June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[ufojoe]

Professional reply by Nancy in that first one. Glad that she continues to involve experts in various fields to look into the RVDB case and other cases. William Roll checking out Robbert is great. Hope more experts get involved. She's given her photos to the MIT guy and was willing to let DB look at them. With limited funds, I think she's done a good job. Are there issues with the case? Of course. But I'll keep an open mind and see what Roll and others have to say. I think SOMETHING is going on and it actually may be a mix of legitimate phenomena and trickery. As another poster mentioned The Trickster. A modern day Eusapia Paladino? Scientists who examined her knew that she would cheat when she could get away with it. But they didn't reject legitimate phenomena when it occurred.

NT mentioned her dead brother supposedly showing up on the photos but not one question was asked about that on the show. That was disappointing. That's the kind of thing I expect from Snoory but not from the Paracast.

I first saw Nancy lecture back in the late 90s at Gulf Breeze UFO Conference. She had just met Robbert and was just starting to talk about him. Protecting her investment? LOL. She's posted free articles about the case for many years and she's finally writing a book. You think she's going to get rich off of that book? Doubtful.

Keep sharing the info. Nancy.

 

[russhorseman]

I first show Nancy lecture back in the late 90s at Gulf Breeze UFO Conference. She had just met Robbert and was just starting to talk about him. Protecting her investment? LOL. She's posted free articles about the case for many
years and she's finally writing a book. You think she's going to get rich off of that book? Doubtful.

Keep sharing the info. Nancy.

Hi, ufojoe!

Thanks for mentioning the Gulf Breeze Conference. My family put those conferences together and they were an incredibly rewarding experience. Nancy was indeed at our Gulf Breeze and Mobile conferences. She always drew a nice audience and made herself accessible after her lectures, as you probably remember. Anyone who meets Nancy instantly knows that she isn't a get-rich quick artist, and this "book" she is doing may never see the light of day. That's just her makeup.

I'll never forget losing my laptop computer at the Mobile conference. The last place I had it was in the bar with Nancy the evening before. I was so panicked that I asked one of our psychic vendors if she could help. One told me that "a woman had it." Well, Nancy had no clue, so I called the room of the only other woman who was with our group that night, and she had indeed rescued my computer for me.

She was an unknown actress/screenwriter who was researching our conference for a screenplay on UFOs. Turns out that the stunning Heather Juergensen (of the award-winning Kissing Jessica Stein and currently The Hammer with Adam Carolla) saved my neck! Fantastic lady, and totally unpretentious. Check her out.

Thanks for stirring up some nice memories, ufojoe!

 

[ufojoe]

Sigh...
have you noticed that B and L seem to have nothing more to do with Nancy on an ongoing basis? I've wondered about that myself. And I would LOVE to have them on the show, anytime. So stop saying shit that isn't true.

Is that true? They have nothing more to do with her? What are you basing that on?

 

[ufojoe]

Hi, ufojoe!

Thanks for mentioning the Gulf Breeze Conference. My family put those conferences together and they were an incredibly rewarding experience. Nancy was indeed at our Gulf Breeze and Mobile conferences. She always drew a nice audience and made herself accessible after her lectures, as you probably remember. Anyone who meets Nancy instantly knows that she isn't a get-rich quick artist, and this "book" she is doing may never see the light of day. That's just her makeup.

I'll never forget losing my laptop computer at the Mobile conference. The last place I had it was in the bar with Nancy the evening before. I was so panicked that I asked one of our psychic vendors if she could help. One told me that "a woman had it." Well, Nancy had no clue, so I called the room of the only other woman who was with our group that night, and she had indeed rescued my computer for me.

She was an unknown actress/screenwriter who was researching our conference for a screenplay on UFOs. Turns out that the stunning Heather Juergensen (of the award-winning Kissing Jessica Stein and currently The Hammer with Adam Carolla) saved my neck! Fantastic lady, and totally unpretentious. Check her out.

Thanks for stirring up some nice memories, ufojoe!

