• 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!

Nancy Talbott, Robbert van den Broeke, April 29, 2012

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
trainedobserver said:
Those are large assumptions aren't they? We must take their word for it. The word of folks showing us the mudman photo and asking us to believe it is a manifestation of paranormal activity. I mean, how on Earth do you prove that he doesn't have any experience with a computer or access to someone who does? Given the guys history as he outlines it, is it reasonable to question whether or not someone is encouraging or aiding this guy or dare I say exploiting him?
Click to expand...

But if it was only Robert saying this was true then this case would be lot easier to solve wouldn't it? Nancy don't forget is saying she gave him a digital camera to use that she claims was not touched by Robert before this? He snapped a few photographs with her camera, images then appeared on that camera , that stunned her, how can this be?. Nancy claims nothing else was in the room with her and Robert yet these strange images appeared on here camera before her eyes. For her this was prove Robert had these abilities.

Either she is telling a bold face lie to protect herself or this is what happened and we are being unfair on him and her. Either way i don't think its impossible task to prove once and for all if this guy is a fake. His alleged ability causes images that should not be there in the room or outside to appear on camera. Get this guy into a TV studio and let experts test him and once and for all end the debate is he a fraud.

Having a friend who is mentalist and has the use of a computer isn't prove of anything. Lets be careful on that. He freely admitted on air he was these things. Roberts friend was not hiding details from us during the interview. When asked, for me he was not hesitant in how he answered these questions. If the images were faked. Yes his friend could have faked them for Robert. But there's no evidence for that. For me the images look suspicious , but to accuse his friend of faking this is going too far at this time.

The most interesting part of the interview for me is how he addressed the Billy Meier question (do you believe he was real deal or something along those lines) I think Robert feelings on this overall was he doesn't know. But he said often people will have one or two experiences, then does experiences stop, but due to the attention and fame those experiences brought to them, go on to fake other experiences. Is this Robert revealing what he has done here? Or is he just giving an honest opinion what he feels Billy Meier did?
 
Paleontologist said:
Did anyone notice besides Gene that Robbert's "computer guru" is a "former mentalist"? Shouldn't that ring some alarm bells? Maybe loud enough to wake even Chris from his slumber here?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the Paracast Forum! We appreciate informed opinions and qualified insight. I'm glad you have decided to join our forum and I look forward to your active participation. FYI: I am very much awake. Unfortunately, we experienced some tech difficulties because I was on-the-road during the taping sessions and was offline during a great deal of the show. I was dropped from the connection 5 or 6 times and will try in the future to not participate in show taping sessions while driving through the mountains and down canyons. Rest assured, we have some great shows coming up and we appreciate all of your interest and participation at the Paracast.
 
Kieran said:
But if it was only Robert saying this was true then this case would be lot easier to solve wouldn't it? ...
Either she is telling a bold face lie ...
Click to expand...

Is it possible she is being deceived? Is she the victim of a performance or a participant? I think that would take more time and energy to discover than it may be worth in face of the photographic evidence alone.
 
could Nancy be any more annoying? i found myself wishing someone would put some duct tape across her mouth.
 
trainedobserver said:
Is it possible she is being deceived? Is she the victim of a performance or a participant? I think that would take more time and energy to discover than it may be worth in face of the photographic evidence alone.
Click to expand...

I think it be fairly easy to catch this guy out if he is lying in matter of mere hours even minutes, if the proper expert testing was done. I think the problem here is this has never been done.
 
I don't want to preannounce anything, but I've been trying (without success so far) to get permission to repurpose the content from the ufowatchdog.com site, but Ross doesn't answer his email these days. A very dedicated forum member and I have been joined by a first-rate Web designer to try to see where we can take this concept.
 
I have been a supporter of BLT's work for many years and was involved in their Bovine Excision Site Study in the late 1990s. Say what you will in an attempt to discredit ALL of their work "She uses pseudoscientific jargon in all of her ravings but this only impresses the uninformed (or uninformable)" but if you actually take the time to review the data and the protocols they use to gather the data out in the field, you will find that such a broad-stroke dismissive statement cannot undue their many years of research. Nor can it invalidate the many other scientists who have become involved with BLT's work. FWIW--I enthusiastically suggested to Laurance Rockefeller (back in '98) that he consider funding BLTs research and I do know that he was impressed with BLTs scientific approach to crop circle research. But so what, he was just another billionaire. Do I believe that Robbert's case is completely genuine? And that Nancy is well advised to spend the years of effort in an attempt to prove a high-strange cause behind RVDB's claims? Or to become personally attached and enfranchised to the events? No, I do not. But, I do think there is more to this interesting case than a simple 100% series of hoaxes. There is a rather (dare I say) tricksterish element to many of the alleged events that I personally find intriguing. But that's me, who in your opinion would not know the "scientific method" if it bit me in the backside. You're entitled to your opinions--even if they are completely wrong. For years myself (and others) have questioned the depth of her personal involvement in Robbert's case because this slippery slope may have led to a depth of personal bias that may have resulted in a clouding of judgment and objectivity. Just like you have accused me of doing in regards to Ray Stanford's work. But, having said all this, I am not willing (quite yet) to throw Robbert and the bathwater under the bus until more research work has been done by others (beside Nancy and BLT).
 
To be most charitable, maybe Robbert had some sort of unusual experiences early on, but may have been exploited by others who want to cash in. So he has to continue to have experiences, even if he doesn't. Or maybe he's a total fraud.

Isn't that what he said on the show about Meier -- that Meier had real experiences, but came to confabulate more experiences and evidence to stay in the public light? Was Robbert really talking about himself there?

A trickster element, though, maybe goading someone into somehow having experiences, even demonstrating them to others. But when he's ready to tell the world, the experiences stop happening. What to do?
 
Chris I suggest you consider supporting a Bovine Excrement Study in regards to these guys.
 
Pixel, I really think Talbott fully believes Robbert. Misguided, true. But that's a key reason why she's so defensive about him.
 
very well stated Lance.
If she said someone is pissing on her leg and telling her it is rain, I would piss on her other leg and say "no, it is piss".
 
Folks, I never knew Levengood, but I think the Dr. issue is overblown. If his work consistently fails to pass muster, that's another thing.
 
Back
Top