There is something quite awesome going on in Nancy Talbott’s world. Nancy, who for my money is the most valuable player in the crop circle constellation, was a presenter in the Evolver Webinar series I hosted about the circles. Thanks to Nancy and http://BLTResearch.com, we have scientific experiments which are the key validation that crop circles are a real mystery.
DOORWAYS TO ANOTHER REALITY, the Evolver series I’m hosting that starts this Saturday, June 16, has one presentation about the circles, with the other three being subjects that would be more like a situation Nancy is involved with now — each one will take you out of ordinary reality. Please have a look and consider enrolling.
What Nancy is dealing with now involves Robbert van den Broeke, a Dutch medium around whom crop circles form. For seventeen years, Robbert has been getting “premonitions,” not only that a new event is about to happen — a lot of them appear close to where he is — but often exactly where a circle will form and what it will look like. (Nancy was eye witness to one of them! Knowing how straight-arrow Nancy is, if nothing else lets me know that hoaxers don’t account for all crop circles, this report does.)
I was really excited about her new report on something else about Robbert when I saw this story that crop circle pioneer, Colin Andrews, is telling to disparage it.
Over the years, Colin has made erroneous statements about various aspects of the BLT work. That includes an absurd claim that the results of a 1999 BLT study, conducted on an Edmonton, Canada, crop formation — which provided impressive confirmation of unaccountable changes in the clay minerals in the crop circle soil — “supported” his proclamation that 80% of UK crop circles, during a couple of years when he studied them, were man made. This was in spite of the fact that the BLT study had nothing to do with any UK crop circles. That report was widely circulated, whereby Nancy circulated a correction to it. When Nancy — and I — asked Colin to remove the inaccurate statement from his website, he refused.
I have had my own dealings with Colin, about my work, that echo Nancy’s situation. Here’s a write-up of my latest run-in with him: http://theconversation.org/correspondence-with-colin-andrews-over-his-erroneous-and-misleading-postings-about-me.
Colin claims not only that Nancy’s report (http://bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php) about the appearance of the late Pat Delgado, an early circle researcher, on Robbert’s digital and video cameras, is “trickery,” but that she and Robbert have offended Pat’s relatives. Colin provides no substantiation for the trickery claim, and I am skeptical about Pat’s relatives contacting Colin and not Nancy. Also, In the videotape posted in the report (link above), you will see how touched Robbert is at recognizing Pat’s face and how much regard he feels for him, and if any Delgado family member saw the BLT report it’s hard to believe they would have felt that Pat had been mistreated.
An enormous array of other highly anomalous events occur around Robbert, including the clear images of deceased people he gets on digital cameras and on videotape. All this is meticulously documented (see multiple individual reports listed at the bottom of BLT’s page devoted to Robbert’s case, link above), and I trust Nancy’s reporting implicitly.
Also, I saw an un-cut video of Robbert taking pictures, and I know enough about the videographer and someone meaningful to the videographer whose image appeared on Robbert’s camera, to be blown away. We all look forward to a DVD with a compendium of videos that will show some of the incredible things that occur around Robbert, and I think everyone who sees what I have seen will think seriously about the larger grid of intelligence, the “cosmic consciousness,” in which we are embedded.
Bear in mind that Robbert didn’t “ask” for Pat, any more than he has asked for any of the deceased people whose images have appeared (including 60 photos of Nancy’s deceased brother). Robbert is a “medium,” whom the dead apparently can use to communicate with the living, but it is not Robbert’s choice as to who “comes through.”
Robbert’s experiences and Nancy’s careful reporting about the astonishing events that occur around him are intriguing and informative, and Colin has done a disservice to us all in summarily dismissing them.
Follow
Suzanne, I made a very interesting discovery today about the Delgado/Chorley faces. Here is my report to Colin Andrews about it.
First study this video from 1991 that Robbert used as the source for his images.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsa2oYECcFg
————————–
Colin,
I’ve been looking once again at the BLT page where Nancy shows the video captures of Pat & Dave first on Stan’s video tape and then shows the faces as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera 4 hours later. I believe I have found something significant and wanted to alert you to it.
http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php
It is clear from the images as they appear on Robbert’s digital camera around 5 AM that they are lifted perfectly and intact from the same 1991 video and then fiddled with using whatever photo software Robbert has. (Doesn’t even need to be Photoshop.)
But I had yet to look at the other images as they first appeared in Stan’s video of Robbert at 1 AM or so that fateful morning. At first glance, I was convinced that they had to be different separate images. Why? because Dave and Pat were looking off in different directions. In the digital camera images, as I am facing the screen, Pat Delgado is looking over my right shoulder while Dave Chorley is looking over my left shoulder.
But scrolling up to the Stan video captures, Dave looks to my right while Pat looks to my left. Just the reverse. I then compared the images again and Bingo! Eureka! Whoa! I see that the images are identical, but only mirror-reversed!
And then I eventually got the bright idea of going inside the house to get a hand mirror and return to my studio and actually compare the photos on the screen with their images reflected in my mirror.
How wonderful! I can now see the evidence of image-reversing without having to scroll up and down.
Let me know if you see what I see.
Tom Mellett
Los Angeles, CA
Well, Suzanne, you know the First Principle of Public Relations: “The only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity.”
On that note, Muertos has just devoted an entire new article to you, Nancy and Robbert on his THRIVE-Debunked blog.
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/crop-circle-wars-fake-video-shakes-credibility-of-one-of-thrives-main-sources-2/
Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources
A bizarre little drama is going on right now in the world of crop circles. A fake video designed to bolster belief in the supposed paranormal origin of crop circles has been making the rounds on the Internet, igniting both indignant recriminations and spirited defenses. This matter may seem extraneous to issues involved in Thrive—until you realize that the fake video controversy directly concerns a website called BLTResearch.com, which is one of the Thrive movie’s go-to sources for the crop circle nonsense that appears so prominently in the first part of the film.
Suzanne,
You have released a film containing a debatable theme and the quality of your research and your portrayal of the phenomenon is not beyond criticism – and neither is your callous, unprovoked on Mr Andrews.
Andy may have a project to ‘denounce you’ but it also seems you have a project to denounce Colin Andrews judging by your page here – so please try to not act so surprised when people devote some of their time and resources to exploring and exposing your motives.
Do you seriously contend Mr Andrews has no right to reply this deceitful and insensitive manipulation of his deceased friend? Why did Talbott not seek to inform Dave and Pat’s respective families before plastering this obvious hoax all over her website? Hers was hardly the most compassionate response, and neither is your defending of it.
Robbert van den Broeke is an obvious fraud; his ‘apparitions’ are copied from books, and images all over the internet, despite what he and Talbott would have you believe. Hollywood TomFortas’ comment (that you have chosen to omit here) is a fitting analogy that would perhaps merit a second read through. His statement is indicative of the backlash building against you, and you would be wise to address it rather than to dismiss it.
If you cannot see what is wrong with this picture or your behaviour then why preach about turning evil people into heart-connected ones? Why should people listen to a Pharisee? If you choose to put yourself beyond criticism then there is little hope of change for you – and websites like Andy’s will multiply and the denouncing will intensify.
I’ll post this comment at Andy’s website should you choose not to publish it here.
Well Suzanne, you agreed to an interview with me quite a few months back, so hopefully you’ll be able to handle all the accusations then…
I wish to register my dismay for the attacks on the BLT Research Team by Colin Andrews. He has made these attacks very personal in my opinion and very public without providing evidence for his very strong and emotive arguments. In the absence of any credible attempt to explain his actions I feel compelled to make my thoughts about this matter public.
I am not attacking Colin anyone could see this. However I believe that accountability for what we say and do is paramount in these times. I`m sure we all agree.
Good will to all from
Megan.
From: “webhosting-userform@colinandrews.net”
To: colinandrews415@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:27 AM
Subject: Yahoo! WebHosting Email
name = Megan
email = meganis4u@hotmail.com
phone = Australia
comments = Dear Colin,
I have been watching the crop circle phenomenon unfolding with great interest for the last 12 years, and I am well aware of the early research carried out by yourself, Pat Delgado, Terence Meaden and Busty Taylor. I have tremendous respect for all who are committing their lives, energies and resources to uncovering the truths behind what is a very complex multidisciplinary phenomenon. People from incredibly diverse backgrounds have given valuable insights to which we owe a great debt of gratitude. Also they do not require a Phd to deserve our attention and respect.
It is my estimation that the most valuable contribution comes from the scientific evidence. BLT Research Team has been carrying out impeccable science, publicising their process and demonstrating consistent, repeatable findings in their plant and soil analysis. Their findings have been peer reviewed. I was deeply shocked to read your attack firstly on Levengood, stating that he is not credentialed enough??? He is afterall a plant biophysicist. How much more credentialed does one need to be? BLT Reseach has had many very highly qualified scientists carrying out specialised examinations…..all whom are listed on the BLT site for their contributions. When I read your defamatory statements which are so ill-founded and supported only with malice, I thought to myself that you do not realise the damage you are doing to yourself. It is plain to me, as it would be to anyone who is familiar with the BLT material, that you are not familiar with the science which has been so well docume
nted as scientific process requires.
Nancy has been just as transparent and scientific in her approach with the extraordinary abilities of Robbert Van der Broeke. Nancy has painstakingly recorded every aspect and observation she has made in the presence of Robbert, recording every detail about the cameras used and has ensured that other witnesses have accompanied them both into the crop fields etc. Further to that Nancy had sought the assistance of Dr Rolls as well.
Colin, who do you have assisting you in your assertions? ….A journalist!
Colin, without stating how you would come to such conclusions about Robbert`s abilities you have defamed him in a vicious manner totally unworthy of you. I have listened to your interview on Red Ice Creations, and I thought you were a person who had some wisdom and understanding of paranormal phenomena. However the way you have attacked Robbert not only as a medium but also as a person is ugly in the extreme.
I visited the link you provided on your web site to see what the circumstances were around the contact with Pat Delgado. To be honest if I were a grieving friend and especially a grieving relative I would be incredibly uplifted, as most are to know of such contact and especially to receive a message. To take such offence is hardly honouring the memory of a dear departed friend. Such outrage clearly indicates a total denial of our spiritual essence. With respect Colin, I feel that Pats message would be well worth heading yourself. Look at it again. Look at everything again.
I am really sorry to see that you are not the person I thought you to be. How I wish that all persons who are plainly seeking the truth are supported by their allies.
COLINS REPLY WITH MY RESPONSE TO WHAT HE SAYS IN ITALICS.
Subject: Colin Andrews reply
To: meganis4u@hotmail.com
Thank you for your message Megan,
COLIN SAYS:
Im afraid you do seemed to have jumped through a great deal of facts without realizing that I am not making any allegations just stating facts and I am not a person who hold malice.
MEGAN SAYS:
By what you have just said, are you then “stating as fact” that you do acknowledge that Robbert`s visions of when and where crop circles are going to appear have come about, but that they are highly reminiscent of many hoaxes you have seen over the years? Is this a fact that they are hoaxes? Are you suggesting that perhaps he has hoaxed them? What evidence do you have to support this claim? If one cannot publish any evidence to support such a defamation then you are actually being malicious. These statements are after all going out into the public arena.
COLIN SAYS:
The statement I have posted is from the Delgado family but you are aiming your shots and comments to me. I have acted to support
the family of my long time friend Pat Delgado. The statement is theirs and I support and agree with it.
MEGAN SAYS:
Obviously you support and agree with the statements of Pat Delgado`s family. You have published them to attack the BLT Team publicly. Because you published them and support them it is appropriate for me to direct my comments to you. I understand yours and their sense of loss and bereavement, but I do not understand such offence and outrage for the message imparted. Are you stating fact again when you say that it`s “trickery”? What evidence do you have for this statement? This statement which you belive is not malicious?
COLIN SAYS:
All other statements on the page are as a result of hands on work myself, alongside numerous highly qualified Scientists. I don’t intend
fighting any corners here. I have numerous files and research findings that fully support each statement made.
By the way I didn’t say he was not qualified enough. The point is that he originally presented himself as Dr. W.C. Levengood while in fact
he is not a doctor – that’s all. The evidence is in abundance on all other points. This is very old ground for me and I do agree its sad. The work though goes on.
There is only one goal set on my radar – Truth with respect. If the spirit of Pat is coming through Robbert and with messages, his family and I are quite sure he would want them conveyed to them. This is a case of ethics or the lack of them on the part of Nancy and Robbert.
MEGAN SAYS:
I can understand how a personal approach to Pat`s family about such contact would have been a sensitive move on the part of Nancy and Robbert, but surely not obligatory given that so many are coming through with Robbert. Who are we to dictate what the scope of his work should entail? To expect that he conatcts family of all that he encounters? but in the case of such extreme reaction and disbelief of his abilities it is obvious albeit in hindsight that such a gesture would not be well recieved. I certainly do not believe that it shows a lack of ethics.
I also believe that Truth with respect are uppermost in the intentions of Nancy and Robbert. What has been flung at them are inflamatory and emotive remarks and labels – trickery, disgrace, unscientific extreme, professional magicians, appalled, outrageous, dispicable, unacceptable. It sounds like they should go before the firing squad! Who is the dispenser of ethics?
Thankyou for listening to me and for responding.
Sincerely,
Megan.
Have a good weekend.
Colin
http://www.ColinAndrews.net
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:04:27 -0700
From: colinandrews415@yahoo.com From: meganis4u@hotmail.com
To: colinandrews415@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: Colin Andrews reply
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:34:20 +1000
Dear Colin,
I am grateful that you replied my mail so soon, and if I may I would like to pursue further your response.
I have always admired your research and especially in the early years of the pioneering research. You heroically continued pushing and standing for the truth to prevail against many attacks, shenanigans by the media, military and the public. You have known what it`s like to be deceived, conned, manipulated, ridiculed and humiliated. I have collected many articles and TV shows for instance which featured yourself with Pat and George Wingfield pitted against Doug and Dave, and I believe there was very nearly fisty cuffs in the back room. The reason I am saying this is that there are enough battles to fight with detractors. Why are we fighting with our allies who are also on the same team? I do not understand this. It reminds me of a classic scene in “Life of Brian” when Brian says to his fellow brothers in arms…. “Wait, wait…..we should all be struggling together”
“But We are. We are!” scream the fellow brothers in arms who meet and start clashing with each other in underground tunnels.
“No! Not with each other……” Yells Brian “With the common enemy!” By that time practically all of them are lying dead on the ground.
Below in italics are my responses with respect and best intention.
Sincerely,
Megan.
THE FINAL LETTER TO COLIN WHICH WENT UNANSWRED.
Dear Colin,
I realise you are a busy person so I apologise for taking up your time again, only to briefly say that I don`t presume to know everything that goes on between researchers. I have not been able to escape hearing though about what amounts to total massacres of the characters of one researcher against another and I find it shocking but it shouldn`t come as any surprise, because this is how our Government’s govern and how countries fight each other with deliberate subterfuge and propaganda to inflame egos. It is not how to build a new world.
I do not want to have any of that stuff polluting the scope on the intelligence behind the crop circles and all the paranormal phenomena surrounding it.
You need to know this.
I wouldn`t have known about your posting about the BLT research team at all if it hadn`t been for a person who has heard me talking about crop circles to whom I referred to the work of early reseachers and to the science which has been peer reviewed on plants and soil analysis. This person was a sceptic and a debunker and with a flurry of self righteousness sent me your posting as proof that the whole phenomenon was a farce, particularly all the paranormal aspects.
No matter who`s throwing the daggers, I say “Cut it out!”
People such as yourself and Nancy and Robbert and all others in fact have valuable pieces of the puzzle. Anyone who is a researcher of crop circles knows what he or she is up against to stand for their truth and contribution. But they still make their stand despite all the ridicule from the media and the public at large, despite deliberate Gov subterfuge and harassments. You still stood for truth. Why would anyone bring that onto themselves? Truth gives the courage to do such things. Because this phenomenon is so multifaceted there are many diverse relevant aspects converging from many disciplines.
For example – until some geologists and some engineers took a close look and started questioning official academic stories we carried on believing that the sphinx was no older than 4,500 yrs.
This is our challenge to come to unity on this. Why should you also endure the mud slinging and backstabbing from one researcher against another?
The crop circles are bringing people together from many disciplines and holding up a mirror to ourselves amongst many other things.
By what you posted about Robberts abilities people could conclude that you do not believe in such things at all, and that despite the loving and insightful messages coming forth and exchanged this invokes outrage to the extent that you even believe that this is a slur on Pats memory and reputation. I can hear you saying that these are the expressed views of Pats family. However you support them and you have made them public.
My intention is not to be disrespectful here. What if YOU were wrong on this? What would that mean in terms of honouring the memory of a departed friend? More importantly, what would that mean for yourself?
I`m sure you are a person who believes that we are spiritual beings, that we survive physical death and that spirit mediums exist. Perhaps I am wrong. Robbert is not a medium that we simply have to take at face value. Nancy has seen to that. Surely you can see this. I can only conclude that your outrage and moral indignation cannot come from the beautiful message imparted, but from ego and puffery about not being personally alerted beforehand of such contact. Does this warrant the extreme attacks and defamations made public?
Respectfully,
Megan.
Author : Megan Heazlewood in Australia
To Colin’s website
I wish to register my dismay for the attacks on the BLT Research Team by Colin Andrews. He has made these attacks very personal in my opinion and very public without providing evidence for his very strong and emotive arguments. In the absence of any credible attempt to explain his actions I feel compelled to make my thoughts about this matter public. I believe that accountability for what we say and do is paramount in these times. I`m sure we all agree.
Good will to all from Megan
To: colinandrews415@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 9:27 AM
Dear Colin,
I have been watching the crop circle phenomenon unfolding with great interest for the last twelve years, and I am well aware of the early research carried out by yourself, Pat Delgado, Terence Meaden and Busty Taylor. I have tremendous respect for all who are committing their lives, energies and resources to uncovering the truths behind what is a very complex multidisciplinary phenomenon. People from incredibly diverse backgrounds have given valuable insights for which we owe a great debt of gratitude. Also, they do not require a Phd to deserve our attention and respect.
It is my estimation that the most valuable contribution comes from the scientific evidence. The BLT Research Team has been carrying out scienctic work, publicizing their process and demonstrating consistent, repeatable findings in their plant and soil analyses. Their findings have been peer-reviewed. I was deeply shocked to read your attack firstly on Levengood, stating that he is not credentialed enough??? He is, after all, a plant biophysicist. How much more credentialed does one need to be? Also, BLT Reseach has had many other highly qualified scientists carrying out specialised examinations…..all whom are listed on the BLT site. When I read your defamatory statements, which are so ill-founded and supported only with malice, I thought to myself that you do not realise the damage you are doing to yourself.
Nancy has been just as transparent and scientific in her approach with the extraordinary abilities of Robbert Van der Broeke. Nancy has painstakingly recorded every aspect and observation she has made in the presence of Robbert, recording every detail about the cameras used and has ensured that other witnesses have accompanied them both into the crop fields, etc. Further to that, Nancy had sought the assistance of Dr Rolls.
Colin, who do you have assisting you in your assertions? ….A journalist!
Without stating how you would come to such conclusions about Robbert`s abilities, you have defamed him in a vicious manner totally unworthy of you. I have listened to your interview on Red Ice Creations, and I thought you were a person who had some wisdom and understanding of paranormal phenomena. However, the way you have attacked Robbert not only as a medium but also as a person is ugly in the extreme.
I visited the link you provided on your website to see what the circumstances were around the contact with Pat Delgado. To be honest, if I were a grieving friend and especially a grieving relative I would be incredibly uplifted to know of such contact and especially to receive a message. To take such offence is hardly honouring the memory of a dear departed friend. Such outrage clearly indicates a total denial of our spiritual essence. With respect, Colin, I feel that Pat’s message would be well worth heading yourself. Look at it again. Look at everything again.
I am really sorry to see that you are not the person I thought you to be. How I wish that all persons who are plainly seeking the truth would be supported by their allies.
To: colinandrews415@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 21:34:20 +1000
Subject: RE: Colin Andrews reply
With my comments to Colin interspersed in his reply to me:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:04:27 -0700
From: colinandrews415@yahoo.com
Dear Colin,
I am grateful that you replied my mail so soon, and if I may I would like to pursue further your response.
I have always admired your research and especially in the early years of the pioneering research. You heroically continued pushing and standing for the truth to prevail against many attacks, shenanigans by the media, military and the public. You have known what it`s like to be deceived, conned, manipulated, ridiculed and humiliated. I have collected many articles and TV shows for instance which featured yourself with Pat and George Wingfield pitted against Doug and Dave, and I believe there was very nearly fisticuffs in the back room. The reason I am saying this is that there are enough battles to fight with detractors. Why are we fighting with our allies who are also on the same team? I do not understand this. It reminds me of a classic scene in “Life of Brian” when Brian says to his fellow brothers in arms…. “Wait, wait…..we should all be struggling together”
“But we are. We are!” scream the fellow brothers-in-arms, who meet and start clashing with each other in underground tunnels.
“No! Not with each other…..,” yells Brian “With the common enemy!” By that time practically all of them are lying dead on the ground.
COLIN: Thank you for your message Megan. Im afraid you do seemed to have jumped through a great deal of facts without realizing that I am not making any allegations just stating facts and I am not a person who hold malice.
MEGAnN: By what you have just said, are you then “stating as fact” that you do acknowledge that Robbert`s visions of when and where crop circles are going to appear have come about, but that they are highly reminiscent of many hoaxes you have seen over the years? Is this a fact that they are hoaxes? Are you suggesting that perhaps he has hoaxed them? What evidence do you have to support this claim? If one cannot publish any evidence to support such a defamation then you are actually being malicious. These statements are after all going out into the public arena.
COLIN: The statement I have posted is from the Delgado family but you are aiming your shots and comments to me. I have acted to support
the family of my long time friend Pat Delgado. The statement is theirs and I support and agree with it.
MEGAN: Obviously you support and agree with the statements of Pat Delgado`s family. You have published them to attack the BLT Team publicly. Because you published them and support them, it is appropriate for me to direct my comments to you. I understand yours and their sense of loss and bereavement, but I do not understand such offence and outrage for the message imparted. Are you stating fact again when you say it`s “trickery”? What evidence do you have for this statement? This statement which you belive is not malicious?
COLIN: All other statements on the page are as a result of hands on work myself, alongside numerous highly qualified Scientists. I don’t intend fighting any corners here. I have numerous files and research findings that fully support each statement made.
By the way I didn’t say he was not qualified enough. The point is that he originally presented himself as Dr. W.C. Levengood while in fact he is not a doctor – that’s all. The evidence is in abundance on all other points. This is very old ground for me and I do agree its sad. The work though goes on.
There is only one goal set on my radar – Truth with respect. If the spirit of Pat is coming through Robbert and with messages, his family and I are quite sure he would want them conveyed to them. This is a case of ethics or the lack of them on the part of Nancy and Robbert.
MEGAN: I can understand how a personal approach to Pat`s family about such contact would have been a sensitive move on the part of Nancy and Robbert, but surely not obligatory given that so many are coming through Robbert. Who are we to dictate what the scope of his work should entail? To expect that he contacts the familis of all that he encounters? But in the case of such extreme reaction and disbelief in his abilities it is obvious, albeit in hindsight, that such a gesture would not be well received. I certainly do not believe that it shows a lack of ethics.
I also believe that Truth with respect are uppermost in the intentions of Nancy and Robbert. What has been flung at them are inflamatory and emotive remarks and labels — trickery, disgrace, unscientific extreme, professional magicians, appalled, outrageous, dispicable, unacceptable. It sounds like they should go before the firing squad! Who is the dispenser of ethics?
Thankyou for listening to me and for responding.
Sincerely,
Megan.
COLIN: Have a good weekend.