Who is your family? Heck, we might know each other. I used to hang out with the folks who put on those conferences. I forget their names. Crumbly? Pat and Buddy? I also went to the Mobile one and then the Tampa, Cape Canaveral and Clearwater Beach conferences that they put on.

Nancy would hang out with folks at night in her hotel room discussing the latest news in the field. Great lady. I don't sense any deception from her whatsoever.

Does anybody have an email for her?

 

[russhorseman]

Who is your family? Heck, we might know each other. I used to hang out with the folks who put on those conferences. I forget their names. Crumbly? Pat and Buddy? I also went to the Mobile one and then the Tampa, Cape Canaveral and Clearwater Beach conferences that they put on.

Nancy would hang out with folks at night in her hotel room discussing the latest news in the field. Great lady. I don't sense any deception from her whatsoever.

Does anybody have an email for her?

That's us! Pat and Buddy Crumbley are my in-laws. I married their daughter Jill. I'm sure I probably met you during one of the shows. I miss doing them.

I think this Robbert guy is a fraud, but I'm with you regarding Nancy. Very nice, fun lady behind the scenes. Her crop circle work is solid, and I'm not going to throw that out. Personally, I think that she simply enjoys the atmosphere around Robbert and hanging out with him. I felt David was pretty good with her, and I'd be disappointed if she didn't take some of his advice to heart.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[ufojoe]

That's us! Pat and Buddy Crumbley are my in-laws. I married their daughter Jill. I'm sure I probably met you during one of the shows. I miss doing them.

I think this Robbert guy is a fraud, but I'm with you regarding Nancy. Very nice, fun lady behind the scenes. Her crop circle work is solid, and I'm not going to throw that out. Personally, I think that she simply enjoys the atmosphere around Robbert and hanging out with him. I felt David was pretty good with her, and I'd be disappointed if she didn't take some of his advice to heart.

Nice chatting with you.

Yes, Russ. I remember you and Jill. We met more than once and went to dinner on more than one occasion with the group of locals.

I don't think Robbert is an outright fraud. And I really want to know all of the details of how that picture was produced of her deceased brother. I can't believe DB/GS didn't follow up on that.

And, don't forget, Nancy says she saw a crop circle form right outside of Robbert's window. She gives a great description on her site. If she's not lying, (and I don't think she is) this is a huge piece of anecdotal evidence in Robbert's corner.

* * * * *

An excerpt from Nancy's (BLT) site, in her words...

http://www.bltresearch.com/eyewitness/eyewitness1.php

Then, at about 3:15 am, a brilliant, intense white column, or tube, of light--about 8 inch to 1 foot in diameter from my vantage point--flashed down from the sky to the ground, illuminating my bedroom and the sky as brilliantly as if from helicopter searchlights. My room was so bright I can't, in retrospect, understand how I could so very clearly see the "tube" of light outside--it's distinct edges--but I could for about a full second, and there seemed to be a slight bluish tinge along the sides of the tube. Then this tube of light disappeared and both my room and the outside went dark. While the tube of light was there it was so bright I couldn't see exactly where it was touching down and wasn't sure how close it was.
<table align="center" border="1" bordercolor="#cc6600" cellspacing="1"> <tbody><tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top">Artist's Illustration of the beam of light.
From http://www.invisiblecircle.de/uk/ </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Approximately one second of total darkness elapsed outside and then a second tube of the same brilliant white light, slightly edged in a bluish tint, appeared slightly to the left of where the first tube had been. Again the room and the outside lit up spectacularly, somehow leaving the intense tube of light clearly visible for about one second. Then, after another second's darkness the third and final tube decended to the ground. There was no sound at any time druing the light incident (the neighbor's cattle were now quiet), nor did I smell anything out of the ordinary at all. There was also no physical sensation of exposure to increased electromagnetic energy (such as the tingling I had experienced a few years prior in this same house during an earlier encounter). The entire light display took 5-6 seconds; if the bawling cattle are considered to be part of this situation the total time would be about 10 minutes.


