With regard to?
-
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!
Nancy Talbott, Robbert van den Broeke, April 29, 2012
- Thread starter Kieran
- Start date
Qetuoadgjl
Skilled Investigator
Me, please do.
Apocalypto
Paranormal Maven
Now now, guys, no point in fighting. This thread isn't about Derren Brown, anyway. It's about Nancy Talbott and Robbert van den Broeke, and they've been debunked.
Qetuoadgjl
Skilled Investigator
When we look at Robert’s case and his links with Nancy, William Gazecki and others in the crop circle world and those who are offended by Robert’s claim’s – it is worth considering how all these individual personalities are playing out against one another and the dynamics between them.
Me personally – I like Nancy Talbot, William Gazecki and Colin Andrews – no matter what they think about one another. Robert – well I don’t know. If he’s hoaxing some of this stuff, he needs to ask himself why and try to be a little more honest with the world.
Current IP address 146.185.23.179
Whose IP is that?
Qetuoadgjl
Skilled Investigator
I haven't the foggiest.
nameless
Paranormal Adept
is the implication that Robert is a spoiler/ water tainter? Is the issue here that we are going to throw the baby out with the bath water? maybe Nancy's research in other "fields" got a little close.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Highly doubtful don't you think? The Robbert affair only highlights the problems with BLT's research methods and therefore their conclusions about crop circles and everything else.
nameless
Paranormal Adept
yeah, what was i thinking. its all BS.
Qetuoadgjl
Skilled Investigator
No, it means what I said. I haven't the foggiest whose IP address that is. You wanted it, I gave it.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
I think we need to have another show with Stephen Bassett and talk about disclosure so we can draw the attention away from this rather-waste-of-time onto something even more controversial if just as unimpressive. I mean truthfully, having a background in the charlatans and hoaxers that abound in the spiritualist/ghost hunting/haunting arena, guys like RVDB are instantly recognized and discarded as irrelevant by the more experienced and critically minded researchers. After 12 pages of posts I'm thinking it's time to move on to something else.
Well, we have closed threads, but I'm kinda waiting to see how long this one lasts before it runs its course. At least the rhetoric is more subdued than what we saw with some of the earlier controversies, probably because the subjects of this thread don't have many supporters.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
True. RVDB and his claims are kind of hard to defend.
Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
And that's an understatement. It's just sad about Mrs Talbott. Totally ruins her credibility, too.
wotsup
Paranormal Novice
wotsup
Paranormal Novice
I'm on a similar page to you wwkirk.
In another thread discussing the previous show about Nancy, I posted my opinions before hearing this interview - the one with Robbert and Stan - and basically all I said then, still stands.
Maybe it's because of my longstanding association with Nancy but after spending long hours on the phone to her and countless emails, I find it impossible to believe she's a victim or part of some hoax or conspiracy here.
And after hearing Robbert and Stan speak for the first time - my gut feeling is that when they relate their experiences of seeing these images come up on screen, they are speaking the truth.
Maybe also it's easier for me to accept also because I am 70 years old with a lifetime of research into parapsychology - that's layman research not academic - and I have experienced really weird stuff at physical seances and the like so I have satisfied myself that it happens.
Robbert didn't seem to be anti scientific research on him so all I can say is that if he's willing and somebody comes up with the funding, he'll either be stood up or knocked down.
In another thread discussing the previous show about Nancy, I posted my opinions before hearing this interview - the one with Robbert and Stan - and basically all I said then, still stands.
Maybe it's because of my longstanding association with Nancy but after spending long hours on the phone to her and countless emails, I find it impossible to believe she's a victim or part of some hoax or conspiracy here.
And after hearing Robbert and Stan speak for the first time - my gut feeling is that when they relate their experiences of seeing these images come up on screen, they are speaking the truth.
Maybe also it's easier for me to accept also because I am 70 years old with a lifetime of research into parapsychology - that's layman research not academic - and I have experienced really weird stuff at physical seances and the like so I have satisfied myself that it happens.
Robbert didn't seem to be anti scientific research on him so all I can say is that if he's willing and somebody comes up with the funding, he'll either be stood up or knocked down.
wotsup
Paranormal Novice
OK, now I've heard Gene and Chris's reactions at the beginning of the following Ghost show episode.
And I have to say I do not think Gene, you gave Nancy a hard time.
You asked wholly relevant questions and 'held her feet to the fire' as you put it.
Yes over many years I have found she is extremely defensive and have had a few fallings out with her - generally to claw my way back because as I said before, I think something is genuinely going on with the Robbert issue.
Chris suggested that from their point of view it was unwise to introduce Stan and inform of his mentalist/magician background which is bound to raise difficult questions.
I don't agree. It would be unwise if he really was being used to fake things. It is wise if as they claim, his scepticism was the very reason Stan was drawn to the case in the first place. He wanted to expose it and was very sceptical. He and Robbert were being honest by admitting in effect: 'Yes he's a mentalist and knows all the tricks and that's why he's convinced it's real'.
