• 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!

Robbert van den Broeke - "APPARITION" PHOTOS:

Forums New posts
Really odd. I don't even know (if true) what to make of it. Especially since it appears to be photographs of exsisting photos. Some sort of ESP? Some kind of communication from the other side? A time slip? A hoax? Just really odd.
 
The article looks interesting. The images look too good to be true and beg the question of whether there are raw files with exif data available? Maybe I'm being too quick to judge but it's been a long day and a bad day so I'll come back to read the article in a calmer state of mind....
 
Somtime it is wise to "re-boot." Been quite a morning and afternoon on this end as well. But, the glass is half full. Hope your's is to. :)
 
Kandinsky said:
The article looks interesting. The images look too good to be true and beg the question of whether there are raw files with exif data available? Maybe I'm being too quick to judge but it's been a long day and a bad day so I'll come back to read the article in a calmer state of mind....
Click to expand...

No you're not. It's obvious BS as is the uncredited "analysis" by an MIT-trained computer expert and photo analyst. Wooooooo! I think anybody with even a small amount of photo app skills could produce a more convincing fake . . . . Including doing something about the soldier's missing chunk of right thigh.
 
Frank Stalter said:
It's obvious BS... I think anybody with even a small amount of photo app skills could produce a more convincing fake . . . .
Click to expand...
Yah, ya, ya but, do you know Nancy? When she tells ME she gave Robbert her camera and stood there as he took photos and she says (to her knowledge) nothing post-photo took place, I believe her. I've known Nancy for over 15 years and I accept her version of events--even though she (ahem) wants to believe.

Like you, I am dubious. The whole case is too good to be true--like Stan Romanek, but you need to come up with a better explanation/debunking of how these photos are faked, if indeed they are being fabricated. Off-hand dismissals are a nickel a dozen gross. In other words, if this kid is a hoaxer, he's got real talent, and I'm intrigued at his methodology! Re-read the report: emminent parapsychologist Dr. William Roll checked him out...If he is fraud, I'd like to know his secrets...

But in the meantime, btw: has anyone handed him and 'ol fashioned analog SLR camera, developed the film and logged the results? Correct me if I'm wrong but these are all digital shots, right? Hmmm... Nancy? Hello?
 
While I am Always skeptical of stuff like this I don't simply "dismiss" stuff out of hand. By simply saying "It's bunk" you cut off all conversation. Now, it may well prove to be bunk (wouldn't suprise me at all.) But, I would love to hand him a camera I buy myself and see what would happen. Maybe nothing. But if he came up with a long gone family member that I had never mentioned to him then that would be "interesting." :)
 
I'm sorry, but did everyone forget about the dutch members already who basically called him out to a degree thats not even worth/sensible to discuss here a few month ago ? I still think of that 'manchild' as a circus act.

---------- Post added at 03:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 AM ----------
apparitionp1-01.jpg


Capture: "Little girl who appeared on Nancy's
camera at Easter, 2008."

You're fucking shitting me, right? (I'll remove the picture link if asked to)
 
I was going for a rant here, but screw it. Nancy Talbott is on my (shit) list, she likes that boy it seems, more power to her, but ...I'll better stop. Just check the pictures out and read.
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Yah, ya, ya but, do you know Nancy? When she tells ME she gave Robbert her camera and stood there as he took photos and she says (to her knowledge) nothing post-photo took place, I believe her. I've known Nancy for over 15 years and I accept her version of events--even though she (ahem) wants to believe.

Like you, I am dubious. The whole case is too good to be true--like Stan Romanek, but you need to come up with a better explanation/debunking of how these photos are faked, if indeed they are being fabricated. Off-hand dismissals are a nickel a dozen gross. In other words, if this kid is a hoaxer, he's got real talent, and I'm intrigued at his methodology! Re-read the report: emminent parapsychologist Dr. William Roll checked him out...If he is fraud, I'd like to know his secrets...

But in the meantime, btw: has anyone handed him and 'ol fashioned analog SLR camera, developed the film and logged the results? Correct me if I'm wrong but these are all digital shots, right? Hmmm... Nancy? Hello?
Click to expand...

I have listened to Nancy interviewed at some length and she seems like a very nice lady. I agree with you about knowing how hoaxers perform their tricks. I think that part is fascinating and the lengths some people go to and the ingenuity they use to pull them off is amazing. The Zamora case is a great example of this. The entire incident has "intelligent design" written all over it and it should be obvious to anyone who looks carefully at the Colgate/Pauling correspondence, Anthony Bragalia's research, Zamora's actual account and the actual lay of the land where it happened but I'd still like to know more specifics about a few things.
 
