June 28 2009... Nancy Talbot

[dude-with-no-life]

I don't agree, Dutch is spoken by a small group of people. I don't expect anyone to be able to read up on this guy. It has nothing to do with lazyness or not looking outside the border.

Biedny always makes a good point about the Spanish speaking world, that's a huge treasure of information but how do you access it??? How about Chinese?

We all live in a tiny bubble even though we think we're so international
But that's why i wrote my opinion about Robert, so people have "an inside view" of Dutch insanity.

Besides, if the local farmer says Robert makes these circles himself he's probably right, it's almost in his backyard. We call that "farmer's intellect" because they are so down to earth and smell bullshit from miles away

 

[themacx]

I don't agree, Dutch is spoken by a small group of people. I don't expect anyone to be able to read up on this guy. It has nothing to do with lazyness or not looking outside the border.

Biedny always makes a good point about the Spanish speaking world, that's a huge treasure of information but how do you access it??? How about Chinese?

We all live in a tiny bubble even though we think we're so international
But that's why i wrote my opinion about Robert, so people have "an inside view" of Dutch insanity.

Besides, if the local farmer says Robert makes these circles himself he's probably right, it's almost in his backyard. We call that "farmer's intellect" because they are so down to earth and smell bullshit from miles away

google translation maybe??? bablefish??? or just ask another person that does speak the laguage like we do .. need i say more? sure it's not perfect but it does the job. atleast try, same go's for spanish ... wierd isn't it we do understand miss Talbott but they don't understand van den broeke.. what's wrong with this picture... anyway I don't make the claims miss Talbott does and she should be held responsible for it.. nevermind knowing a language by heart that doesn't matter in this case.. SHE should have checked her side of the story she's selling and she clearly did not.

Why should we even waste time on this if the whole base of this story is so obviously false to begin with.

 

[dude-with-no-life]

Things like bablefish are pretty useless if you want fine details (details are so important). Besides, you have to understand cultural context, body language, speech patterns to really understand someone. It takes us 1 second to recognize what type of person you're talking to and with American culture being so dominant we can translate it into an American view.

Someone Like John Hagee speaks perfect English, but if you don't understand the whole televangelist thing you won't notice how insane he is.

See, Americans know how to make a show, they go over the top, everything is big. A Dutch fellow will sound much more humble (credible) for an American if they don't understand anything about the Dutch culture. That's maybe one of the problems Nancy has, there's probably a very bad translation going on. She used a very weird word for the conversations with Robert aka crap English We all know accents can sound very seductive and make someone look pretty credible or smart.

But i'm not defending Nancy, just regular folks that don't have time to comb out Dutch lunatics Nancy is a portal towards the English speaking world and does a very bad job providing anything worth your time.

Just a thought

 

[Dokyaro]

The interview with Nancy Talbott was an assault on the common senses.

 

[themacx]

Things like bablefish are pretty useless if you want fine details (details are so important). Besides, you have to understand cultural context, body language, speech patterns to really understand someone. It takes us 1 second to recognize what type of person you're talking to and with American culture being so dominant we can translate it into an American view.

Someone Like John Hagee speaks perfect English, but if you don't understand the whole televangelist thing you won't notice how insane he is.

See, Americans know how to make a show, they go over the top, everything is big. A Dutch fellow will sound much more humble (credible) for an American if they don't understand anything about the Dutch culture. That's maybe one of the problems Nancy has, there's probably a very bad translation going on. She used a very weird word for the conversations with Robert aka crap English We all know accents can sound very seductive and make someone look pretty credible or smart.

But i'm not defending Nancy, just regular folks that don't have time to comb out Dutch lunatics Nancy is a portal towards the English speaking world and does a very bad job providing anything worth your time.

