Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources. (UPDATED TWICE!)

This blog, originally published June 20, 2012, was updated June 22 and again July 16. Scroll to the end for the updates.

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, 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.

Just a brief recap. In Thrive, Foster Gamble makes the assertion that crop circles are made by extraterrestrials visiting Earth, and that these circles contain mathematical, engineering and possibly spiritual messages from the aliens for the benefit of humanity. Specifically, Mr. Gamble claims the aliens are trying to tell us about this “torus” shape, which Thrive says is the answer to all the world’s problems because it can give us free energy, if only those evil Global Domination Agenda people would quit meddling with it. Crop circles, therefore, are a key part of Thrive’s message.

Crop circles have also proven, much to my surprise, to be the single most controversial subject we’ve ever covered on Thrive Debunked. To date we’ve had more comments and more angry buzzing about the debunking of crop circles article than any other in the history of this blog—more than free energy, more than David Icke, and more than the Global Domination Agenda. Clearly, I struck a nerve; this alone merits revisitation of the issue.

What’s the Controversy?

Here is what happened. A Dutch crop circle enthusiast named Robbert van den Broeke, who also claims to be a psychic who can predict when crop circles form, recently said that he made contact with the spirits of two dead people. One of them was Pat Delgado, a British researcher of crop circles; the other was Dave Chorley, the notorious British prankster who, with his partner Doug Bower, made hundreds of crop circles in English grain fields and then confessed in 1991 to having done so. To “support” this bizarre claim of contact from beyond the grave, Mr. van den Broeke produced a video which he said captured spectral images of Mr. Delgado and Mr. Chorley. The video is here. Prepare to be underwhelmed. All it shows is Mr. van den Broeke sitting in a chair looking like he’s nodding off to sleep. The disembodied, semi-transparent blue heads of Mr. Delgado and Mr. Chorley appear near his head, float around a bit, and disappear. That’s it. There’s more supernatural fireworks in your average episode of Bewitched.

These claims, and clips from the video, were made public on by its main contributor, Nancy Talbott. Here is the link to the page where Ms. Talbott explains this “miraculous” visitation from beyond the grave.

What did Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley supposedly say to Robbert van den Broeke while their Photoshopped—er, I mean disembodied spirits were floating around his head? Oh, some New Agey stuff about the spiritual power of crop circles and how important they are, etc., etc. According to Ms. Talbott here’s how this little séance went down:

“Delgado’s image, which appears to be the same one throughout the video clip, moves about slightly during its brief appearance (about a minute long), sometimes brighter and more distinct, sometimes less so. While Pat’s face was present Robbert “heard” him say that he was still “energetically” very involved with the circle phenomenon, not only in the UK but also elsewhere in the world. He also expressed gratitude for all of the circle enthusiasts who continue to search for the truth and who realize the “cosmic” nature of the consciousness which is involved.”

And with regards to Dave Chorley, the key bit is here:

“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.”

There you have it. Chorley himself (supposedly) tells the true believers that he was wrong, and crop circles really do have a paranormal origin! Wow! Isn’t this amazing! And there’s no proof of any of this except what Robbert van den Broek says these spirits told him! But who needs proof anyway?

Another British crop circle researcher, Colin Andrews—who worked with Pat Delgado before the latter died in 2009—came out with a statement denouncing the fake video. That statement is here. Mr. Andrews’s report contained a statement from Pat Delgado’s family. Understandably they’re quite upset that his image has been used in this way. Their statement reads:

“It is the considered opinions of the family of Pat Delgado and his close friend and researcher Colin Andrews that the alleged messages and photographic images purportedly produced by the special powers of Robbert van den Broeke were created by trickery. This trickery involving images of Pat Delgado, a beloved husband, father, grandad and best friend is a disgrace, which reaches a new low with the unscientific extreme elements of the crop circle research field. No attempts have been made to discuss these images or communications with the Delgado family before posting them on the Internet nor it would seem have any transparent evaluations been made by the various camera manufactures or professional magicians etc. If they have, his family would like the courtesy of seeing them. Pat Delgado’s family were deeply involved with his work and are appalled at the adoption of his voice and putting at risk his high integrity by people who never even met him. Playing with the reputation of Pat is outrageous, despicable and unacceptable.”

Mr. Andrews also stated that a fellow named Roger Wibberley has investigated the video and concluded that the images of Mr. Delgado and Mr. Chorley were lifted from a video interview done with them in 1991, freely available on YouTube. If you go to Colin Andrews’s page you can see comparisons of the van den Broeke séance video with the real 1991 interview. In a nutshell, the Robbert van den Broeke video is a crude fake.

Who Is Robbert van den Broeke?

Robbert van den Broeke lives in Holland and has been involved for some time with various claims involving the paranormal, extraterrestrials and crop circles. In 2005 he went on Dutch TV telling a woman whose husband just died that the husband had lived a past life and died in the 1820s—a claim whose details were easily disproven with a perfunctory Google search on the man van den Broeke claimed the husband had been. Mr. van den Broeke has also dabbled in “spirit photography” before, claiming to have photographed aliens. This information on Mr. van den Broeke is available here.

Mr. van den Broeke’s main claim to fame, however, is his assertion that he can “predict” when crop circles appear. For this alleged “ability” he is thought of as an important person among those who believe that crop circles are not made by human beings. What they fail to realize, however, is that most of the crop circles Mr. van den Broeke claims to have “predicted” appear in his backyard. Convenient, yes? But could (perish the thought!) Robbert van den Broeke actually be making these crop circles himself, in precisely the way that I demonstrated in my original crop circle article that all such circles have been made by human beings? Believers in paranormal origin of crop circles shriek bloody murder at the mere suggestion that human beings are the exclusive creators of crop circles. Therefore, the conclusion of simple logic—that Mr. van den Broeke is most likely creating these crop circles himself, or that he’s at least somehow involved with or has knowledge of the human beings who create them—is absolutely verboten among believers in the paranormal origin of crop circles.

So, here we have a fake psychic who has been exposed for his trickery before, who’s attempted to claim “spiritual photography” before, who now suddenly comes up with a video where another dead person appears and preaches the party line to paranormal crop circle believers. In a rational world this article would end right here, because it’s patently obvious that Mr. van den Broeke’s video is fake. But, in an eerie demonstration of the same sort of Bizarro-world thinking permeates the Thrive universe, we (unfortunately) can’t stop here because the true believers won’t let us.

The Punch Line: True Crop Circle Believers Think the Video is Real! (Or, At Least They Won’t Say It’s Fake).

When I first heard about this story I scoffed and dismissed it as a prank—just a fake video that went viral in the crop circle underground, and not worthy of any serious response. However, I’ve been absolutely astonished that various people who claim to be bigwigs in crop circle “research” are asserting that the video is real—or at the very least, they are unwilling to say that it’s an obvious fake!

