New Interview with Robbert Van Den Broeke

#1
In this new interview Sandra Reemer interviews Dutch psychic Robbert about the criticism he received in the Netherlands.


It raises many issues which might prompt discussion including his explanation for the TV show incident involving a misspelt word which critics claimed proved he was a fraud.

As many of you know Robbert claims to know in advance where crop circles near his home will occur and creates anomalous photos on digital cameras of the dead.

Recently those photos show images of who he claims are Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

I have had some small degree of contact with Robbert via email and Skype so am happy to discuss his case here.
 
#3
Well, I did carefully watch the interview with Sandra Reemer all the way through, as well as reading and viewing various other materials.

What emerges is in many ways typical of the ideological battle between those who would like to erase all psi phenomena from the world, and those who experience such phenomena as a normal part of their daily lives. It's not a pretty picture.

In some ways it is reminiscent of the treatment of dissidents within totalitarian regimes, where dissenting views are classed as mental illness, in need of treatment. Such attitudes can be harsh and very much at odds with the supposed tolerance towards minority groups in modern Western societies. We've had this discussion before, some minority groups are treated with respect and it is illegal to discriminate against them. But others are excluded and it is fine, indeed encouraged to do so.

Well, that was my emotional response. I'll try to consider the facts now. For example the photographs contain content which according to Robbert Van Den Broeke himself are to be found generally available in existing sources. In one sense this leads to ambiguity. If an image of say the Virgin Mary is produced by Robbert and it is found that the source picture was to be found readily available online, that clearly makes it possible that the images were manufactured. But is there an intent to deceive? First, Robbert openly states that they may be found online, so all parties are in agreement there. That leaves a second question, how are the photos actually generated? I looked at one video where such photos are produced and found it interesting but not thorough enough to be completely conclusive. For example, it isn't possible to see in this video what the camera is actually aimed at when the photos are taken.

There is a newer video of such a test, which I've not viewed yet. I'll get back later after I've considered it.
 
#4
There is a newer video of such a test, which I've not viewed yet. I'll get back later after I've considered it.
Having spent some time looking at various videos, I've still no definite view on the photos. The videos are more of a documentary, giving the views of those who were present. There isn't really enough material for me to make my own assessment.

I think given the ambiguous attitudes of the popular media, which tend to both promote and attack mediumship, one is left with having to decide for oneself. But given the guerrilla scepticism which undermines the credibility of such sources as Wikipedia, I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt more in favour of Robbert and his claimed abilities.
 
#7
I think given the ambiguous attitudes of the popular media, which tend to both promote and attack mediumship, one is left with having to decide for oneself. But given the guerrilla scepticism which undermines the credibility of such sources as Wikipedia, I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt more in favour of Robbert and his claimed abilities.
I fully agree, I'm disappointed in the fact that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, had this to say when people created a petition to get a more neutral article on Homeopathy:

"No, you have to be kidding me. Every single person who signed this petition needs to go back to check their premises and think harder about what it means to be honest, factual, truthful. Wikipedia’s policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of “true scientific discourse”. It isn’t."

I'm not a proponent of Homeopathy, but this is just blatant misuse of the word "Honesty"
 
Top