This blog had a few minor updates in terms of additional examples of fallacies, a larger update on August 24, 2022, some in-between updates after this and a major update again on December 6, 2022, with new fallacies from Skepsis board members Pepijn van Erp and Aliette Jonkers in 2022. These can be recognized by the blue sphere: / 🔵 2022 / at the caption and by the / 🟢🟢🟢🟢🟢🟢 2022 /where it is shown how a fallacy can fall under various categories.

Swamps of Sadness. It is a barren swampland with quicksand-like mud pools. Anyone who becomes depressed while in the swampland sinks into the mud and drowns. Source
“Die Sümpfe der Traurigkeit” appear in Michael Ende’s “The Neverending Story” Featured image: Michael Ende, Die unendliche Geschichte, Illustriert von Sebastian Meschenmoser, Thienemann Verlag, page 60.

t.l.d.r. The collision course and demise of online skeptical discussions demonstrated on the basis of a partial history of the Dutch Skepsis Foundation, its board members, discussion forums and social media, especially Twitter


Skepsis 2005-2014 2011-
The Pandemic
Block, blocker, blocked
The price of hurtful words
How then?
Mrs Screenshot
Fallacies and other not-niceties
The next danger
Update (August 24, 2022 f.f.)

Practical note beforehand. In order to make this rich multi-media text quickly retrievable and suitable for various platforms, the smallest size images were chosen. You can view the images in large format by right-clicking “Open image in New Tab”.

Skepsis 2005-2014

In 2004-2005 I became involved with the Dutch Skepsis Foundation, when TV host Irene Moors brought together the heads of Rob Nanninga, Jan Willem Nienhuys, both board members of Skepsis, me and many hundreds of others in the FOK topic about self-proclaimed “There Is So Much More” medium” Robbert van den Broeke.

Robbert van den Broeke discussed his critics Jan Willem Nienhuys and me on his YouTube channel. I have already published a lot about him and the group around him on

My interest arose from my own background: I had (already, more followed) published a book about out-of-body experiences.

With that I had appeared in, among others, the highly popular Dutch talk show Kopspijkers.

An active time with more than 50 topics about the Hoevense self-proclaimed medium followed. The mostly “paranormal” oriented discussions led via FOK to the website of the Skepsis Foundation, where Rob Nanninga was a board member since 1987 and also editor-in-chief of the Skepsis magazine “Skepter” and webmaster since 2002. I also got to know Nanninga and Nienhuys behind the scenes. A friendship with ups and certainly as many downs followed, but it was clear: something special had arisen here between two official Dutch skeps and myself. Nanninga, for example, had me design the front of the Skepter twice.

I attended several Skepsis conferences and in 2010 the James Randi event in Utrecht.

Rob Nanninga and I also discussed the “para photos” of Van den Broeke together and imitated them successfully.

In addition, I had ties with “the other side”: Merkawah (nowadays: Network Near-Death Experiences) and also visited their conference with well-known attendees such as photographer, astrology researcher and writer Rudolf Smit and cardiologist, researcher and writer Pim van Lommel.

In the years that followed, I purposely stayed close to the Skepsis Foundation. Idealistic as I was, I hoped to build a bridge between the “altos” and the “skeps”. In the early days I called myself spiritual, meaning conscious living, looking for answers to existential questions such as: is the Earth a karmic school for people, does reincarnation exist, is there life after physical death? The skeptical and scientific side also interested me explicitly. With my own background, especially in remembering and writing down dreams and experiencing out-of-body experiences, I hoped to contribute to more knowledge among discussion participants, but also to adjust my own ideas about this spirituality if I discovered shortcomings in it. Gradually I learned a lot and that was not only about the content, but also about the form of the discussion. I had never been taught arguing in school, at least not concerning the forbidden use of fallacies. And I can already tell you that, thanks to my time among skeptics, I also adjusted my ideas substantively, from “Certainly, out-of-body experiences must be proof of life after death” to “There are enough indications that the human mind is very versatile, and perhaps the spirit’s survival after physical death is indeed a reality.” So I started to learn both in terms of content and discussion forms!
The highlight was the discussion about Pim van Lommel’s blockbuster “Consciousness Beyond Life”. In addition to Rudolf Smit, psychologist and philosopher Titus Rivas and anesthetist Gerald Woerlee also made their appearance.

Like me, Rudolf Smit is active on both sides. He was present at the founding meeting of the Skepsis Foundation in the International School of Philosophy in Amersfoort in 1987 (at 8 Dodeweg! ;-)). Incidentally, Jan Willem Nienhuys mentions another location, namely the Humanist Association in Utrecht, but also says that there was an earlier attempt at founding. The first Skepter issue appeared in March 1988. In that issue, essential matters such as the goals of the Skepsis Foundation are discussed. Although Skepsis was founded in response to the ambitions of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, abbreviated: CSICOP, and in particular of its very active founder, skeptic and secular humanist Paul Kurtz, Skepsis wanted to be an entirely Dutch experience. with the aim of bringing together as many noses as possible from as many directions as possible for a fruitful, colorful and broad discussion:


What can and should Skepsis learn from these experiences of CSICOP in the US? Personally I think three things:
First of all, all attention must be focused on acquiring the broadest possible base of supporters, people from all backgrounds, all levels of education and all professional groups. This is essential to prevent Skepsis from becoming a scientific dispute that is entrenched in its ivory tower.
In addition, we must prevent polarization from being promoted by Skepsis; after all, it is not about being right, being proved right or winning a dispute, but about presenting a ‘reasonably alternative’ view of reality to society that can be very satisfying for everyone in all situations.

We must strive for a spread over the professional fields of the working group members and the board members. At the moment, there is significantly greater interest in Skepsis among doctors, astronomers and physicists than among economists, sociologists and Dutch scientists. If that turns out to be structural, it will be a serious threat to the viability of the good idea called Skepsis. In that respect, we as board members face a major challenge and task in expanding the organisation. Hopefully we will build something that we can look back on with social satisfaction in ten years’ time. Drs. Bert van Gelder is secretary of Skepsis and works as a sociologist at the University of Amsterdam.” Source: Skepter Volume 1, Issue 1, 1988.

Smit’s contact with Nanninga and Nienhuys dates from about 1990. Smit used to be an astrologer, but after a disconcerting experience with an erroneous exchange of client data, where the client in question had been very satisfied with the interpretation intended for another lady, he had rejected the belief in astrological eloquence. On November 10, 1990, Smit gave a lecture at the Skepsis congress and he had also published several times in the Skepter (volumes 1990, 1992, 1995). His turn from practicing astrologer to astrology skeptic caused Smit to suffer three years of depression, but he had the open-mindedness to adjust his worldview and wrote a raw-honest piece about it.

Hot Skepsis topics were next to Pim van Lommel’s book “Consciousness Beyond Life”, the astrology-Gauquelin discussions, the AWARE studies of Sam Parnia and related near-death experiences topics, the Dentures man and the Pam Reynolds case.

During the vigorous discussions, there were certainly some serious chips, such as Martin Bier’s statement that Pim Van Lommel’s book costs human lives. Martin Bier is occasionally, but for many years already active on the two Skepsis websites, on and on, and has a PhD in physics.

However, the language remained well under control, there was usually no swearing and the impression was not given that – I am exaggerating only a little now, I think – only stupid and smart people exist on this globe.

The discussions among a mixed group meandered on, among others, (registered by me first),, and for example Nienhuys posted on the forum under the humorous name “Lichtbol”, meaning “Orb”. After years I deleted the relevant pages and discussions, in which there was a lot of participation, my first blog about Pim van Lommel had even received more than 650 responses. I was able to retrieve this blog and a small part of the comments via Internet Archive.

Nienhuys gradually taught me what an ad hominem was.

A bit of a silly comment from me that James Randi was physically so small, could count on a reprimand from Master Nienhuys: “This is an ad hominem, you shouldn’t do that.” I can’t find the relevant exchange anymore, but here’s a link to a detailed sample discussion page on about Randi and related like Woerlee, with me in the earlier days, in 2012. It took me a while, but: I learned !

With Nanninga I even came to a Flowerpower moment on February 6, 2011: Rob Nanninga: “@ Sten Luckily we agree on this (a warm virtual hug is coming your way ;-)).”

On, I also got to know Pepijn van Erp (1972, originally a mathematician) from a distance, because I had emigrated to America in October 2011, and Van Erp had ended up at the Skepsis Foundation at exactly the same time, 2011-2012.

Fast forward 2014. Rob Nanninga passed away! He was only 58 years old! I was deeply shocked, my Skepsis friend had traded the temporary for the eternal.

Pepijn van Erp took over from Nanninga and became content manager of Skepsis. He took over Rob Nanninga’s PC, which was chock full of Skepsis activities.
Together, Jan Willem Nienhuys and I worked on the translation of “Fliegergedicht” (by the German Neofolk band Darkwood that Rob loved) for Rob Nanninga’s In Memoriam booklet. 2011-

The discussion about all sorts of paranormal and less paranormal matters continued to grow on the Skepsis branch, formally operating independently, which has been officially managed by Maarten Koller since 2011, but was actually mainly in the hands of Pepijn van Erp. The moderation by Van Erp in particular was different from that on under Rob Nanninga.

Now I am not only speaking about my own experience, but certainly also about that of a number of others, who, like me, had come more from the “alternative” – what is called – corner and with whom I also had contact behind the scenes. If I had felt relatively safe on, it was different on I was attacked no matter what I said and however I tried to professionalize my discussion techniques. The moderator(s) allowed(s) people to be bullied.

You saw fewer and fewer commenters there and certainly a lot less famous people from both the skeptical and non-skeptical angles. Many commentators came and went, including people I knew personally, such as Rudolf Smit, Titus Rivas and board member of SPR, Study Association for Psychical Research, Fred Melssen. Behind and in front of the scenes, Rudolf Smit tried with all his might to reach the moderation, consisting almost exclusively of Van Erp, but it was like shouting in the desert and Smit also disappeared disappointed from the skeptical discussion stage.

A very small club of regular commenters consisting of Jan Willem Nienhuys, “Wilmamazone/”Wilma S”/”Wilma”, “JennyJo”, “MariannedO”, “Hans/Hans1263”, “RV”, “FVerweren/”FrankVerweven”/” FVerweven”, “Renate1” and a few more people held out and still do. This concerns almost largely anonymous accounts, that is to say: the identity of these people is not known to the visitors of the website.

People were also permanently blocked by Van Erp, such as “Ragnar” (pseudo), “Theo van Bergen” (pseudo), “Mopje” (ditto) and Harry Smit (real name). Incidentally, the regular commentators also got into a fight, for example “Wilma” and “JennyJo”, “Wilma” and “FVerweven”, “Wilma” and “RV” and “RV” and “FVerweven” went for each others throats.

The die-hard “FVerweven” seems to have closed the door behind him in 2021. “IkBenWeg“: “So you see, if there is no more love and attention for a website, so no strict moderation, then the sleepers and screamers will eventually take over the site. […] Congratulations RV, you have won the site is now yours. I wish everyone a happy turn of the century.”

There is one comment in particular from “FVerweven” on an article by Pepijn van Erp that stayed with me.

That comment fits within the framework of this blog: “FVerweven” on September 8, 2016: “Tuthola: stupid, clumsy, often also prudish, stiff woman. Why call that woman a tuthola, there is no need to do that, right? It’s only giving skeptics a bad reputation.” “FVerweven” aimed at the title of the blog that had immediately set the tone with the word “Tuthola”.

However, blood is thicker than water, and a small hard core remained. Hundreds of comments were sometimes lost at the same time, because commenters, angry at each other and at the moderation, removed them with great fanfare. Again and again I also felt unwillingness or downright hostility, also with the moderator Van Erp and occasionally also with Maarten Koller. In my case I got the impression that not my posts, but only my name and background mattered, so an all-round ad hominem, in which I as a human being was dismissed as a whole. Some of the die-hard commenters even demanded that I publicly distance myself from my out-of-body experiences books and delete my blogs about Rob Nanninga on the double.