Nancy Talbott herself, the driving force behind, certainly invites her readers to jump to the conclusion that the video is real. She engages in a lot of mumbo-jumbo about time stamps in the fake video, which she suggests is evidence of perhaps some sort of weird effects on the fabric of time. (She never mentions the possibility that discrepancies with time stamps could be evidence of digital manipulation).

Ms. Talbott has been getting support from another prominent paranormal crop circle believer, Suzanne Taylor. Ms. Taylor is the creator of a film called What on Earth? which is a documentary about crop circles. You can buy it for $19.99 on her website. She has also been a frequent commenter here on Thrive Debunked, where she opposes Thrive in general, but is generally hostile to any material expressing doubt that crop circles have a paranormal origin. Here’s what Ms. Taylor has to say on her blog about the video:

“Colin claims not only that Nancy’s report 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.”

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. But you don’t even need this level of proof. We’re talking about a video that purports to show images of dead people from beyond the grave. The basic threshold of proof to demonstrate that something like that is possible anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances has obviously not been met here, to say nothing about the succeeding question of whether this particular video purporting to show video of dead people is real or fake. As for the offense given to Mr. Delgado’s family, I would ask Ms. Taylor if she really thinks any member of the family would be thrilled at seeing how the image of their dead loved one has been misappropriated, especially for a highly partisan purpose.

Incidentally, a new blog (not by me) has gone up just recently devoted to debunking Suzanne Taylor’s claims about crop circles and those in her movie What On Earth? You can find that blog here. Debunking Ms. Taylor’s film is beyond the scope of this blog. For the record I have not seen her movie, nor do I plan to.

There is a clear division in the world of crop circle research. The main issue appears to be to what extent it is permissible to admit that crop circles are made by humans as opposed to being of paranormal origin. (Note: it’s not a totally binary universe. Virtually all believers in the paranormal origin of crop circles concede that at least some circles are made by humans; however, there are ferocious disagreements among circle researchers as to what percentage are clearly of human origin and which ones are supposedly paranormal). The issue of the Robbert van den Broeke video seems to have inflamed this division.

What Does This Have to Do With Thrive?

Much of Thrive’s supposed research on the subject of crop circles relies upon the site. If you go to Thrive’s silly “fact checking” section and expand the various crop circle topics, you’ll see links to material. For example, this one:

“Fact: The electromagnetic field over the area where the crop has been laid down to create the image, is often electro-statically charged. Some of these areas are littered with strange magnetic particles.

In the early 1990s a unique discovery was made while studying a crop circle in England. Plants in the formation were coated with fused particles of iron oxides (hematite and magnetite). Since this discovery, soil sampling is regularly undertaken at crop circle sites. Traces of melted magnetic material, adhered to soil grains, have regularly been identified.”

The link in that last sentence leads to BLTResearch. Incidentally, the “magnetic particles” crap was debunked long ago. I explained in my original crop circle article how this is easily done by humans, specifically to fool paranormal believers.

Ironically, Thrive also uses Colin Andrews as a source—in a way that, in fact, impugns rather than supports the paranormal origin of crop circles. The Thrive fact check website states:

“Fact: 5,000 crop circles have appeared in over 30 countries, most of them inEngland.

This is a conservative estimate. Crop Circles, authored by Colin Andrews with Stephen J. Spignesi, is a reference guide on the subject and answers many commonly asked questions in the field. This work states that more than 11,000 crop circles have been reported in over 30 countries and that they occur mostly in England. Colin Andrews is a former engineer with the British Government and is widely accepted as an authority on crop circle phenomenon. Stephen J. Spignesi is a New York Times best-selling author.


Both of these sources confirm that England is where most crop circles are made.

Hillary Mayell. “Crop Circles” Artworks or Alien Signs?” National Geographic:

Stephen J. Spignesi and Colin Andrews. Crop Circles: Signs of Contact.FranklinLakes: Career Press, 2003. (178).

Stephen J. Spignesi and Colin Andrews. Crop Circles: Signs of Contact.FranklinLakes: Career Press, 2003. (75).”

Again as argued in our previous article, the fact that the vast majority of crop circles appear in England is itself a strike against the paranormal origin theory. Chorleyand Bower lived in Englandand did most of their work there; even today, most of the people who learned from them, or deliberately imitated them, are also from England. A question I posed in my original article which no Thrive fan has answered is: if crop circles are caused by UFOs, and most crop circles appear inEngland, how come most UFO sightings are not also inEngland?

Also, take a look at the National Geographic article cited on the Thrive website. It is hardly supportive of the paranormal origin theory. That article contains an interesting summary of the crop circle phenomena:

“Adamantly opposing the crop-circle-as-art-form position are the “croppies”—researchers of the paranormal and scientists seeking to explain the formations as work that could not possibly be the result of human efforts.

The phenomenon has spawned its own science: cereology. Some believers are merely curious, open to the existence of paranormal activity and willing to consider the possibility that at least some of the circles were created by extraterrestrial forces. At the extreme end are what Lundberg calls the “Hezbollah” of believers.

Exchanges between acknowledged circle makers and cereologists can be vitriolic in the extreme. But in a curious way, the two groups need one another.

The believers propel and sustain interest in the work, beating the drums of extraterrestrial activity on Earth and keeping crop formations in the news. They can also be quite vocal in their denunciations of the admitted artists, charging that they are con men, liars, and agents in government disinformation campaigns.

Lundberg’s group has been vilified as Team Satan; its members have received stacks of hate mail, and over the years there have been attacks on their cars and property.

Skeptics in the media (including this author) are also considered dupes, either too ignorant or narrow-minded to understand an other-worldly phenomenon or active participants in a government conspiracy to keep the masses uninformed.”

That is exactly the charge that has been made against me, and this blog, ad nauseam. I’ve received literally hundreds of comments and a handful of emails claiming I am “closed-minded,” or I’m suppressing some sort of cosmic human truth, or that I’m a disinformation agent paid by the government. The National Geographic article was written in 2002. The “croppies” phenomenon is still alive and well ten years later.

What Does The Fake Video Mean For Thrive and its Fans?

The fact that supports the fake Robbert van den Broeke video can only boomerang negatively for Thrive.’s credibility by being associated with the fake video is obviously badly damaged. In addition to having to explain away the uncomfortable associations of David Icke’s anti-Semitic “reptilian” conspiracy theories, Thrive advocates who seek to indoctrinate rational people will now have to face hard questions about whether the folks whose opinions on crop circles that they rely on have truly gone around the bend in proffering crude ghost videos as real. Thrive has already declined precipitously in popularity and public visibility since April, when 10 people who were interviewed in the film publicly dissociated themselves from it and its rampant conspiracy-mongering and Libertarian proselytizing. Being tangentially associated with a fracas over a faked ghost video just makes the film look even more kooky and fringe, which can hardly be the image Foster Gamble wants to project.

