From: Eleanor White <ewraven1.nul> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 19:03:13 -0400 Archived: Thu, 17 May 2012 07:52:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Pat Delgado's Family Issues Statement >From: cprandrews.nul >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:49 PM >Subject: Family Issues Statement <snip> >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, Nancy Talbott and Robbert van den Broeke appeared on two successive Paracast podcasts, hosted by Gene Steinberg and Chris O'Brien. Gene, and Chris too, were very unimpressed by Robbert's photos. Indeed, many of Robbert's photos contain what are clearly, though slightly distorted, clipped areas of photographs in the public domain. What's more, these clipped areas sometimes appear over and over, in successive photos taken by Robbert. But over the years, what I have heard reported by Nancy on the subject of crop circles is exhaustive research, aimed at getting at scientifically verified truth for bona fide crop circles (which exhibit characteristics absent in hoaxed circles.) Could it be that Nancy has tossed her careful evidence-based approach aside, and is now knowingly assisting a hoaxer? I find that hard to believe. Furthermore, Nancy has made a great deal of effort to go and see Robbert's environment, friends and family herself, and she has witnessed anomalous events, first hand while there. Then, Nancy has put considerable documentary work into a six- part article regarding Robbert's photos. In that article, she does acknowledge the hoax-like elements in some of Robbert's photos. She presents some original photos from which Robbert's anomalous being images were almost certainly taken. After reading that detailed article, my question was, would a hoaxer, or someone promoting a hoaxer, actually publish the photos from which the hoaxed photo elements were taken? I find that inconceivable. I don't hear Nancy or Robbert trying to promote any theory as to what is causing the photo anomalies. They simply display the results, and wonder aloud what is happening. What it looks to me like is that some "entity" - perhaps the same "entity" responsible for the crop circles - is for reasons unknown, trying to _discredit_ Robbert by using pieces of photos in the public domain and inserting them into Robbert's images. That sounds absolutely bonkers, I know, but if Robbert and Nancy are not perpetrating a hoax, then who or what _is_ cutting and pasting parts of photos into Robbert's images? Does the "entity" not like people with psychic ability investigating crop circles? Is this an example of that sometimes discussed "trickster element" at work? I have only questions and no answers, but I think that Nancy is quite capable of detecting a hoax, given her exhaustive investigative history and abilities. I think it is far too soon to just write Robbert's abilities off as being a hoax. Nancy has told me she plans to post additional information regarding Robbert's abilities and photos, so I'm going to wait and see, before forming an opinion. Perhaps time will tell. Eleanor White 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