When an article appeared on in 2012 that has some overlap with my books, my contribution was eagerly awaited and people started to grumble now that I was shining through conscious absence. I knew through experience what they were after here: bloody tearing the “para” theme apart and then throwing it out like rubbish, including baby with bathwater. The group of commentators and the moderation there will probably deny this vehemently, but my impression is this: there is no real openness to such themes. In short: I thanked for the “honour”.

After the umpteenth disappointing experience, I shrugged my shoulders and in 2018 I also definitively closed the door on The feeling that prevailed among all those who have since dropped off can perhaps be expressed in this way: “You don’t have to knock on the door of the moderation, because you won’t find anyone there anyway”. At the mercy of the wolves! But why was and is it this way and why was there so remarkably little assistance from the moderation corner?

With the arrival of, the already difficult online Dutch and English dialogue between “Skepsis” and “Alto-land” gradually but unmistakably disappeared. Woerlee and Smit, and other closely involved people, were spotted less and less frequently, until both “parties” seemed to have almost completely withdrawn into their own camps, which in my personal impression still is the case.

Meanwhile, the importance of Facebook, but especially Twitter, grew. The friendly, slightly goofy, Dutch Hippie Flower Power Flowers and Butterflies Hyves (2004-2013) era, where discussions had also taken place, was a nostalgic, distant memory. Van Erp became increasingly active on Twitter. In 2018, as far as he and I are concerned, a turning point occurred. Although Van Erp had published an article in which I was mentioned as a co-main character and in which earlier Robbert van den Broeke cases were elaborated upon, the gap had become too great for me to return to

The Pandemic

Fast forward 2020. The Pandemic had arrived! We all plunged into unknown territory and the battle over whether or not vaccinations, the Corona rules and lock downs, mandatory working from home, education via Zoom, mask obligation, vaccination certificates and what else they caused and still cause great unrest at a large part of society. Distrust of the government and mistrust of each other increasingly rose.

The typical Dutch word “wappie” in the sense of “wandering spirit” was initially only used occasionally during the crisis, but gradually it became more and more frequent until finally, at the time of this blog, autumn 2021, it really was the most used “special” word of the year.

Explanatory blogs, whether or not skeptical, have sprung up like mushrooms here and there, but core discussions about Corona and other skeptical topics were no longer mainly held in and under blogs, but mainly on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
Tweets are easily found by Google and other search engines and are quick and easy to quote, because: short. On Twitter, the character limit per post is currently 280 characters. And inserting a Twitter link url is a piece of cake. However, the limited framework of Twitter requires drastic curtailment, so arguments must also be mentioned in minimal word quantities and threads, sometimes with sixty parts, became inevitable and so something was found again: the Thread Unroller. By now I would describe the counterpart of the unlimited amount of comments and discussions on among the blogs as extremely dull. What started to strike me more and more was the incredibly raw tone on Twitter, the lack, and sometimes even the complete absence of solid arguments, the profanity and the predominant anonymity of many posters.

When even the always very moderate and extremely well-founded co-founder of the Skepsis Foundation, Marcel Hulspas, started to go out on Twitter in an unmistakable tone, and even used the word “wappie”, I had to swallow.

But maybe Hulspas was shocked by it himself! 😉

A selective look, selected for the content of this blog, at opinion maker Chris Klomp‘s website, namely where it is about “wappies”, illustrates in my opinion the blind spots that exist on both sides, the “skeps and the altos”, of the (Corona -) struggle. I’ve put one sentence in red, which I think can be thought-provoking, given the rest of the titles: “Stop with that hatred towards journalists”. I have also put the use of the word “wappies” in bold.

The war of words on Twitter often transitions seamlessly into doxing or doxing, so beyond the online frame of the tweet, with, for example, posting private addresses and employer names on Twitter.

For example, on August 15, 2020 Pepijn van Erp posted in response to a post from the Twitter account “Ethics is everywhere” with a photo of a Corona demonstration with, admittedly, blurred children with a “Star of David” the full name of the father of the two children. Although Gert van Dijk of the “Ethics is everywhere” account posted precisely to expose something, I thought that was a tweet that can cause extra rottenness. My assessment was correct, as it turned out, because soon after, for example, the unblurred photo of the children appeared (which is still online at the time of writing this blog). When I sent an alarmed mail to Jan Willem Nienhuys about it, Nienhuys did not respond. Van Erp did delete the tweet.

Block, blocker, blocked

In April 2020, I was suddenly blocked without explanation on Van Erp’s personal Twitter account, even after a few online inquiries. On Twitter I occasionally respond to him from my involvement with the Skepsis Foundation, to my knowledge and memory always in a good mood or civilized. I had not emailed him since November 2019. This requires a brief explanation. Van Erp and I e-mailed at our leisure, and there were many occasions because of the Robbert van den Broeke case and also because of Because the Van den Broeke case was a long-lived one, the number of emails amounts to many hundreds, to be precise: 4483 emails from me to Van Erp, explicitly including many group emails, because many people participated in the Robbert van den Broeke discussion, and 945 emails from Van Erp to me. Exactly one year later, he also blocked me on the Twitter Skepsis account he manages. In my opinion this was of a different order. I haven’t done blocks at all for quite some time now (probably a few years now). After all: Twitter will remain visible, unless you lock your account completely. Blocking actually calls for taking screenshots, because you can’t join the discussion at the bottom of the tweet for your comment(s). With blocks you send a message to the other person: “You no longer exist for me”. I continue(d) to respond to Van Erp’s tweets, but because I had no other choice, indirectly, i.e. via screenshots, and certainly when I decided to write this blog about my disturbing observations about skeptical discussions. Here’s an example of my response.

He had briefly unblocked me once, when Eelco de Rook, an online Twitter friend, briefly discussed Van Erp’s blocking behavior on Twitter with me, but after a very short exchange in which, in my firm impression, Pepijn van Erp gave irrelevant arguments and just was out of focus, and I mentioned my observation of this too, I went back on his block.

His now fellow Skepsis board member, since about spring 2021, medical journalist Aliette Jonkers already blocked me in early 2020 after I tweeted about her participation about the Corona Virus in Koffietijd that I liked the “doctor look” of her profile picture more than her “glamor look”, which she mistakenly took as an insult. Which I also said conciliatory, but by then it was already too late. It was just a comment, not meant ad hominem, I only knew her from that profile picture where she wears a white blouse which created a positive “doctor feeling” in me. When I did respond substantively and substantiated it a little later, about flu figures in the US that I believe she had misinterpreted in her performance in Koffietijd, I never heard anything again and I remained blocked by her forever (my account name was still Robbert van den Broeke related @genverbrander10).

In fact, being blocked can feel like a form of censorship. Affected tweets will no longer be visible if you are logged in yourself and Twitter messages will constantly appear: “You can’t view this Tweet because this account owner restricts who can view his Tweets”.

What remains of enthusiasm and benevolence on the skeptic side if people who (partly) think differently want to contribute to discussions? At a certain point after Van Erp’s block, I was responded to on some of my tweets on, and Pepijn van Erp responded to as follows: “I deleted the discussion about Oomen anyway, it didn’t make much sense to me and just feeds her curious obsession with Skepsis, Kloptdatwel and my tweets.” Reactions about me, including his own reaction, have since been completely removed by Van Erp.

Behind the scenes I sometimes e-mailed Jan Willem Nienhuys about the increasingly absent discussion among the blogs, and also about and the statements of Van Erp and also reported this a few times on Twitter because I like to work with an open visor. My more recent emails were also about ad hominems such as the frequently used word “incitement creationist” by Van Erp. But after Rob Nanninga’s death, and with a reserve that I increasingly thought I could detect in Nienhuys, Nienhuys and I no longer seemed on the same page. When I once criticized the ins and outs of Skepsis/Kloptdatwel, Nienhuys responded in an email of Thursday, December 22, 2016 that he was not open to criticism or feedback from people who “not even” subscribe or donate to Skepsis (I did in the past). I don’t see how that makes a difference. To my surprise, Jan Willem Nienhuys wrote to me that “Each man speaks in his own fashion.” and he did not respond at all to my ad hominem emails. The non-ad hominem rule that applied to me apparently did not apply to Skepsis board member Pepijn van Erp. An uneasy idea began to dawn on me: was there perhaps double standards here by the two mathematical board members of Skepsis: Nienhuys and Van Erp?

Very occasionally I also had contact via Twitter with Catherine de Jong of the Association against Quackery, who is closely involved in the Skepsis board and attends meetings. I asked her to talk to Van Erp to ask him to remove his blockade against me, because this does not create a uniform image among people that we, in particular Rob Nanninga, Jan Willem Nienhuys, Pepijn van Erp and I, scrutinized in the past together, such as the aforementioned Hoeven Robbert van den Broeke. This question was met with resistance. De Jong said that Van Erp had personal concerns, but when I stated that everyone has them and that in my opinion that is no reason for this kind of hostility, she fell silent.

The Pandemic continued to plague and emotions on Twitter rose, not least because of people like Janet Ossebaard, Donald Trump and QAnon supporters, but in my opinion certainly also by people who expressed their disapproval in increasingly strong terms. This was no longer a civilized discussion, but rather a bloody attempt to tear apart “adversaries”. Twitter’s Abuse button was clicked more than ever.

All these statements were taken 100% verbatim from Twitter accounts in 2020-2021 and expressed in particular on the following Twitter accounts: Skepsis board member @pjvanerp (the majority), Skepsis board member @aliettejonkers, @DanielTuijnman ea. The statement above left “Shut the f up, wappie” comes from Chris Klomp.

The price of hurtful words

Already in the early prelude to Skepsis, a very unsavory case had arisen, which showed that uttering suspicious, hurtful words can be very hard when someone is already feeling vulnerable. It concerns the case of the French psychologist Michel Gauquelin. The Mars effect hypothesis was first published by Gauquelin in 1955 and stated that Mars occupies certain positions in the sky more often in the birth of sports champions. Jan Willem Nienhuys had only started working with all the data after Gauquelin’s death, but this did not prevent him from attacking Gauquelin firmly posthumously.

This has been one of the biggest brain teasers among skeptics: is there still more than skeptics think possible? In 1991, Skepsis hosted a European skeptical conference, ‘A Critique of Astrology’, at which this Mars effect was discussed in detail. Participants included astrology/psychology leaders: Rudolf Smit, Geoffrey Dean, Suitbert Ertel and Michel Gauquelin. Gauquelin was beset by a deluge of skeptical attacks after the release of his Mars effect data, and the case has literally lasted more than half a century and well past Gauquelin’s death. This pen struggle also finds expression in the book Tests of Astrology (Page 79, edition 2016. Auteurs Dean, Mather, Nias & Smit): “Later, in Dutch, in his 2012 obituary of Paul Kurtz, Nienhuys says Gauquelin “alleged” the Comité Para had replicated the Mars effect, implying (wrongly) that they hadn’t, see […]. He then accuses Gauquelin of cheating (“I cannot call it otherwise“) and of deceiving people about his data, both of which are untrue, but says nothing about the extraordinary bad behaviour of Mars effect skeptics including Kurtz that led to accusations of self-serving bias, see […], the same self-serving bias that Nienhuys seems incapable of avoiding.”

Gauquelin, at the age of sixty-two and 128 days after this skeptical congress, committed suicide, after his second wife had also left him, in this vulnerable time.
Behind the scenes there had been a big clash about this between Rudolf Smit and Rob Nanninga, when Nanninga saw a letter sent in by Smit in TvP (Tijdschrift voor Parapsychologie, In Vol 77, Nr 3, 2010) about this case a year and a half later. Smit had strongly criticized the working method of skeptics in general and Nanninga, who thought he also meant Jan Willem Nienhuys, had made a strict demand on Smit: rectification in the form of an apology. When it later transpired that Nanninga had not read the letter to the reader properly, he reneged on his hard demand and his commitment to both truth and softness proved to be true, for he admitted his mistake in conciliatory and remarkably soft words (full correspondence in possession of CO).

