Hmmm...

[russhorseman]

Just finished listening to the show. I knew Nancy from when she spoke at our Gulf Breeze conferences many many years ago. She's kept in contact with our small group of friends throughout the years. I can state with confidence that the Nancy I knew would not take part in any hoaxes (not that Gene or Dave even suggested that). She's an old-school "paper" researcher, and by that I mean that she is technology challenged. If I remember correctly, she didn't even use PowerPoint in her lectures, relying instead on transparencies.

However...

David, I think you really gave her lots to think about, especially when it comes to acquiring video evidence. Since she's bringing Robert's case into the spotlight (with the book she is going to write), she'll have to anticipate EVERYONE asking her about the lack of video. It is a glaring omission for a researcher of Nancy's caliber. Even if Robert is as technically challenged as Nancy, anyone can shoot video with a cell phone nowadays.

I'm also not an orb fan. With all the other photo/documentation she has, Nancy needs to toss those aside.

There was an excellent dynamic between David and Nancy in the first hour with the crop circle discussion, however. That's the Nancy I remember.

Another nice show, guys.

 

[Ally]

I have very mixed feelings about what I just heard. First of all if Nancy is technically challenged why would she tell David that he is wrong about the orb photos! She is too emotionally and maybe otherwise invested in this case. I did not like parts of her personality. The case still may be genuine and interesting. There needs other people on this case.

For someone that is "vibe" sensitive Robert missed a big one IMO. It just could have been this interview and how she presented this material too.

 

[russhorseman]

I have very mixed feelings about what I just heard. First of all if Nancy is technically challenged why would she tell David that he is wrong about the orb photos! She is too emotionally and maybe otherwise invested in this case. I did not like parts of her personality. The case still may be genuine and interesting. There needs other people on this case.

For someone that is "vibe" sensitive Robert missed a big one IMO. It just could have been this interview and how she presented this material too.

Hi, Ally!

First I want to apologize to David, Gene, and other posters. I meant to post this original reply in the "June 28 Nancy Talbot" thread. Can I blame 2 AM in the morning for this?

Ally, I think that Nancy's response to David regarding the orbs illustrates my point. Even though David explained to her his expertise and what the orbs were, she simply chose to disagree with no explanation other than "but I was there." That's a response I would expect from a non-technical person.

The last time I spoke with Nancy in person she had just come back from her first trip to Robert's home and had lots of pictures. This was about eight years ago. I tend to agree with you that she may be getting too emotionally invested here, perhaps forgetting her researchers hat during the many years of investigating this case. You make an excellent point there. The lack of any (?) video still surprises me.

Have a nice night (morning).

 

[Gareth]

I just dont understand why Nancy is so hell bent on believing those orb photos are something anomalous. Out of all the photos they are the least interesting. And even without those photos there is still a fair amount of interesting stuff to look at.

I see absolutely no reason at all to be emotionally invested in those particular pictures like she is. Some of the others? Absolutely. Those ring photos are (IMO) stunning. The way that one creates a reflection in the camera? I mean, what the fuck is going on there!??

But those orb shots are typical new age crap. Throw 'em out Nancy. Throw 'em out! You don't need em!

 

[russhorseman]

I'm going to try to get a hold of Nancy and have her respond to these and other posts...