By the time the third tube of light flashed down to the ground I was half out of bed yelling to Robbert, who was still downstairs in the kitchen. He, at the same time, was running up the stairs to get me, having witnessed the event from the first-floor kitchen windows. From the kitchen he could see that the tubes of light had hit the bean-field, just beyond the fence at the back of the garden, and he reported also that the sky had lit up like daylight when each column of light had occured. He however had seen only two tubes of light, apparently because he had jumped up after the second one, leaving the kitchen to come and get me upstairs. He further indicated in the drawing he made immediately afterward that these tubes of light were spiraling down to the ground. [Actually, when I got out the drawing I had made shortly afterware, I had also indicated a spiraling motion inside the tubes of light.] Robbert had perceived the tubes of light as being smaller in diameter than I had, but he also saw them as definite, contained, colums which remaind the same width all the way down. Neither of us saw anything in the overcast sky from which these tubes of light had originated. Later that night Robbert reported that he had heard the dog next door barking furiously just prior to the appearance of the light-tubes.
<table align="center" border="1" bordercolor="#cc6600"> <tbody><tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top">New crop circle in stringbean field
(looking west), photographed from
balcony of Nancy's bedroom.
Photo: Nancy Talbott</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Our yelling back and forth to each other up the stairway had awakened both Madelon and Mrs. v/d Broeke, who both emerged into the hallway in excited states. Robbert and I were equally agitated, due to our shared impression of the stunning force of the energy involved....and our mutual, clear, impression of it's purposefulness. All four of us went immediately to the glass doors at the back of the house off the dining room (directly underneath my bedroom's doors) somewhat timidly, not certain of what else we might expect.



Looking out these glass doors we could see nothing up in the sky and after a minute or so Robbert went to the back door off the kitchen and stepped out; I joined him and, tentatively, also went outside. So far as we could tell everything seemed oddly normal and very dark--looking up we could see only and overcast sky. We headed for the back fence and the farm field and there, just over the fence about 15ft. into the bean-field--just barely visible in the darkness--was the new crop circle. When we turned my flashlight onto the field we could see that half of the crop in the downed area was laid away from us and the other half was laid toward us, and I thought I could faintly see steam rising from the freshly downed beans (which I attributed to the interaction fo the

tubes of light with a heavy night-time dew covering the crop).
<table align="center" border="1" bordercolor="#cc6600" width="300"> <tbody><tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top">Field diagram of new crop formation in
bean-field showing crop lay
(all measurements by Peter v/d Broeke).
Diagram: Nancy Talbott </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

At dawn the next day, from my bed, I could clearly see the new circle--which turned out to be, in fact, an ellipse of about 35 ft. in length (running East/West) and 20 ft. in width (North/South diameter), with a 20 ft.-long pathway adjoining the northern edge which ended in a crossbar (like the capital letter "T").

 

[David Biedny]

Is that true? They have nothing more to do with her? What are you basing that on?

Sorry, I should have been more specific, I meant to say that they don't seem to be involved in her work on Robbert... I'll try to contact them in the next week, and ask for their views on the case.

dB

 

[David Biedny]

I don't think Robbert is an outright fraud. And I really want to know all of the details of how that picture was produced of her deceased brother. I can't believe DB/GS didn't follow up on that.

If memory serves me correctly, she said she was having someone look at the photos, and would post them at some later time. What were we supposed to do, demand that she produce them on the spot? The way the responses to the questions were going, I doubt such a demand would produce a useful outcome. Frankly, I have little interest in taking her up on her offer to look at these pictures myself, I have serious concerns about being involved in the Robbert situation, after doing a bit of poking around on him. The idea that he's so selective about who he wants hanging around directly clashes with the fact that he had a television show devoted to his "skills". The whole thing stinks to high heaven, call me judgmental.

For example, take a look at these:

http://home.hetnet.nl/~<wbr>lichtbol3/Robbert-Alienpics/<wbr>robbert-alienpics-eng.htm

In my professional opinion, they're junk.

dB

 

[bobheck]

If memory serves me correctly, she said she was having someone look at the photos, and would post them at some later time. Frankly, I have little interest in taking her up on her offer to look at these pictures myself, I have serious concerns about being involved in the Robbert situation.