And also within the board ranks of Skepsis the water was (and still is?) bubbling vigorously. That started very early, when, in addition to Jan Willem Nienhuys and Rob Nanninga, Marcel Hulspas was also a board member. These three were there from the start, Nanninga is mentioned as a board member from the second issue of the Skepter. The colophon of all Skepters clearly shows how the positions shifted, new people came in and left, but the hard core, consisting of Marcel Hulspas, Jan Willem Nienhuys and Rob Nanninga, remained.

Until suddenly Marcel Hulspas resigned from the Skepter issue of December 2002. Behind the scenes, emotions ran high about the handling of Christian matters of faith in the Skepter, with Rob opposing and Marcel in favour. Jan Willem Nienhuys about the departure of Hulspas: “A few things changed at Skepsis at the end of 2002. Chief editor Marcel Hulspas of Skepter wanted to print a chapter of a book by the English psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, translated and summarized by me at his request. Rob was opposed: it was an over-simplified anti-religion piece, and besides it was very old cake, because it was a well-known Amnesty lecture that had been on the internet for five years already. Such old foreign scraps, that’s nothing for Skepter. Hulspas had been doing less and less of Skepter for a while. He had long been working on a book about the sources of the Old Testament, which finally appeared in 2006. He also made vague allusions to the expansion of Skepsis’ scope: not just UFOs, altos and astros, but a frontal attack on religion and never mind the freethinkers of “De Vrije Gedachte”. The result was that he decided to break with Skepsis immediately.
That this struggle for “skeptical tolerance” is timeless is evidenced by a random sentence from the Wikipedia page about the prominent and already mentioned skeptic Paul Kurtz: “At the Council of Secular Humanism’s Los Angeles conference (7–10 October 2010), tension over the future of humanism was on display as Kurtz urged a more accommodationist approach to religion while his successors argued for a more adversarial approach.”

I have known this first color edition of the Skepter since the Robbert van den Broeke time 2005-2006 because of the “Paranormal blue tits”. At one point I had put the domain up for sale and I had promised the proceeds to the Dutch Bird Conservation. I had used the beautiful Blue Tit front for the website. Unfortunately there were no buyers and I transferred the domain name for free to Stichting Skepsis in March 2015 via Pepijn van Erp. Only since writing this blog did I know that this cheerful yellow-green issue of the Skepter with my favorite animal species on it: the bird! is Rob Nannninga’s hand in his first capacity as editor-in-chief of the “Skepter”.

Frictions or differences in ambitions were also apparent from the fact that Jan Willem Nienhuys made a trip to the Dutch Association against Quackery in 2009-2010, where he suddenly turned out to be a webmaster and published many articles there in a short period of time. I was very surprised about that at the time, because he suddenly seemed to have left and I emailed Nanninga and Nienhuys extensively about it. On Monday 11 May 2009, Rob Nanninga wrote to me: “They asked JW if he wanted to become website editor and apparently that appealed to him. I don’t know much about it. I also only knew that he had written a big book about China the day it was published.” and on the same day: “He actually switched, although he didn’t announce it (I only saw it when I looked at the website of the VtdK).” After more than a year it turned out that after some time Nienhuys’ emotions had run very high and he, in addition to being a spokesman, was no longer even a member of the Association against Quackery. Rob was hesitant about it and wrote, among other things, that he had more pleasant things to do.

Jan Willem Nienhuys’ Association against Quackery Exercise did not last long. About a year and a half later, in the fall of 2010, Nienhuys had left with a silent drum, towards the outside world, but with a loud one behind the scenes. Reasons for his departure were partly due to his dissatisfaction with the VtdK policy. Nienhuys criticized the VtdK because, according to him, it had not conducted its own research since time immemorial, but was always rushing to criticize research carried out by the Skepsis Foundation, furthermore it was mainly aimed at mere doctors’ input and according to him, sought publicity in a careless manner. I also emailed the VtdK to ask about this departure. On Thursday, November 25, 2010, I received what I think is a strange reaction. I will paraphrase again to respect email secrecy. It was confirmed that Nienhuys was completely gone after a disagreement and a proposal from me to design their Twitter logo (an idea I had at the time, don’t ask) was rejected because of my publications about out-of-body experiences and astral eroticism. After all, I belonged to the “parties contested” (this wording was used literally).
This is, of course, ad hominem as being placed over a person as a whole. After all: because of books about my “astral” out-of-body experiences, my graphic ideas were also rejected. It would have been understandable to me if I had been a medical quack, but my publications on out-of-body experiences are just that: a description and interpretation of universal consciousness experiences, which has nothing to do with medical quackery. This was also felt by Nienhuys who never saw any harm in my “astral activities”.

The aforementioned co-founder of Skepsis, Marcel Hulspas, turned out also not to be a fan of the Association against Quackery in 2013, as evidenced by the fulminating piece he published on ThePostOnline.

But things also did not always go smoothly between Nienhuys and Nanninga, with Rob Nanninga being the advocate of greater tolerance towards the actions of dissenters, such as “even” public speaking rights for people who “sell dangerous nonsense”. This became apparent in 2010 from a jousting back and forth following a Skepsis blog regarding a lecture by the still active Johan Oldenkamp. In an email that I believe Rob Nanninga was the only one ever to label “This mail is private” at the bottom of all his mails (not the mail shown in this paragraph), he wrote that his ethics differed from those of Jan Willem Nienhuys (paraphrased and under omission of the rest). The blog in question was later removed from the Skepsis website altogether due to this haggling.

Most words don’t hurt. But words that lack tolerant subtlety, trust in the goodness of the innkeeper or substantiation, or a combination of these troublemakers, can have very serious consequences. These kinds of words seem to be on the rise, which was shockingly reflected in the (Social Media) Era of Donald Trump with the absolute anti-climax of the storming of the Capitol that I, as an official American since 2017, watched with tears in my eyes from a safe distance in Davis, California.
The consequences of hard or derailed battles of words can be financial. Lawsuits come with a hefty price tag. Actions and deeds can also arise from it, crimes such as arson, attacks, sometimes even fatal, as was the case with the QAnon several times.

Since my story continues to follow the Skepsis Foundation, here too follows the example of differences between the online active board members of the Skepsis Foundation. Skepsis board members who were and are highly visible online or publicly (TV, radio, etc.) were always in the minority. If Rob Nanninga successfully managed to stay out of the hands of angry recipients free of charge during all those years 1987–2014 with his often lengthy and in-depth articles on thorny subjects, Van Erp was unable to do so in a much shorter period of time.

Nanninga had to take on a one-time lawsuit in 1994-1995 against prosecutor Wies Moget, who talked people into false and harmful memories in a cult-like setting, which Nanninga had successfully brought up, after which Moget’s institute no longer received financial support from the Dutch GGD and social services. However, he was so substantiated that all charges were dismissed by the judge and Moget had to reimburse all legal costs incurred. Rob Nanninga is also known for his rather descriptive pieces in which the accusation usually only emerges in a subtle or consciously hypothermic way. He didn’t use explicit, offensive terms, and when he did use them, they certainly weren’t numerous, well-embedded, and clearly not written in the tenor of loose hail.
Jan Willem Nienhuys speaks about Rob’s careful and mild character: “Many people have testified how Rob always remained polite and respectful in his contacts with people he disagreed with. […] He was a perfectionist. His legacy is about 600 pages of thoroughly researched articles. […] Rob was in a sense the skeptic’s skeptic. Many skeptics and rationalists have a tendency to preach for the converted, but this wasn’t Rob’s style. He was strict in his views, urban legend researcher Peter Burger wrote to me, but mild in his statements and communications. He was typically a reasonable and cooperative man. […] Rob sometimes explained that when he started on a subject, he often didn’t know anything about it, but then he studied it until he knew it thoroughly. You can imagine this was hard work, with sometimes surprising results. […] He always was worried that he would make a mistake that would cost Skepsis its scientific reputation.
In line with this: Nanninga wrote to me in response to his lengthy article about the Moon sect that he was a little tense whether someone was going to sue him, but that never happened, and the Moget case cost Skepsis nothing or very little in terms of financial costs.

The court in Groningen rejected the demand on 15 December 1995, because it concluded Skepsis had not been unnecessarily offensive or grievous, and Nanninga had backed up all of his claims well. Wikipedia

As mentioned, the Skepsis board member of Erp did not manage to stay out of serious Skepsis problems. He wrote a blog about the American-Italian nuclear physicist Ruggero Santilli and used a few sentences and formulations that inflamed the Santillis to such an extent that they (Ruggero Santilli with his wife Carla in his wake) sued both Pepijn van Erp, Skepsis chairman Frank Israel and also Van Erp’s provider in 2016-2017 as “bearer of the offensive words”. Frank Israel had nothing to do with it at all, but the offended Santilli was unstoppable and if Van Erp and Israel did nothing, Israel (and of course Van Erp too) would find his entry options into the United States severely hampered because of this lawsuit that would then remain pending. That would indeed have been a problem for Israel, as he regularly traveled to the United States as an astronomer.

In particular, Van Erp had used the following sentences, which Santilli saw as a potential loss of income, with the title itself in particular being a thorn in the side: “The Continuing Stupidity of Ruggero Santilli”, “fringe scientist Ruggero and with the venom in the tail, the last sentence: “Is Santilli just a mad professor? Or is he a cunning scam artist trying to sell his ‘Santilli-ofocus-scopes’ (or even better: stock in his businesses) to people who fall easily for sciency sounding nonsense? Maybe both …” Perhaps Van Erp could have removed the text altogether or removed and modified the offending sentences, but he didn’t. And that cost him a very expensive case, a lawsuit that cost the Skepsis Foundation almost a quarter of a million dollars (more than two hundred thousand euros). Santilli wanted compensation that could possibly run into the millions.

Rob Nanninga had managed to raise the Skepsis buffer to a comparable amount, a quarter of a million euros, through a very frugal lifestyle (he lived in his mother’s house and charged very modest fees for all his Skepsis services). Jan Willem Nienhuys about this sober monk mentality of Rob: “The financial situation of Skepsis is healthy, but Rob shortchanged himself, by allowing himself to be grossly underpaid. Actually he hardly thought about money, except when his banking account was empty. He was working on Skepter day and night. It’s ironic that the enemies of Skepsis claim that we are handsomely rewarded by Big Pharma. 

Skepsis was up to the mark and successfully appealed to the donors, with several (very) generous donors (donations of up to 20,000 euros from one generous donor) who wished to remain anonymous. The case resulted in an exemption for Frank Israel, because he demonstrably had nothing to do with it, and a settlement for Van Erp, in which Van Erp adjusted the title and removed the offending last sentence. But the money spent on lawyers never came back. Skepsis managed to bring the buffer back to the old level over time through the very loyal support of generous supporters. Jan Willem Nienhuys also wrote an article about it in the Skepter.

Not long afterwards, in 2018-2019, Pepijn van Erp had another lawsuit that was also about offensive words from Van Erp. A book review in which Van Erp had used the word “plagiarism”, among other things, angered publicist, photographer and entrepreneur Willem Middelkoop and he took Van Erp to court. However, the judge rejected the demands.

Think of Vonnegut when ordering a book from your sympathetic local bookstore.
Screenshot Ionica Smeets tweet

How then?

Before I present a series of skeptical fallacies below, I gradually arrive at the summit. In my opinion the conclusion should be that the discussion between “skeps” and “altos”, in a newer guise also called “skeps” and “wappies”, has never been really good. And that the Skepsis board was sometimes rolling over the ground with each other. And with their “sister organization” The Association against Quackery! There were many people such as Rob Nanninga, Rudolf Smit and I who would have loved to have stayed in the colorful discussion, but the battle often just became too hard and people got hurt, and did not dare or no longer dare. The same thing is happening now, and in my view ten times more, on social media after the world plunged into the Pandemic. Times of crisis add fuel to the fire because people get stressed.
Explicitly on a personal note, I want to go a bit more in-depth, and since this is a blog, I think I’m allowed to. What is it that discussing with dissenters turns out to be so difficult, and quarrels seem almost inevitable? Is one’s own being right so important that it is more important than the fellow man who (partly) thinks differently?
My theory is that the explanation can be found in the French mid 17th century word “chagrin“, Dutch “chagrijn(ig)”. In Dutch, this word is more commonly used to indicate a bad mood. The deep hidden meaning of people lashing out at each other, berating each other, not wanting to hear each other, blocking each other is a feeling of not feeling well, which I believe stems from sadness and “life stress”. And seldom are the people who do not know sadness and/or life stress at all! How we deal with that is another matter.
Earlier I asked the question why the feeling of “Thrown to the wolves” on is so strong. I have come to the conclusion that the moderator himself was at the mercy of the wolves and that no one stood up for him then. Sadness. That is a vicious circle that can only be broken with love.
This blog arose out of dissatisfaction with, in particular, the skeptical actions and expressions of Skepsis board member Pepijn van Erp. I don’t want to beat around the bush on that. But I think I now know what Van Erp’s “chagrin” consists of after experiencing a real and intense Californian trip (behind the scenes I am willing to explain this partially). That immediately made me 100% more understanding, I was even off the map for days out of pure compassion. I reported this on Twitter. But when I saw new “not-niceties” on Van Erp’s Twitter account after my Twitter notifications, I thought that everyone makes choices in this life. Everyone has traumas and “challenging” qualities to a greater or lesser extent, as the Americans say so beautifully (“challenge” instead of “weakness” or something like that). That is why I believe that adjustment is desirable in any case.
In this regard, I would like to point out to anyone without accusing fingers what unites us: all the sadness and happiness that comes with living on this incredibly rare and beautiful planet. A planet that is under heavy pressure right now, which is reflected in Climate Change. The news doesn’t make you happy unless you are a sadist. International cooperation without the exclusion of any country has proved to be the only option. Only when all countries take each other seriously and try to work with the differences and the similarities does this incredibly colorful planet have a chance again. And with people, animals and nature in general. At the micro level, this single opportunity translates into mutual respect for differences and similarities. Don’t use words like “wappies” and “You’re stupid” anymore, no one is worth more than the other. Being right or wrong is less important than a civilized society in which no one is excluded. So don’t use fallacies, don’t berate, don’t block, have fun and positive lessons! in the differences instead of feeling disgust, and from there try to secure the future for the children of this earth, children of men, children of animals and all children of nature.

Journal of Anomalistics
Zeitschrift für Anomalistik
Vol 21, Issue 1, 2021

uitgegeven door
Gesellschaft für Anomalistik,
Psychologie und Psychohygiene

And what is also important: if you do want to discuss, try to be really open to arguments that make sense. Every self-respecting discussion participant must be prepared without fear and I would even say: to proudly leave certain prejudices behind and if necessary even throw out entire parts of their own world view. Proud of the proven courage you have shown. If you are not willing to adjust or learn something, you can speak of a false position towards the other. That’s not respectful. For me, Rudolf Smit, who put his astrology ideas aside, even when this caused him a serious identity crisis for three years, is a great example.
However difficult and laborious it may be, the discussion must remain, and may even be completely omitted during blessed moments of sitting together around a beautiful campfire. Hey, if the aliens really do arrive in such a way that we see it too, then we don’t want to just have to explain with redheads of shame what all those smoking rubble and word-debris on the earth mean?
* Extract from magazine > illustration accompanying this paragraph is from Journal of Anomalistics / Zeitschrift für Anomalistik, Vol 21, Issue 1, 2021, published by Society for Anomalistik, Psychology and Psychohygiene

Mrs Screenshot

Someone suddenly called me “Mrs Screenshot” on Twitter. Indeed I take a lot of screenshots, this has grown spontaneously. Only recently did I get to my take on this side of me. I once again had an idea and it concerned the nostalgic Dutch TV series Tita Tovenaar:

My father is a wizard,
It’s real, it’s real, it’s weird but true
A Tita Wizard,
It’s weird, it’s weird, it’s weird
He taught me too
But sometimes things go wrong
And if it doesn’t go the way I want, I’ll do this,
And everything stands still!

What is a screenshot other than a freeze of the situation? Not! It’s exactly that: you clap your hands (shift+command+4 on the MacbookPro for example) and the situation comes to a standstill. You’ve frozen it, for eternity if you must, or at least for as long as the digital version is preserved. It can make people uncomfortable because nobody is always at their best. Screenshots can shed light on the path and if every day is hit with the fallacies and the name-calling, then we should really scratch our heads and adjust each other respectfully.

With the following list of fallacies and a few other things that I have named myself, because I could not find the correct existing name, I want to expressly say that as far as I am concerned this is not a game whether I have given the correct name of the fallacy in the screenshot. Anyone who thinks that is the case may not have a clear idea of ​​the meaning of my blog. I’ve consulted a few reputable lists and they also say that it is sometimes difficult to find the right denominator, also because a fallacy sometimes seems to fall under a few umbrellas. I would like to invite the reader to join me in looking at the kind of fallacy and, if necessary, come up with a different category. It’s not about being right with this list, it’s about showing something. I was accused on Twitter of leaving out necessary context with my screenshots and referencing the skeptic fallacies. My reaction to that is that the fallacies really usually stand on their own. If someone shouts: “You have a lower education than me, so shut up”, then that is a fallacy, even without context, and in this case it is an ad hominem. If someone just says: “Wappie, shut up”, then that is a fallacy, and that is from the category “Dismissal without arguments”. Only in rather rare cases, in my view, is a more elaborate context indeed necessary, such as the one time on Twitter when I purposely built in an ad hominem in response to someone who really didn’t understand how Pepijn van Erp was adhominating. I only added “A H” as an alert (but that alert was not detected!). The person immediately fell into my educational trap, but had already blocked me before I could explain the context of my ad hominem.

Incidentally, in my opinion, people are now increasingly shielding with “fallacies knowledge” in itself, so again as a “counter-argument” in itself. Perhaps people can think differently about things, but I think that after this summary of screenshots, most readers will understand where my concern lies.

Fallacies and other not-niceties

There are many great lists on the internet about faux-pas in discussions and these lists of wrong types of arguments – sometimes you can hardly even call them arguments – are long. I’ve worked with these two lists and many “arguments” fall into more than one category, for the most part, I’ve only classified the screenshots once, file names give clues about other possible categories…

Update August 24, 2022 f.f.

Less than a year has passed since this blog was first published. At a global level, unprecedentedly intense things have happened and are still happening, the pandemic that just won’t budge, even though many people like to pretend it’s over, yet another virus that has now suddenly started actively traveling across the border, climate disasters in the form of daily, new dizzying weather records, droughts and floods, the Russia war that broke out almost parallel to the start of the Chinese Year of the Water Tiger, which started in February of this year. The Water Tiger lets out his extended roar in full regalia (still 5 months to go, folks). And the emotions among people are not left behind. The World Peace, which wants to come, is beyond doubt for me personally, but asks of us that we treat each other and the earth correctly, this is my contribution to that.

With a blue sphere / 🔵 2022 / I indicate the new fallacies, and with an example based on Pepijn van Erp, / 🟢🟢🟢🟢🟢🟢 2022/, I also indicate how a fallacies can be classified under a whole series of denominators. I have selected six of them for this purpose, but I am willing to bet that you will find even more categories. It’s still not about the “I’m right” category game, it’s about us arguing correctly. The whole of collected types of fallacies, which also still grows organically, is in any case a complex to understand whole, therefore one should not get fixated by these categories, but simply learn to understand and then also apply that there is indeed such a thing as an impure and pure as possible way to discuss with people. In other words, the categories are a tool, not an end in themselves.
Newly inserted fallacy: Motte-and-bailey

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)

Affirming The Consequent
Amazing Familiarity

Ambiguous Assertion

Appeal To Anonymous Authority
Appeal To Authority

Appeal To Coincidence
Appeal To Complexity
Appeal To False Authority
Appeal To Force
Appeal To Pity

Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common
Argument By Dismissal

Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)

Argument By Fast Talking
Argument By Generalization
Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)

Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)
Argument By Personal Charm
Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)
Argument By Poetic Language
Argument By Prestigious Jargon
Argument By Question
Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)
Argument by Rhetorical Question

Argument By Scenario
Argument By Selective Observation

Argument By Selective Reading
Argument By Slogan

Argument By Vehemence + Vulgar Language (added December 6, 2022)

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)

Argument From Age (Wisdom of the Ancients)
Argument From Authority
Argument From False Authority
Argument From Personal Astonishment
Argument From Small Numbers
Argument From Spurious Similarity
Argument Of The Beard
Argument To The Future
Bad Analogy
Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology)

Burden Of Proof

Causal Reductionism (Complex Cause)
Contrarian Argument
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis)

Cliche Thinking
Common Sense
Complex Question (Tying)

Confusing Correlation And Causation
Contra Stichting Skepsis Statuten Objectives
The Skepsis Statutes (New category, not from main list, inserted by CO on December 6, 2022.)

Disproof By Fallacy
Dehumanization (Not from main list, inserted by CO)

🔵 2022 – “As if conspiracy theorists and peers read serious newspapers…” – Added September 30, 2022

Doxing (Not from main list, inserted by CO)


Error Of Fact

Exception That Proves The Rule
Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)
Extended Analogy

Failure To State

Fallacy Of Composition
Fallacy Of Division
Fallacy Of The General Rule
Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment
False Cause
False Compromise
Genetic Fallacy (Fallacy of Origins, Fallacy of Virtue

Godwin / (Not from main list, inserted by CO)

Having Your Cake (Failure To Assert, or Diminished Claim)
Hypothesis Contrary To Fact
Inflation Of Conflict
Internal Contradiction
Least Plausible Hypothesis
(Pure) Malice (new category, newly inserted by CO on January 4, 2022)


Meaningless Questions
Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics (Innumeracy)
Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding)

Impossible Perfection)
Non Sequitur
Not Invented Here
Outdated Information
Pious Fraud
Poisoning The Wells

Psychogenetic Fallacy
Reductio Ad Absurdum
Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification)

Short Term Versus Long Term
Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel’s Nose)

Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)

Statement Of Conversion
Stolen Concept
Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)

Tu Aussi, Brutus / You Too, Brutus – Doing Things Yourself That You Blame The Other (Not from main list, inserted by CO)

Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too)
Weasel Wording

The next danger?

And the next danger may already be lurking. The new development manifested itself to me on September 25, 2021 when Pepijn van Erp suddenly started talking about a new book by philosopher Cees Zweistra, “Truth seekers”, “They are not crazy, they are not stupid. They are evil“. Dangerous, because: if you start portraying a certain part of your society as “dangerous people”, what is the next step? That is a ball that I would “like” to throw at you as a reader. Nuf said.

Constantia Oomen in een email naar Jan Willem Nienhuys op 6 oktober 2013
Constantia Oomen email to Jan Willem Nienhuys, October 6, 2013
Translation of above email

With thanks to Eelco de Rook and Rudolf Smit

Constantia Oomen

Stan Pluijmen
Stan Pluijmen

Who is Stan Pluijmen? “Recently I got this question with this YouTube clip. Stan Pluijmen has been involved in the Joran van der Sloot case for a long time, but remains relatively (very) unknown. How I came to this specific blog, you can read in previous blogs, the first blog dates from 2015.

Stan Pluijmen was born on January 16, 1989 in Geleen in Limburg. Alternative spelling of his name is “Stan Pluymen”. According to Stan’s reports, he met Joran van der Sloot in 2008. Both are avid poker players.

Stan Pluijmen, older photo

In 2009, Stan’s name surfaced for the first time in the media as the security consultant who discovered in 2008 that there was a pizzas-for-one-cent security leak at also reports about this case.

Murderous thoughts

Fast forward 2010: Van der Sloot had fled after interrogation in the Natalee Holloway case, and his thoughts and impulses about money, and his despair about the lack of it, grew ever greater. After his attempt to blackmail Beth Holloway in 2010, the FBI was on high legs regarding Joran. On the exact day, exactly five years after Natalee Holloway’s disappearance, on May 30, 2010, he killed Stephany Flores. Shortly before this act he had intensive contact with one “Stan”, this turns out to be Stan Pluijmen. It came out that Joran and Stan had wanted to extort a man with child pornography. According to Stan, he never intended to really extort that man. The extortion plan was intended to “help Joran van der Sloot from his murderous thoughts”, but Stephany Flores was still killed.

Stan was also questioned in the 2010 Stephany Flores case. As a direct result, he came under financial administration in 2011 and his computer and accessories were seized by the police.


Stan’s parrot medium

From 2012 Stan Pluijmen starts to manifest himself in a different way. Hoeven’s “medium” Robbert van den Broeke, who was exposed in 2005 as the “Genverbrander” fraud, starts sending hate mails to critics and Stan Pluijmen suddenly turns out to be his spokesman. Stan had found Robbert van den Broeke and me through publicity surrounding that case, among other things through my involvement in the FOK and the forum (mine at the time). Stan lived with Robbert for a while in 2011. From 2012 it would turn out that I would become Van den Broeke’s biggest hate target. When asked what was the matter with Van den Broeke’s hate mails, Stan immediately came up with the standard answer: “There is a hacker, Robbert does not do this himself“.

What binds the Pluijmen-Van den Broeke-Van der Sloot trio? Stan’s involvement with Joran van der Sloot’s “secrets” became clear when not Stan Pluijmen, but his friend Robbert van den Broeke suddenly came up with fantastic stories about Natalee Holloway repeatedly since 2014, because, according to his own words, he had been paranormally informed of where her remains were, namely in “Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard in Aruba“. Here too however, Ockam’s razor can apply. Because who was cooing what and in whose ear (and why)?

From 2013-2014, major paranormal claims were now made by the trio Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke-Stan Pluijmen, among other things that Van den Broeke would have appeared as a ghost to Van der Sloot in his cell.

2013: ties Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke


Through Van den Broeke emerged that in 2015 Stan Pluijmen had given 35,000 euros to Van der Sloot to finance his book. The fact that the media picked up on this as being Van den Broeke who gave the money to Joran (where should he get that from with his Wajong benefit?), and not Stan Pluijmen, contributed to the fact that Pluijmen was always out of harm’s way.

But the 2015-35,000 euros donation did not satisfy Van der Sloot, because he kept demanding more money from Pluijmen, and even threatened to throw “bombs”.

2015: Joran van der Sloot, letter to Stan Pluijmen (not to Robbert van den Broeke, as it seemed in the SBS6 media coverage). Source, Omroep Brabant and SBS6 Shownieuws (they reported about this more often)

Why did Joran van der Sloot strike such a crude tone against his apparent or actual benefactor Stan? And why did Stan give away so much money and how did he get it? Often heard was the claim of Van den Broeke and Pluijmen that criminals are also children of God, and that you should shower them with love, because hatred would only make them worse. Curious reports came to me, even that Stan Pluijmen had been to Aruba in 2005.

The Robbert-van-denBroeke-hate and threatening e-mail case, meanwhile, ran so high that Robbert van den Broeke was arrested in January 2016 and interrogated for six days. At least six people, including Dutch celebrities, had reported the crime.

IC3 Complaint

From California, where I assumed the American nationality in 2017, I had also filed a complaint with IC3 (internet crime department FBI) in January 2015, but I had not heard anything back.

Stan Pluijmen, who was co-suspect in the hate and threatening emails case, had left or fled to Malaga with his partner Alan exactly around Van den Broeke’s arrest date in 2016. After living there for about a year, he reported to the Dutch Police who questioned him, but let him go.

Received June 29, 2017
Money flows to Joran van der Sloot via Mary Hammer, Roy Boschman, (Stan’s former friend), A.O.M. Van der Sloot (Joran’s mother), and J.M. Sieradzka, now deceased grandmother of Alan Sieradzki (Stan Pluijmen’s husband)

For the eye of the outside world and certainly through my own blogs, the intimate connections in the devil’s fork: Joran van der Sloot-Stan Pluijmen-Robbert van den Broeke became increasingly clear. Stan kept dropping things into my mail or otherwise box, sometimes unintentionally, as in the case of the financial-sheet drop via Skype.

The case against Robbert van den Broeke was dropped “for lack of evidence”. The hate video clips by Van den Broeke alone seemed proof enough; but in October 2018, Van den Broeke was nevertheless acquitted and received compensation.

Crime journalists and tjakka guru

Then there is also the John van den Heuvel part who seems to have taken over from Peter R. de Vries in the Natalee Holloway case. Van den Heuvel never mentioned Stan Pluijmen’s full name and he never contacted me, although it seems that he was using the financial sheet of Joran van der Sloot, Joran van der Sloot prison photos, etc. for his research, which I published exclusively. The information I received through Stan was immediately picked up by crime reporters Martijn Mastenbroek and Vincent Verweij. I came with it in June 2017 (Twitter) and in August 2017 (blog) and John van den Heuvel in November 2018.

Stan Pluijmen about whether or not unintentional drop in my Skype box

At the end of 2017 it became clear that Dutch TV-“guru” celebrity Emile Ratelband wanted to go to Aruba with Robbert to open the aforementioned Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard. This plan was canceled. Realistic suspicions about the reason may be that the fact that a high-ranking judge-in-training was the father of Joran and that the effect of the Natalee Holloway case: causing lack of tourism at the time, prompted intense tension among the Aruban police and authorities towards the outside world. In short: cooperation towards opening a grave is not to be counted on.

End of 2017: Emile Ratelband en Robbert van den Broeke

Light at the end of the tunnel

llan Hoekstra, NPO Radio 1

On April 14, 2020, I was approached by the American-Dutch journalist llan Hoekstra, who’s interested in the story Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot. Hoekstra hoped to be able to interview Stan in addition to me, and wanted me to ask Stan. I then emailed Stan for the first time in five years on April 22, 2020. All other “communication” was via Twitter. On April 25, 2020, I listened to exactly two years of unheard audios from Stan (I had stopped doing that for my own peace of mind) and only now heard that he told me that he cut (most) ties with Robbert van den Broeke and also Joran van der Sloot. Incidentally; the gentlemen do have some contact with each other now and then, and the initiative also comes from Joran, who recently turned to Stan for help again, because he allegedly had the Corona Virus.

Stan is making a clean sweep in 2018-2020 and tells me in emails, audios, and since September 2020 in several chats too, that he tricks online casinos. He also adds that the reason he keeps getting away with it is that the online casinos don’t want reputational damage. Joran threatened to make this known, threatening to “throw bombs” if Stan wouldn’t give him money anymore. By now “coming clean”, Pluijmen pierced Van der Sloot’s threatening balloon (“bomb”). Stan says he robs ruthless, rich casinos with the idea of becoming a kind of modern Robin Hood and insists that I accept his money as help. He swears that I can write whatever I want and that he regrets his past actions against me, including hacks.

With a few bumps in the road, it came to a first, many hours (Telegram) chat between Stan and me on September 9, 2020. / I will mark the next part with a different color, because not everything has been proven, but nevertheless it’s worth considering, because the fact is that there are intimate relations between Joran and Stan. /

Stan answered many of my questions in a series of chats in September 2020, and I’m finally starting to understand everything that has transpired in this case. Because I have been involved in this case for so long, I can judge whether something is consistent with the rest. I will disregard large parts of our chats here. Stan starts with, among other things, that his “money uncle” has died of Corona Virus. When I ask, also at a later point, for clarification, he only says: “You can enlarge what I can”. Furthermore, Stan continues to swindle online casinos using various tactics. To do so, he uses someone else’s (with permission) or fake IDs. He shows an ID of a lady in Balen that the casino had a problem with due to a Belgium-Netherlands discrepancy. He says he is no longer hacking individuals. Stan Pluijmen also tells how he is constantly approached by “friends” who ask for money and says that he is not happy about it, because they just burn it very quickly and without proper judgement and furthermore, get addicted to getting it. He talks about that time that he had 40K in his closet, he had taken 20K to Holland Casino “for fun” and won, and thus possessed 40K cash. It was then stolen by a friend [name known to me, CO] and subsequently claimed that he had withdrawn the 40K from the ATM. This friend, just like Joran van der Sloot, Robbert van den Broeke and Roy Boschman, but also Rachid, had received a lot of money from Stan in the past and became addicted to it. Rachid for example had gotten 100K according to Stan. Stan also mentions that he no longer wants to live in big houses, because that attracts the attention of thieves etc.. He states he owns a couple of expensive houses and notes he’s happy with these nest eggs, because they cannot be sniffed like cocaine. In response to my previous blog “The Volcano” Stan declares [and sends footage of this also] he got a huge bang in the head because “they” had read that Stan paid me a modest “compensation”, but he could not prove X [name known to me, CO] was behind it, and that he is even afraid that he and/or his husband Alan will be kidnapped for money. Pluijmen in addition still claims that he is a sweet, modern Robin Hood, but now only to people who really need it and can handle gifts wisely.

According to Stan Pluijmen, Joran van der Sloot was a recruiter of girls “who could earn some extra money” at a pimp. The day Natalee disappeared, he went to the beach with Natalee, they had taken GHB and it had come to unplanned sex. However, Natalee became seriously unwell and unconscious from the GHB. Joran then contacted his father and he [the father, CO] transported Natalee together with that / a pimp to the St. Anna Cemetery, and placed her in an existing grave [number 15]. However, they also threw a stone on her. Stan says: “Actually it’s just murder”. Pluijmen continues to insist that people look into that grave.

Stan says that he hacked Joran’s cell phone in 2013-2014, that he installed a trojan horse and that way came across information about Natalee Holloway. Stan and co had also hacked my cell phone in 2015. The year 2013-2014 also explains why, since 2014, Natalee Holloway suddenly became one of the premium spearheads of “medium” Robbert van den Broeke. Had Stan Pluijmen with premeditated thoughts whispered things in Robbert van den Broeke’s ears about about the St. Anna Churchyard, “Grave 15”, in order to reveal sensitive information supposedly via a paranormal way? Stan never seemed to like Natalee’s fate. Stan says it is possible that he told Robbert van den Broeke in a drunken state. He further mentions to have only been on vacation in Aruba (and not in 2005) and that Micha Romijn spread that rumor to me out of revenge, because he did not get money anymore from Stan.


I also asked Stan if he had been manipulating “paranormal” photos and videos with Robbert for years (see example below), but on this question he remained silent.

Stan Pluijmen
Stan Pluijmen

“Wie is Stan Pluijmen?” Onlangs kreeg ik deze vraag naar aanleiding van deze YouTube clip. Stan Pluijmen draait al een hele tijd mee in de Joran van der Sloot zaak, maar blijft relatief (erg) onbekend. Hoe ik tot dit specifieke blog gekomen ben, kunt u lezen in voorgaande blogs, het eerste blog dateert van 2015.

Stan Pluijmen wordt geboren op 16 januari 1989 te Geleen in Limburg. Alternatieve spelling van zijn naam is “Stan Pluymen”. Volgens Stans berichtgeving leerde hij Joran van der Sloot in 2008 kennen. Beide zijn verwoede pokeraars.

Stan Pluijmen, oudere foto

In 2009 komt Stans naam voor het eerst bovendrijven in de media als de securityconsultant die in 2008 ontdekte dat er een pizza’s-voor-één-cent-beveiligingslek was bij Ook maakt melding van deze zaak.


Fast forward 2010: Van der Sloot was na verhoren in de Natalee Holloway zaak op de vlucht geslagen, en zijn gedachten en impulsen over geld, en zijn wanhoop over het gebrek daaraan, werden steeds groter. Na zijn poging in 2010 Beth Holloway af te persen, was de FBI ernstig op hem aangeslagen. Op de dag precies, exact vijf jaar na de verdwijning van Natalee Holloway, op 30 mei 2010, doodde hij Stephany Flores. Kort voor deze daad had hij intensief contact met ene “Stan”, dit blijkt Stan Pluijmen. Er kwam naar buiten dat Joran en Stan een man hadden willen afpersen met kinderporno. Volgens Stan had het nooit in zijn bedoeling gelegen die man echt af te persen. Het afpersingsplan was bedoeld om “Joran van der Sloot van zijn moordgedachten af te helpen”, maar Stephany Flores vond dus alsnog de dood.

Ook Stan werd verhoord in de 2010-Stephany Flores zaak. Hij kwam als direct gevolg hiervan in 2011 onder financieel bewind te staan en zijn computer en toebehoren werden door de politie in beslag genomen.

