• 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

Forums New posts
You can do the experiment at home, all you need is a digital camera and a TV remote

The camera "sees" what you dont


This is what a kinect does to your lounge

Now imagine this projector using an IR light source......


You would not see the bird, unless you were looking through a digital camera
 
mike said:
I think Lance nailed it with his post, the degree of critical scrutiny must be increased in circumstances like these.

But id also make the point that one bad apple doesnt have to spoil the whole barrel.

Purely hypothetical here, but lets say for the sake of the demonstration, there was a genuine alien made formation somewhere that Andrews or any other researcher looked at.
Lets not concern ourselves with how they got here, or why they did it.

So for the sake of the argument lets say andrews sees a genuine ET made CC.

A week later the BBC hook book and cook him with a fake.
That would not magically change the propertys of the first circle.

Falling for a fake circle wouldnt rewrite the timeline and make the first one a prank with a plank.

Any more than being fooled by a fake Picasso, would make all Picasso's fake

Knowing there are fake Picasso's out there, some so good they fool experts.......



Judge gives go-ahead to sell 1000 fake paintings - smh.com.au

Just means one has to employ an enhanced sense of scrutiny when looking at the "picture"
Click to expand...

I would just like to point out that analogy is a little flawed since we know that real Picasso artwork exists. We do not know for a fact that any crop circles are real. Not to say that your entire post is flawed Mike.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The conclusion being, then, that Stan the man or Stan the mentalist is the enabler or the worker bee who makes all this pseudo-magic occur.
Click to expand...

No, no, no... Here's what is really happening. ETs, spirits, and/or extra-dimensional beings - described by Robbert as all of love and higher consciousness (at least the ones he interacts with) - are using Robbert's extraordinary abilities to manifest evidence intended to make Robbert look like a tool and fraud.

If Nancy wants us to believe the photos are genuine, then they are genuinely designed to look fraudulent and thus make her appear a hoax-monger. Doesn't she mind?

Robert was discredited years ago in the 'genverbrander' incident. How unscientific of the unenlightened not to realize the spirits were using Robbert to prove they could access the web and relay such accurate data - typographical errors and all.

Ludicrous.

Sometimes I think we seekers are the fools. For over forty years I've tried to find answers to what I witnessed as a child. If I live another forty I won't be one inch closer to an answer.
 
Berean said:
Sometimes I think we seekers are the fools. For over forty years I've tried to find answers to what I witnessed as a child. If I live another forty I won't be one inch closer to an answer.
Click to expand...

We can separate signal from noise :)

I look at it this way Berean, as for answers maybe we get hints to the big picture but it's the journey that matters. Questions leading to more questions with tantalizing glimpses along the way.
 
Berean said:
Robert was discredited years ago in the 'genverbrander' incident. How unscientific of the unenlightened not to realize the spirits were using Robbert to prove they could access the web and relay such accurate data - typographical errors and all.
Click to expand...

WOW! Someone finally recognized this incident tonight. Thank you Berean, I was beginning to wonder why it was considered no big deal compared to "mud man" and other aspects of Robert's obvious fakery.

The sad aspect of this was that I posed the question before the show but was later told when I asked why it wasn't reminded to both of them, that other aspects of the night's questioning was already leading to a "nerve point" of the main accusations in the context of the subject.

But this incident is one he NEVER answered with any viable reason whatsoever in the past. In fact both he and Nancy have every explanation in the world on their websites for the photos and other aspects of his supposed paranormal abilities, but to this piece of actual proof....something which caught his ass dead to rights for the fake wannabe he really is....

Nothing.

Again, I didn't waste my time posting the question before the show. I spent many years following this foolish man and really felt I could corner him this time. Perhaps I'll get the chance again someday. As Gene inferred, he probably wouldn't have admitted it anyway. Perhaps we should have asked his mentalist friend instead?
 
Berean said:
Sometimes I think we seekers are the fools. For over forty years I've tried to find answers to what I witnessed as a child. If I live another forty I won't be one inch closer to an answer.
Click to expand...

Well, you've got 10 more years of seeking on me. I think I was happier when I wasn't paying attention to my paranormal childhood - in actively seeking, I just get annoyed & disillusioned. It's really best just to spend more time with family, friends & walk in a forest when you get the chance. Letting all those UFO books collect dust on the shelf can be very relaxing in its own way.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
I expect Stan is smart enough to admit to nothing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, they've got a great routine packaged together - one plays the fool & the other pretends to live in adulation of the space brothers. I feel bad for all who get wrapped up in them or who seek to alleviate personal pain by seeking out RVDB for solace. That's why there should have been more surgery on this last show...
 
The late John Mack, professor of psychology at Harvard had to defend his position there when suggesting that there was substance in alien abductions. Not that aliens were actually abducting humans, but that their conscious was being tampered with, which did not fit within empirical scientific norms. Here at the Paracast forum there are a number of experiencers, who have experienced many different types of phenomenon, and I would suggest for the most part that they are not Robbert or Nancy, and are actually quite sane. When you look at the number of talk shows in which Nancy or Robbert have been on, along with videos and articles, you have to wonder how these people can be allowed carry on. So why not a cathartic forum feeding frenzy, one less fraud, and hundreds left to ferret out, and expose. If not held in check they could go on indefinitely leading the ignorant who are honestly grasping for any thread that may help them in reconciling their experience.
The Nancys, Stans, and Robberts are the very reason why mainstream science wants no part in research into Aerial Anomalies and Paranormal Phenomena, and actually sets research back. I understand how “Paranormal Pop Culture,” is fringy and should not be taken seriously, looking away with one blind eye, but these people end up detracting from any and all meaningful gains which might be realized.
 
mike said:
Note the LED is visible as being lit up......

But if you were to look at it with the naked eye you would not see it lit up, it would look the same as the first pic

if you were to project an image using this sort of LED you would see nothing with the naked eye, but a digital camera would see it
Click to expand...

It's an interesting theory, yet I think either Robbert or Stan would have to keep the LED projecting device fairly close to the camera in order to register the image by the sensor.

I haven't finished listening to the whole show, but I fear most of the past commenters I'm falling into some hasty conclusions. Basically the verdict seems to be that Robbert is this poor disabled guy who's being exploited by Stan, the crafty computer expert/mentalist.

I honestly can't jump to the same conclusion. I don't know the level of expertise of Stan in both computer technology and illusionism. But the fact remains that the reason we're speculating about it is because he was willing to participate in the show. The guy could have simply refused or make an excuse to stay away from the phone, right?

Was Nancy overly defensive when re-exploring the issue of the infamous Mudman photos? yes, it seemed so. Some people don't like to be cut off when trying to make a point, and with completely humility I must admit that sometimes I feel Gene's interruptions when going for a commercial break or wishing to point something out would seem rude to some folks --and not just with this week's show. There's the issue of not being present with the guests and the co-host in the same room, and issues of speaking at the same time are inevitable.

I for one am not willing to make a judgment on Robbert, his claims and his abilities as observed by third parties. Nancy mentioned that other researchers spent time with Robbert and were very impressed with him. I would like to hear their side of the story.

I'm content with leaving Robbert in my 'inconclusive' gray basket. His photos do not impress me, yet I still think there might be some of that Trickstery element akin to Ted Serios' psychic photographs. In the end it remains an annoying enigma: funky photos and circles in crops or snow, but what do they really accomplish? Are these distractions? psycho-kinetic graffiti performed by bored incorporeal entities, with enough elements that make it interesting but not enough to prove it conclusively?

These abilities seem fascinating yet pointless from our practical perspective. Like Gene said, we would all like to have precognition because we want to win the lottery. And yet that doesn't seem to be the case with alleged psychics, whose abilities are vouched for people who have felt a connection on a personal level.

As it is right now, it's not that difficult to predict that Robbert will remain to be considered a blatant fraud by most, yet some people will keep defending him. One thing is clear, though: we have a long way before we come with a more efficient way to investigate these phenomena. Since there's no real profit to be made with them, that will likely be the case for many decades more.
 
There may be some gray areas, and Robbert's reaction to Meier has a lot of meaning in reaching that decision.

But these days it appears to be all or mostly an act.
 
red_pill_junkie said:
It's an interesting theory, yet I think either Robbert or Stan would have to keep the LED projecting device fairly close to the camera in order to register the image by the sensor.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that, if the device used a lense to magnify the image it would be a matter of finding the right spot in the room, and start snaping
As an example a movie theatre projector is a long way from the screen, but using lenses to magnify the images you can get a large picture projected at a distance

I imagine a fairly small device that could fit into a bookcase or pose as a knick knack on a shelf, could with a lense, project a decent sized image about 4 or 5 feet into the room, all you would need to do is stand close to the focal point and then move the camera back and forth using the screen on the back to see when the focus is right


Compact integrated infrared scene projector


Several systems are now available capable of presenting realistic, detailed infrared images or "scenes" into the field of view of the sensors being tested for a selected system
Click to expand...

Compact integrated infrared scene projector - US Patent 6635892 Description
 
Berean said:
No, no, no... Here's what is really happening. ETs, spirits, and/or extra-dimensional beings - described by Robbert as all of love and higher consciousness (at least the ones he interacts with) - are using Robbert's extraordinary abilities to manifest evidence intended to make Robbert look like a tool and fraud.

If Nancy wants us to believe the photos are genuine, then they are genuinely designed to look fraudulent and thus make her appear a hoax-monger. Doesn't she mind?
Click to expand...


exactly.

This is the crux of it. If this was all true, why aren't they the first to admit this twisted nature of the phenomena. This would be the main thing messing with my head right now if the same thing was happening to me. I would have gotten over the "look at my clever miracles" thing pretty early and with the "ticking bomb" cut outs emerging I would severely begin to question the motivation behind these events. I would be unsettled and doubt the veracity of my own actions and those around me. It would bug me and raise some pretty interesting ideas and questions that it seems these guys aren't asking. So it seems to me that even within their own frame work there is something missing and not quite truthful here.
 
Back
Top