I also think this episode demonstrates how bizarre and extreme the crop circle underground has become. I mean, step back a moment and look at what’s going on here. Believers in the paranormal origin of crop circles are so desperate to reinforce their message that they’re willing to fake the image of a noted human creator of crop circles—Dave Chorley—on video so they can put words in his mouth explaining away the actions he took in life and begging believers not to credit them. Do they really think this is going to convince a lot of people that they’re right? Evidently they do. And this expectation may not be that farfetched; Suzanne Taylor, whose posts on this blog appear to be  rational (however much I may disagree with them), is getting behind the video, as are others.

I might also add that the video doesn’t show anything of substance anyway. It’s just two disembodied heads floating above some guy sitting in a chair. There’s absolutely no substantiation for Mr. van den Broeke’s claim about what these spirits supposedly said to him. On that, the croppies demand that you take him at his word.

Conclusion: “Stop Throwing Daggers!”

My experience in debunking Thrive has taught me a great deal about crop circles, and more importantly, about the sort of thinking behind belief in the paranormal origin of crop circles. As Thrive itself has declined in popularity, the attention that continues to be given to my debunking of crop circles has demonstrated to me that this is one of the woo beliefs whose adherents are most allergic to rational explanation. Believers in the paranormal origin of crop circles will simply never accept any other possibility, under any circumstances, regardless of how much evidence is marshaled against it. Trying to refute this belief is like trying to use empirical evidence to disprove the divinity of Christ: it’s just not going to make any impression on believers no matter how hard you try. Crop circles are very much a religious belief system.

But Thrive demonstrates how this strong, defensive and self-reinforcing belief system can be manipulated to serve other ends. Taken in isolation, I think belief in the paranormal origins of crop circles is generally pretty harmless. Unfortunately, the belief is easily channeled into belief in truly harmful and dangerous ideas, such as conspiracy theories. In researching this article I was struck by a comment posted on Suzanne Taylor’s blog. There, a commenter—obviously a firm believer in the Robbert van den Broeke video—detailed her correspondence with Colin Andrews, denouncing him for criticizing the video and This except was particularly interesting:

“I wouldn`t have known about your [Colin Andrews’s] 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.”

This passage demonstrates how an “us vs. them” mentality prevails in the world of crop circles. Those who stand in the way of the awesome truths of crop circles—the “skeptics and debunkers” with their “self-righteous” insistence on such unreasonable things as facts and logic—are aiding and abetting “government subterfuge and harassment” and must be opposed at any cost. This is exactly the same “us vs. them” mentality that Thrive advances, particularly with its harping on extremely harmful Global Domination Agenda conspiracy theories.

This goes far beyond appreciation of the beautiful and fascinating designs created in fields of wheat by enterprising individuals with strings, boards and a working knowledge of geometry. This is an irrational belief system with the capacity to override all tenets of critical thinking and rational discourse. In the grand scheme of things, crop circles, though breathtaking and intriguing, are not very important. At least they shouldn’t be. They certainly shouldn’t be the basis of this sort of obsessive and potentially self-destructive belief system.

If two disembodied heads floating above some random guy in a YouTube video can convince you of extraterrestrial visitation and crop circles, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Update I, 22 June 2012

Not surprisingly, crop circle aficionados Nancy Talbott and Suzanne Taylor are none too happy about this article, and are rallying their supporters to vilify me for daring to question the Robbert van den Broeke video. Both seem to have doubled down and decided to circle the wagons about the authenticity of the video and the trustworthiness of Mr. van den Broeke.

Suzanne Taylor promptly put up an article on her blog claiming that she’s being unfairly “attacked” for her support of the fake video. In this article she published correspondence between herself and Ms. Talbott. Ms. Talbott’s view:

“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.]”

Evidently in Ms. Talbott’s view, a “debunker” is a singularly low form of life, a base defiler standing in the way of realizing profound human truths that are supposed to result from accepting claims such as these on faith. Her evident contempt for people who demand facts and evidence before believing in bizarre paranormal claims like Robbert van den Broeke’s is an eerie echo of the tone with which numerous Thrive fans have commented on this blog over the past few months when their conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific babble is challenged.

She continues:

“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.”

Of course, Ms. Talbott ignores the fact that Colin Andrews and I have read the details. In fact, it’s the written details, even more than the fake video itself, that I object to–the suggestion that Dave Chorley has come back from the grave to repent and tell the world he’s sorry for claiming that he and Doug Brower made all the crop circles. Ms. Talbott seems to believe, erroneously, that it’s just the video itself that we’re objecting to; in fact, if you take the video away, the case gets even more egregious and offensive, considering that the fake Robbert van den Broeke video was offered in support of the statements about Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley.

Ms. Taylor was not satisfied with this response from Nancy Talbott. She writes:

“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.”

The information that “counters the assaults” is here. Basically it’s a laundry list of empty and unsupported claims that Robbert van den Broeke has previously captured “spirits” on camera and video. Ms. Talbott PUNCTUATES these SUPPOSED PIECES of EVIDENCE with a VERY ANNOYING and POINTLESS USE of the CAPS LOCK KEY. Such as:

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.

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.”

These points don’t substantiate Robbert van den Broeke’s video, and in fact what they do is illustrate a pattern of deceptive practices with which the latest Delgado-Chorley video is, unfortunately, consistent. Witness this article debunking Mr. van den Broeke’s past attempts at paranormal photography, specifically, his claims to have captured UFOs and aliens inside his own house, including an “alien” that turned out to be a photo of a Papua New Guinea tribesman that ran in Reader’s Digest. According to this article, and Nancy Talbott have also been implicated in these hoaxes.

“The previous photos were these:


Reported here, and which were also captured by Robbert van den Broeke. It’s quite obvious how they were captured, especially if you remember that Broeke also managed to photograph aliens in his own house:


Try not to laugh, but those are the alien photos captured by Broeke. Of course, explaining the joke takes away its fun, but in any case, Royce Myers of Ufowatchdog also captured aliens.With a plastic spoon.

Broeke has even been caught in his same old technique. For instance, he allegedly captured this other alien in his house, which turned out to be a photo of a Mud-man, a native from New Guinea, published in Reader’s Digest.


Above, center, is the alien that Broeke photographed. Left is the original photo published in Reader’s Digest, and right is the photo blurred to highlight the exact match. The exposé comes from the Dutch Skeptics.

So, you can see how the alleged medium and friend of aliens, orbs and crop circles simply places cutouts in front of the camera. And you may have recognized that these recent spaceships he photographed near the Dutch crop circles, along with people from the DCCA and Nancy Talbott, from BLT Research, which claims to be “Crop Circle Science”, are just cutouts of photos originally from Billy Meier.


There is some distortion, as the cutouts may bend, and the photo I showed above is probably not the exact same photo Broeke may have cut out, but I hope it shows what is going on.

