If you recall, Robbert said the very same thing about Meier in his brief comments, that he fabricated some of his evidence. Pots and kettles I expect. 
-
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
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
Gene, I was just able to listen to this week's broadcast and was glad to hear how you felt about Robbert. Although I agree with Chris that this group has done some very interesting work with paranormal phenomena in the past, they are hurting their reputation very badly by continuing a relationship with him. One can only pray that in the process of seeking out the "truth" in this field, that better heads eventually prevail.
Im of the mind the court of public opinion is not inlike a court of law.
A witness can get up on the stand and truthfully relate the first five minutes of an alleged event, but once they start telling lies and are caught at it, by either the judge or either of the counsels (prosecution or defence).
They are deemed an unreliable witness, and the whole testimony even the stuff that was related truthfully must be ignored.
This is vital to the process.
By throwing out anything thats tainted with lies, and keeping only the pure truth.
What you are left with IS the pure truth and nothing but the truth.
Small nuggets of pure truth are always worth more, than vast quantitys of tainted data.
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
But what if the witness is lying to himself as well?
Then its the job of the magistrate or counsels to catch them at it,
A deluded witness could testify they rode into a shopping mall on a purple unicorn just in time to witness an assault.
The defence counsel would then have to put it to the court, that unicorns are not purple
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
Then its the job of the magistrate or counsels to catch them at it,
A deluded witness could testify they rode into a shopping mall on a purple unicorn just in time to witness an assault.
The defence counsel would then have to put it to the court, that unicorns are not purple
Of course they are not purple!
They are fuchsia
But then you would dismiss the witness because he doesn't perceive colors as you do
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
When you find a hoaxer, you don't assume that they may have had some real experiences at some point in the past. What it should do is call you to doubt and reexamine all of their claims.
This is true for Meier, Robbert B., and BLT itself. That doesn't mean you just throw it all out because of mistakes, but it should mean that you reexamine the body of the person's or organization's work in the new light shed on it by the discovery of the hoax, unscientific, or unethical practices or what have you. In seems that in cases like this new things are often uncovered that were overlooked or incorrect assumptions were made about before there was knowledge of the impropriety.
When we discover the intent to deceive rather than honest mistakes then you have even more reason to doubt, question, and reexamine everything presented by those parties.
This is true for Meier, Robbert B., and BLT itself. That doesn't mean you just throw it all out because of mistakes, but it should mean that you reexamine the body of the person's or organization's work in the new light shed on it by the discovery of the hoax, unscientific, or unethical practices or what have you. In seems that in cases like this new things are often uncovered that were overlooked or incorrect assumptions were made about before there was knowledge of the impropriety.
When we discover the intent to deceive rather than honest mistakes then you have even more reason to doubt, question, and reexamine everything presented by those parties.
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
*Ahem*
This is indeed true for Meier, Robbert B, Nancy Talbot, BLT... and James Randi.
Why am I bringing this up? Just merely to point out the dangers of using a broad brush in order to judge a person or an organization. People here seem very eager to dismiss the whole of BLT's work on account of undeserved titles and whatnot. Yet if I were to dismiss the entire corpus of the James Randi Educational Foundation and their achievements on account of the sordid Alvarez/Peña brouhaha, no doubt plenty of Paracasters would jump in to defend Randi and accuse me of being nit-picky.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Ahem. I should probably place some emphasis on key words.
What does James Randi have to do with this? He has nothing to do with this hoax or these people. Has anything else other than the "Alvarez/Peña brouhaha" come up as a result of people taking another look at Randi's past work?
What are you trying to justify? Not calling into question BLT's previous claims because of their support of Robbert, an obvious hoaxer? I really don't get it.
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
Chillax, amigo. I'm not trying to justify anything. I was merely trying to point out the problem with the 'brush-stroke' vision some of the members have used to paint Talbott and BLT, by applying it on um, a different canvas shall we say
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Chillax, amigo. I'm not trying to justify anything. I was merely trying to point out the problem with the 'brush-stroke' vision some of the members have used to paint Talbott and BLT, by applying it on um, a different canvas shall we say
I really don't see what you are getting at. I think I've been pretty specific about my problems with BLT.
Has anything other than James Randi's boyfriend's legal trouble come out of the "Alvarez/Peña brouhaha" or not? I think the answer is no but I am more than willing to be educated about it. What is James Randi guilty of other than having bad taste in men? James Randi's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with BLT or their problems in any way other than to be used as a "hey look he is dirty too!" kind of thing. Ok? How does that justify BLTs pseudo-science? It doesn't for me but your mileage may vary.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
My Google superpowers must be failing me. Where is all that BLT cattle mutilation research that I have heard mentioned on the Paracast now numerous times?
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
Probably in the same dimension as Robbert's special abilities.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I don't think red-pill junkie is stupid. I've read enough of his stuff to understand him to be an intelligent person as far as an idiot such as myself can judge. I really don't think we need to insult each other to get a point across do we?
This "Randi's boyfriend" thing is totally irrelevant though and it used as a misdirection every time it comes up. I have never understood why anyone would think attempting to discredit some skeptic in the middle of a discussion totally unrelated to them (Randi has never debunked BLT that I know of), adds weight, authority, or reliability to the supernatural or paranormal claims being examined. It does exactly the opposite in my view.
