like those frikin rods.

- and the picture Robert drew for Nancy guessing the present--c'mon! It was easter for christ's sake!! Woo woo, bunnies and eggs...what are the odds?? That's exactly what my 6 year old would draw. I was wincing awaiting the attack from David but it never came. He was mildly constrained on this interview.

Overall she was an impressive guest. It's just unfortunate she has fallen so hard for this young Dutch lad...objectiveness gone.

Good show ... B+
 
David- Your defensive,totally irrational(and arrogant) reply complete with expletives is exactly what causes you to lose credibility with me. If you read my response, I did not say "don't ask the hard questions(though the moisture content question is trivial). Ask them in a way that offers the respect and courtesy that is due someone who has a record of credible research behind them. Your guest was not Bill Knell,a crook, nor even Paola Harris,someone who habitually promotes,in my estimation,phony witnesses and half thought out ideas.
As far as providing photo and video evidence, there are a whole world of people who know nothing about cameras,image processing and the technology involved and could care less. They don't reach for a video or a camera save to take a family portrait. Nancy ,it appears ,is one of these and confessed that quite openly.Apparently she believes this Robert is likewise. It may be hard for you to believe from your professional perspective,but many of us give little credence to visual images as evidence. The ease in manufacturing and manipulating images has almost ruled them out as evidentiary material.They can prove almost nothing positively about an experience, and what they mostly can tell you is negative; that a person with some expertise can produce an equivalent image using prosaic methods or photographing prosaic ,everyday natural processes.You can then say the picture does not necessarily give support to the person's story,not that event did not happen. To say more you would have to be on the scene for that unique,one of a kind event in time.And even then your own perceptions could be in question. It then becomes a matter of probabilities,not certainty.Visual images,by and of themselves, certainly are not the be-all and end-all of judging reality.
I might also point out your own credibility as a photoanalyst could certainly be brought into question. You have confessed to a number of quite extraordinary,and for most of the scientific world, not credible experiences. I happen to believe that this does not adversely affect your evaluations of images, but were I more skeptical I might think differently. Perhaps David is over critical and lacks objectivity in his analyses because he wants to bolster his credibility when he knows his own perceptions are badly flawed? Because he is an experiencer we shouldn't trust anything that he says on any topic- he is badly out of touch with reality. I don't believe that, David, but the logic is the same that you are applying to Nancy Talbot's case.
I will repeat something I said earlier-anyone can be deceived by a good faker or a need to believe.Whether its Stan Friedmann accepting the Anderson crash tale or K. Randle trumpeting the virtues of Frank Kaufmann's Roswell tale. Or otherwise reliable workers like Dave Rudiak continue to see a coherent message in the Ramey Telegram,a passable UFO Rorschact Test, when it is something they badly want to know more about. But I won't throw out all their work because they make a mistake and it is the worst kind of overgeneralizing to do so. It is also lazy- go look at the evidence for yourself and then make your own judgement in the matter.
You also mention that you wonder about Ms. Talbot's credibility with the other members of BLT. Do you have some solid information that they have rejected her as a credible research partner? If you do, please pass on the knowledge so we may all be informed. Otherwise, to use your words,don't talk about shit you don't know about.
My inference was,from your words, that other BLT members would not be welcome. Why would you want them on the show if they rely on such an unreliable and non-credible research partner? I am pleased to hear that you would want them on. Please see if you can do that!
About my own credibility as a "nameless,faceless dweeb" ( a title I am proud to bear!),I would be happy to share my identity so you can look into my specifics on a private e-mail. However, I will say that I am a MUFON section director and a college teacher of Anthropology and Biology for 25 years. I have noted,BTW, with some annoyance the slighting references to MUFON and to the teaching profession made on the program in the past. I have been involved with dozens of investigations of paranormal events, and while I am not a crop circle researcher, my ufological interests have forced me to read fairly deeply and evaluate the evidence for them. That doesn't make me an expert on things paranormal;but it has taught me to be careful in my judgments and not to overgeneralize about these phenomena or the people who look into them.
In closing I want to commend you on a fine radio show overall. the quality of the guests is high,the entertainment value is good, and you have done a public service in bringing to light some of the unsavory characters and perpetually error prone researchers in the field. Avoid the harshness and give people their due and all will be well in Paracastville. Mr. Bass
 
MrBass said:
David- Your defensive,totally irrational(and arrogant) reply complete with expletives is exactly what causes you to lose credibility with me. If you read my response, I did not say "don't ask the hard questions(though the moisture content question is trivial). Ask them in a way that offers the respect and courtesy that is due someone who has a record of credible research behind them. Your guest was not Bill Knell,a crook, nor even Paola Harris,someone who habitually promotes,in my estimation,phony witnesses and half thought out ideas.
As far as providing photo and video evidence, there are a whole world of people who know nothing about cameras,image processing and the technology involved and could care less. They don't reach for a video or a camera save to take a family portrait. Nancy ,it appears ,is one of these and confessed that quite openly.Apparently she believes this Robert is likewise. It may be hard for you to believe from your professional perspective,but many of us give little credence to visual images as evidence. The ease in manufacturing and manipulating images has almost ruled them out as evidentiary material.They can prove almost nothing positively about an experience, and what they mostly can tell you is negative; that a person with some expertise can produce an equivalent image using prosaic methods or photographing prosaic ,everyday natural processes.You can then say the picture does not necessarily give support to the person's story,not that event did not happen. To say more you would have to be on the scene for that unique,one of a kind event in time.And even then your own perceptions could be in question. It then becomes a matter of probabilities,not certainty.Visual images,by and of themselves, certainly are not the be-all and end-all of judging reality.
I might also point out your own credibility as a photoanalyst could certainly be brought into question. You have confessed to a number of quite extraordinary,and for most of the scientific world, not credible experiences. I happen to believe that this does not adversely affect your evaluations of images, but were I more skeptical I might think differently. Perhaps David is over critical and lacks objectivity in his analyses because he wants to bolster his credibility when he knows his own perceptions are badly flawed? Because he is an experiencer we shouldn't trust anything that he says on any topic- he is badly out of touch with reality. I don't believe that, David, but the logic is the same that you are applying to Nancy Talbot's case.
I will repeat something I said earlier-anyone can be deceived by a good faker or a need to believe.Whether its Stan Friedmann accepting the Anderson crash tale or K. Randle trumpeting the virtues of Frank Kaufmann's Roswell tale. Or otherwise reliable workers like Dave Rudiak continue to see a coherent message in the Ramey Telegram,a passable UFO Rorschact Test, when it is something they badly want to know more about. But I won't throw out all their work because they make a mistake and it is the worst kind of overgeneralizing to do so. It is also lazy- go look at the evidence for yourself and then make your own judgement in the matter.
You also mention that you wonder about Ms. Talbot's credibility with the other members of BLT. Do you have some solid information that they have rejected her as a credible research partner? If you do, please pass on the knowledge so we may all be informed. Otherwise, to use your words,don't talk about shit you don't know about.
My inference was,from your words, that other BLT members would not be welcome. Why would you want them on the show if they rely on such an unreliable and non-credible research partner? I am pleased to hear that you would want them on. Please see if you can do that!
About my own credibility as a "nameless,faceless dweeb" ( a title I am proud to bear!),I would be happy to share my identity so you can look into my specifics on a private e-mail. However, I will say that I am a MUFON section director and a college teacher of Anthropology and Biology for 25 years. I have noted,BTW, with some annoyance the slighting references to MUFON and to the teaching profession made on the program in the past. I have been involved with dozens of investigations of paranormal events, and while I am not a crop circle researcher, my ufological interests have forced me to read fairly deeply and evaluate the evidence for them. That doesn't make me an expert on things paranormal;but it has taught me to be careful in my judgments and not to overgeneralize about these phenomena or the people who look into them.
In closing I want to commend you on a fine radio show overall. the quality of the guests is high,the entertainment value is good, and you have done a public service in bringing to light some of the unsavory characters and perpetually error prone researchers in the field. Avoid the harshness and give people their due and all will be well in Paracastville. Mr. Bass
Click to expand...

Dear nameless-faceless dweeb,

Speaking as a ParaCast listener I want to commend you on a finely articulated reply. Unfortunately, as a non-experiencer of any paranormal events myself, I have to protest the fact that you disregard, or see less value, in photographic or video evidence. Yes, in this day-and-age, such evidence can been clearly fabricated, quite easily, I might add, it still lends an air of creditability to the case. Such evidence can be forensically reviewed as well, and in doing so most fraud can be exposed.
The greatest flaw in your logic, that I see, is the fact that if we remove photographic and video evidence, what do we have left? anecdotal evidence. We have only the mere stories and personal experiences, and armed only with such word-of-mouth experiences any said story will simply not go very far. Remove the photographic and video, walk up to someone like myself on the street and tell me this little story, and my answer will clearly be, "Bunk." It still is, "Bunk," but throw in a little video or photography that can back up that story, be reviewed, and stands up to that review (unlike what's on the BLT website now), and even a critical thinker like myself must take pause.
Yes, photographic and video evidence can be faked, but stories can be fabricated much easier, and right now Robertt's story is nothing more than a story.
As far as MUFON, I can understand the negative opinions toward the organization, however I've met a single MUFON member at a paranormal conference last month and thought he was respectable even if I didn't agree with all of what he was saying. To me, the jury is still out on the organization. I even look at it with a but of envy since we don't have a like-organization on the ghost hunting side.

My 2 cents.

J.
 
MrBass said:
David- Your defensive,totally irrational(and arrogant) reply complete with expletives is exactly what causes you to lose credibility with me.
Click to expand...

Umm, who gives a shit who is credible with you? You have not established any of your own. You're acting like a twerp. If you don't like the Paracast, by all means leave. I have no idea why you continue to support Talbot's idiotic assertions about her buddy, but it does make me question your sanity.

Jose? Jose? Get on over here will you?
 
Yeah. This Robbert guy is just an innocent kid that had these remarkable powers bestowed upon him. But, any video/image evidence to back that up is locked away.

Interesting how there is plenty of video/image evidence available for self-promotion.

Robbert van den Broeke, Medium.
 
Well, it's a gorgeous day out, and I'm having quality time with my honey, but I'll take a few moments to respond to the anonymous Bass person making accusations...

For the most part, the paranormal experiences I've talked about on this show have been corroborated by other witnesses - three people who are indeed friends of mine (one is my brother), but who have nothing, and I repeat, nothing to gain from coming forward with their stories. One of them works for Business Week, he stood to lose lots by coming on here and confirming a shared experience which defies any sense of logic or rational reality. I don't promote myself as an investigator or expert in these topics, unlike many other people who seem to have a lot less ability to engage in deductive reasoning and logical investigation work than myself, which says tons about the "field" and those who claim to be actual investigators.

I've seen and experienced some supremely weird stuff, and I've only spoken about some of it on this show, mostly the stuff with other witnesses. I've refrained from sharing some of the deeper, far weirder experiences, for exactly the reasons that have emerged by your post - I have nothing to prove, I have no answers, only questions, but my brain works well enough to know BS when I hear it. In the world of computer and technology journalism, I have a rep as a product reviewer who is happy to call out a shitty product when I see it, and I find that pointing our the negative attributes of a product is much more useful to consumers than simply rehashing the positive points pushed in product marketing materials and PR noise. I bring that same approach and attitude to the paranormal.

You try to use my honesty and sincerity to attack my professional credentials, but sorry, Chippy, unlike most other people in this "field", my reputation as an imaging and special effects expert stands on it's own, and was established long before I came forward with my paranormal experiences. I've made my mark in the Photoshop world, and in fact, was an acknowledged digital imaging expert for years before that product even existed - I was deeply involved in the development of tools such as ImageStudio, ColorStudio and PixelPaint, which all predated Photoshop by many years.

As far as your statement that we've somehow put down folks in the education field, my own background as an educator is well-known and extensive. I currently teach at an Ivy-league school. It would seem that your skills as an investigator leave something to be desired, as you seem to know precious little about my professional background. Not surprising - and as far as MUFON goes, no, I don't see any reason to accord it any serious respect. So far, my personal interactions with MUFON members include a woman who holds monthly MUFON picnics with little prayer sessions to the space brothers before their main meetings, and your head of education is a regular on a little podcast show with a host who worships Art Bell and thinks that P. Harris is a great investigator. I'm sure that there are some fine folks in the organization, but in general, I don't care what MUFON thinks of this show. I'm perfectly happy with how we conduct our interviews and how we treat folks who come on here. If they can't take the heat, then they should get the fuck out of the fire.

So the notion that my credibility has suffered in your eyes means jack shit to me, as does your opinion.

Have a nice holiday weekend, or at least what's left of it, all fellow Gringos! :cool:

dB
 
I was a member of Mufon for a few years, back when Andrus was directing it. They really tried to be systematic in their approach and I suppose they should be given credit where it is due. There's been some geat stuff in the Mufon Journal, and some of the conferences have become legendary.

But when I think of Mufon I am reminded of a joke that appeared in either Car & Driver or Road & Track many years ago. In the distance you see technicians with lab coats, spectacles, and clip boards paying very special attention as cars are driven off a cliff. There are two guys in the foreground. One says, "Oh, that's Consumer Reports testing automobiles again."

But the fact is, Mufon is kind of like a fake correspondence school. Everyone who 'applies' gets a title, no matter their qualifications, and organization is, shall we say, 'loose'? A similar joke applied to Mufon would be a UFO abducting humans, mutilating cattle, and having high-level talks with US officials (all at the same time: Visualize it, brother!) and here's Mufon off to the side taking Plaster of Paris imprints of a faint landing trace.

And that's kind of it. They are great plodders, looking down instead of up. I remember in about 1998 or so I had fixed up a gopher, ftp, and pine email for my employer and http:// had just been invented. We were experimenting and knew it was going to be big. I believe (though I'm not certain) we were site number 800 or so on the web (It was crude, believe me). I had a FidoNet BBS up at the time (Quicksilver: 350/201) devoted to UFOs and the paranormal and I had occasion to talk to Walt on the phone. I suggested that he should get online and that Mufon could probably benefit from that method of correspondence. I told him about the Web and how it ought to be investigated as well. His reply: "I can't keep up now. I'm too busy. No."

And that's when I left the organization and turned in my 'Research Fellow' badge. Perhaps they have changed. I don't know, but I do believe it is fair to say that they are not a significant presence in the field. They simply do not move fast enough.
 
Sorry to get back a bit late-holiday obligations. I do hope you are correct and that this is the extent of the objections. That was not my impression. I do wonder,if I may be allowed to speculate, if a similar story had been told by either host,or by Redfern,Vaeni,Kimball or the other regulars, if the reception would have been quite so dismissive or the explanation " he must be letting his emotions run away with him","he's delusional and has no credibility" would have found such immediate favor with the discussion group? Anyway a good argument does get the blood flowing,doesn't it?
 
Nice thoughts,appreciate the reflections on MUFON past, but that was a long time ago and has nothing to do with the current MUFON. And,with respect,please do tell me,where is the UFO field going so fast? I think you mistake technological improvements with progress in understanding the phenomena involved. And,frankly, the only things we do know about UFOs come from the efforts of the "plodders", not the theoreticians who haven't yet produced a viable,provable or even falsifiable theory for the phenomenon. So I am not sure what these rapid advancements that left MUFON behind might be, other than a technological shortsightedness in a deceased director no longer relevant to James Carrion,the current director,who runs his own computer business. M.B.
 
NO, what you are ,David, is an uppity techie,who confuses technology with science. I don't have any need to investigate your credentials- you tell us endlessly and repetitively
about what an expert you are.The worst professionals are usually those who brag most about their credentials,and some of the very worst are at Yale and Harvard(are you a part-timer there?). You are pathetic, you constantly mistake arguments over issues with personal attacks,and you are about as persuasive as a 16 year old frat boy. Clean up your act,you ass.
 
Thanks for the thoughts. Ms. Talbot should have been better prepared to field questions on her photographs,and to explain her conclusions. However I extend her the same right to be wrong on occasion,or even give a bad interview, that I would the hosts or anyone else. And her credibility is at issue to just the same extent that anyone else's is when they make claims about paranormal happenings. Including Biedney's.
 
Back
Top