In one of the photos the cutout is glowing while the background is dark: the camera flash was triggered, probably automatically since it was dark, and the cutout near the camera reflected back the light. The fact it’s glowing is actually evidence that this “spaceship” was something small and near the camera to reflect the flash. The light from a flash only works within a few meters, beyond that it’s simply too diffused. Lame, lame hoax.”

This is the man whom Ms. Talbott and Ms. Taylor want you to believe is genuine, who supposedly got images of dead people on video, and whom you aren’t allowed to call out as a hoaxster without being accused of viciously “attacking” those who perpetuate these hoaxes.

There is more–much more–about Dutch pseudo-psychic Robbert van den Broeke, but as I feel I’ve already beaten this horse to death, I don’t think there’s much utility in presenting it. Anyone reading this article in a rational frame of mind can tell instantly that his video is a scam and a hoax. We need not belabor the point.

Also, note on Ms. Taylor’s page another tactic used by crop circle believers. The page is festooned with a colorful banner reading “MAKE LOVE NOT WAR.” Got that? Anyone who criticizes crop circles as being belligerent, aggressive and not standing up for “peace.” I can’t imagine a more shallowly manipulative tactic.

I’m particularly amused by some of the commenters on Ms. Taylor’s blog, especially one fellow named Odin Townley, who evidently thinks my outlook would be improved if I had been beaten more often as a child.

“These hit-and-run thugs obviously never got the spankings they deserved as kids.”

Yes, great message! Beat your children to prevent them from growing up to be debunkers! How’s that for “MAKE LOVE NOT WAR,” eh?

Incidentally, Colin Andrews has linked this article to his own page on the Robbert van den Broeke fake. Mr. Andrews is on record as stating that he doesn’t agree with everything on this blog, and indeed has found some things in Thrive that he likes, but his comment on my article is that it is “well researched, fair, balanced and is well written.”

Update II, 16 July 2012.

I couldn’t believe that a controversy over something so obviously fake could become such a huge issue, but Nancy Talbott and Robbert van den Broeke just won’t let this one go. Mr. van den Broeke recently fired back with even more ridiculous lunacy, now claiming that he’s receiving messages from beyond the grave criticizing Colin Andrews who dares to criticize him.

Nancy Talbott parrots these increasingly outlandish claims with (evidently) a straight face. Here she is ripping into Mr. Andrews on her site:

“For some time now Colin Andrews has been publicly expressing increasing negativity and animosity toward various crop circle enthusiasts and, recently, has irresponsibly accused both me and my friend, Dutch medium Robbert van den Broeke (whom he has never met or spoken with) of behaving deceitfully and with malice — taking no apparent responsibility himself for the distress these unproven and idiosyncratic comments may be causing all of us who sincerely care about the crop circle phenomenon and what it may mean.”

Yes, you read that right. Her friend, the obviously fake psychic who is appropriating dead people’s images and turning them into videos to support ludicrous claims of contacting people from beyond the grave, is now the victim, and the evil debunkers like Colin Andrews are the enemy. Why? Because we dare to tell the truth about crop circles–that they are made by human beings, not by extraterrestrials or paranormal forces.

Here’s the next clanger in Robbert van den Broeke’s bizarre rebuttal:

“Here is the exact message given to Robbert which he was “instructed” to make public immediately so that Colin Andrews and the people who care about the circle phenomenon would all hear it.

David and Paul [David Kingston and Paul Vigay, the latest spirits he said he’s contacted] said, first, that they “love the energies” creating the crop circles and that they “do not support the attacks by Colin on Robbert’s and Nancy’s integrity” and, further, that they “stand by both Robbert and Nancy’s work” and know Robbert and I must continue our efforts to help keep “the spiritual truth of the circles alive.”

They went on to say that, in the past, Colin stood “more in the light,” but that he has now allowed himself to be influenced by “negative dimensions and there is darkness all around him.” They stated they were watching Colin and what he is doing and see that he is “not functioning in accordance with his inner truth”, that he is not listening to his intuitions — but is “standing in his ego now because he thinks he will get more attention this way.” “He is not being truthful to his deepest self.”

Does anybody really believe this load of crap? I mean, we’ve dealt with some pretty far-out-there stuff on this blog, considering just how low into the woo gutter Thrive goes, but how can anyone possibly take Robbert van den Broeke seriously?

Colin Andrews posted this on his own website. He too sounds incredulous that anyone could even pretend to believe the claims of Robbert van den Broeke.

“Let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In May Robbert posted images of Pat Delgado and Dave Chorley with messages that were substantially different from their own voice. I admit to having an emotional reaction to seeing my mate used in such a manner which compelled me to join the Delgado family in repudiating the claim. I am sure I could have been less emotional, and yet, extraordinary claims require, if not extraordinary proof, at least some proof of their veracity. Surely it is up to Robbert to prove his claim, not me to prove it isn’t true. I have attempted on several occasions to talk directly with Robbert, as Nancy well knows, and have been rebuffed. It appears one must agree with Nancy Talbott or be labeled as negative.

I admit to a very sick feeling in my stomach when I think of my friend’s families having their loved ones used in such a dispute. Even after death these people are not exempt from the crop circle bickering; only now their voice can be used in any way possible with no shred of evidence to verify it. Yes, it hurts and makes me want the truth and if that is egotistical and negative, so be it.”

The readers of this blog should be reminded that it is Nancy Talbott and her “research” that serve as the main basis for Foster Gamble’s conclusions in Thrive about crop circles. If anyone has any doubt left that has been totally and utterly discredited by the Robbert van den Broeke scandal, this bizarre episode should dispel that doubt.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

58 responses to “Crop Circle Wars! Fake Video Shakes Credibility of One of Thrive’s Main Sources. (UPDATED TWICE!)”

  1. The Locke says :

    It surprises me that people still believe that crop circles are real. I bet people who think crop circles were made by ETs also believe everything on the show Ancient Aliens

  2. Mason I. Bilderberg says :

    Reblogged this on Illuminutti and commented:
    Another great article from the writers at ThriveDebunked. Grab a snack and enjoy.

  3. JG says :

    Believers argue the intricacy and magnificence of crop circles should give rise to belief. Then they believe this video, which is horribly crude and underwhelming. Clearly, their standard of what passes for believable has nothing to do with the complexity or breathtaking awe; they’ll believe anything that purports to “prove” the “truth” they already accept.

    Also, since when did channeling the dead require a see-through version of their face?

  4. JG says :

    I’m just waiting for a crop circle believer to argue that the our video technology just isn’t good enough to superimpose a visage in the background of a video. I mean sure, there have been hoaxers who’ve done stuff like this in the past – but this video is the real deal! It’s just too complicated to be Human! You have to believe this or you’re just being close-minded!

  5. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Great article, Muertos!

    I’d like to provide the link to the video source of Robbert’s two sets of images, both taken from the same video in 1991

    Now you have the context for an interesting discovery I made today about the Delgado/Chorley faces. Here is my report to Colin Andrews about it.



    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.

    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

  6. Angry Government Guy says :

    Hello, this is The Government Guy again, from the United States government. Mr. Muertos, I would like to inform you that the video mentioned in this article cannot be found. Or at least, it soon will not be accessible to “the general public”.

    We at the government (and those… “watching over” the government) would once again like to thank this blog in assisting us in quelling this “truth” nonsense.

  7. Mr. Anon says :

    Hey Muertos. I’ve noticed that a lot of the recent posts here have been about people or sites related to Thrive (rather than things directly in the movie), or political agendas/”solutions”. While examining this is good and interesting to read, are you planning on doing any more direct debunking? I feel as through while you have covered a lot, there is a fair amount remaining that should be fact-checked, like stuff on GMOs and UFO sightings/abductions.

    • muertos says :

      Honestly, there is not much more debunking of Thrive to be done. The main points of the movie involve crop circles, ancient astronauts, free energy, GMO, Tesla bullshit, money/financial conspiracies, Global Domination Agenda, and the nutters’ proposed “solutions.” All of those have been debunked. You are correct that UFOs are the last substantive subject we haven’t tackled yet. That’s a really big subject. You may have noticed the pace of articles has slowed down considerably in the past two months. This is due in part to the fact that public interest in Thrive is declining precipitously. Simply put, far fewer people are interested in the film today than were interested in it even 3 months ago. Consequently, there is less pressure now to produce articles for this blog than there was even six, eight or ten weeks ago.

      Our job here is mostly done. A major reason for the success of this blog has been that people have discovered the debunking at the same time as they have discovered the Thrive movie itself for the first time. This is a dynamic that’s been missing with the two previous viral conspiracy movies, Loose Change and Zeitgeist, both of whom went viral essentially unchallenged by facts until several months (or, in the case of Zeitgeist, 2 years) after the films’ initial release. By contrast, I began debunking Thrive the very weekend it came out. I happen to know that this has been a source of frustration for Foster Gamble personally and his supporters–that they were never able to enjoy a “honeymoon” with the public where the film’s assertions were not being challenged in real time. As Thrive declines in popularity, so will this blog. Consequently, most of what we’ll be covering from here on out is going to be reactive in nature, i.e., developments related to the reaction to the film as opposed to matters contained in the film itself.

  8. fuljat says :

    You would think they would give up. Surely, everyone knows. But no. If you cast your hook a thousand times, perhaps just one mouth will bite. I am still receiving requests to update my banking details, receive 130,000,000 dollars locked in a trust in Nigeria. Presumably, it’s worth someone’s while to send out these laughable frauds.

  9. Hollywood Tomfortas says :



    (A) a shit for brains asshole
    (B) a chicken-shit coward
    (C) mentally impaired
    (D) a debunker [which is the same thing as (A) above]

    This response of Nancy was posted by Suzanne Taylor on her blog.


    “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.)”


    (More reports from the front to follow.)

    • anticultist says :

      haha that Nancy Talbot is clearly just a delusional old maid who wants to find meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe.
      I suppose the cold facts of science and reason just don’t work for someone like her, she would rather have fanciful dreams and wishes of a superior being that cares for her and will reach out from the cold universe to offer her some warmth and protection.
      As an adult I shed those childish notions of something other worldly coming to protect the dumb apes from themselves a long time ago, realising that the potential for our existence, improvement and change exists solely in our own hands and ideas.

      In actual fact it is people like Nancy Talbot and Sue Taylor who are clueless and lost in this life, they cling to fabrications and children s stories when grown ups have long shed those bed time stories.

  10. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    OK, Muertos, let’s see if you can debunk any of these facts that are true of the Dutch psychic Robbert van den Broeck. Suzanne Taylor has compiled these 14 of Nancy Talbott’s facts and published them on her blog.


    Apparition Photos report:

    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.



    • muertos says :

      This indignant response is about what I expected. Looks like the croppies are circling the wagons and refusing to give an inch.

      I love how I’m supposed to be impressed by supposed examples of “spirit photography.” Oh yeah, and how Robbert supposedly didn’t do it with a computer? Well, this relatively famous example of “spirit photography” was done way back in the 1870s, also without a computer. Actually it’s even a little bit more convincing than Robbert van den Broeke’s images of Delgado and Chorley.


      Great find, though! Thanks for posting this!

    • Joel T. says :

      Ah, photos of ghosts. I’ve had a bit of an interest in these for several years. There are three reasons for this, the first being that the images themselves can often be interesting to look at, the second being that the explanations are often far less impressive than one might imagine, and the third being that often those who take the pictures themselves don’t intend for maltrickery (they’re duped by the afore mentioned unimpressive explanations).

      Unfortunately, Robbert doesn’t really enter the realm of ghost photos. They’re laughably bad: looking over the bltresearch page, it is plainly acknowledged that his pictures are near or perfect replicas of existing pictures. Indeed, at first I thought the page was debunking Robbert, rather than supporting him, because they bothered to point this out. Since his fame seems to be founded on obviously cropped photos, I suppose it isn’t surprising to believers that the images in the video are also obviously cropped. That is his known MO, apparently.

      People aren’t believing his photos so much as they are believing the circumstances surrounding the photo-taking. This is important: Robbert isn’t hawking hoax photos, he’s selling an experience. The only real difference between him and, say, a mind reader show in Vegas is that you’ll come away from Robbert with a souvenir.

      There are three main components of the performance. 1) Robbert isn’t supposed to know what is what ahead of time, 2) he uses someone else’s camera, and 3) he is watched while taking the picture. There is a quasi #4 in that he didn’t own a computer until 2006, and didn’t learn how to use it until the end of that year.

      Number one is classic. It generally seems that the course of events usually goes: a person hears about Robbert, wants to see the dead, contacts him, and then at a later date they meet up and he takes the pictures. Or, in other words, it seems that he has opportunity ahead of time to employ basic cold reading techniques to gather information directly from an individual, and time to employ other research practices before actually meeting. However, not all pictures are of people that the viewers know. The mudman photo is a perfect example of the dubious thinking involved. Here, bltresearch admits that it looks almost exactly like the noted Reader’s Digest image. But, they say, Robbert wasn’t aware of that image when he released his photo. Since the two images are the same, that is an untenable position to hold to. And here, they don’t have the excuse of saying that Robbert was channeling the image from someone else’s mind (like with relatives that mysteriously appear exactly as in other photos). It is clear that he is willing to lie about what information he has had access to.