Stans papegaai-medium

Vanaf 2012 begint Stan Pluijmen zich op een andere wijze te manifesteren. Hoevens “medium” Robbert van den Broeke, in 2005 door de mand gevallen als “Genverbrander“-oplichter, begint haatmails te sturen naar critici en Stan Pluijmen blijkt opeens zijn woordvoerder. Stan had Robbert van den Broeke en ook mij via publiciteit rondom die zaak gevonden, onder andere via mijn betrokkenheid op het FOK en het forum (destijds van mij). Stan woonde in 2011 een poosje bij Robbert. Vanaf 2012 zou blijken dat ik Van den Broekes grootste haat doelwit zou worden. Op vragen wat er aan de hand was met de haatmails van Van den Broeke kwam Stan meteen met het standaard antwoord: “Er is een hacker, Robbert doet dit niet zelf“.

Wat bindt het trio Pluijmen-Van den Broeke-Van der Sloot? Stans betrokkenheid bij Joran van der Sloots “geheimen” werd duidelijk toen niet Stan Pluijmen, maar zijn vriend Robbert van den Broeke opeens herhaalde malen sinds 2014 met fantastische verhalen over Natalee Holloway kwam, omdat hij volgens eigen zeggen paranormaal had doorgekregen waar haar overblijfselen waren, namelijk in “Graf 15 op het St. Anna Kerkhof te Aruba“. Ook hier kan echter Ockam’s scheermes gelden. Want wie koerde wat en in wiens oor (en waarom)?

Vanaf 2013-2014 werden nu grote paranormale claims gedaan door het trio Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke- Stan Pluijmen, onder andere dat Van den Broeke als geest aan Van der Sloot in diens cel zou zijn verschenen.

2013: banden Joran van der Sloot-Robbert van den Broeke


Via Van den Broeke kwam in 2015 naar buiten dat Stan Pluijmen 35000 euro aan Van der Sloot gegeven zou hebben om diens boek te financieren. Het gegeven dat de media dit oppikten als zijnde Van den Broeke die het geld gaf aan Joran (waar zou hij dat vandaan moeten halen met zijn Wajong uitkering?), en niet Stan Pluijmen, droeg bij aan het feit dat Pluijmen steeds maar weer buiten schot bleef.

Maar de 2015-35000 euro gift stemde Van der Sloot niet tevreden, want hij bleef maar meer geld eisen van Pluijmen, en dreigde zelfs met “bommen” te gaan gooien.

2015: Joran van der Sloot, brief aan Stan Pluijmen (niet aan Robbert van den Broeke, zoals het in de SBS6 media verslaggeving leek). Bron, Omroep Brabant en SBS6 Shownieuws (zij berichtten hier vaker over)

Waarom sloeg Joran van der Sloot zo’n grove toon aan tegen zijn schijnbare of daadwerkelijke weldoener Stan? En waarom gaf Stan zoveel geld weg en hoe kwam hij daaraan? Veelgehoord was de claim van Van den Broeke en Pluijmen dat ook misdadigers kinderen zijn van God, en dat je ze met liefde moet overstelpen, want haat zou ze alleen maar slechter maken. Er kwamen curieuze berichten naar mij toe, zelfs dat Stan Pluijmen in 2005 op Aruba was geweest.

De Robbert-van-denBroeke-haat- en dreigmail-zaak liep ondertussen zo hoog op dat Robbert van den Broeke in januari 2016 gearresteerd werd en zes dagen verhoord. Minstens zes mensen, waaronder bekende Nederlanders, hadden aangifte gedaan.

IC3 klacht

Vanuit Californië, waar ik in 2017 de Amerikaanse nationaliteit aannam, had ik zelf ook in januari 2015 bij IC3 (internetcrime afdeling FBI) een aanklacht neergelegd, maar daar niets meer op teruggehoord.

Stan Pluijmen die medeverdachte in de haat- en dreigmails zaak was, was precies rond Van den Broekes arrestatiedatum in 2016 samen met zijn partner Alan naar Malaga vertrokken dan wel gevlucht. Na daar ongeveer een jaar gewoond te hebben, meldde hij zich bij de Nederlandse Politie die hem verhoorde, maar liet gaan.

29 juni 2017 Ontvangen
Geldstromen naar Joran van der Sloot via Mary Hammer, Roy Boschman, (Stans voormalige vriend), A.O.M. Van der Sloot (Jorans moeder), en inmiddels overleden J.M. Sieradzka, de oma van Alan Sieradzki (Stan Pluijmens echtgenoot)

Voor het oog van de buitenwereld en toch ook zeker via mijn eigen blogs werden de innige verbindingen in de duivelsvork: Joran van der Sloot-Stan Pluijmen-Robbert van den Broeke steeds duidelijker. Stan bleef maar dingen in mijn mail of anderszins -box droppen, soms ook onbedoeld, zoals in het geval van de financial-sheet drop via Skype.

De zaak tegen Robbert van den Broeke werd geseponeerd “wegens gebrek aan bewijs”. De haat-videoclips van Van den Broeke alleen al leken bewijs genoeg; maar in oktober 2018 werd Van den Broeke desondanks vrijgesproken en kreeg een schadevergoeding.

Misdaadjournalisten en tjakka goeroe

Er speelt tevens het John van den Heuvel gedeelte die het stokje van Peter R. de Vries in de Natalee Holloway zaak lijkt overgenomen te hebben. Van den Heuvel noemde nooit Stan Pluijmens volledige naam en hij legde nooit contact met mij, ofschoon het erop lijkt dat hij de financial sheet van Joran van der Sloot, Joran van der Sloot gevangenisfoto’s enz die ik, via Stan ontvangen, als eerste publiceerde, gebruikte voor zijn onderzoek. De informatie die ik via Stan kreeg, werd wel meteen opgepakt door crime-reporters Martijn Mastenbroek en Vincent Verweij. Ik kwam er in juni 2017 (Twitter) en augustus 2017 (blog) mee en John van den Heuvel in november 2018.

Stan Pluijmen over de al dan niet onbedoelde drop in mijn Skype box

Eind 2017 werd duidelijk dat Emile Ratelband met Robbert naar Aruba wilde om het genoemde Graf 15 op het St. Anna Kerkhof te openen. Dit plan werd afgeblazen. Realistische vermoedens omtrent de reden mogen luiden dat het feit dat een hooggeplaatste rechter-in-opleiding de vader van Joran was en dat het effect van de Natalee Holloway zaak: het toen uitblijvende toerisme, zorgden voor een intens spanningsveld bij de Arubaanse politie en autoriteiten richting de buitenwereld. Kortom: op medewerking richting het openen van een graf hoeft niet gerekend te worden.

Eind 2017: Emile Ratelband en Robbert van den Broeke

Licht aan het einde van de tunnel

Op 14 april 2020 werd ik door de Amerikaans-Nederlandse journalist llan Hoekstra benaderd, die geïnteresseerd bleek in het verhaal Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot. Hoekstra hoopte naast mij ook Stan te kunnen interviewen, en wilde wel dat ik het aan Stan zou vragen. Ik mailde Stan daarop voor het eerst sinds vijf jaar op 22 april 2020. Alle andere “communicatie” was via Twitter gegaan. Op 25 april 2020 beluisterde ik precies twee jaar aan onbeluisterde audio’s van Stan (ik was daarmee gestopt voor mijn eigen gemoedsrust) en hoorde nu pas dat hij vertelde met Robbert van den Broeke en ook Joran van der Sloot gebroken te hebben. Overigens hebben de heren toch wel af en toe wat contact met elkaar, en het initiatief komt ook van Joran, die recent weer bij Stan aanklopte voor hulp, nu weer omdat hij het Corona Virus zou hebben.

Stan maakt in 2018-2020 schoon schip bij mij en vertelt in mails, audio’s en sinds september 2020 ook diverse chats aan mij dat hij online casino’s trukeert. De reden dat hij er steeds mee weg komt, aldus Stan, is dat de casino’s geen reputatieschade willen. Stan zegt dat Joran dreigde zijn casino-activiteiten bij de pers te onthullen. Door nu zelf “schoon schip” te maken, prikt Pluijmen in ieder geval die dreig-ballon (“bom”) van Van der Sloot door. Stan zou niets en niemand ontziende, rijke casino’s beroven met het idee een soort moderne Robin Hood te worden. Ook blijft hij aandringen dat ik zijn geld aanneem als hulp. Hij bezweert dat ik kan schrijven wat ik wil en dat hij spijt heeft van zijn vroegere daden richting mij, waaronder hacks.

Met het een en ander aan bumps in the road kwam het op negen september 2020 tot een eerste, urenlange (Telegram) chat tussen Stan en mij. / Het volgende deel markeer ik met een andere kleur, omdat niet alles bewezen is, maar mijns inziens is het wel het overwegen waard, omdat het feit is dat er intieme betrekkingen tussen Joran en Stan zijn. /

Stan heeft veel van mijn vragen beantwoord in een aantal chats in september 2020, en ik begin eindelijk te begrijpen wat er in deze zaak is voorgevallen. Een groot deel van onze chats laat ik hier verder buiten beschouwing. Stan begint er onder andere mee dat zijn “geldoom” aan Corona Virus is overleden. Als ik vraag naar verduidelijking zegt hij: “Je kan wat ik kan uitvergroten”. Verder tilt Stan nog steeds online casino’s onder gebruikmaking van diverse tactieken. Met dat doel gebruikt hij andermans (met toestemming) of fake IDs. Hij toonde een ID van een dame in Balen waar het casino een probleem mee had wegens een België-Nederland discrepantie. Hij zegt geen individuele personen meer te hacken. Stan Pluijmen vertelt ook hoe hij voortdurend wordt benaderd door “vrienden” die om geld vragen en zegt daar niet blij mee te zijn, omdat ze er niet mee om kunnen gaan en het alleen maar over de balk gooien. Hij vertelt een keer 40K in zijn kast te hebben liggen, hij had “voor de grap” 20K naar Holland Casino meegenomen en gewonnen en had dus 40K cash. Daarop werd dat gestolen door een vriend [naam bekend bij CO], en hij had vervolgens beweerd dat hij dat geld gepind had. Deze vriend had, net als Joran van der Sloot, Robbert van den Broeke en Roy Boschman, maar ook Rachid, in het verleden veel geld van Stan gekregen en was daar verslaafd aan geraakt. Zo heeft Rachid bijvoorbeeld volgens Stan 100K gekregen. Stan zegt niet meer in grote huizen te willen wonen, omdat dat de aandacht trekt van dieven enz. Hij vertelt wel een paar dure huizen te bezitten en zegt daar blij mee te zijn als appeltje voor de dorst, want huizen kun je niet opsnuiven zoals cocaïne. Naar aanleiding van mijn vorige blog “De Vulkaan” vertelt Stan [en stuurt tevens beeldmateriaal] een fikse klap gehad te hebben, omdat “ze” gelezen hadden dat Stan mij een bescheiden “schadevergoeding” had gestort, maar hij kon niet bewijzen dat het van X kwam [naam bekend bij CO], en dat hij zelfs bang is dat hij en/of zijn man Alan ontvoerd worden voor geld. Pluijmen zegt nog steeds dat hij een lieve, moderne Robin Hood is, maar nu alleen voor mensen die het echt nodig hebben en die zuiver met giften kunnen omgaan.

Volgens Stan Pluijmen was Joran van der Sloot een recruiter van meisjes “die wat konden bijverdienen” bij een pooier. Op de dag dat Natalee verdween, was hij naar het strand gegaan met Natalee, ze hadden GHB gebruikt en het was tot ongeplande seks gekomen. Natalee werd echter ernstig onwel van de GHB en raakte buiten westen. Hierop nam Joran contact op met zijn vader en die transporteerde Natalee samen met die/een pooier naar het St. Anna Kerkhof, en plaatste haar in een bestaand graf [nummer 15]. Echter gooiden ze ook nog een steen op haar. Stan zegt: “Eigenlijk is het gewoon moord”. Pluijmen blijft aandringen dat er in dat graf gekeken wordt.

