Well, well, well. Despite many people saying Robbert was “too depressed” to respond to the accusations and complaints from the Delgado, Chorley and Vigay families, he manages to pull out another video where he manages to contact Princess Diana. There are some photos of Diana’s, ahem, ‘spirit’ which look like they’ve been cut out of the pages of ‘Hello!’ magazine. Honestly, I don’t even know where to start with this crap.
Someone said, in jest, that Princess Diana would be the next to make contact, and lo and behold it happened! So I am running a sweepstake on which public figure is next to star in one of Robberts videos…
Anyway, for more psuedo-paranormal nonsense click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ggi5S2RJf0&feature=g-u-u
Meanwhile enter the Van Broeke sweepstake below…
Circular State of Mind 
Andy,
Robbert had quite a meltdown yesterday when Constantia Oomen dared to make fun of his Princess Di image. She sent out to our impromptu email group — which includes Robbert, Stan, Nancy, Suzanne, Colin, Trystan and others — a cartoon balloon caption that had Diana complaining about Robbert putting words in her mouth.
I then replied to Constantia that it needed to be funnier and I suggested that Diana should be asking Robbert and Stan to spank Diana’s son Harry for his egregious naked romp in that Las Vegas hotel suite.
Constantia reversed my suggestion, pointing out that Princess Di would have loved Harry’s naked romp precisely because it embarrassed the royal family.
Here is the telepathic message she received from Lady Di:
“Lady Di is telling me at this moment me she rather enjoyed this action of (dirty) Harry (because she loves to see the Royal House bite the dust) but she really dislikes the actions of Robbert and Stan.
She is asking me to spank Robbert and Stan in her name!”
An hour or so later, Robbert sent two rather terse messages to Constantia, each one including an attached vivid color photograph of a large turgid specimen of human faeces framed in a toilet bowl.
(Since Robbert did not specify whether the faeces were his own original creation or else borrowed images from the Akasha Record known as the Internet, we could not then determine if such matter would qualify as “Holy Shit.”)
Now I would like to document exactly what Robbert wrote in Dutch and then follow with my translation. I am hoping that Enrico will return and give his own translation and interpretation.
(Robbert used the diminutive form of Constantia’s nickname “Sten” so I have translated that as “Stennie.”)
Here is Robbert’s first email to Stennie:
======================
——– Origineel bericht ——–
Onderwerp: RE: Lady Di Speaks, Now For Real!
Datum: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 01:17:40 +0200
Van: Robbert van den Broeke
Aan: Constantia Oomen
Snol Rot op stennetje ik heb Vette Schijt aan Je
====================
Fuck off you slut Stennie, I shit on you!
++++++++++++++++++++++++
About 8 minutes later, Robbert sent this email:
===================================
——– Origineel bericht ——–
Onderwerp: Rot Wijf
Datum: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 01:25:21 +0200
Van: Robbert van den Broeke
Aan: Constantia Oomen
Je Bent Zo,n vies rot wijf he Je denkt te weten hoe het werkt ik hoop Dat Je Onder Een Vrachtwagen Loopt
=====================
Subject: Fucking Bitch
You are such a filthy fucking bitch! You think you know how it works? I hope you get run over by a truck.
========================
Honestly, I don’t know where this is all heading, but I think it is all going to end in tears…
It seems that Robbert has become so use to the fame he has gotten that he sees anyone who is trying to get him to stop this foolishness as someone who is personally trying to destroy him. Maybe he’s a narcissist, maybe he has borderline personality disorder, maybe it’s something else entirely, but either way, he is definitely trying to intimidate Constantia Oomen in such a way that she fears going after him and his photos again.
I agree
Hi The Locke,
I don’t think Robbert is trying to intimidate me, he is just very angry, and is exploding now and then, when you trigger him with something. He knows I am there, watching him all the time, and I never feared anything of him (and he knows that too).
I have been photo shopping a lot about Robbert, and I will do that again, when I feel the creative inspiration. ☺
Constantia
Robbert has surpassed his low quality levels with this miracle in terms of evidence to support his claim. This time he has given us a 0.23 megapixel image!
Looks like someone taking a picture of a turned on light bulb…
Don’t forget the rash that appeared on his forehead in the shape of a heart symbol at the end of the video. Have you investigated how he manages to “burn” himself like that?
