UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > May > May 17

Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement

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

>>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

>>In light of the latest claims the Delgado family have issued a
>>statement - go to my website to read:


>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

>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".


>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.


>An attempt to debunk the images is presented at


>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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com