      Number two attempts to address the obvious objection that Robberts has the camera rigged. I don’t know Robbert’s exact method, but if one were going to take a fake ghost photo in the same manner, one would just need to prepare a memory card ahead of time with the desired images. Then, when given the camera, a little prestidigitation allows one to switch out the memory cards (most of which now days look the same). Many digital cameras have a specific setting for multiple exposures (and one can sometimes get cameras that don’t to still do it). Then, he can sit back, take pictures, and let the camera itself compile what he just shot with the image already in it. That would also explain why the camera can catch an image of a “ghost” (meaning the camera can “see” it) but not focus on it (meaning that the camera doesn’t think it is the subject of the photo, even when it is clearly central and dominating). It would further explain why a flash is not needed (the brightness of the original image would transfer to the compiled image, regardless of how bright or dark the location of the background is). Now, I am not saying that Robber does this exact method, but that it is a relatively simple and possible explanation. However, I’d bet buttons to bullion that Neil Patrick Harris could do it (or that he’s know a magician who could).

      Though to note, if he’s using a smart phone camera, even that isn’t necessary: they have apps for that.

      Number three should draw suspicion. If the observers are head to head with Robbert looking at the LCD screen as he takes pictures, then the observers aren’t observing. They are watching exactly where Robbert knows that they will be watching. The misdirection of this magic trick is built in! Now, at this point, Robbert might not be doing anything to catch, depending on what his method is, but the point is, this claim is supposed to make us feel like he’s being watched to ward against foul play, but in reality, he’s not.

      Quasi number four is just amusing. Personally, I find it almost as incredulous to imagine that Robbert, someone who by all appearances is a normal young male, never used a computer until late 2006 as to imagine that his photos are real. But that aside, even if he never owned one, computers are relatively ubiquitous in the modern world. And even that aside, a computer isn’t necessary for his tricks. This point is really just supposed to make us feel safe that he didn’t use Photoshop, or something similar, but there are other ways, so even if true, it’s irrelevant.

  11. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Whoops, sorry, my bad! I said there were 14 facts above. Turns out there are only 12.

    And there are also 12 other basic facts regarding Robbert’s apparition photos which I know you will have a hard time debunking, Muertos!

    (Especially since you are handicapped by your stubborn stupidity, craven cowardice and general assholiness as outlined in the comments above.)


    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.


  12. Matt Williams says :

    Guess what – the latest is that aliens or whatever are guiding people to make these things! How desperate is that.

    • Anastasio says :

      Ahh..THE Matthew Williams!

      We are honoured by your presence!
      Know of anything special planned for this crop circle season? Come on, spill the beans old chap!

    • anticultist says :

      completely desperate and only a clown would propose or believe such nonsense.

  13. Anastasio says :

    I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy Talbott on point C on her pick list: the facts themselves are mentally impaired

    (Yes, I know that was cheap but do we really gratify anyone by taking this in earnest anymore?)

    Anyone who has taken the time to drag themselves through Talbott’s voluminous and anecdotal prattling about Robbert and the anonymous ‘MIT trained photo analyst’ (who should maybe have a play with the Stretch and Skew command in Microsoft Paint some time) will no doubt have been hit smack bang in the face by the broadside of self-defeating irony she delivers by elevating Robbert to the same venerated plateau than none other than the world-famous authority on spirituality…Uri Geller.

    Geller’s spoon bending antics and supposed magnetic superpowers are so antiquated and explicable that I have to wonder if there is a 20-year lag between popular culture being produced and then arriving at Robbert’s home in Holland.
    I have to wonder also if Talbott is in on the game, or, if Robbert has her duped to the point where he can tell her he shits rainbows and she goes searching for pots of gold.

    No matter who’s in on what, Talbott and Robbert are just a wee bit behind the times:

    (Cutlery on the face? Is there anyone who didn’t do that when they were 5-years old? Christ Nancy, from fraudulent doctors to parlour magicians you’ll be calling Ronald McDonald to the stand next!)

    You’ll note James Randi in the magnetic man video, and I for one would just love to see Robbert take him up on his challenge:

    According to our friend Suzanne Taylor, it’s comical to use Randi as an authority on anything; despite the fact that most charlatans have a mysterious tendency to lose their special powers around him; should they even try in the first place. Funny that isn’t it? I mean surely that tells us that Randi is an authority on calling and proving bullshit where he sees it?
    If it really is a fact, as stated by Talbott, that her well-nourished toy boy has supernatural powers then Randi’s test should prove to be an exercise in taking proverbial candy from a baby. What better way to test his powers?

    Though compassionate, I’dliketoteachtheworldtosing saints like Suzanne consider Randi a joke, his presence and efforts are important to protect people from the damaging insensitivity of cruel fraudsters such as seen in the links below:

    And finally:

    That important phrase “sorry, I was wrong” is never forthcoming in any of these examples. The love and compassion is truly saturating.

    Anyway, it’s only courteous that I email Nancy immediately to point her and Robbert in the direction of an easy million bucks – and I’ll even waive my finder’s fee out of sheer generosity.

    Once Robbert proves his powers to be genuine then Suzanne can indulge in a little schadenfreude on Randi’s behalf, Talbott and her chubby little solider get the money and we the unqualified, voiceless lay can fulfil our condition of caveat emptor and can confidently buy Nancy’s facts safe in the knowledge that they are just that.

    Everyone’s a winner baby.

  14. Anastasio says :

    According to this affable grandfather-type, Odin Townley, who posted on Suzanne’s latest, related article, not taking Talbott’s word as gospel and daring to have a difference of opinion all stems from not being beaten enough as a child:

    “…These hit-and-run thugs obviously never got the spankings they deserved as kids.”

    So there’s your answer; beat your children and the world can be as one. Therapy’s going nowhere.

    And once your kids have been beaten into the faith of BLTism, then have them carry with them this holy image of their new messiah so he might be venerated at all times:

  15. Professor Pious says :

    The Thrive Movement “Fact Check” page alleges:

    “Fact: The electromagnetic field over the area where the crop has been laid down to create the image, is often electro-statically charged. Some of these areas are littered with strange magnetic particles.”

    The source for this is an incredibly speculative paper they link to on the web site: The paper was initially published in the “Journal of Scientific Exploration,” a quarterly publication that promotes esoteric ideas by masquerading them as peer-reviewed science. According to Wikipedia, Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow has suggested that:

    “The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish ‘scholarly’ articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena.”

    Thankfully there is an incredibly thorough debunking of the paper, and the “strange magnetic particles,” known as the “H-Glaze” here:

    This is well worth the read in terms of quality debunking and scientific rigor and accuracy versus the speculative JSE paper, but for brevity, here are a few of the highlights.

    1. A man named Rob Irving took credit for creating the crop circle and seeding it with the mysterious iron particles. No need for complex hypotheses of meteor showers, auroras, and “plasma vortexes,” the principle of Occam’s Razor apples here.

    2. Rob Irving provided identical samples of iron powder to that found at the crop circle.

    3. Rob Irving admitted to seeding the crop circle with the iron particles in order to DISCREDIT woo-woo crop circle researchers and pseudoscientists.

    4. The iron particles from the crop circle were tested extensively and found NOT to have originated from meteoric iron, but were consistent with the sample provided b Rob Irving.