You can see photos (mid-July) of earlier rashes or “branding” marks on both his chest and forehead here:
http://www.robbertvandenbroeke.nl/graancirkelarchief/10_Formatie_12/5
The ‘burning’ is quite straight-forward, it isn’t exactly branding is it? Ever filled a hot water bottle, then put in on your skin and seen a pink patch appear? This is all slight of hand trickery in my humble opinion…
Check out the substantial conversations about Robbert & Nancy happening on the Paracast forum
This thread started on April 29 and goes on for 13 pages up through postings from this past Sunday.
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/nancy-talbott-robbert-van-den-broeke-april-29-2012.10350/
This thread started April 22 and goes on for 9 pages. It was dormant since July 12 but today I posted there about Princess Di and fanned the embers into a new wildfire. (Go to page 9 for that)
http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/april-22-2012-nancy-talbott.10309/
Tom
No word from the Buckingham Palace yet? LOL.
You guys seem to love bitching about Robbert’s crap, otherwise you wouldn’t have sucked it out of the rural sewage where it peacefully flows to its predetermined destination like anything else of this genre. If it wasn’t for the sorrowful Andrews/Talbott bickering, no one would even notice Robbert’s detour through the Kingdom of Jokes.
So here we go into the murky fray….
I have it on some reasonable authority that Robbert’s email account and also Stan’s, was hacked.
I’m non-techie so am unable to decide if this is a reasonable excuse for that slurry of fecal emails.
Who would hack the address?
Well some of the sceptics here might find it fun and a way of further discrediting Robbert ‘the faker’…
Or some Intel person who thinks that now the Diana connection has brought this issue into unacceptable areas?
Pointing slightly towards the hacking theory is that many of the offensive emails were copied in to friends and believers as well as sceptics and detractors – hardly something Robbert would do if he just wants to hit out at Constantia with dirty insults.
But a hacker might not know the difference and just grab addresses from Robbert’s list.
Alternatively, there might have been no hacking at all but Robbert, who has had a troubled youth and subject to deep depression, might occasionally flip and his alter-ego fires off this filth in some psychological release – something even he doesn’t remember afterwards! Who knows?
Now unlike many here I happen to think that something psychic is going on with Robbert and although his photos do LOOK fake, nobody yet has successfully proved faking and no witnesses to the photo sessions have reported fraud.
OK some of you have shown how tricks could have been done but fake UFOs don’t mean there are no real ones.
I’ve studied the history of psychic photography and although it has its fair share of charlatans, there’s some good evidence that some of it is real. And much of it also LOOKS fake.
It’s also well known that, as in Robbert’s case, the psychic pictures exist somewhere else in the physical world, rather than being a new depiction of the deceased. I have no idea why this should be – perhaps it’s easier for ‘them’ to reproduce an old photo than create a new one…
Even apports in physical mediumship, already exist somewhere in the world – as in some of the Scole experiments – but are somehow transported paranormally to the seance room. Of course apports have been claimed too by Robbert and Nancy – do I recall a non-Dutch giant butterfly which they found on their car windscreen? Something like that and I’m too lazy to reference it right now.
And now coming right along soon from ‘gtechinvestigations’ (see comment above) I’m told will be some smoking gun revelations perhaps providing damning evidence involving Robbert’s email address…
Which for those conspiracy minded folk offers up a brand new reason for hacking…
Whatever gtech’s evidence it could then be said – well it wasn’t Robbert or Stan, it was the nasty hacker using their emails!
Meanwhile we have people like film-maker William Gazecki’s video experience of alleged contact with his old friend, via Robbert.
William is no dreamy New Ager but he was obviously completely convinced the phenomena was real.
And yet things aren’t that simple it seems, for you might notice his comments below the Diana video on YouTube
William writes: “This is so “classic Robbert”. You can’t make this stuff up. I guarantee you he did not fake a single moment or image. What you see is exactly as it happened. I’m tellin’ ya!
Why Princess Diane, I have no idea.
And that’s how it’s been all along. This phenomena that’s around him has never been anything but quixotic.
Does it mean Princess Diane’s spirit was actually “there”? WAS she “present” at any moment during this sequence of events, in her afterlife spiritform? I wouldn’t know how to know.”
Note the last few sentences. Seems to me even William seems to be wavering about the real source of this phenomena.
I would argue a little with his statement ‘I wouldn’t know how to know”
There are a hundred conspiracy theories about Diana and her death.
Instead of twee statements about her being an angel in her new life, she could have told Robbert what really happened in the tunnel, who was or wasn’t drunk etc etc. Not that this would ultimately prove it was her speaking from the other side but it would give us a good run for our money.
So where are we in this sad tale of magic and mystery?
To most here including our host Andy – it’s an open and shut case. He’s accepting that paranormal stuff happens but this definitely ain’t it!
I’m on the fence – veer towards the phenomena being real but am doubtful if the dead are really speaking rather than some cosmic trickster or Robbert creating his own kind of personal reality.
Of course Colin Andrews and the Chorley, Delgado and Vigay relatives all are convinced their loved ones are not speaking through Robbert because the dialogue just isn’t convincing for the persons they know and love.
Short of a team of truly scientific and medical experts moving into Robbert’s Dutch life with a truckload of cameras and technical equipment, to either validate or demolish his claims – I don’t see any resolution of this issue any time soon.
But it is fun while it lasts isn’t it?
A team of a truly scientific and medical experts moving into Robbert’s house to investigate? Investigate what? Scientists have certain self-respect and that would prevent them get involved in something so amateurishly executed. Of course, Robbert would be delighted to finally come into contact with someone who could think straight. As far as the visit from the medical folks are concerned… a psychiatric exam would reveal that Robbert’s state of mind doesn’t differ much from the condition that the UK crop artists suffer from.
What my major issue is with all of this is how shoddy everything looks. The crop circles look awful, real amateur attempts. The psychic photography looks really bad. I have seen better evidence elsewhere that has convinced me of genuine psychic phenomena. But next week, we’re back to crop circles, Suzanne Taylor and who’s being interviewed for my short film.
Yes I agree it does all look shoddy Andy.
But ask yourself what you base this on .
Our UK crop circles look fantastic because the guys who make them are skilled artists etc.
One could argue that the circles ‘shoddiness’ could be evidence that they might be paranormal – after all the very first UK circles, thought then to be the only ‘real’ ones, were pretty basic.
I’d like to hear sometime of the genuine psychic phenomena which convinced you of its authenticity – was this based on the fact that it was swish and not shoddy – or was there firm evidence.
Good luck with your filmed Suzanne interview – how did you charm her to co-operate with a ‘nasty Mr Sceptic’ like you? -:)
David,
I do appreciate your multi-layered approach and paradoxical speculation here as it provides valuable feedback for the investigation into the this farcical paranormal grimoire.
I would be very interested in you giving any details of your “reasonable authority” about the alleged hacking. You see, I find it well nigh impossible to imagine any reasonable explanation for the hacking outside of Stan himself — for the simple reason that the hacker can only be Stan himself. Recall that Stan is a self-confessed amateur magician and mentalist. As well he is quite adept at IT work. Therefore, he has the “means, motive and opportunity” to commit the hacking himself, or at least create a plausible illusion that Robbert’s computer was hacked. What I am really saying is that there was no hacking at all, but Stan is able to play the illusionist here.
Now let me inform you of the facts of this particular scatological outburst of Robbert, since your speculation is eminently logical but quite misinformed.
If you scroll above to my comment, you will see that I deliberately copied the headers of the two emails that Robbert had sent privately and exclusively to Constantia. I left in the time stamps, which show that Robbert sent this email out about two hours after Constantia had upset him by adding a cartoon balloon caption to Robbert’s Princess Di image.
The point is that this sudden and mysterious “hacking” story is a quite closely identical repetition of a series of scatologically abusive emails that Robbert sent out about 5 months ago to a man named Ben Vogel, with whom Robbert had some species of a theological disagreement. In studying the time stamps, I noticed that Robbert again waited about 2 hours before responding to Ben’s email.
When he received the abusive emails, Ben sent them to Rob Nanninga and Jan Willem, the two editors of the Dutch Skepsis magazine. Ben also informed Constantia of them. She in turn has just forwarded them to me now and I will soon post the translation in order to show the forensic affinity to the recent eruption of Robbert’s scatologorrhea.
Now, concerning the recent outburst, Robbert again sent it privately to Constantia, who in turn sent it to me. Then I did the translation and distributed it to my impromptu mailing list, which numbers about 15 and the recipients include Robbert himself, as well as Stan, Nancy, Suzanne, Colin, Constantia, and several others who have expressed some interest in the imbroglio. As well, Constantia has included Rob, Jan Willem, Pepin and other Dutch figures that she knows.
I created this “open forum” or better yet “public email plaza” in order to carry on conversations that would be “overheard” by everybody who is centrally involved in the fracas.
My reason is that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and that it is important for Robbert to realize that his friends and foes alike are listening in and witnessing his Internet behavior.
But this is not to shame him or discredit him. Quite the contrary, my aim is to let Robbert know that we are all together in this journey, no matter what our beliefs, desires or fears drive us to do, which is either to attack him or else to fawn over him.
And all of this leads to your next speculation, David, which aligns perfectly with mine. We seem to be on the same wavelength here. You wrote:
Alternatively, there might have been no hacking at all but Robbert, who has had a troubled youth and subject to deep depression, might occasionally flip and his alter-ego fires off this filth in some psychological release – something even he doesn’t remember afterwards! Who knows?
Here is part of a message I broadcast in the plaza, addressed to Stan
If Robbert continues to insist that another person is responsible for his evil and nasty actions against Constantia, then he is very likely suffering from the mental disorder known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) which was formerly called Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), commonly still called “split personality disorder.”
As I said before, Stan, I give you the benefit of the doubt. You could be consciously lying to us all about Robbert’s responsibility here, but I like to think you are not lying, but just deluded by your own idealism.
So why not discard the ridiculous story about Robbert’s computer being hacked by someone else, because it wasn’t hacked at all.
Robbert sent those nasty emails to Constantia, and no one receiving this message believes otherwise, except for you and perhaps Nancy Talbott.
Do yourself a favor, Stan, and start telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Now what is critical to understand about a DID/MPD condition is that the person we know as Robbert, as he presents himself to the world, is called the “host personality.” But this host will have absolutely no awareness that these other “alters” or “multiples” even exist, let alone have any memory of their behaviours.
Therefore, Robbert will profess no memory at all of this scatological 4 year old brat “alter.” Just as he has no memory of a 3rd “alter,” who is the person who makes the crop circles in the fields. Constantia reminded me that Robbert would come home with muddy boots on and wonder where the mud came from. Obviously it came from his crop-circle making “alter,” who strikes me as a teenage “alter” who is quite competent in gardening and other field work.
The only mystery for me is how Stan fits in. I’m not sure if Stan is completely unaware of Robbert’s multiple personalities, or if he is consciously enabling them to continue because he genuinely believes in the paranormal abilities of his own “host.”
My comments are prefaced by the initials DH.
Hollywood Tomfortas says: September 6, 2012 at 3:20 pm
David,
I do appreciate your multi-layered approach and paradoxical speculation here as it provides valuable feedback for the investigation into the this farcical paranormal grimoire.
I would be very interested in you giving any details of your “reasonable authority” about the alleged hacking.
DH Sorry Tom but unable to reveal my ‘reasonable authority’.
But worry not because it is probably no more reasonable than any other and never should prevent discussion or analysis on matters as controversial as this one…especially from an esteemed retired maths and science teacher as yourself!
You see, I find it well nigh impossible to imagine any reasonable explanation for the hacking outside of Stan himself — for the simple reason that the hacker can only be Stan himself. Recall that Stan is a self-confessed amateur magician and mentalist. As well he is quite adept at IT work. Therefore, he has the “means, motive and opportunity” to commit the hacking himself, or at least create a plausible illusion that Robbert’s computer was hacked. What I am really saying is that there was no hacking at all, but Stan is able to play the illusionist here.
DH Well I had heard of Stan’s background but I’ve also heard that he feels these magical skills make him the ideal person to judge whether or not trickery is going on. The story goes, as you know, that Stan the sceptic is now very much Stan the convinced – unless of course your version is correct that he is being persuaded to use his skills for fakery in some way.
I feel just a little uneasy to be discussing him or raising doubts about his integrity in this way having never met the guy or spoken to him – so I do invite you Stan or Robbert if you’re reading this (as inevitably you will because people love to spread gossip) to feel free to respond if necessary with a defence.
Now let me inform you of the facts of this particular scatological outburst of Robbert, since your speculation is eminently logical but quite misinformed.
(Snip – for Tom’s full comments see his posting above)
DH Thank you for this detailed information. I am no web techie so feel unqualified to fully judge whether hacking may be involved here.
But in previous email hacks which have happened to me, one’s address book is somehow hijacked and messages sent out to everybody in one’s address list – almost always spam.
In this case, it seems according to your information related above, there was some kind of dialogue between different parties which I agree sounds rather different from the usual hacking – especially if it is irregular and stopping and starting over a long period.
And all of this leads to your next speculation, David, which aligns perfectly with mine. We seem to be on the same wavelength here. You wrote:
Alternatively, there might have been no hacking at all but Robbert, who has had a troubled youth and subject to deep depression, might occasionally flip and his alter-ego fires off this filth in some psychological release – something even he doesn’t remember afterwards! Who knows?
Here is part of a message I broadcast in the plaza, addressed to Stan
If Robbert continues to insist that another person is responsible for his evil and nasty actions against Constantia, then he is very likely suffering from the mental disorder known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) which was formerly called Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), commonly still called “split personality disorder.”
As I said before, Stan, I give you the benefit of the doubt. You could be consciously lying to us all about Robbert’s responsibility here, but I like to think you are not lying, but just deluded by your own idealism.
So why not discard the ridiculous story about Robbert’s computer being hacked by someone else, because it wasn’t hacked at all.
Robbert sent those nasty emails to Constantia, and no one receiving this message believes otherwise, except for you and perhaps Nancy Talbott.
Do yourself a favor, Stan, and start telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Now what is critical to understand about a DID/MPD condition is that the person we know as Robbert, as he presents himself to the world, is called the “host personality.” But this host will have absolutely no awareness that these other “alters” or “multiples” even exist, let alone have any memory of their behaviours.
Therefore, Robbert will profess no memory at all of this scatological 4 year old brat “alter.” Just as he has no memory of a 3rd “alter,” who is the person who makes the crop circles in the fields. Constantia reminded me that Robbert would come home with muddy boots on and wonder where the mud came from. Obviously it came from his crop-circle making “alter,” who strikes me as a teenage “alter” who is quite competent in gardening and other field work.
The only mystery for me is how Stan fits in. I’m not sure if Stan is completely unaware of Robbert’s multiple personalities, or if he is consciously enabling them to continue because he genuinely believes in the paranormal abilities of his own “host.”
D Thanks again for the background here. I am glad we seem to be on the same page over this.
My comments about the split personality idea was simply conjecture based on my personal understanding of MPD etc.
Robbert with his admitted troubled background might logically fit the MPD profile here but the offensive emails could equally originate in the mind of Stan or be some bizarre attempt by Stan to discredit Robbert. Don’t ask me why…
Alternatively of course it could still be a hacker with a dog to run in this bizarre race, who poses as Stan or Robbert, putting bad words in their mouths…..
Come in please Sherlock Holmes…..
My advice on the matter of abusive or vulgar emails is for those that have received such emails to contact abuse@hotmail.com and request that the matter be investigated.
Microsoft, being the operators of live.nl and hotmail.nl email services, will be able investigate your claim, and any claims by the sender of email account ‘hacking’.
Email leaves an extremely traceable digital trail throughout its transit from sender to receiver, and can be traced to a precise location or property.
Now that ís interesting, gtechinvestigations … But do they really do that when you have received two extreme vulgar e-mails? And will they reveal their findings to you?
Colin has released a statement on his blog.
http://colinandrews.blogspot.co.uk/
Look, you guys at Gtech have nothing to be ashamed about. I’m sure you did a good job. But a little sheepishness may be in order, at least enough to tell the truth about your total and abysmal failure to debunk and/or explain Robbert & Stan.
If this were a sport, it would be most like European football, our American soccer. In a typical low-scoring game, I would have to list the score of the 2012 Crop Circle Cup as follows, with the only goal scored by Colin shooting it into his own net.
BLT – 1
GTECH – 0
Maybe after the Mayan Calendar runs out and Colin comes home from his Mayan Cruise, you guys will have a rematch?
In the meantime, Nancy, Robbert & Stan will be taking a victory lap out in one of Robbert’s crop circle fields in his neighborhood in Holland.
Tom