MY FINAL LETTER TO COLIN, WHICH WENT UNANSWERED
Dear Colin,
I realise you are a busy person so I apologise for taking up your time again, only to briefly say that I don`t presume to know everything that goes on between researchers. I have not been able to escape hearing, though, about what amounts to total massacres of the characters of one researcher against another, and I find it shocking. But it shouldn`t come as any surprise, because this is how our government’s govern and how countries fight each other with deliberate subterfuge and propaganda to inflame egos. It is not how to build a new world.
I do not want to have any of that stuff polluting the scope on the intelligence behind the crop circles and all the paranormal phenomena surrounding it.
You need to know this.
I wouldn`t have known about your posting about the BLT research team at all if it hadn`t been for a person who has heard me talking about crop circles to whom I referred to the work of early reseachers and to the science papers on plant and soil analysis. This person was a sceptic and a debunker, and with a flurry of self-righteousness sent me your posting as proof that the whole phenomenon was a farce, particularly all the paranormal aspects.
No matter who`s throwing the daggers, I say, “Cut it out!”
People such as yourself and Nancy and Robbert have valuable pieces of the puzzle. Anyone who is a researcher of crop circles knows what he or she is up against to stand for their truth and contribution. But they still make their stands despite all the ridicule from the media and the public at large, despite deliberate government subterfuge and harassment. Why would anyone bring that onto themselves? Truth gives the courage to do such things. Because this phenomenon is so multifaceted there are many diverse relevant aspects converging from many disciplines.
For example — until some geologists and some engineers took a close look and started questioning official academic stories, we carried on believing that the Sphinx was no older than 4,500 years.
This is our challenge, to come to unity on this. Why should you also endure the mud slinging and backstabbing of one researcher against another?
The crop circles are bringing people together from many disciplines and holding up a mirror to ourselves amongst many other things.
By what you posted about Robbert’s abilities people could conclude that you do not believe in such things at all, and that despite the loving and insightful messages coming forth this invokes outrage to the extent that you even believe that this is a slur on Pat’s memory and reputation. I can hear you saying that these are the expressed views of Pat’s family. However, you support them and you have made them public.
My intention is not to be disrespectful here. What if YOU were wrong on this? What would that mean in terms of honouring the memory of a departed friend? More importantly, what would that mean for yourself?
I`m sure you are a person who believes that we are spiritual beings, that we survive physical death and that spirit mediums exist. Perhaps I am wrong. Robbert is not a medium that we simply have to take at face value. Nancy has seen to that. Surely you can see this. I can only conclude that your outrage and moral indignation cannot come from the beautiful message imparted, but from ego and puffery about not being personally alerted beforehand of such contact. Does this warrant the extreme attacks and defamations made public?
Respectfully,
Megan
Suzanne,
This whole episode of the fishily identical faces of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley both fishily appearing in the same 1991 video and then fishily showing up in Robbert’s camera in 2012 is strikingly and hauntingly reminiscent of a similar episode that took place almost a hundred years ago in England.
I refer to the infamously eye-rolling affair of the so-called “Cottingley Fairies” that were photographed by two young cousins, Elsie, age 16, and Frances, age 10, in 1917 and which actually convinced the avowed spiritualist Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of the existence of fairies —- and by extension, the rest of the paranormal beings and phenomena that he fervently believed in.
The wikipedia entry is quite thorough and worth a full read through
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Here is a shorter JREF page
http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/
Now it turns out that the girls finally confessed to the fakery in 1983. It took them 66 years, or two-thirds of a century. Suzanne, I daresay that there’s a lesson here for both you and Nancy. (Maybe not for Robbert.) But time is of the essence. Since both you ladies each already have celebrated a life span of approximately 2/3’s of a century, I can predict quite confidently that you do not have the luxury of waiting yet another 2/3’s of a century during which you might contemplate the actual physical reality of the Delgado/Chorley images.
However, I am not even asking you to confess definitively that they were faked by Robbert. I’m only asking you simply to entertain just the possibility that Robbert could have — not even might have — faked the photos in 2012 just as the Cottingsley girls did in 1917.
Now let me leave you with an assurance that you and Nancy can still believe in the posthumous existence of deceased human beings and even their back-influence upon the living — and yet simultaneously believe that some alleged evidence of posthumous appearances through some sort of medium could be fraudulent, at best a winsome product of peri-adolescent wish-fulfillment.
I quote here from the Cottingley Network website:
http://www.cottingley.net/cfbutist.shtml
In 1986, Frances passed away aged 78, still believing in fairies. The photos were admittedly faked but she insists that she really did see fairies…
(I do believe that the ticking sounds I hear are emanating from both yours and Nancy’s respective biological clocks. Ladies, there is still time to repent — notwithstanding the possibility that the whole world might end on the Winter Solstice of 2012, but I digress.)
Suzanne Taylor – a little objectivity required…
http://circularstateofmind.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/suzanne-taylor-vs-colin-andrews-a-little-objectivity-required/
If you click on Andy’s link you will see that he has a project to denounce me. Makes me feel important! And, as they say in the p.r. world, write anything but spell my name right.
Am trying to get Nancy Talbott to counter that sort of thing — to go against her policy of not getting into dogfights but to just continue her work. I’ve seen things of hers concerning Robbert that convince me to where I am content that I stand on solid ground. I don’t put things out lightly — new age fluff or what have you — and were everyone privy to what I know tones would change. We all still could be wrong, but I dont think so.
I just finished the first of the four DOORWAYS TO ANOTHER REALITY webinars I’m hosting (http://evolverintensives.com/upcoming/st-doorways-another-world.html), and it was outstanding — all about nonlocal reality. I don’t think anyone takes exception to Stephan Schwartz, being as highly credentialed as he is, with his feet so firmly planted in science and academia, and he, too, is dealing in the impossible. In some ways, it’s even more so than Robbert — people can remote view things before they happen. But he has it in double blind studies — or whatever makes science science. It just works that way, logic be damned.
I can’t pass along the archive of the Stephan webinar in this paying course, but you can get a strong dose of Stephan from this 45-minute video interview: http://blip.tv/play/AYHelggC.
Yes Suzanne, “irrefutable” does require qualification! The data of Earthly debate can so often be refuted (indeed, a lengthy paper by Aristotle was ‘sophistical refutations’—all good stuff!); while the knowledge available to those of Angelic Realms is collective universal truth—sometimes called Akashic Record. Such is the word of Salumet, from whom the Kingsclere Group has received for the past 18-years. We have come to accept the word of this modern Master as irrefutable and his statements have been found to cross-reference with those parts of our science that are well proven. His statements re pre-history and its timing also relate well with modern radio-carbon dating. So we as a group have no cause at all to doubt. But each individual must travel a personal pathway in these matters … so let’s all keep up the keen interest!
Colin is quite right! Look at the evidence and particularly the CV of Robert v d Brooke. Nancy, as a self styled scientist should apply proper scientific principles to her research around Robert, or any other of her prognostications. She blanks most criticisms, as do you Suzanne. Imagine how you will feel when proved wrong. If, and I accept that it may be an if, Robert is proved to have hoaxed the photos, imagine the feelings of the families of those who may have been duped into believing it really was a loved one who appeared. At the very least the whole scenario is in very bad taste.
Of the several more emails along these lines that I’ve gotten, I am just posting this one, with my explanation for not posting them all adn a rebutal to all of them in the post I made after this one: “A case study in debunking — a gotcha WAR against crop circles and me” — http://theconversation.org/blog/a-case-study-in-debunking-a-gotcha-war-against-crop-circles-and-me.org
Suzanne, You have really outdone yourself here! Look at what I just posted on Muertos’ THRIVE-Debunked blog
http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/crop-circles-debunked/
I cannot wait to read Anastasio’s reaction. I think you really blew his mind this time!
Tom
++++++++++++++++++++
***** STUPENDOUS BREATH-TAKING EARTH-SHATTERING, MIND-BLOWING BREAKING NEWS FROM THE CROP CIRCLE COMMUNITY!!!!! *****
Ladies and gentlemen!!! Both Thriveteers and Debunkers alike!!! Are you sitting down? If not, prepare to faint at this awesome and astonishing news!
DAVE CHORLEY HAS COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!
Did you hear me? If not, I repeat!
DAVE CHORLEY HAS COME BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!
Yes, THAT Dave Chorley, the one, the only Dave Chorley of the famous Doug and Dave Duo of crop circle pioneers, the same Dave Chorley who died in 1996, fully 16 years ago, has re-appeared just as he looked in 1991 in the electponic recording equipment of amazing Dutch crop circle psychic Robbert van den Broek.
In my great excitement I must not forget to credit the source of this stupendous news. You know her well on this blog. It is our esteemed crop circle lady herself — the one and only Suzanne Taylor —- who sent me this morning this link to her blog called Conversations.
http://theconversation.org/blog/colin-andrews-crop-circle-culprit-strikes-again.org
Let’s go right to the link she provided. I am now so privileged to report to you all the substance of the conversation that the deceased Dave Chorley had with the amazing Dutch psychic, Robbert van den Broek.
(Anastasio will of course recognize this website as that belonging to the BLT group of researchers, and the narrator of this report is the T of that group, the esteemed Nancy Talbott.)
http://bltresearch.com/robbert/delgadochorley.php
(In the interests of brevity, I will exclude Nancy’s report of the communication from the other deceased man, the late crop circle researcher Pat Delgado, in order to focus on Dave Chorley.)
——————-
Nancy Talbott writes:
Crop circle enthusiasts who have been following both the phenomenon itself and the continuing bizarre events in the crop-circle-related Robbert van den Broeke case will probably be as startled as I to learn of the latest events in Holland — the manifestation of clear images on video and digital cameras — of two men closely associated with the crop circle phenomenon, but whom we know are deceased: Pat Delgado (the retired English electro-mechanical engineer who became the first UK crop circle researcher after visiting three circles at Cheesefoot Head in the summer of 1981), and Dave Chorley (of the infamous British “Doug & Dave” crop circle hoaxing team).
Images of these two men first appeared in the early morning hours of April 14, 2012, when Robbert v/d Broeke “felt” their presences and had contact with each telepathically. It was about 1:15 am when Robbert sat down and closed his eyes to focus his attention on their “energetic presence” as his friend Stan set up the video camera and turned it on, in case someone or something should appear.
Not only did the faces of these two men appear in those first video clips, they appeared again hours later on a digital camera as Robbert and Stan tried a new experiment, one which has provided good documentation of a very strange “time” aberration we have observed indications of previously.
[snip]
At first Robbert thought this man was Doug Bower (the still-living other half of the “Doug & Dave” hoaxing team) but as the face became clearer in his “mind’s eye” he recognized the specific consciousness of Dave Chorley. [Robbert knew one of the “Doug & Dave” team had died, but didn’t know which one.] He had seen both Bower and Chorley on a crop circle TV show many years ago and as Dave’s image grew larger Robbert felt a warm, friendly feeling and gratitude from Dave that he was able to “contact” Robbert.
Chorley’s “consciousness” then communicated his awareness (now that he is “in the afterlife”) of how important it is that people respect the loving force behind the crop circles. Chorley also expressed sincere regret that while he was on earth he had gone to the media and said that crop circles were “just a joke”, and that he and Doug had said they made them all.
He told Robbert that he knew there were many genuine crop circles — those that occur around Robbert and many in other countries around the world, and also some each year in England. Chorley then added that “angels” and “light beings” are now “providing energy” to many of the man-made circles (particularly those in the UK) because these circles have become spiritual meeting places. He emphasized that people should not be confused if they have mysterious experiences in man-made formations since many of these circles are now also being imbued with this “positive spiritual energy” — the experience of which is the primary purpose of the circle phenomenon.
Chorley also emphasized that when visitors to crop circles have spiritual or mystical experiences while inside the formations they are actually facilitating the ability of the “energy from the other dimension” to come toward them.
============================
And now ladies and gentlemen of both the Thriveteer and the Thrive-Debunking universe.
Of course you demand extraordinary evidence that the faces appearing in Robbert’s cameras are really those of Delgado and Chorley. Well, you want proof? I give you proof. Right here in this YouTube video (06:58)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsa2oYECcFg
(Now please be advised that the person who put together this video is obviously a paid government disinformation agent, a colleague of Muertos and possibly a close relative of Anastasio, who, by attempting to debunk Robbert’s claims, actually vindicates them.)
I mean, I beg of you, people, please, can you not see the astounding similarity, nay the very identity — of the faces of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley shown on that video from 1991 with the very same faces that appear on Robbert’s camera in 2012? How could anyone with a mind that is not already closed to transcendental spiritual reality believe that Robbert van den Broek was not visited by the actual discarnate spirit entities of the late Pat Delgado and the late Dave Chorley?
Nancy’s work has been impeccable. I, too, have seen the uncut film of Robbert using the camera. There is absolutely no trickery. If I had any spare money at all, I would give it to Nancy to help get this information out to the general public. The photographs support what many erudite people have been writing about “life after life.”
I would like to follow Terry’s comment with: I applaud his keen interest, likewise the keen interest and presentations from various sources. BUT I do not see crop circles as a ‘mystery’. Our UK seance group ‘receives’ indisputable information from two agreeing sources: (1) ‘Salumet’ … light-being and master of all-knowledge (2) ‘Bonniol’ … a humanoid living on the spiritually and technically advanced Planet Aerah. All exchanges are presented on website http://www.salumetandfriends.org .
The crop circles are made by UFOs in our space sector and they are communications presented to us … for us to interpret. Part of the interest is that in making the designs they employ energies of which present day humans have very little understanding. And when we finally comprehend, the UFOs will of course no longer be unidentified but ‘identified’. Perhaps we should then call them IFOs!
Hi George — Watch out for “indisputable.” I have a file of explanations labeled as the bottom line, so I always suggest qualification. You might say that to your group it’s indisputable. Then we all can live side by side instead of having some sense of opposition or argument. I do know how seriously you people do your work, and given how thin the veil is between our corporeal beings and so much more in this vast universe you could be at Source giving us the real bottom line. Time hopefully — and soon — will tell. And thanks for the info. I like chewing on possibilities.
I have been following the Crop Circle Mystery for about 20 years and remain keenly interested any any new information that might shed a little light on this subject. It truly is a mystery and one that defies any simple “man made” explanation. Keep up the good work and maybe we will all have a chance to share in some kind of appreciation/understanding/revelation…as to just what we are seeing here.