Meanwhile, get a load of these:

http://home.hetnet.nl/~<wbr>lichtbol3/Robbert-Alienpics/<wbr>robbert-alienpics-eng.htm

In my professional opinion, they're junk.

dB

Good one David.

And as for the 'grey' pics

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/hollandxp.html

and, for crying out loud, don't forget dude_with_no_life's earlier post about that other picture

The Paracast Community Forums - View Single Post - June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

(below is from that post)
Mudman picture from a readers digest book

This guy is total BS.

I'm raising the flag.

 

[David Biedny]

She was an unknown actress/screenwriter who was researching our conference for a screenplay on UFOs. Turns out that the stunning Heather Juergensen (of the award-winning Kissing Jessica Stein and currently The Hammer with Adam Carolla) saved my neck! Fantastic lady, and totally unpretentious. Check her out.

I loved Kissing Jessica Stein, and Heather was both stunning and adorable. How cool!

dB

 

[Gareth]

[a story from Nancy about a crop circle forming in front of her eyes]

Yeah I dont really buy that. I just cant accept that a crop circle researcher would see something like that with her own eyes, and not yell at the top of her voice and tell anyone and everyone she met whether they wanted to hear it or not!

Know what I mean?

I never trust these anecdotal stories of amazing shit happening when the experiencer doesnt relay the experience with a level of intensity and enthusiasm equal to that of the alleged experience.

Maybe that isnt fair because she didnt even mention it... but she should have, and thats just as bad IMO. So she saw this thing happen right outside her window and she doesnt even mention it?

Gimme a break.

 

[bobheck]

Yeah I dont really buy that. I just cant accept that a crop circle researcher would see something like that with her own eyes, and not yell at the top of her voice and tell anyone and everyone she met whether they wanted to hear it or not!

Know what I mean?

I never trust these anecdotal stories of amazing shit happening when the experiencer doesnt relay the experience with a level of intensity and enthusiasm equal to that of the alleged experience.

Maybe that isnt fair because she didnt even mention it... but she should have, and thats just as bad IMO. So she saw this thing happen right outside her window and she doesnt even mention it?

Gimme a break.

I agree.

Ok, I am going to mention something that I have in PM but not publicly because I did not want it to be seen as a smear tactic or 'bad taste'. But, I think it bears mentioning now because it seems appropriate.

This devotion, and it is that, that Nancy has for Robbert seems an emotional attachment -- and she did get emotional when defending him. Without moving into the gutter (please people, seriously), what are the chances that, for whatever reason, Nancy is somehow involved with Robbert?

Either romantically or at some other emotional level.
I know this sounds creepy, but hey, it is a possibility. What else could account for her steadfast devotion to this guy?

Notice how in her account she makes a very distinct point that "I was in my upstairs bedroom and Robbert was downstairs in the kitchen" (at 3am). And then they made such a clatter that Robbert's parents were awakened and apparently found Nancy and Robbert in the hallway, in an agitated state, because he had 'run up from the kitchen' to get her. Hmm. Being pretty sure to separate them in the middle of the night right before they were found in the hallway, isn't she? Remember when you were a kid and you made up stories to cover up things you did? Make sure get the details just right, so you are not suspect.

Ok, said my piece. Is this out of line? Sorry, it has been on my mind, I said it. Now agree, disagree, lambast, crucify me.

 

[russhorseman]

I loved Kissing Jessica Stein, and Heather was both stunning and adorable. How cool!

dB

When Heather walks into a room, everyone notices. She has that certain charisma that isn't apparent in a lot of her photographs. Frankly, she is stunning in person. I won't forget how very gracious she was to me and Jill, and how friendly she was to anyone who wanted to talk to her.

I'm glad that Stein was a success for her. She was worried that no one would see it. I remember in the bar with Nancy that night we played the "Ugly/Pretty" game that she played with "Jessica" in the movie. That's the game where you list people who are attractive to you, yet by a lot of standards they are considered "ugly." Mick Jagger got a lot of votes from the women.

A Day in the Life behind the scenes at a UFO conference!

Guess you had to be there...

 

[ufojoe]

Yeah I dont really buy that. I just cant accept that a crop circle researcher would see something like that with her own eyes, and not yell at the top of her voice and tell anyone and everyone she met whether they wanted to hear it or not!

Know what I mean?

Yep. And she immediately went on the radio and talked about it once the report was put on her website. She talked about it in her lectures too. Not much more she can do. Were you following her work back then?

I never trust these anecdotal stories of amazing shit happening when the experiencer doesnt relay the experience with a level of intensity and enthusiasm equal to that of the alleged experience.

Did you ever hear her talk about it around the time it happened? I'm guessing the answer is, no.

Maybe that isnt fair because she didnt even mention it... but she should have, and thats just as bad IMO. So she saw this thing happen right outside her window and she doesnt even mention it?

Gimme a break.

Do some basic research into the case and Nancy and you will know that she mentioned it and mentioned it and mentioned it many times in the past. Amazing how people jump to conclusions.

She also mentioned it on this show (I saw one form in front of me) if you go back and listen. But once again, no follow up from the hosts.

David, I know she didn't provide a photo but you could have at least asked for more details. You talked about seeing what appeared to be an apparition/spirit/whatever and didn't provide us with a photo. Yet, I loved hearing all of the details about it. And yes, those photos look like crap. But I am not ready to throw out the baby just yet. There are plenty of cases in the past where real (apparently) phenomena was occurring and bogus stuff was mixed in. The Trickster. Is that's what is going on here? I don't know. Maybe it's all fraud? IMO, I don't think so.

I wouldn't ban her from any future shows. Who knows what's going to happen with that case or other cases she works on? We may be surprised. Or not.

 

[ufojoe]

I agree.

Ok, I am going to mention something that I have in PM but not publicly because I did not want it to be seen as a smear tactic or 'bad taste'. But, I think it bears mentioning now because it seems appropriate.

This devotion, and it is that, that Nancy has for Robbert seems an emotional attachment -- and she did get emotional when defending him. Without moving into the gutter (please people, seriously), what are the chances that, for whatever reason, Nancy is somehow involved with Robbert?

It's always possible but I don't think so. She goes there once or twice a year and has been doing that for twelve years. I think it would be more like a mother/son relationship but even that's speculation. I;m sure they're close friends after twelve years.

Notice how in her account she makes a very distinct point that "I was in my upstairs bedroom and Robbert was downstairs in the kitchen" (at 3am). And then they made such a clatter that Robbert's parents were awakened and apparently found Nancy and Robbert in the hallway, in an agitated state, because he had 'run up from the kitchen' to get her. Hmm. Being pretty sure to separate them in the middle of the night right before they were found in the hallway, isn't she? Remember when you were a kid and you made up stories to cover up things you did? Make sure get the details just right, so you are not suspect.

Give me a break. She always writes exactly where she is in every report like that. Talk about speculation based on nothing.

Ok, said my piece. Is this out of line? Sorry, it has been on my mind, I said it. Now agree, disagree, lambast, crucify me.

Not out of line but it's not something we can prove. Having independent scientists come out and evaluate and watch Robbert for themselves is what is needed.

 

[Schuyler]

IThis devotion, and it is that, that Nancy has for Robbert seems an emotional attachment -- and she did get emotional when defending him. Without moving into the gutter (please people, seriously), what are the chances that, for whatever reason, Nancy is somehow involved with Robbert?

Either romantically or at some other emotional level.
I know this sounds creepy, but hey, it is a possibility. What else could account for her steadfast devotion to this guy?

I absolutely agree with you here (and I alluded to it previously). She is somehow smitten with this guy. I had thought it might be a 'motherly' instinct kind of thing, but she could be in love with him. He's a charming guy. I really think the family is manipulating her into supporting Robbert for their own ends.

 

[ufojoe]

The problem is: Nancy says she saw a crop circle form. If she's telling the truth, that event alone makes me want to see more research into the RVDB case. She could be head over in heels in love with him. But that won't change the facts of the case. It would be nice if dozens of independent researchers/experts (like Roll and the MIT guy) looked into the case and went out to Holland to see for themselves. But that's wishful thinking. That costs money.

 

[boulders and sticks]

Ok
I haven't read all the posts on this subject, so if this has been talked about before sorry. I am at work and want to post this before i forget my train of thought.
What struck me was that she said at one time she bought a camera and was planning to take it on her next trip? WHAT! How long has she been studying this subject?
I don't know about you guys but most people i know have a camera of some sort. You don't have to be Einstein to operate one either. Then she went on to quote a picture she took in 2007.
Ok i will give her the benefit of the dought that earlier she was refering to a video Camera that she did not have until recently. Again would you not think that is probably the #1 peice of kit you would have? Along with a trusty pen and paper!
She also stated she was not technically minded as far as photography goes. Nancy here you go...A IS FOR Auto. That means point the thing and press the button on top.
But she will stand by the photo's authenticity even when faced with an expert opinion?
Sorry but that is a load of Bollox!
Ok back to work.
Cheers John.
PS
Nancy, I suggest next time you visit your expert at MIT, ask him for some tips.

 

[ufojoe]

The (deceased?) people that supposedly have started to show up on camera are what really interests me. I hope a lot of these photos are posted in Nancy's next update. And I really hope that David reconsiders Nancy's request for him to analyze some of these photos.

I've seen some of Robbert's photos/videos of apparent grays (or whatever they are) and they look really cheesy and fake. But the twist/key is that Nancy has been present while Robbert has taken some of those photos with her camera. So how is he faking that if she's right next to him and watching him? I know fakery is still possible but I'd like to see how he could do it without being obvious. The only other possibility is that Nancy is in on it. And I just find that very hard to believe. She's built up too much credibility over the years to throw it down the toilet by doing that.

From one of the posts on Robbert from the BLT site:

BLT Research -- ROBBERT van den BROEKE UPDATE

In recent years he as become able not only to "see" and communicate with people who have died, he has become able to photograph them. He had told me this was happening, but until October, 2006 I had no direct evidence of this. One night--I think it was the night we were trying to document this ability to bend metal — we suddently heard a very quiet "tap, tap, tap" on the door to the office. It was so quiet I would not have paid any attention, except that then Robbert asked me if I had heard it? I answered "yes," and realized that something was getting ready to happen.

As we turned toward the door, Robbert took my camera and, aiming toward the door, began taking photographs. To my total astonishment a man's face and shoulders clearly appeared on the digital camera LED screen, startling me very considerably. Robbert and I were standing right next to each other, about 4-5 feet away from the door. I could see nothing but air between us and the door — but the LED screen clearly showed an older man standing there. His face was quite clear. He looked to be about 65 years old and was dressed in a suit and tie, and Robbert felt that he had died and was in need of help. [I am not posting the first 12 photos — those in which the man appears -- out of consideration for his family members.]

Robbert took 26 photos over the next several minutes, while he tried to assist this man. The man turns, and moves, and is seen in a number of positions in the first 12 photographs, then another figure we can't identify (see below) appears for the next 5 frames. Finally, there are several shots showing only the door or BOLS where the man and the unknown figure had been. All of these images were visible only on the LED screen of the camera.

* * * * * * * * * *

I REALLY hope Nancy posts some of those photos because I REALLY want to see how clear they are. The photos of the other figure are at that link and I don't know what the hell it is.

BTW, somebody mentioned that Robbert's dad suggesting donations for readings/healings is evidence that this is about money. Well, if this was about money, he wouldn't suggest donations. He would charge a fee no matter what. Try going to a top psychic/medium or healer in the US and tell them you might make a donation, depending on how you feel after the reading/healing. Good luck with that.

 

[bobheck]

The (deceased?) people that supposedly have started to show up on camera are what really interests me...

Ufojoe, you HAVE looked at all the photos Nancy has published from the Robbert, haven't you? How can you ask her to post more? Seriously.

Those are really, really bad. Always blurred, shaky. Trademark fakes. Cmon, David (an expert) has already attested that they are garbage. It does not take an expert to see that, although it is nice to hear one say it.

Oh, and unless there has been a leap in technology, there is no LED screen on a camera. I think she meant LCD screen.