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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.