• 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!

Return Engagement -- Nancy Talbott with Robbert van den Broeke


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
On Thursday, April 26, we're bringing back Nancy Talbott to discuss the questions that have been asked about the claims of Dutch psychic Robbert van den Broeke, who will be joining Nancy for this episode.

Over the years, the psychic's claims and alleged photographic evidence have been extremely controversial. We've had several lengthy threads on the subject.

So this is your chance. No personal attacks. Just hard questions and solid evidence, OK?
 
The main question I would love to ask, is based on a reference I have found and for Robert. The following site clearly explains a "mistake" in his supposed medium-ship. I refer to the following:

James Randi's Swift - January 6, 2006

On the site there is a clear misunderstanding on Robert's part of the word he used to explain employment of a reincarnation of a man who was the husband of a lady he was speaking to. The word was, "Genverbrander."

And I quote: "But this turned out to be a typographical error on the website, and that same mistake was also miraculously made by the ghosts who gave “psychic” Robbert the information! It should have been, “geneverbrander!" The second "e" was lost... Geneverbrander translates as genever-brander, “genever maker,” or of “jenever,” an old Dutch liquor – gin.

If this is not a blatant attempt at trickery, based on the simple misuse of a word which seems to have been looked up on the Google search engine beforehand, then please ask Robert how this mistake was made.
 
if he is indeed a psychic then Robbert van den Broeke should know our questions already.... right? :rolleyes:

my question:
Why didnt he hire a pro to clip out his soldier guy? Robbert chopped off the sides of the helmut, left artifacts from the soldier in front of the one he used as well as a few other anomalies.
 
Suggestion: Have Robbert send photos to Pixelsmith for analysis and have Pixelsmith on the show to discuss his findings.

Nancy: Why doesn't Mr. Levengood's faked Phd totally invalidate everything done by BLT? A similar thing happened recently between Rosemary Ellen Guiley and Philip J. Imbrogno and Ms. Guiley has distanced herself from Imbrogno and his "work." Why haven't you distanced yourself from any association with Mr. Levengood?

I honestly cannot come up with a question for Robbert. It would be like asking Billy Meier how far out he hung the model on the line. You can't expect a real answer. Broeke is uninteresting. White powder? I bet so.
 
Just FYI: I would also favor independent analysis of the photos, but I'd think it would be better to ask Nancy or Robbert to send them to us, and we'll parcel them out not just to Pixel but to other people who are involved in image editing. Let's get a consensus here.
 
Just FYI: I would also favor independent analysis of the photos, but I'd think it would be better to ask Nancy or Robbert to send them to us, and we'll parcel them out not just to Pixel but to other people who are involved in image editing. Let's get a consensus here.

There is a great deal of his material already available on the Internet. I would be all for getting real experts involved, of which Pixelsmith is certainly one. D.B. would die laughing, so you can't use him of course. The thing is the photos are so ridiculous, you may have trouble getting people to waste their time on it. We've already wore out the solider and the mudman in the forum here.
 
it is not worth my time or the time of any other image editing specialist. anyone here can see his photos are fake.
 
Your choice. I really don't think any photographic evidence is worth anything beyond the quality of the testimony that goes with it. It's too easy for people to fake. But it's important to ask anyway. Sometimes reactions speak a lot.

Besides, we even evaluated the infamous Meier "Wedding Cake" photos. This is the sort of thing other radio shows just won't touch. :)
 
On Thursday, April 26, we're bringing back Nancy Talbott to discuss the questions that have been asked about the claims of Dutch psychic Robbert van den Broeke, who will be joining Nancy for this episode.

Over the years, the psychic's claims and alleged photographic evidence have been extremely controversial. We've had several lengthy threads on the subject.

So this is your chance. No personal attacks. Just hard questions and solid evidence, OK?

Wow i have an open mind Gene but my Jaw hit the floor when i read this. Nope, No questions from me. I can't wait to hear the explanations for the photos.
 
it is not worth my time or the time of any other image editing specialist. anyone here can see his photos are fake.

I doubt i will have the patience to even listen to this one, so i sympathise with this pov.
These are such bad fakes, the case is already closed imo
Listening to an interview with this guy would be about the same as listening to 6 year old tell us Santa is real.
There is really nothing they can say that will change my mind about the reality.
 
We're trying to have an open mind. Remember, we have had other guests who were regarded is in the "fringe" camp, but we gave them their due and asked the tough questions. If we don't do it, who will?
 
Gene, what could you possibly talk about for 2 hours or will this be a 4 minute podcast?
 
Two sites, hundreds of pages. Plenty to talk about. But we can't ask everything. If we don't answer questions that you didn't ask, please don't ask us later.
 
Back
Top