Frank Stalter said:
... but I'd still like to know more specifics about a few things.
Click to expand...
Welcome back, ROGER that-- I'm with you and me both on that. And other questions about other things as well.

When it come to "visual" evidence, we haven't been in mainstream digital KS for about ten years... and I don't know anyone with a body of analog ruby slipper scientific data (except maybe Ray Stanford).
And that sucks! The digital age has practically rendered all post 2000 unequivocal, qualitative photographic evidence of reality moot and the tidal flat between reality and fabrication has become blurred at best.
It's Hisenberg: the better your technology to observe, the more that level of technology can impact what's being observed by better technology. Yada yada
Got any suggestions? If you had a budget, how would you go about it? What's your solution to capturing mercury? -459F? :p
 
Christopher O'Brien said:
Welcome back, ROGER that-- I'm with you and me both on that. And other questions about other things as well.

When it come to "visual" evidence, we haven't been in mainstream digital KS for about ten years... and I don't know anyone with a body of analog ruby slipper scientific data (except maybe Ray Stanford).
And that sucks! The digital age has practically rendered all post 2000 unequivocal, qualitative photographic evidence of reality moot and the tidal flat between reality and fabrication has become blurred at best.
It's Hisenberg: the better your technology to observe, the more that level of technology can impact what's being observed by better technology. Yada yada
Got any suggestions? If you had a budget, how would you go about it? What's your solution to capturing mercury? -459F? :p
Click to expand...

Well for a case like this, it begs for an impartial and credible chain of custody for either the film or disc used to take the pictures.

A more random UFO case, you have to take them as they come. Sometimes, you build enough to come to some conclusions, like with the flying triangles. I think there's enough video evidence from enough unrelated sources to prove they exist, but I think they are our's.
 
Nancy has lost all impartiality with this case, she's defending the case not investigating it. End of story, and a disappointing end to her research in this field. Defending the soldier picture is absolutely absurd.
 
Now I don't know Nancy T. Don't know any of em (or y'all for that matter.) :) But, while I'm not buying it I don't see her as "defending" as much as presenting. She (in that article) didn't make the statement that she was "sure" of what they are. She simply made the challenge that if you are going to "debunk" it do it with more than "snide" remarks. I think that's fair. Now do I think she is impartial? No. But, I didn't see any dishonesty (by here)

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 PM ----------

Should read "by her" I am on an old browser at work and it is really clunky. Hard to edit on it. :cool:
 
I had only had a quick glance at some of Photographs and have to return later time to read the writing and reasoning behind these events. However some of figures first impression look like waxed figures like you find at Madame Tussauds, I think there either Mannequins or wax figures dressed up in historical clothing. I could be wrong, also the photos, the alleged images of people look like they are imposed into the Photographs, to my untrained eye the photos look they were tampered with? I love to see these figures on rolling video with movement if that is possible, videos might convince me that something odd is happening here!
 
i think the how he is doing it may be similar to how Serio faked his (small tube with a transparent image over the lens). Nancy should consider have someone skilled at sleight of hand and misdirection watch Robbert and she needs to be filming him from a couple of different angles when he is taking is his photos.

Turning off the flash is as simple as hitting a button and could be done without notice if someone's attention was focused somewhere else.

Nancy seems genuine, Robbert does not.

Edited: I wrote Linda, but meant Nancy and I needed to fix
 
Now I don't know that much about Serios (sorry not sure of the spelling.) But, (as usal when we are debating events from years ago) there is some evidence of a "tube" being used. However, there are other instances where that doesn't explain it. I have read some on this. (No, I don't have a bunch of links so just google it yaself) :) But, no I don't buy this one. Still, some interesting pics though. One other thing that is interesting to me is the way the presenter was so "open" about making sure you knew the pictures were copies of existing pictures. That either proves "honest" disclosure or it shows how far somebody will go to "fool" other people. Anyway, for all our "junior scientist" around here that have to have proof here's a "link." :)

http://www.platformnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Link.jpg
 
Is this a joke? Do people take this Nancy seriously? I'm confused. Looks like she is going through the Photoshop WoW book one chapter at a time.
 
Back
Top