    5. Rob Irving provided the only known photo of the crop circle before the field was harvested.

    6. The iron particles were not found to be permanently magnetized (though iron is, of course, magnetic), contrary to the assertions of the JSE paper.

    Will Foster Gamble continue to promote the paper as fact, in the face of conclusive evidence that the crop circle in question, along with its “magnetic particles,” were manmade? To do so would be either willful blindness, or self deception.

  16. ellen1953 says :

    Hello all,
    The whole crop circle story was solved for me when I met one of the men who helped make them in the early 1990s. A gregarious Welshman who is a colleague, has told me many funny stories about the whole process, the design meetings in the pubs where the croppies themselves do their drinking, the strategy, etc. And yes, they would start adding more and more ‘evidence’ to the circles for the fun of it to fool with the believers. Like iron filings and other things to make them more ‘scientific’ and mysterious. Back then they would fill clear helium balloons with the glow in the dark liquid from glow sticks and let them go just to add to the fun. The little red glowing dots seen out in the fields at night were just their cigarettes! Later they started hanging LED lights arranged in rings on gatorfoam suspended from black balloons, blinking in various patterns. The balloons would float around past the croppies watching from nearby roads and hills and would never be found.

    And, here is the really fun part, most of the different ‘teams’ would have people who were also members of the various croppy groups, so they always had and have inside info on who was going to be watching and when. Since cell phones have become so common, they are used as walkie talkies to communicate out in the dark. If watchers see the phone’s lights, all the better! Once they even made an appearance as ‘CIA’ agents by parking up a road and wearing suits, opening the trunk of the car with a purple light in it and pulling out a laptop computer and using it, then quickly driving off; they made sure the croppies noticed them! All in fun, mind you, as I have learned the British are some of the greatest pranksters ever. He said it was exhilarating going out in the dark, working out the complex design and escaping without being caught by a farmer or other person. All they have to do is walk in the ‘tram lines’ in the fields to avoid foot prints, or, in so many cases, their footprints would just go unnoticed by the investigators later! Nothing terribly mysterious about it. For instance, the exploded nodes on plant stalks are just caused by the heat of the sun after the plants are bent down and folded at that point. Who knows what new things have been come up with to salt the area of a circle since the early 90s. Add to that the random things that happen on their own that you didn’t plan on, and you have one great big mystery for everyone to enjoy!

    All this reminds me of P.G. Wodehouse lampooning the Theosophists in his humorous Jeeves and Wooster books from the 1920s and 30s. Things never seem to change, do they?

  17. Hollywood Tomfortas says :


    Read about the latest battle in the ongoing Crop Circle Wars!

    More dead crop circle researchers have appeared in Robbert’s camera, this time giving dire warnings to Colin Andrews to cease and desist his persecution of Nancy and Robbert.

    Here is Colin Andrews’ response:

  18. Hollywood Tomfortas says :



    July 15, 2012

    The problem with mediumistic communication with the dead is that as every parapsychologist knows, it’s not enough to say ‘I have Aunt Mabel here and she sends her love’

    That is NOT evidence.

    Now, maybe being able to somehow produce a photo of the deceased, may count as evidence of survival to Robbert and Nancy Talbott.

    But in truth it’s simply a photo which, aside from using trickery, may have been accessed from the so-called Akashic Records — that ‘cosmic library’ which some believe to exist.

    Or as I gather Nancy believes, ‘spirit’ takes the photos off the web and feed them to Robbert’s mind and camera.

    Colin was close friends with Pat Delgado, Paul Vigay and David Kingston.

    If Robbert really wants to prove that these three are likely communicating, he should come up with some personal facts known only to Colin.

    That shouldn’t be too difficult because there must be a hundred moments these friends shared — but not known to the rest of us,

    I gather Robbert works as a professional medium and gives readings to people wishing to contact deceased loved ones.

    I know Colin has unsuccessfully tried to contact Robbert, with no reasons given for refusal. Colin, a trusted friend of mine, is an honest man.

    I feel sure if he was given real evidence for the survival of his friends, he would publish it as part of his ongoing investigation into this matter.

    I have known Nancy for many years and also count her as a friend.

    She is an intelligent woman and given her accounts of the astounding happenings with Robbert, I personally don’t believe that she could have been fooled for so long by trickery.

    I have also listened to interviews with Robbert and Stan and my gut feeling is that they are honest.

    But feelings and belief are not evidence. None of the rest of us know what really happens there in Holland because we weren’t there.

    So I challenge Robbert and Nancy to set up a special ‘reading’ for Colin — it could be arranged in moments and carried out on Skype.

    The two parties could agree for the conversation to be recorded and the rest of us could later question Colin and Robbert on whether the results represent real evidence.

    There will never be actual proof — because the same Akashic Records argument I used for the photos, could equally be used for any ‘secrets’ known only to Colin which might be revealed.

    It could also be claimed Robbert was telepathically tapping Colin’s mind.

    But at least it would be greater checkable evidence that something paranormal is going on – which might do something to settle this ‘trickery or genuine’ web debate.

    Of course this kind of small experiment should do nothing to prevent a real scientific investigation of the process involved into how these photos and information are obtained.

    It is reported that parapsychologist William Roll investigated and was satisfied he witnessed paranormal photography — but he has since died and none of his writings or recordings about this, seem to have surfaced.

    Nancy also mentions two scientists who investigated and were impressed – but says they refused to be named.

    Despite the unfortunate vitriol leveled at Colin Andrews over this, he is simply an investigator who refuses to accept these remarkable claims without evidence.

    I challenge Robbert to produce it.

    Dave Haith

    (David Haith is a British former journalist.)

  19. gtechinvetigations says :

    I am the investigator who offered to look at the work of Robbert Van den Broek for Colin Andrews.

    The investigation is at a very advanced stage now. We are almost at the process of planning how the results will be presented and demonstrated.

    A great deal of the investigation time has been spent on the claims that prop up the reputation of Robbert, rather than just a few staged youtube videos. These are the claims that Robbert is able to perform his ghost picture miracle on a borrowed camera.

    The youtube video versions of this trick can be performed by a child. Anyone can make a jpeg in a paint program which says ‘No Images On card’ or words to that effect, to match the system screen of our cameras.

    What gives that simple trick any kind of credence to those that want to believe, are the testimonials of people perceived to be reputable, who claim that Robbert has performed his miracle on their own camera, without prior handling, and with expert examination of the camera and pictures afterwards.

    I look forward to demonstrating this ‘borrowed camera’ miracle on any digital camera dating back to the first Kodak DC-20 from 1996 sometime soon. I’ve even gone to the trouble of sourcing a Pentax Optio 33WR, the same model Nancy Talbott claims that Robbert performed some of his early miracles with.

    It is just a matter of time now.