There have been a couple of posters who have commented that this is simply old time Spiritualism under a modern guise - using this in a derogatory way.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance - especially your side of the pond (I'm in the UK) - about the good evidence for seance phenomena - I previously cited the Scole experiment.
I personally knew very well a guy now deceased called Tom Harrison whose mother Minnie was a medium and he and his family witnessed full scale materialisation of dead people at his UK home - literally hundreds of times over many years. He documented all this in a book called Life After Death - Living Proof - you can research him on the web.
Knowing somebody you love and trust telling you this stuff and having your own experiences of a similar kind, changes your perception and the way you view reality and opens you to possibilities you would not have ever entertained before.
That's one thing I think is happening here.
Gene, wouldn't you say this whole issue, simply pushes you beyond your personal 'boggle factor'?
Yes I agree completely that none of this Robbert stuff should be accepted without full proof.
But I'm interested what exactly there was in that second interview which has swung you seemingly not to pursue this any further - (in an earlier reply to somebody you said the interview wasn't a mistake because you learned things and it will allow us all to move on from here).
Was it simply the revelations about Stan's mentalist background - which could be seen to compromise him but is hardly proof of fakery.
And Chris who wonders what's the purpose behind all this from 'spirit', if that's what it is, why are 'they' producing such 'silly' and fake-looking fuzzy photos?
Chris, if this really is communication from another dimension, how can we know how difficult it might be and how can we insist that photos must be original and pinsharp. If this is an advanced form of physics, we wouldn't know the limitations.
I'm sorry Nancy has curtailed communication with Gene - that's a big mistake on her part in my view.
I'm still in touch with her and hope to persuade her not to burn her boats with this very important and worthwhile Paracast show.
Thanks for reading.
PS Please as I'm new here - how do I make sure I get notification of replies?
And I have to say I do not think Gene, you gave Nancy a hard time.
You asked wholly relevant questions and 'held her feet to the fire' as you put it.
Yes over many years I have found she is extremely defensive and have had a few fallings out with her - generally to claw my way back because as I said before, I think something is genuinely going on with the Robbert issue.
Chris suggested that from their point of view it was unwise to introduce Stan and inform of his mentalist/magician background which is bound to raise difficult questions.
I don't agree. It would be unwise if he really was being used to fake things. It is wise if as they claim, his scepticism was the very reason Stan was drawn to the case in the first place. He wanted to expose it and was very sceptical. He and Robbert were being honest by admitting in effect: 'Yes he's a mentalist and knows all the tricks and that's why he's convinced it's real'.
There have been a couple of posters who have commented that this is simply old time Spiritualism under a modern guise - using this in a derogatory way.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance - especially your side of the pond (I'm in the UK) - about the good evidence for seance phenomena - I previously cited the Scole experiment.
I personally knew very well a guy now deceased called Tom Harrison whose mother Minnie was a medium and he and his family witnessed full scale materialisation of dead people at his UK home - literally hundreds of times over many years. He documented all this in a book called Life After Death - Living Proof - you can research him on the web.
Knowing somebody you love and trust telling you this stuff and having your own experiences of a similar kind, changes your perception and the way you view reality and opens you to possibilities you would not have ever entertained before.
That's one thing I think is happening here.
Gene, wouldn't you say this whole issue, simply pushes you beyond your personal 'boggle factor'?
Yes I agree completely that none of this Robbert stuff should be accepted without full proof.
But I'm interested what exactly there was in that second interview which has swung you seemingly not to pursue this any further - (in an earlier reply to somebody you said the interview wasn't a mistake because you learned things and it will allow us all to move on from here).
Was it simply the revelations about Stan's mentalist background - which could be seen to compromise him but is hardly proof of fakery.
And Chris who wonders what's the purpose behind all this from 'spirit', if that's what it is, why are 'they' producing such 'silly' and fake-looking fuzzy photos?
Chris, if this really is communication from another dimension, how can we know how difficult it might be and how can we insist that photos must be original and pinsharp. If this is an advanced form of physics, we wouldn't know the limitations.
I'm sorry Nancy has curtailed communication with Gene - that's a big mistake on her part in my view.
I'm still in touch with her and hope to persuade her not to burn her boats with this very important and worthwhile Paracast show.
Thanks for reading.
PS Please as I'm new here - how do I make sure I get notification of replies?
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
That Robbert van den Broeke is a fraud, and a ridiculously poor one at that, should be painfully obvious to the most casual observer at this point. Why anyone would look at this case beyond the absurd and badly faked photographs is beyond me. When you do, as done on the Paracast and the forum, you see how absurd and totally without merit the case truly is. All of this just speaks tremendous volumes about BLT's methods and credibility and quite frankly makes a bad joke out the lot.
wwkirk
Paranormal Adept
At the top of the page, right above the first posting, click where it says "watch forum".