Stan zegt dat hij in 2013-2014 Jorans mobieltje gehackt had, hij had een trojan horse geïnstalleerd en was volgens zeggen op die manier op dingen gestoten over Natalee Holloway. Stan en co hadden in 2015 ook mijn mobieltje gehackt. Het jaartal 2013-2014 verklaart ook waarom sinds 2014 Natalee Holloway opeens een van de blijvende speerpunten van “medium” Robbert van den Broeke werd. Had Stan Pluijmen Robbert van den Broeke met voorbedachte rade zaken over het St. Anna Kerkhof, “Graf 15” ingefluisterd om zo gevoelige informatie zogenaamd via paranormale wijze bekend te maken? Stan leek het lot van Natalee nooit lekker te zitten. Stan zegt dat het mogelijk is dat hij het Robbert van den Broeke in beschonken toestand vertelde. Hij zegt verder alleen in Aruba te zijn geweest op vakantie (en dus niet in 2005) en dat Micha Romijn dat gerucht uit woede naar mij had verspreid omdat hij geen geld meer van Stan kreeg.


Ik vroeg in de chat ook aan Stan of hij inderdaad jarenlang (zie voorbeeld hieronder) met Robbert “paranormale” foto’s en video’s getrukeerd heeft, maar op deze vraag bleef het stil.

As loyal visitors to my website know, I have been working on the Hoeven “spiritual medium” Robbert van den Broeke (born 1980) case since 2005. Maybe you remember the Genverbrander case? Right, that was the blunder of the “medium” from Hoeven and “Genverbrander” even made it to Dutch Word of the Year 2005. In 2012 Stan Pluijmen (born 1989) joined this story. Pluijmen was for a long time the best friend of Van den Broeke, but also of Joran van der Sloot (born 1987). Stan Pluijmen has told me this year, 2020, that he broke up with both Van den Broeke and Van der Sloot, which of course does not mean that no new things will be added.

And it shows, now that according to international reports Van der Sloot has contracted the dreaded coronavirus under the extremely unsanitary conditions in the prison in Peru. Stan Pluijmen has given Joran van der Sloot a lot of money in the past, that information also came to me via Stan and then in the public domain. Furthermore, Stan Pluijmen kept hammering on the location he suggested of the alleged remains of Natalee Holloway: grave number 15 in the St. Anna cemetery in Aruba. There are a striking number of meanders in this complex story.

Meanders, courtesy Robert Hodgin

Stan also sent me this clip exclusively, so it can be said that a lot of material came to me through Stan and then in the general press:

As said, Stan Pluijmen started emailing me in 2012, so Stan also sent and sends me authentic Joran van der Sloot photos, information about his finances (Stan said he sent that to me accidentally), and all kinds of other information, I even got two clips (clip1, clip 2) of Joran van der Sloot’s wife, Leydi Figueroa Uceda. That turned out to be orchestrated by Stan as “practical joke”, but the clips are authentic. I don’t know Joran van der Sloot and his (ex?) wife, only through Stan. The reason I added “ex” to “wife” is because I heard through Van den Broeke-Pluijmen that Joran and Leydi had split up, but I cannot find any official status about this.

That is how I got dragged along, and Stan continues to email me. I may and probably will follow up in a follow-up section on this site. From now on I will publish the material I receive in this case directly and first on this site. In the past, it mainly went through my Twitter account. Indeed, I was recently called a “journalist” by a “fellow” journalist, and yes, perhaps it is time to face this fact.

Successively I receive the following from Stan:

  • Received July 23, 2020: Screenshot of text message in which family of Leydi asks Stan Pluijmen for help because Joran van der Sloot is said to have coronavirus; usually this means aid in the form of money
  • Received July 27, 2020: Medical prescription Joran van der Sloot, medicines he gets now that he allegedly has the coronavirus
  • Received July 27, 2020: A photo of a kind of altar that Leydi made for her (ex) husband Joran van der Sloot
Screenshot text message Carol Figueroa to Stan Pluijmen
Screenshot text message Carol Figueroa to Stan Pluijmen
Joran van der Sloot "Corona virus medical prescription"
Joran van der Sloot “Corona virus medical prescription”

Googling these medical terms shows that the first two are indeed associated with Corona virus experimental treatment:




Leydi Figueroa "altar" for Joran van der Sloot
Leydi Figueroa “altar” for Joran van der Sloot

Some links Stan sent, one of which I already received from someone else:

Press notification in Peru
Press notification in Peru
Notifications in Peru, press translate while visiting link
Notifications in Peru, press translate while visiting link

This information may be reproduced by expressly mentioning this website and my name, so like this, or similar:

Source: Constantia Oomen via Parameter WordPress.

Shortcuts to Joran van der Sloot sections on this site (it is recommended to read the blogs chronologically):

Stan and Joran van der Sloot (2015, 2016)



The Hanger (whole blog) (2017)

The Devil’s Fork (more or less whole blog) ( 2018)

The Volcano, Stan, Alan and others (2020)

And last but certainly not least: The “Knaapje” Google drive with a lot of material, also about Joran van der Sloot

*** Add this site to your Favorites if you are interested in para fraud but also Joran van der Sloot! ***

Zoals trouwe bezoekers van deze website weten, ben ik al sinds 2005 met de zaak van het Hoevense “medium” Robbert van den Broeke (geboren 1980) in de weer. Misschien herinnert u zich nog de Genverbrander zaak? Juist, dat was de blunder van het “medium” uit Hoeven en “Genverbrander” werd zelfs Woord van het Jaar 2005. In 2012 kwam Stan Pluijmen (geboren 1989) dit verhaal versterken. Pluijmen was lange tijd boezemvriend van Van den Broeke, maar ook van Joran van der Sloot (geboren 1987). Stan Pluijmen heeft mij dit jaar, 2020, verteld dat hij zowel met Van den Broeke als Van der Sloot gebroken heeft, wat natuurlijk niet wil zeggen dat er geen nieuwe dingen meer bijkomen.

En dat blijkt, nu Van der Sloot onder de extreem onhygiënische omstandigheden in de gevangenis in Peru en volgens internationale berichtgeving het gevreesde virus heeft opgelopen. Stan Pluijmen heeft Joran van der Sloot in het verleden veel geld toegestoken, ook die informatie kwam via Stan naar mij en zo in de openbaarheid. Verder bleef Stan Pluijmen maar hameren op de begraafplaats van de vermeende fysieke overblijfselen van Natalee Holloway in graf nummer 15 op het St. Anna kerkhof in Aruba. Er zijn opvallend veel meanders in dit complexe verhaal.

Meanders, beeldkrediet Robert Hodgin

Deze clip stuurde Stan mij ook als enige toe, er kan dus gesteld worden dat veel materiaal via Stan en dan naar en via mij in de openbaarheid is gekomen:

Zoals gezegd begon Stan Pluijmen mij te mailen in 2012, en Stan stuurde en stuurt mij dus ook authentieke Joran van der Sloot foto’s, informatie over zijn financiën (Stan zei dat dát per ongeluk was), en allerlei andersoortige informatie, ik kreeg zelfs twee clips (clip1, clip 2) van de vrouw van Joran van der Sloot, Leydi Figueroa Uceda. Dat bleek overigens door Stan georkestreerd als “practical joke”, maar de clips zijn wel authentiek. Ik ken Joran van der Sloot en zijn (ex?)vrouw niet, alleen via Stan. De reden dat ik “ex” bij “vrouw” zet, is omdat ik via Van den Broeke-Pluijmen hoorde dat Joran en Leydi uit elkaar waren, maar ik kan geen officiële status hierover vinden.

Zo werd ik er met de haren bij gesleept, en Stan blijft mij mailen. Ik zal daar mogelijk in een vervolgdeel op deze site weer op in gaan. Vanaf nu zal ik het materiaal dat ik in deze zaak ontvang, direct en als eerste op deze site plaatsen. In het verleden ging het vooral eerst via mijn Twitteraccount. Ik werd onlangs namelijk door een “mede”journalist voor “journalist” uitgemaakt, en ja, misschien is het tijd om dit feit onder ogen te zien.

Achtereenvolgens ontving ik het volgende van Stan:

  • Ontvangen 23 juli 2020: Screenshot van text message waarin familie van Leydi Stan Pluijmen om hulp vraagt omdat Joran van der Sloot coronavirus zou hebben; meestal wordt dan hulp in de vorm van geld bedoeld
  • Ontvangen 27 juli 2020: Recept Joran van der Sloot, medicijnen die hij krijgt nu hij naar verluidt dus het coronavirus heeft
  • Ontvangen 27 juli 2020: Een foto van een soort altaartje dat Leydi voor haar (ex)man Joran van der Sloot gemaakt heeft
Screenshot text message Carol Figueroa naar Stan Pluijmen
Joran van der Sloot "Corona virus medisch recept"
Joran van der Sloot “Corona virus medisch recept”

Als u deze medische termen googelt, kunt u inderdaad zien dat de eerste twee geassocieerd zijn met experimentele behandeling van het coronavirus:




Leydi Figueroa "altaartje" voor Joran van der Sloot
Leydi Figueroa “altaartje” voor Joran van der Sloot

Nog wat links die Stan stuurde, een daarvan kreeg ik ook al van iemand anders:

Berichtgeving in Peru, druk op site vertalen bij oproepen link
Berichtgeving in Peru, druk op site vertalen bij oproepen link
Berichtgeving in Peru, druk op site vertalen bij oproepen link

Deze informatie mag overgenomen worden onder uitdrukkelijke vermelding van deze website en mijn naam, dus zo, of vergelijkbaar:

Bron: Constantia Oomen via Parameter WordPress.

Snelkoppelingen naar Joran van der Sloot gedeeltes op deze site (aanbevolen is de blogs chronologisch te lezen):

Stan en Joran van der Sloot (2015, 2016)



Knaapje (hele blog) (2017)

De duivelsvork (min of meer hele blog) (2018)

De Vulkaan, Stan, Alan en anderen (2020)

En last but certainly not least: De “Knaapje” Google drive met heel veel materiaal, ook over Joran van der Sloot

*** Voeg deze site toe aan uw Favorieten als u geïnteresseerd bent in parafraude maar ook Joran van der Sloot! ***


Stan, Alan and others

This blog is also published on my Lion Hearts WordPress. If you wonder why this extensive piece also appears there: this is an important part of my life and it really has an impact. Moreover, it has a very direct overlap with Rob Nanninga since he was and is also working on this, if it is true that there is afterlife. Also, I get the impression that Rob is helping me in the “background”, that he is forcing the gentlemen to show their cards.


I have been involved in this case for fifteen years now, an incredibly long time. There are a few notable developments.

The first one is that I finally have blocked Robbert van den Broeke from sending emails to me. His official acquittal in the threat case for which he was arrested, allegedly for lack of evidence, in October 20181 was no reason for Van den Broeke to choose a scold and threat-free path, and he just continued with his hate emails.

I know that Rob Nanninga had already given up on the “Genverbrander” case by 2012, now that Robbert had been definitively exposed as a con artist and it had also been demonstrated that Van den Broeke conducted online diatribes for which even the dogs would turn up their nose, but I kept it up much longer. For many years I remained curious about what Mr. Van den Broeke had to say to me and allowed his emails, admittedly only through a filter directly in a separate folder. But for some time already, it has been perfectly clear to almost everyone, except to his most loyal fans, that Robbert is a lost cause and that there’s not much honor left in investing energy in researching his actions. He got stuck and all he has been doing for a long time is endlessly repeating everything he once said and did, including his fraud tricks with fake spirit and “alien” photos, all his “loving” messages to his fans and all his hatred towards me and the skeptics in general.

Nowadays, he’s even going with mainstream conspiracy quacks, for example, about the link between 5G and Corona Virus. He did remove one crucial conspiracy clip about this later-on.2 These conspiracy theories are by no means innocent, as believers broker them in everyday life and, for instance, are no longer willing to get vaccinations because they think the government secretly implants chips or they are deliberately poisoned with mercury. Some people even torch 5G masts. Van den Broeke has been publishing many YouTube clips the last year, addressing all kinds of “spiritual” subjects, even addressing me a couple of times.3 It does seem quite innocuous, this new trend of endless preaching videos. I would prefer them any time over his ghost / alien photos and videos deception. Unfortunately, he still does those too, including auto-mutilations on his forehead that he claims are alien and christ signs. I must say he has built up a quite large motley collection of “spiritual” subjects and hence his interest in all these topics seems genuine. Still, in my opinion, there is not much reason left to invest a lot of time and energy in him.