  20. Anastasio says :

    Once again, Robbert crosses time and space to obtain images from the ‘Unity Consciousness’:

    Paul Vigay

    David Kingston

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :


      You need to get with the program! I covered Vigay and Kingston two weeks ago up above in my comment dated July 15, called “May the farce be with you.”

      In the meantime, Robbert has come out of the closet as gay, but then deleted passages about his father trying to beat the gay out of him; then he started receiving mysterious rashes etched on his chest and forehead which were UFO symbols connected with the crop circles appearing in and around his home town in Holland. These marks may be a form of self-mutilation, akin to “cutting” and it would not surprise me if later on, Robbert comes down with the actual Stigmata wounds of Christ.

      Then he moved on to a different plot of land, where he had crop circles appear in 2009, but this time the farmer’s wife got angry at him and accused him of fabricating the circles himself. Apparently she doesn’t believe that space aliens created the signs and simply alerted Robbert telepathically to come out and see them. (That’s the story gtech links to above.)

      Also, the ghost of Queen Julianna (1909-2004) of the Netherlands appeared in Robbert’s camera and since she had once received the UFO hero George Adamski at her palace in 1959, then she and George will vindicate Robbert’s UFO and ET claims from beyond the grave.

      But Uri Geller is also involved now as well as a man who appears to be the Dutch version of David Icke. His name is Ronald Jan Heijn and he fully supports Robbert.

      (An interesting side-note. I do believe that the “lese-majesty” laws are still in effect in the Netherlands, so Robbert could be arrested if he makes too many wild and crazy claims about the former Queen. But they are not in effect in the UK, so honestly, can Princess Diana fail to appear someday in Robbert’s camera?)

      Anastasio, I’ve been wanting to get your email so you could follow all these breaking developments that center on the battle between Colin Andrews in the UK and Nancy & Robbert and of course dear Suzanne. If you want to join the party, please write me at

      • Anastasio says :

        Oh Tom, you almost sound worried that I would have been so impolite as to skim over one of your colourful bulletins without so much as paying you the courtesy of reading up to the second line. That is never the case! Your haranguing of Gamble et al is some of the most entertaining literature I’ve read since Thrive’s inception – and Anastasio never misses an episode!
        Rest assured, wherever I venture on the internet in search of developments in this saga, I have accepted the practical impossibility of escaping the ubiquitous musings of the notorious Tom Mellet.

        Keeping up can be a difficult task given that my job commitments often take me to remote places where the most advanced form of communication is barely faster than two paper cups connected with a wet piece of string, so let’s kindly disregard the antiquated nature of my post here and instead consider it an augmentation of your earlier update, perhaps dare I go as far to say a complement. Where you expertly placed the nail of doubt with your comment, I brutally drove it home (albeit two weeks later) with the mighty hammer of evidence that indicates where Robbert ‘borrowed’ his images from.
        Like two Roman legionnaires we nailed Robbert to the cross.

        And with professional teamwork like that you should be laying five on me, not bloody chiding meTom!

        Inevitably this stigmata you anticipate will be blamed on the likes of you, Muertos and me for playing a part in Robbert’s crucifixion, or more like desiring to see an allegorical representation of a crucifixion in the demise of his fraudulent career. And we have yet to see Gtechproductions thrust the spear.

        Of course there is a possibility that Robbert might be telling the truth. In that outcome logic dictates (given your geographical location) that your Yank accent (over my Limey accent) would be better suited to play the cameo role of John Wayne as he stands before the messiah and speaks: “Truly, this man was the son of God” against a background of caterwhauling by Talbott and Taylor.
        The regret, I’m sure, will be too much for us to bear.

        For now I’m not favouring that eventuality, so let us continue in our merry but equally abhorrent pursuit of Robbert under the disclaimer that we will be forgiven because we know not what we do!

    • Hollywood Tomfortas says :


      Here is the link to the followup story about Robbert in the national Dutch daily, De Telegraaf.

      Here is my translation of that page:

      The Battle of Robbert van den Broeke
      by Colette Boegman

      AMSTERDAM – Robbert van den Broeke (32) is very disappointed. The medium, who was ‘unmasked’ seven years ago during the TV program “More Between Heaven And Earth” with Irene Moors, is again under fire. This time, an angry farmer’s wifesays that Robbert himself made the crop circles on her land. Robbert says: “Now I must defend myself again.”

      Robbert was drawn to the field in the middle of the night. The psychic, who doesn’t live far from the farmland on the A17, recognized this twitchy feeling and hopped right on his moped.

      Robbert: “As I arrived, I saw blue and white balls and I heard a soft crackling sound. I also felt the energy coursing through my whole body.”

      An item about Robbert was published in WNL: “In it, the woman claims that I destroyed her field. She said that I should stop all this and look for a job,” says Robbert uncomprehendingly.

      Robbert sighs: “Fortunately, I am very forgiving. Soon I’m going to see her and set things right. But at this moment I am still too angry … really disappointed. My practice has been temporarily closed since I moved and am looking for a new location.

      But I will resume my readings as soon as possible for people who are open to me. That gives me satisfaction and strength. Strength that I need each time I enter into battle. And also to work through this disappointment.”

  21. Hollywood Tomfortas says :

    Please visit Andy Russell’s blog “Circular State of Mind” for the latest happenings in the Paranormal Nancy-Robbert-Colin Crop Circle Follies

  22. a rational person says :

    has anyone else noticed that this is the only article on this whole site where nutbags haven’t invaded the comments and tried to defend their stupid shit? hahahaha, these crop circle people are so fucked up even the nutbags won’t defend em! lol

    • anticultist says :

      On the other crop circle post there have been crazies coming in defending it. In fact one of the loons who made a crop circle video came in to defend them, promote her video and argue how right and correct her delusions were.

    • Neo says :


    • Mr. Anon says :

      God damnit you just jinxed it. What do you have to say for yourself now?

      • Neo says :

        I SAY FREDOM!!!

      • Wyboth says :

        I say feed him to A Rational Person and put on your earplugs.

      • a rational person says :

        well fuckin shit…i did jinx it…god dam conspiracy nutbags…ok, here we go, lets get neo started on his brain damaged rants about lizard people and 911 being an inside job…maybe before we do that we can fix a nozzle and a compressed air tank to his mouth, so we can bottle the fucking fart smelling gas comin out of him and use it as fuel for a hot air baloon or something…hey, whaddaya know, i just discovered a source of free energy: set the shit smelling fumes coming out of ranting conspiracy nutbags on fire and we can power chicago for a year! WHERES MY NOBEL PRIZE, U FUCKER??????? IM SMARTER THAN NASSIM HARAMEIN!

  23. nice website says :

    wow, what a stupid effort. how much wasted time. instead of trying to keep up with information and our times. just keep wasting your time. really strange to me is your motivation. thrive might be based on theories, but it shows some hope. while they work on our future, you role is to debunk them. good job, congrats.

%d bloggers like this: