Tag Archives: Andreas Muller

A case study in debunking — a gotcha WAR against crop circles and me

Make Love Not War

I am under attack for my last post, Colin Andrews, Crop Circle Culprit, Strikes Again, about Nancy Talbott, who is responsible for the science that’s been done on crop circles, and Robbert van den Broeke, the Dutch medium around whom crop circles form and who photographs images of deceased people with still and video cameras. Look at the sort of things that are hurled at me:

This is war and since Nancy doesn’t want to fight, then the war needs to be fought out on your blog, so please let the combatants through on both sides for a proper go-round.

I must be important to have extensive website pages dedicated to me.

And this, too: Muertos has just devoted an entire new article to you, Nancy and Robbert on his THRIVE-Debunked blog.

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.

Nancy has come to a basic policy decision not to respond to such things. I can attest that when you get into back and forths with crop circle debunkers it’s like a tar baby that never gives up its hold on its position. Nancy meticulously documents her work on her site, http://bltresearch.com, which the attackers ignore. It reminds me of The Skeptics Society, where nothing outside of ordinary reality is possible so no investigations are necessary in order to debunk things. I’m not going to approve all the gleeful “gotcha” comments that came in on that last post, but am dealing with them in the aggregate here.

Would that you all had heard Saturday’s webinar for DOORWAYS TO ANOTHER REALITY, with Stephan Schwartz. We are part of an infinite realm that Stephan deals with, which would relate to what’s happening with Robbert. I highly recommend you play this 48-minute video of Stephan talking about what’s outside of space and time: http://blip.tv/play/AYHelggC. I guarantee it will fascinate you. (The archive of Stephan’s DOORWAYS webinar will be available if you sign up for the course: http://evolverintensives.com/upcoming/st-doorways-another-world.html. There are three live webinars to go.)

The central premise of the assaults is that Robbert gets his images by trickery, somehow loading the cameras with what produces the results. The attackers document photos that can be found online that Robbert then gets, as if that’s proof of trickery. But, not so. Some images are online, but they don’t end up in Robbert’s photos through any manipulations of his or anyone else’s.

Here’s the first response I got from Nancy when I passed along critiques to my Colin post and asked if she would deal with them:

When you stand up publicly for what you believe is the truth–as you did in this case (and which you chose to do on your own based on what I see as solid reasons for your trust)–this is the kind of baloney you ALWAYS get if the facts themselves are (a) beyond some of your readers’ capabilities to grasp, or (b) the truth scares them, (c) they’re mentally impaired, or finally (d) they’re debunkers. [Egotism and arrogance may involve all of these problems.]

I have written in laborious detail all of the info anyone with either the basic intelligence and/or the degree of courage needed to understand the situation should require. And the only suggestion I can make to any of these people is that they READ the details. If they refuse to do this, or if they choose to dismiss me as stupid or a liar, there’s really nothing more I can do. 

People with sincere interest will read the reports–ALL of the info presented, not just look at the pictures. Intelligent people will grasp the complexity of the situation and would, I should think, either be fascinated with what the these facts suggest or, at the very least, have the courtesy to address me with any real questions they still may have. Since no one has asked me a single question I see no reason at all to respond to superficial or disrespectful commentary.

I would suggest that you not bother to respond. And if you feel you must (which I think is ill-advised), simply point out again that people must READ the reports. And tell them that if they then have genuine questions, to pose them to me directly. I will always answer a sincere question. I will not waste time answering superficial or insincere (or rude) questions. (My pay-grade doesn’t cover these.)

Well and good, but there is voluminous material on Nancy’s site, and I didn’t see this being an effective response when indeed there is a very effective rebuttal to all the daggers. I finally got Nancy to relent and to give some bullets of information, all of which can be found on her site, that counter the assaults.

Apparition Photos report: http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert/apparition1.php

Primary Facts Not Addressed by Debunkers:

1.         Robbert began getting photos of people (Apparitions) back in early 2004–HE HAD NO COMPUTER.

2.         Some of these early Apparition photos were of his OWN DECEASED RELATIVES, people he therefore KNEW were dead. 

3.         Many of the images of people who appeared in 2004 and 2005 and early 2006 were famous people and many others were of people Robbert DID NOT RECOGNIZE….and still doesn’t.  

4.         During 2004, 2005, 2006, he took HUNDREDS of photos of people (Apparitions) USING HIS CLIENTS’ CAMERAS (people he did not know prior to their visits and most of whom came to him wanting info about their deceased relatives). These clients were WATCHING ROBBERT AS HE TOOK THE PHOTOS USING THEIR CAMERAS.

5.         When the Apparition photos were taken with his clients’ cameras IT WAS THE CLIENTS WHO IDENTIFIED THE IMAGES AS THEIR DECEASED RELATIVES (often the relatives they had come to see Robbert about).

6.         The first time I personally witnessed Robbert taking photos showing people’s images was in 2006. Robbert was using MY camera and I was standing literally right next to him (my head touching his so I could see the LED screen as he took the shots) and saw multiple images of a man appear whom neither of us recognized.     

7.         In 2007, out in a crop circle field in broad daylight, Robbert took 60+ photos of MY OWN BROTHER who had died just two months earlier, USING MY CAMERA for the very first time that summer, and WITH ME STANDING RIGHT WITH HIM THE WHOLE TIME AND WATCHING EVERYTHING HE DID.

8.         Also in 2007, using Andreas Muller’s camera while Andreas, Robbert and I were out in a crop circle field, again in daylight (with no computers present), Robbert photographed an unknown man–with Andreas and me watching the whole time. None of us recognized the man.

9.         In 2008, using the highly-respected American parapsycholgist DR. WILLIAM ROLL’s BRAND NEW CAMERA, Robbert obtained multiple images of three different men–with Dr. Roll and me standing right there watching. None of us know who any of these men were.

10.       Robbert got his first computer in July of 2006. He did not begin to learn how to use it until the winter of 2006 and still does not know how to do very many things with it. It DOES NOT HAVE PHOTOSHOP OR ANY SIMILAR PROGRAM ON IT AND NEVER HAS HAD.  

11.       THERE ARE AT LEAST 500-700 IMAGES OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME ON VARIOUS CAMERAS BELONGING TO A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE, IMAGES WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN MADE PUBLIC….some of these images we have been able to identify, many of them we DO NOT KNOW.

12.       ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE IMAGES OF PEOPLE LOOK LIKE IMAGES WE HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND (which were printed somewhere or were on the internet), OUR M.I.T.-TRAINED PHOTO ANALYST STATES THAT MANY OF THE IMAGES HE HAS GOTTEN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE SUBSEQUENTLY DISCOVERED PRE-EXISTING IMAGES. (http://bltresearch.com/robbert/apparition1.php)

And if you look 1/3 of the way down Part I of the Apparition Photos report, you will see this text, outlined in a box:

Basic facts regarding Robbert’s apparition photos:

(01)  Robbert usually feels a distinct “energy presence” as images begin; 

(02)  He aims any camera toward this “presence” and takes the photo;

(03)  The cameras are always set in the Auto mode;

(04)  The images do not appear on the LED screens until Robbert actually
depresses the Record button;

(05)  The apparition images, if they are occurring, then appear instantly;

(06)  Multiple cameras used within a specific time-period may all produces
images of the same apparition;

(07)  Multiple images of totally different figures may appear in one session;

(08)  Some individual images have appeared up to 60 times;

(09)  These images occur as readily in daytime as they do at night;

(10)  They are occurring with much greater frequency recently;

(11)  No one who has watched Robbert while he is taking these photos
ever has observed him to hold anything in front of the lens;

(12)  Regardless of the available ambient light, the flash never fires. 

– and there is NO computer involved –

This is all I am going to say…if people are sincerely interested they must READ THE REPORTS.  

Nancy