Hi Bob

Just to clear up a few things I’ve noticed from your comments:

1. My real identity is no secret; it isn’t Douglas Anthony Fitzgerald. Follow the link to my website as the URL makes it very clear who I am. Suzanne can tell you I exist. I have used different monickers online because of some very odd people causing me problems in the past. It is my good friend Andy Russell who runs the Circular State of Mind blog and he makes no secret of that either.

2. I don’t so much make counter-claims in my article, or make ‘devious’ statements or ‘outright lies’. Either you’ve completely missed the point of what I’ve written, have misunderstood, are blinding yourself to the mundane explanations or are being disingenuous. Through my interest in contemporary folklore I know a fair bit about so-called spirit photography. All we have to support Robbert’s claims are the words of witnesses and still photographs. We are reliant upon these that Robbert has not taken photographs beforehand and is simply showing these to the observer, whether they be on a camera’s in built memory or an additional storage device. Robbert has the opportunity to make himself $1m dollars by applying for the JREF Challenge and demonstrating his supposed paranormal abilities in controlled conditions.

As for Nancy, the pseudoscientific element of BLT’s research stems from the fact they have worked to find evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion. Let us not forget that Pat Delgado sent Levengood samples from supposedly ‘genuine’ formations.

Suzanne is widely off the mark by suggesting I am trying to ‘smear’ her. Rather, I’m merely pointing out the flaws in her arguments.

I shouldn’t have said “likely a chlarlaton” to Will Wakely about Ted Serios. I should know better, beigng in the crop circle game, not to take my opinion from cursory reading. Will emailed this to me:

If you have read Dr. Eisenbud’s 1967 book, The World of Ted Serios, and seen the pictures, you would not be so quick to call him a charlatan. The pics represented real scenes but with slight variations. Difficult to do without photoshop. Color polaroids were taken with skeptics’ cameras and film packs, developed on the spot.

But I will add this to the conversation, supplied by Nancy Talbott:

Vis-a-vis Ted Serios (and another more recent case, that of Mark Macy & his “Luminator” photos), the reason I have not referenced these men is because the evidence indicates to me that what is going on around Robbert is NOT really related to what either of these men were/are doing. If you will take the time to read thoughtfully the various individual reports about Robbert’s case (listed down at the bottom of Robbert’s BLT page: http://www.bltresearch.com/robbert.php) I think you will begin to grasp why I have this opinion.

Ted Serios likely was a charlatan, but not so fast with Mark Macy http://worlditc.org. He seem to me like the real deal.

Thanks, Bob. Anyone who reads all the material would be simpatico with what you are saying. Thanks so much for saying it. It’s a conflict for me with smear stuff as to whether to ignore it or let it be seen. Everything that gets thrown at me is countered by what I post, so I figure to let people see the scene. It’s astonishing to me that there is such vitriol and that those who deliver it remain oblivious to what I post that explains what they are ridiculing. Am just letting it all hang out.

Thanks so much for your cogent clarifications!

All three write slick sophistry filled with confident sneering and ridicule. Where factual counterclaims are actually made, they are not substantiated either by enough interpretation so that a person can understand what they mean or even just a reference to something we can check on.

In all three web smears there appears only one significant claim that does not appear to be either devious or an outright lie, and it is an error: “Ms. Taylor seems to have missed the part where Colin Andrews did provide substantiation for the claim that the video is fake, in demonstrating that the images of Mr. Delgado and Mr. Chorley who appear in the video are obviously taken from the 1991 BBC interview.”
Obviously you didn’t miss that part since you feature it very prominently in your blog. But, more importantly, anyone who thinks Robbert and his supporter, Nancy, ever even for a moment claimed or pretended that the Delgado-Chorley images were not taken from preexisting photos has simply not examined the voluminous BLT materials at all.

For quite the contrary, a very large fraction of the strange faces easily have been traced to photographs of deceased people, often relatives of those Robbert is dealing with. Others have appeared in places like National Geographic or in obscure books.

The puzzle in Robbert’s case, with these photos (there are many other puzzles, including other kinds of puzzling photos), is how on earth he succeeds, as apparently he does, in transporting the images from their source locations to the image that comes up immediately on the LCD screen of the many cameras he uses, and sometimes others use. Very strangely, it is the seemingly obvious “fakery” of the images that defies ordinary explanation.

A fair-minded reader, who may be excused for having some doubts about the Delgado-Chorley images, should take the time to read carefully the voluminous material provided at http://bltresearch.com/robbert/apparition1.php as linked above.

Keep up the fine work, Suzanne.

I thought this actually was humorous. Anastasio, who attacks my on some other blogs out there, posted this with a fake email address.