Just a thought

I almost agree.. except you might wanna expect some intelligence from your audience, I like to think I'm able to read, listen and understand other cultures so why can't others? I didn't buy it when nancy told her story, and did a little research to make my points in this thread after i heard her complete story (2+ hours I'll never get back) so I think thats the benchmark. If you are talking about these topics you MUST expect some sceptisism from the audience. And know that it's really simple to use the internet for some fact checking... even if it is in chinese, then the least thing you could do is check the source.

and I totally forgot to mention...... she got money from who!? rockefeller!? RUN! and never look back!:exclamation:

 

[Kevin Daly]

Things like bablefish are pretty useless if you want fine details (details are so important).

I'll second that: As a professional software developer with a background in languages I wince when I see the faith people put in machine translation. Every time a new tool is released with much hype about how spookily accurate it is I check it out thinking "maybe this time", and every time it turns out to be laughable.

Until such time as machine translation is able to handle context and idiom well it will be a waste of time for anything much more complex than a shopping list...unfortunately many of my fellow programmers are people with little interest in or respect for human language and a mechanistic approach towards the human mind, so they underestimate the difficulty of the problem and regard the crude results as good enough.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

With all the dancing around why this kid was different, I somehow got a mental image of him as some young Rain Man character... I guess it didn't matter though as I was having a hard time taking her serious by that point anyway. My biggest problem with thinking she may have something was that she seemed to initially really try to steer questioning away from whatever was being discussed whenever it was obvious that a tougher question was being set up rather than just listening and following the context of the upcoming question. Maybe it wasn't quite like that but it was the impression I was getting anyway... Also, I have found in life that when someone leaps immediately to the defensive, there is likely a pretty good reason for it. It's too bad as initially she sure seemed to take a healthily skeptical approach to studying crop circles but then took a downward spiral upon meeting this kid. /shrug

That being said, whoever/whatever is behind crop circles, I really like them. Some of them are amazing works of art blended with very interesting metaphors/theology/knowledge.

 

[mikec]

This episode left me perplexed.

I saw Nancy speak at the 2008 Laughlin UFO conference (Yes, I know).

She spoke about her closeness with the Dutch family and especially a very real bond with the young man named Robert.

He DOES come across (in her photos and presentation) as some sort of Rain-Man (Autism?).

During the 2008 presentation, she quite literally talked about a love between her and Robert. I'll add that the presentation was quite touching, culminating with weird photos of her dead brother manifesting in a field in the dark.

I was shocked at how emotional and defensive she got during this interview with David & Gene. Human emotions welling up in what should have been a somber analytical examination of odd events.

I listened to the show more as a pshycologyst (which I am not) rather than a paranormal researcher (also, which I am not). Lots of emotion where there should have been pragmatic answers.

She's a human, not a robot, so I can't fault her on being emotional, but it did seem to be the more interesting part of the content.

If this is a hoax, she is deluded and she is perpetuating the lies unknowingly. But, I can't help but think something even weirder is going on, and I can't articulate it. She seems smart (albeit defensive and eager to believe).

If she has spent all this time with him (and the family) don't you suspect that - if it were a hoax, she would have caught on? My suspicion is that, somewhere in this muddy case, there is a very real paranormal event. Sadly, the smell test comes up kind of stinky (the protective parents charging money, etc).

It's interesting, she claims to be doing research, but it comes down to her in a field with a camera. And thousands of photos from this guy Robert. If this is a hoax, and if there really ARE thousands of photos, the probability is that at least ONE of them would stand out as a blatant manipulated image. Who is looking at these photographs? Why isn't there a team of scientists with multiple video cameras there 24 hours a day?

I'm not sure how to proceed.

Is she so gullible (and in love) that she has been duped into believing this story? Maybe, but part of me doubts that.

Is there some trickster element that wraps itself around this mysterious fellow Robert, and creates an easy way for highly skeptical people to dismiss this case outright? As improbable as it sounds, that what I sense.

No good answers from me, only more questions.

 

[CapnG]

Well now... that was a chore.

When someone basically says "Yeah I know you're an expert, I just don't care!" what more is there to say. BLT is an insult to actual BLTs, let alone dedicated investigators.

When she repeatedly said "He doesn't think like you!" I immediately pictured David thinking "Oh yeah? Well guess what? I think like me and you're only talking to one of us right now!"

At times Mr. Biedny, your patience is near saint-like. I would have completely lost it by about the 1.5 hour mark. Here's hoping for better fare next week.

 

[Gareth]

How can you say/think that? all we've got are some pictures on a website... they where ïnspected "by some MIT guy" coming from a source that is total BS and only is promoted still by an american lady nobody overhere ever heard of without any credibility... so what? Making things up? clearly not she's the one posting the pictures.. now let us check them please.. funny how we always have to ask for proof from the people claiming they have a clue... they obviously don't.

what on earth make you think these are real? have you ever seen anything like that before from other people? there must be otherwise mr. van den Broeke is the only one capable to make these images? I find that VERY hard to belief.

So do americans fact check foreign stuff... that seems to be the real problem... like I said... It SEEMS that they don't.. just like WE in Holland never heard of miss Talbott and her amazing story. the problem is mutual my friend don't get all worked up about it ;-)

I'm in luck to be able to read and write a few languages but you know aswell as I do americans AND europeans in general don't look beyond their border.

NOTE; I said in general! not all.. but.....nevermind.

EDIT; isn't she the one writing a book about him.. so she does have a BIG motivator to lie doesn't she?

Because I trust my intuition regarding Nancy. If she is being deliberately deceptive Ill send you a cheque for $100000.

Of course it would be a completely different matter if all we had was these photos. And Im still not making any claims about Robbert, or the veracity of his own claims.

But Nancy? She is not lying. She might be being lied to, but thats a completely different matter.

edit,

and BTW, I never said I thought they were real. I said they are not hoaxes based on Nancy saying she was there when they were taken.

 

[CapnG]

I said they are not hoaxes based on Nancy saying she was there when they were taken.

It's important to remember the difference between a fraud (something purported to be one thing that turns out to be another) and a hoax (something deliberately orchastrated to try and fool people). It's clearly the former in this case.

 

[Gareth]

It's important to remember the difference between a fraud (something purported to be one thing that turns out to be another) and a hoax (something deliberately orchastrated to try and fool people). It's clearly the former in this case.

Be that as it may, Nancy is not the one committing the fraud. Im extremely confident of this.

 

[CapnG]

Be that as it may, Nancy is not the one committing the fraud. Im extremely confident of this.

She's perpetuating it though by refusing to examine it objectively. In a way that's just as bad, possibly worse.

 

[themacx]

Because I trust my intuition regarding Nancy. If she is being deliberately deceptive Ill send you a cheque for $100000.

Of course it would be a completely different matter if all we had was these photos. And Im still not making any claims about Robbert, or the veracity of his own claims.

But Nancy? She is not lying. She might be being lied to, but thats a completely different matter.

edit,

and BTW, I never said I thought they were real. I said they are not hoaxes based on Nancy saying she was there when they were taken.

well she's not telling the truth either, and she was aware of the dutch sceptics so she should have atleast known the problems with robbert and like the paracast she should have been a little less gullible, especially talking with gene and david. So knowing that where would you like to send the money? never mind just give it to the paracast they need it more then I do.

and not real and not a hoax .. how is that possible? remember the sceptics checked some pictures (of nons and orbs) and declared them fake.. so she knew.

EDIT; people need to remember Robbert was exposed (and taken of air) in 2005.

 

[CapnG]

and not real and not a hoax .. how is that possible? remember the sceptics checked some pictures (of nons and orbs) and declared them fake.. so she knew.

Well, to quote myself from a few posts back, there's a difference between a fraud (something purported to be one thing that turns out to be another) and a hoax (something deliberately orchastrated to try and fool people).

 

[Men Around Screen]

A lot of my thoughts have already been summed up by the kind folk in the first page, so I won't bore you with all that. What I wanted to say is Nancy is honest about her work but the problem is, she has very scant knowledge about real-world science and technology while trying to tell a story which requires that. Yeah, she does use "complex" terminology like magnesium carbonate and percolation, epicentres, and spiraling plasma vortexes (wtf?) but looking away from that, her research doesn't sound very scientific at all. Real scientists (and not people who sound clever) should be employed to research real crop circles.

And I'd like to add, why are so few in this field competent with real-world science?

Note: On the other hand, the material posted about the Clay-Mineral XRD study appears to be scientific and genuine. http://bltresearch.com/xrd.php

 

[themacx]

Well, to quote myself from a few posts back, there's a difference between a fraud (something purported to be one thing that turns out to be another) and a hoax (something deliberately orchastrated to try and fool people).

the jury is still out on that one I guess. But I fear it's a hoax.

 

[dude-with-no-life]

Nancy already made her mind up before meeting Robert, she wants to believe, that's the only explaination. That's not the scientific/investigatory method, that's just being a religious fundamentalist.

In my view she's just as guilthy to the fraud as Robert. Maybe even worse, she's spreading the crap information. Robert is quarantined within the Dutch speaking world, she's letting the virus out.

Nancy is possibly a dangerous person, i was just thinking how convincing and intelligent she sounds in the first hour. I guess Robert's parents are a bit hypnotised by her as well.

Who knows what's going on, sounds like the crazies are encouraging the crazies, you see that a lot. They make up some fancy sounding investigative club, make a website, throw around fancy words, wave around some consumer level crap electronics.

It reminds me when i was 4 years old and made a cape out of a bedsheet, i really thought i was superman. It's just playtime, all show no substance... but a lot of fantasy.

 

[aaronpsych]

I think Gene and David did a good job holding this interview together. Nancy was very defensive, rigid and sometimes borderline hostile. Her defensiveness made me think that she was defending a 'belief' rather than an opinion, and an insecure belief at that hence the 'attacking' posture. The trouble is that much of what she talked about sounded as if she is capable of logical balanced thought. However, in terms of the psychic guy, she is 'telling' his story like an apostle. I wondered whether her experience with her deceased brother was the catalyst for her clicking over into 'belief' land.

Other than that her grasp of scientific method appears shaky. At one point David asked her if she had tested for something in her research and she said that she had not because they were not looking at that particular aspect. However, in research, especially when testing for an unknown, as many factors as possible should be accounted for. That way we can see the effect of different factors and work out which is important and which is obscuring results. Any other research is simply falling into confirmatory bias, which is a big problem in this field.

I'm also interested in knowing more about this psychic. Nancy's description of him raised some queries as to his mental state and his family relations. There were many parts to this story that appeared to lack what David would call an 'internal logic'. That's one of the first things I scan for in terms of credibility.

 

[Kevin Daly]

I think Gene and David did a good job holding this interview together. Nancy was very defensive, rigid and sometimes borderline hostile. Her defensiveness made me think that she was defending a 'belief' rather than an opinion, and an insecure belief at that hence the 'attacking' posture. The trouble is that much of what she talked about sounded as if she is capable of logical balanced thought. However, in terms of the psychic guy, she is 'telling' his story like an apostle. I wondered whether her experience with her deceased brother was the catalyst for her clicking over into 'belief' land.

Other than that her grasp of scientific method appears shaky. At one point David asked her if she had tested for something in her research and she said that she had not because they were not looking at that particular aspect. However, in research, especially when testing for an unknown, as many factors as possible should be accounted for. That way we can see the effect of different factors and work out which is important and which is obscuring results. Any other research is simply falling into confirmatory bias, which is a big problem in this field.

I'm also interested in knowing more about this psychic. Nancy's description of him raised some queries as to his mental state and his family relations. There were many parts to this story that appeared to lack what David would call an 'internal logic'. That's one of the first things I scan for in terms of credibility.

I think Nancy's living with some serious cognitive dissonance...what's left of her critical faculties are desperately trying to get her attention and she's metaphorically sticking her fingers in her ears and going "I CAN'T HEAR YOU...LA LA LA". Makes people grumpy, that does.