From: "Michael M. Hughes" <michaelmhughes.nul> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:27:51 -0400 Archived: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:14:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 12:47:25 -0400 >Subject: Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >>From: Dave Haith<visions1.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto<post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:50:37 +0100 >>Subject: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >>----- >>From: cprandrews.nul >>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:49 PM >>Subject: Family Issues Statement >>The family of deceased crop circle researcher Pat Delgado issues >>a statement following claims by a medium and paranormal >>researcher Nancy Talbott to have made contact with him - its >>trickery. >>Nancy Talbott (BLT) and Robbert van den Broeke have made many >>claims, which have included capturing on digital photographs >>UFOs, animals of all kinds and even Elvis Presley. Robbert >>claims special knowledge of when and where crop circles will >>appear near his home and they have. I must though say that these >>have all been very un-impressive and highly reminiscent of many >>hoaxes Ive seen over the years. >>Recently they claimed to have mysteriously captured clear images >>of my deceased friend and research colleague, Pat Delgado and >>crop circle maker David Chorley, of Doug and Dave fame. Both men >>are said to have given personal messages to Robbert and Nancy >>Talbott. >>In light of the latest claims the Delgado family have issued a >>statement - go to my website to read: >>http://tinyurl.com/76d2k8u >The accusation of trickery on the part of medium Robbert van den >Broeke is unsupported in Colin Andrews' article. The motivation >for that accusation seems to be disbelief in an anomalous event >and a perceived attack on the good name of the deceased Pat >Delgado. >This would not be the first time that Pat Delgado was involved >in high strangeness, though. In fact, Colin Andrews reports on >this himself on his own website in a discussion of the >Cheesefoot Head crop formation. There it is said that Pat >"Levitated and was pulled backwards by an invisible Force", and >Colin "had a real job to break Pat free from the force". >http://tinyurl.com/br66d5z >In that case, I suppose Pat Delgado was around to give his >permission to publish. So is permission required to show one's >own image of a deceased person? That might be kind of hard to >get. How long after the person has passed on should one wait to >publish the photo? >Robbert van den Broeke's video showing the process that captured >the two anomalous images is at the following url. >http://tinyurl.com/c6uq5rc >An attempt to debunk the images is presented at >http://tinyurl.com/7saktss >The author of the latter video argues that the faces in >Robbert's images match warped versions of faces found in an old >YouTube video. But people's faces don't change that much over >time, so the source of the image is not particularly relevant, >especially if warping and stretching of the image is done to >optimize the match. Although some people may accept the argument >as proof of trickery, merely showing that one can reproduce an >effect does not prove that the original effect was a fraud. What >it does do is discourage any further thinking about what may be >going on. >I've been thinking about this kind of thing lately, especially >in the context of physical mediumship. It seems that >reproductions of objects that existed in the past is more the >rule than the exception. Apports, or objects that seemingly >appear in mid-air in the seance room, often seem to be from >another era as if they existed in the past. >The same can be said for photos found on unopened film after a >seance. These photos are often reproductions from books in >libraries, old newspapers, or someone's personal photo >collection. So maybe it should not be surprising that Robbert's >anomalous photos are similar to photos subsequently found >elsewhere. At the very least, it is nowhere near proof of fraud. >On the other hand, proof of the absence of fraud is hard to come >by after the fact. The procedure shown in Robbert's video is a >nod to proper control, but obviously could be much improved. At >this point, the onus for proof of fraud lies with the accuser. >In the absence of such proof, the most one can legitimately do >is reserve judgment. As a mentalist, I can think of multiple ways to duplicate the alleged photographic manifestations in that video. I'm with Colin and the Delgado family - this is blatant trickery and _extremely_ unethical. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Michael M. Hughes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://michaelmhughes.com http://www.facebook.com/michaelmhughes http://twitter.com/michaelmhughes Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp