June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[David Biedny]

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.

For that, you can go away for a year. I don't tolerate personal attacks in my own living room.

Bye.

dB

 

[Gareth]

No one else found it odd that a college professor has the writing and punctuation skills of a 5th grader?

 

[Schuyler]

For that, you can go away for a year. I don't tolerate personal attacks in my own living room.

It never ceases to amaze me. Here G&D are paying at least $7K per year in operating costs, plus a great deal of their time & effort, to set up these forums for us to use for free. You just know they don't break even. The ads are few. They invite everyone in, no questions asked. We have accumulated skeptics like Jose, 'Experiencers' like Mikec, people who have 'seen stuff' and people who have never 'seen stuff.' We've got believers, agnostics, and atheists--all of whom, usually, can discuss stuff with a minimum of fuss. Oh, sure, there are the usual fights, but by and large we get along.

Then here comes a guy with a chip on his shoulder who thinks he can show up and call the shots. It's as if a big, burly thug walks into your house, demands to be fed, and spits on your rug.

Thank you, David. And for the record, Mufon still plods.

 

[dyingsun]

I'm glad to be a part of these forums alone to read Schuylers posts, my imaginary hat is off to you.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

We have accumulated skeptics like Jose, 'Experiencers' like Mikec, people who have 'seen stuff' and people who have never 'seen stuff.' We've got believers, agnostics, and atheists--all of whom, usually, can discuss stuff with a minimum of fuss. Oh, sure, there are the usual fights, but by and large we get along.

Don't forget religious freaks (like me ). I think the line is drawn when we have people from all these diverse sides of belief and experience coming together and discussing the topics of paranormal like mature adults. Calling someone an 'ass' is not being a mature adult and Mr. B ass should have known that. It's childish and pathetic to resort to name calling just because someone is speaking out against you or backing you into theological corner. He deserved to be banned and if he has any mind at all would have known it was coming for that little tirade.

J.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

He deserved to be banned and if he has any mind at all would have known it was coming for that little tirade.

J.

Meh, I'm not so sure... while they have the right to ban who they like on their own forum I suppose, it sure seemed to me like things were flying both directions. Call me an internet anarchist but... whatev.

 

[Schuyler]

I see what you mean, but the guy did just suddenly show up out of nowhere and start swinging a bat. He wasn't here to participate in the forums or contribute, nor was he here to listen to what other people had to say; he was here to air his grievances in as strident a manner as possible.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Oh for sure... he obviously has some association with Nancy, or just general hostility with the show and/or David and showed up on the forums merely to offer rebuttal and seemingly not much else.

 

[David Biedny]

So last week, I email Nancy Talbot:

---------------------------

Nancy,

The father is protecting him, huh?

http://www.rtl.nl/components/<wbr>shows/jensen/letterbox/<wbr>miMedia/2007/week11/do_gast_<wbr>robert.avi_plain.xml

This is an interesting way to NOT seek promotion, eh? And what about his own TV show, canceled in 2005? And the footage of him out there with a digital video camera?

You might want to take a look at the thread about the episode for the show on our forums.

http://forum.theparacast.com/<wbr>talk-about-the-show-f16/june-<wbr>28-2009-nancy-talbot-t4739/

In the eyes of our audience, your credibility has been severely shattered.

And, for the record, when you state that know very little about a topic - say, photography - please think twice before telling someone who is an expert in the field of image analysis that you don't care about their EXPERT opinion, it makes you look less than sincere, and far from scientific or objective. Or even reasonable. Just FYI.

dB

-------------------

A couple days later, she responded:

-------------------

Hi, David.....Not sure what you are trying to show me...(link below)??? Robbert has from time to time done various TV shows, after which he has always been massively attacked by the debunkers in Holland. One of the reasons I am doing these reports about my personal witnessing of events around him is to try to point out the various things that the debunkers (and some real skeptics) don't know....the assumptions they have made that are not correct.


If you actually read the Light Phenomena Photos report you will see that the MIT photo guy did attempt to replicate a lot of Robbert's photos....and explained very carefully to me (which I have presented in the report) exactly what he had to do in these attempts. The MIT guy is a total skeptic....he absolutely can't get his head around the possibility that what Robbert is doing is real....and he works VERY hard to show me how these things COULD be "faked." Problem is, I have been standing right there, time after time after time, year after year, watching as Robbert is using MY camera, which I keep in my locked case and have just handed him....and I can clearly see that the conditions my MIT photo guy says are required for HIM to make similar images are NOT the conditions present when Robbert takes the photos. Robbert doesn't DO what the MIT guy says HE has to do.


I will check out your "thread" about the recent interview you did with me....but I'm afraid it is not likely to change what I know......nor do much more than reinforce for me the fact of how very difficult it is for people not directly involved in a situation to believe what somebody else reports. I know the Robbert material is very hard to digest. Believe me, it sometimes makes me doubt my own eyesight. And you've only seen the tip of the ice-berg.


And, for the record, I didn't say I didn't care about your (or anybody else's) expert opinion. I just said that the fact that you (or anybody else) know how to recreate some (or all) of Robbert's images doesn't mean HE did what you have done. Or that what YOU know is necessarily the explanation for what happens around him. For your opinion (and/or anybody else's) to be truly meaningful in this situation would require YOU observing first-hand what Robbert does and doesn't do and then reporting back totally honestly what you have observed. That's all I have tried to do.


I know that dust in the air (or moisture droplets, or tiny bugs) can and often do cause "orbs." I've done those experiments myself (some are included in the Light Phenomena Photos report) and read many other experiments done by others (referenced in the report). The fact that I state that I am not any sort of technical expert myself (which is why I try to always involve people who ARE) doesn't mean I'm suggesting I am stupid. I wouldn't bother to write reports that simply clog up the internet (and take my own, and other people's, valuable time) with stuff I didn't feel was worthy of consideration.


It sounds as if you feel that you have not been accorded proper respect for your expertise? And, revealingly, you sound pleased to be telling me that my "credibility has been severely shattered." Why would this please you? Because it makes you feel like a honcho? If so, it's not a good sign. If, instead, it's because you think I've been served my "come-uppance," you've totally misunderstood my remarks.


Is it possible that you have not thoroughly considered all of the details very carefully presented in the Light Phenomena Photos report? I would very humbly suggest you keep an open mind about some things about which you are only (at this point) superficially informed. When I first got involved in the crop circle phenomenon I was pretty arrogant about some things I thought I knew--well, time and due diligence has smacked me in the head a number of times since then and I'm a little more circumspect in my opinions nowadays.


I guess you are a busy person....but, if you really are an accomplished photo analyst I'd LOVE it if you could manage some time to take a look at some of the Robbert stuff I'm working on now. The MIT guy is working on some of this, and he's done some really good work....but it certainly wouldn't hurt for another expert to take a whack at it. Would you consider such a thing?


Because I don't know (technically) how to get involved in these chat rooms and things, and also because I'm up to my eyeballs working on new material, I have never interacted in these "thread" things....but I would very seriously suggest that people not jump to previously-held convictions about new situations that come to their attention. Once we think we "know" what's taking place, we close our minds and quit learning.


I would be happy for you to put this email on your "thread" so that people could see what I have to say....


Bye for now,
Nancy

 

[David Biedny]

I didn't respond to her last email, and I didn't post her email here, I just let the whole thing drop, I'm not interested in pursuing any further insight into the Robbert thing.

This just arrived in my inbox:

-------------------------------

David,I have been getting quite a few emails about the Paracast interview I did with you recently, all from people who, apparently, do not think my "credibility has been severely shattered," but who are expressing the opinion that perhaps YOUR reputation has more than just a few holes in it. They write to me about your "egos" and your self-congratulatory posturing. Most of the people emailing me are educated people (mostly engineers & scientists) who are expressing real disappointment with YOU, not me.


Today a man informed me of something of which I was completely unaware--he said the before I even came on the show one of the hosts had made a number of statements about Robbert making money from a TV show, had also "framed the father as possibly exploiting the son's fame," and that you also expressed doubt regarding the "quality of the science" I was bringing to bear on this case. He then goes on to say that "normally one can ignore cheap shots" but that, since I was totally unaware that these things were being said to set up my interview, I might want to ask you about why you did this without me being able to know you were doing it....and, additionally, why you didn't ask me directly about these statements?


If it was your original intent to have me come on only to try to discredit Robbert (or me)--which now looks to me to be the case (also the opinion expressed by these people who are writing to me about the show), you should be ashamed of yourselves. Honest journalism doesn't do sneaky stuff like this.


Your behavior is awful. You have not served the public (or Robbert, or me), only your own inadequately informed egos. I am forwarding on your email (below) and my response to a number of people who, otherwise, would not know the truth about what you have done.
Nancy

----------------------

To which I responded:

-----------------------

Nancy,

We've never mentioned Robbert on the show before your recent appearance. We were looking forward to having you on, and had absolutely no prior intent to do anything harmful or disrespectful to you with regards to this appearance. The first time you came on the show - which you had forgotten about - we had an excellent, informative interview. We totally appreciate your crop circle work, and the first part of the recent episode went quite well, as our listeners have all agreed on our forums.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my statement that your credibility had been affected in a "shattering way", but that's certainly what some of our listeners and forum members seem to be feeling.

Your extremely defensive responses to us regarding some of the issues surrounding Robbert is unfortunate, and you might want to listen to the episode to gain some understanding of why people might feel that way. To say that you have little to no knowledge of photography and image analysis in one breath, and then summarily dismiss an expert opinion in the next, is problematic at best.

Sincerely,

dB

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Hm... her first response did sort of perk my interest a bit. I'm still totally skeptical, but wonder if I should be warranting an opening of the mind and a bit more "checking it out." So far though, I'm still totally unconvinced of anything worthy of much interest.

 

[themacx]

Oh well... no loss... hope she's gone for good. It's so obvious she's protecting her investment, she not gonna back down on this Robbert. And she talks about sceptics like it's a cancer. That's just WRONG.

 

[David Biedny]

And here's her latest... and last, I hope.

------------------------

David,It appears that the people who are emailing me are one set of your listeners. Those participating in your forum are apparently another set. And what I think is unfortunate about this whole episode is that you (and through you, your audience) missed an opportunity to become more broadly informed about a very interesting situation. But I guess, since you are an expert, you already know everything that's important, eh?


Best of luck to you with that.
Nancy

 

[themacx]

And here's her latest... and last, I hope.

------------------------

David,It appears that the people who are emailing me are one set of your listeners. Those participating in your forum are apparently another set. And what I think is unfortunate about this whole episode is that you (and through you, your audience) missed an opportunity to become more broadly informed about a very interesting situation. But I guess, since you are an expert, you already know everything that's important, eh?


Best of luck to you with that.
Nancy

what a cheap shot at the end... I'm sooo glad I missed that "Information" about a very interesting situation.

 

[Mogwa]

Seriously, what happened to Ms. Talbot's voice? It was always rather deep, but now she sounds like Sylvia Browne...oy!
Hope there's no illness involved.
I wonder if she's a smoker? Maybe it's time to make a switch to chawin' tobacky. I hear Day's Work is pretty tasty, and so soft you don't really need teeth work up a pretty good cud.
( I suppose most Paracast listener's don't realize Gene does the whole show while working a softball sized bolus of Red Man Premium. If you listen closely, you can hear him repeatedly spitting nicotine loogies in a coffee cup or something.)

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Doesn't "chawin' tobacky" cause tongue cancer? Then she wouldn't have to worry about having a deep voice or any voice. As to my chewing habits -- wouldn't you like to know!

 

[bobheck]

Found this....

link: James Randi's Swift - January 6, 2006

NETHERLANDS NEWS

Both Mike Johnson and Frank Engelen in Holland sent me the same interesting item, giving us this composite contribution which I’ll summarize from their notes:
A very strange thing happened recently on Dutch TV when they broadcast a series featuring a so-called medium, 25-year-old Robbert van den Broeke. At one point he began to reveal – supernaturally, of course! – all sorts of information about a former camera-man on the show who had committed suicide some months ago. His wife was in the studio.



Unfortunately for Robbert, he was far too accurate and specific. He told the widow that she’d had another life before this one, as “Hillegien Rozeboom,” who died in 1823. He also gave her the exact date of birth of Hillegien. He said that her husband in that life was named Luwert, who had the profession of “genverbrander.” The “medium” said that he didn’t know what a genverbrander was. Well, nobody knows, because that word does not exist in Dutch. It looks like an existing word, but is not. Robbert must have thought that it was some kind of antique profession with which he was not familiar.



But then there was Google.
Rob Nanninga, editor-in-chief of the magazine Skepter, googled the data about Hillegien Rozeboom and Luwert, and it was all true! There actually was a Hillegien who died in 1823, and so on. And the profession of Luwert? Genverbrander! 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.


It appears that the medium had done some googling before his show, that suspicion reinforced by the following: His reading/prediction on the TV program was:
Hillegien Rozeboom was married to Luwert in Coevorden. March 7 and August 7 were important, as were the years 1793 en 1823. You died when you were thirty, Luwert was a "genverbrander" by profession, I don't know exactly what that is.
Significantly, Google says almost the exact same thing:
Hillegien Rozeboom, born March 17th 1793, died August 7th, 1823. Her husband was Lubbert, married in Coevorden. His profession was "genverbrander."
However, Robbert – or a spirit! – was wrong about her birthday. He said 7 instead of 17, and he said Luwert instead of Lubbert. Those things sound very much alike in Dutch and could be things he didn't quite hear clearly enough through an earpiece – if that’s how he was receiving the data. It’s more probable, however, that he was simply mis-remembering what he’d read before the show on Google.

Robbert van den Broeke is a wide-spectrum nut-case. He’s very enthusiastic about “orbs” and “crop circles,” too, and has been publishing “alien” pictures for a long time. Be warned, this might cause uncontrollable laughter: 100megsfree4.com/farshores/ufo04ne3.htm. Here’s one of the “aliens,” which he designates as a “Grey.” But we needn’t fear them, says Robbert. They come "with love, to teach us to take care of the Earth and to be better for each other." That’s a relief!


Leading Dutch skeptic Jan Willem Nienhuys comments about this turn of events:


The common opinion is that this is the end of Robbert's career. Several newspapers carried the story, several TV stations did a news item on it, and the website www.skepsis.nl/robbertvandenbroeke.html received about 45,000 hits. The story isn't over yet, because part four (broadcast on prime time on January 1) contains, on close inspection, various damning curiosities, and the role of Van den Broeke senior – a local bank manager who has written a book on his miracle-son – is scrutinized as well.


Mr. Nienhuys, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. My experience would indicate that Robbert still has a long career as a wonder-worker ahead of him. Consider our Sylvia Browne: she has floundered around, been conclusively shown to fail dramatically – repeatedly, her methods have been published and exposed, but she’s certainly survived very well simply because there are a lot of vulnerable, not-so-smart people out there who need her to be the real thing, and she is supported by the media. Rationalizations will be developed, evil forces will be invoked, and I predict that Robbert van den Broeke will survive this scandal. I wish it were otherwise….

 

[Loose Leaf Tea]

And that's game set and match, I think. Well posted, sir!

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Well, I guess now we can say we know. So, I would love to know what she thinks about him with this new information. It would be very telling.

 

[Invading the fridge]

Well, I guess now we can say we know. So, I would love to know what she thinks about him with this new information. It would be very telling.

My bet would be is she would just blow it off as the usual "debunkers don't know him like I know him." Crap she was spitting out during the show.