If the intent is to put forth the notion that BLTs past research is valid in light of the problems that have already been mentioned, perhaps a pertinent argument should be presented rather than a misdirection like the Randi's gay lover ploy. Something along the lines of "BLTs protocols are still valid for telling an alleged genuine crop circle from a fake one (whatever that is) because ..." or "BLT can be relied on to use proven methodology and normal common sense when evaluating photographs in light of the Robbet B. fiasco because ..."
This "Randi's boyfriend" thing is totally irrelevant though and it used as a misdirection every time it comes up. I have never understood why anyone would think attempting to discredit some skeptic in the middle of a discussion totally unrelated to them (Randi has never debunked BLT that I know of), adds weight, authority, or reliability to the supernatural or paranormal claims being examined. It does exactly the opposite in my view.
If the intent is to put forth the notion that BLTs past research is valid in light of the problems that have already been mentioned, perhaps a pertinent argument should be presented rather than a misdirection like the Randi's gay lover ploy. Something along the lines of "BLTs protocols are still valid for telling an alleged genuine crop circle from a fake one (whatever that is) because ..." or "BLT can be relied on to use proven methodology and normal common sense when evaluating photographs in light of the Robbet B. fiasco because ..."
And let me make this clear: Matters of one's sexual preference, boyfriend, girlfriend, or whatever, are not relevant unless they impact the caliber of one's research process or evidence, which they usually don't. Let's talk about stuff that counts here.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I think the inference this time around was that because a well known skeptic was in a relationship with someone that was allegedly involved in criminal behavior (was he ever convicted?) that neither I nor any other person should have the gall to question BLT's research before thoroughly exposing the aledged improprities of James Randi or something to that effect. I really don't get why.
We've wasted too much space on someone unrelated to the Robbert B/BLT fiasco already. Let's get out the fine brushes then. Where is the BLT protocol for determining a man-made complex crop circle from a presumed non-made made complex crop circle that works?
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
Gene and others, don't worry: Randi's or anyone's sexual preferences don't interest me in the slightest.
It's not about having or not having the gall to question BLT's research that I brought up the Alvarez/Peña issue merely for illustrative purposes to the table. On the contrary: I agree wholeheartedly with you, trainedobserver, when you say we should question BLT's research; I might add we should always be critical and retain a healthy dose of skepticism with any claim put forth by a researcher or investigator, regardless of its credentials or if said credentials has ever been put into question.
It was when I began to perceive just the opposite among other contributors to this thread, and that they are acting as if Robbert's deceitful behavior was already completely established, and therefore also the total incompetency of Nancy Talbott as a scientific researcher, that I decided to mention the Alvarez/Peña issue; which is not, as some seem all too willing to think, about what a respected spokesperson for a very powerful organization chooses to do in his private life, but about how much he knew and when he knew it with regards to the illegal situation of a person very close to him --a person who collaborated with him on a campaign to display the gullibility of the public and TV reporters to boot. Some people, like I've stated, would jump in on the opportunity to question EVERYTHING the JREF has done on account of that, and this would be a rather unfair thing to do; so I merely brought it up to remember what Gene once wrote in this very thread a few pages above: that everybody is entitled to make mistakes.
Including Nancy Talbott.
But when people start to throw offensive epithets to attack any given person, that's when we should pause and question our ulterior motives. Do we care about finding the truth, or do we care about defending our 'home team'?
Once again I re-estate my current position with regards to Robbert and his funky pics: they almost seem 'too bad to be false', and it wouldn't really surprise me or upset me that much if it was found out he's been hoaxing them all along. BUT, so far, no one has captured him in the act. He remains in my gray 'who knows' mental basket, and he'll probably remain there for a very long time until something new comes along.
Enjoy the rest of Mother's Day
RPJ
dyingsun
Paranormal Adept
I think that some crop circles are real, I believe in stuff most people wouldn't believe in, I hope I am still entitled to my on opinion about Robbert and Ms. Talbot(t). She is at it for decades , but well..not a Fan, to say the least.All research tainted with 'that dude'. As said, if you dig far enough on here, you'll find some videos and stories posted by a dutch dude about Robbert, watch those and judge yourselves.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
All crop circles are real. None of them were made by aliens. All of them were made by humans.
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Yes everyone is entitled to make mistakes. That is the only way we can actually learn things. Then you change what you're doing so you stop making mistakes. It is a complete mistake to try to tie someone's unrelated personal problems with another's case after case of questionable research methods and results.
Has anyone come up with any evidence whatsoever that James Randi's mistake of having an association with a fellow has bled over into his work? If someone wants to go after his work because of it or in spite of it, where does something like fairness have anything to do with it? Let them have at it. Let's see the results. That is all that matters here isn't it?
Is there evidence that BLT's problem ridden research includes numerous incidents within the Robbert B. case alone? Not to mention the question of the overall crop circle research due to the problems Colin Andrews has brought up about their methods among other things?
I am sorry to say RPJ that Robbert is a painfully obvious and infuriatingly obnoxious hoaxer. I find it absolutely incredible that anyone would give him the time of day.