Robbert sent me a whole bunch of hate clips and emails again, a part is in the Google Drive. There’s one Van den Broeke activity I do want to mention. Still working with Johny Webb, yes, the man from the octopus, Van den Broeke published a “channeling” with Adolf Hitler. However, the accompanying text about it and the clip were posted on Webb’s Facebook and YouTube channel. I tweeted about it and then someone reported Webb to Facebook (it wasn’t me). Shortly after, Webb’s facebook went completely black. The clip is still there, but I uploaded a copy in Google Drive just in case:

Fall 2019, I expressed the idea on Twitter to turn the Robbert van den Broeke blogs into a book and I had indeed already worked on it several times (that has come to a standstill). Obviously, this idea was immediately picked up by Van den Broeke and I got his hate emails about that too. Also Stan emailed about it a few times.

I suddenly couldn’t digest Van den Broeke’s emails anymore. After another hateful email from Robbert on December 14, 2019 I decided to block him completely. Every time Robbert e-mails me now, his email is instantly deleted and Gmail sends an automated message that he has been blocked and why. Since then, not one single email from him has popped up ever again and I have no idea if he sent them. I am very happy with this decision!

Stan, Alan and others

Stan Pluijmen is another matter. Stan never seemed hateful in the emails he signed with his own name. It’s a long story, and I don’t feel like repeating everything here. In short, I did not block Stan. I always hoped he would come around, detach himself from Robbert and would no longer participate in their shared lying and cheating games. But Stan has been bouncing like a yo-yo. Stan increasingly emailed me messages that he had changed and in which he admitted to (some) deception by and with Robbert van den Broeke. According to Stan, there is this part to Robbert that’s really “psychic” though. Anyway, Stan and Robbert are no longer a cheating duo together. At least, I see no signs that they still are. Stan even seemed burdened about the past, because he knows better than anyone how much hatred I received through Robbert and through his own, questionable to say the least, network. He even started offering me financial “compensation” in BTC, but I only wanted official compensation, through a notary. For literally years he kept on pushing me to take his money, through email, this started with him offering me money if I deleted the blogs on Parameter, see previous blogs on my Parameter WordPress.4

Stan seemed quite desperate about the existence of my Parameter blogs, he approached it differently too and tried to lure me into a “deal” that if he/they were able to “channel” the code word I would think up for myself and make that official by entrusting somebody with it, I would remove all my blogs. But I didn’t take the bite.

In 2020, for a reason I don’t know, he upped his BTC effort considerably, he said/says it was/is because he likes and loves me, and wants to help me. I did kind of become curious (again) if he was just saying things (again), and posted my BTC wallet address publicly on my Genverbrander10 Twitter account (account name changed to RobConstantia on October 14, 2020).

That wasn’t the first time I did that though, I did that in 2018 too. I discovered bitcoin in 2017 when I was trying to order my allergy medicine Ebas from a foreign country, because it’s not available in the United States and they asked for bitcoin or wire payment. Wire payments are expensive here, so I thought to give bitcoin a shot, and with BTC payment, they offered a standard 10% discount. It was all very new to me, and on one day I even posted my bitcoin wallet address on my Twitter account ConstantiaUSA. I tried to find the specific tweet, but I guess I deleted it. I only recently (April 2020) learned that you can indeed publish your BTC wallet address safely after you properly secure your BTC wallet. Though I did that in reverse order, nothing happened. I guess I hoped some magic pigeon would deposit BTC in my wallet. This all must have been mid 2018.

In my Parameter blog I already mentioned the fact that I on impulse and more or less jokingly asked Stan for 1.5 million in 2018, because only then would I feel compensated for all their nuisance and remove my blogs. The underlying idea was that with such a fortune that I could start living very differently, and that I could actually see this as a serious enough compensation and move on.

I didn’t email Stan about it, in fact, I didn’t email him at all, everything went through Twitter.

But in 2020, things were different. I suddenly received a bitcoin amount deposited on April 8, 2020. Stan had made a deposit! And the next day, after some tweets from me that I was willing to receive Stan’s compensation as an official gift, two more “donations” came, bigger ones, not a fortune, but significant. Well, in total it was about half a bitcoin. It was worth about euro 3200 at the time Stan deposited it. For connoisseurs: of cryptocurrency, this could be literally nothing or it could be quite something, in the future.

I see it as Stan’s free-will compensation that still is on the symbolic side. His compensation doesn’t come close to the real disturbance I had. My critical attention to this case – I literally spent thousands of hours – was indeed my own free choice and everything I did was public. In my opinion, I always stuck to the facts and kept my criticism fair and decent. But it was no choice of mine to be stalked for so many years: 2012-2019. I received hundreds of hate and death threats from a whole bunch of different mailboxes and names, both known and unknown to me, with photos of beheaded, run over and battered (dead) bodies, scolding videos, I was hacked and even threatened with hitmen.5

I can’t be sure where Stan got his money, in emails he says he got it from tricking online casinos. Stan Pluijmen claims he’s a modern Robin Hood, stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor.

On April 25, 2020, I decided to listen to exactly two years of unopened audios of Stan, a rollercoaster of several hours in the afternoon and evening. Since April 2018, I wasn’t listening anymore, because I got angry with Stan, again, since through yet another unsolicited email, he “offered” to ask “medium” Robbert van den Broeke for my Google drive password. As you can understand, I don’t believe in Van den Broeke’s “medium” password reading skills, I do kind of believe in Stan’s or .?.’s hacking skills, so that pissed me off. I really hadn’t been listening secretly, as Stan suggested in many of these audios, he even stated in his audios he was willing to bet a lot of money (did you say one million, Stan?:)

on the (not existing) “fact” I was still listening, So, now Stan is owing me even more. 😉
Not listening for two years and then all of two years at once, in one day, really turned out to be a golden shot. So instead of getting everything in pieces, I now got everything at once, which gave me a much better overview and the distance created in the time dimension was also very good for me to be able to view everything much more at a distance. The audios were insightful, I listened to about hundred audios and their line was consistent: first I heard one year of the old fashioned Stan woo-woo, but since April 2019, Stan started singing to a different tune. This was ushered in by a series of very curious emails in which Stan seemed to have stepped outside of himself and somewhere in the deep universe, as a miracle of mega interpretation of the secrets of the cosmos, spoke about synchronicity, mythical symbols, God, Satan, extraterrestrials and our shared destiny.

Because I was receiving hatemails of Robbert van den Broeke about Stan and Alan simultaneously in which Robbert was kicking furiously at Stan and Alan, even sending me an audio from Stan in which Stan could be heard crying and completely beside himself, I could tell something was going on. In his audios, Stan’s tune changed and; in the most favorable way interpreted for Stan, you can say that he indeed seemed awakened from a bad dream or spell, he used phrases like: “I embarrassed myself, I let go of Robbert, what have I done? Robbert brought me to things, I am no longer under Robbert’s trance, your blogs may stay online because they are correct, the curse of Robbert…, there is no hacker, I’m sorry, I admit to my mistakes … “. Of course in this case, it’s hard to tell truth from lie, but Stan’s Spring 2019 and beyond audios were indicators that the firm trinity Robbert-Stan-Alan (Stan’s husband) had dissolved. Both Van den Broeke and Stan Pluijmen were suddenly emailing me the(ir) “whole truth”: (click on gallery images, this is how I received it) googletranslationrvdbthetruth

When you merge these Robbert van den Broeke mails with the following Stan Pluijmen audio:

10:40: Stan “There is no hacker” (> in Robbert van den Broeke hate and death-threat case)
12:20: Stan: “I admit, I was Micha Romijn”.

in which Stan states that he has not been hacking casinos, like Van den Broeke claims, but that he did trick casinos, I think the following could be a realistic model of what really happened: working theory: Stan discovered some weak spots in online casino mechanism and cashed out a lot of money. With a number of fake IDs or other people’s IDs (people knowing about it and collaborating and who he generously compensated for it), he was able to repeat the casino trick. From the Robbert van den Broeke clan respectively from somebody mailing with a “Micha Romijn” mailbox I had been receiving two complete IDs, one of “Micha Romijn” one of a female family member of Alan Sieradzki, an old lady who has since passed away. This “Micha Romijn” stuff was much more sinister and like reported in my Parameter blogs.

WordPress later-on in 2017 removed the fake Micha Romijn ID pics I uploaded in my Parameter blogs. Somebody had complained and I doubt WordPress sees the difference between a real and a (well-recreated) fake ID. So if someone came with the same ID to complain, they had no reason to act differently than usual.

Stan Pluijmen confesses in this audio that (indeed) he was “Micha Romijn”. But I could tell by the emails I received there is another person involved, because I recognize Stan’s language and tone of voice, and there were quite some that were not from his pen.

After many years of experience with this whole group around Robbert van den Broeke, the facts (so no suspicions) are that the men are playing battleship with each other’s mailbox, wanted or unwanted. For example, I got a picture of Stan that, according to Stan, was very ugly and it seemed that someone in the room had seized his phone and sent it secretly. This is just one of many examples and I have also explained and substantiated this in my Parameter blog(s) In this regard, it is actually best to read all my Parameter blogs. Because of the enormous chaos that arose from this and which I think was also erected partly intentionally as a smoke screen on the side of Stan, the men ended up in a kind of large, inextricable tangle of cohesive material.

It seems that the gentlemen are holding each other in a delicate balance of compromising facts, and that they may well be quite afraid that the other person will leak information to me, or whoever wants to expose the truth. The many snitch mails to me could be explained by the tense atmosphere between the men, in the spirit: “If you do or don’t do that, I’m going to leak (mis)information about you, watch me, I am not bluffing.”

The “Micha Romijn” person was a piece of the puzzel that didn’t sit well at all with Stan. International police should investigate the motive of “Micha Romijn”. Because WordPress acted upon the complaint from I have to assume possibly the real Micha Romijn, that the (fake) ID pictures should be removed, it appears Micha Romijn must (have) know(n) that his ID was being abused (i.e., it was sent to me, and was it used for playing in online casinos?). In my opinion, all likely scenarios should be investigated. Two important ones: 1. it should be investigated whether Micha Romijn received money in exchange for the use of his ID or 2. that he is a victim of ID fraud. If latter would be the case, then why wasn’t any of this on the news or emailed to/communicated with me or other journalists in any way with convincing evidence? Because I had made some real public fuss about this MR ID, that it was sent to me, just like that, I had extensively tweeted about it with even the un-blurred images of the several ID photos. Moreover, the ID pictures were published on my WordPress site, for everybody to see.

Rachid is another person involved. I even received an email from Jan Willem Nienhuys, my good friend from because Rachid was trying to contact me in vain (?) and he tried his luck with Jan Willem Nienhuys. This Rachid seems to be somebody close to Robbert, Stan and Alan, who has been hitchhiking along on this whole case. Robbert van den Broeke claims in his email that Rachid received a lot of money.

I then received a lot of emails from Rachid too, but call it intuition or experience, I didn’t like communicating with him, it felt pointless and like speaking to a twisted mind. Nothing came out of my communication with him and I discontinued it.

There is also this thing with Dutch crime reporter John van den Heuvel in Stan’s audio. I conclude from the aforementioned audio that Robbert van den Broeke has been spilling some beans towards John van den Heuvel and said to Van den Heuvel that Stan is hacking casinos. As known, John van Heuvel was visiting Joran van de Sloot in his jail cel in Peru, so there we have it again: the circle Joran, Stan and Robbert.6

The two audio files of Leydi Figueroa Uceda sent to me by Stan Pluijmen fit seamlessly into the picture Stan has or had power over Joran and Leydi, because if someone, especially imprisoned or poor like Joran and Leydi, gets very large sums of money, such as these two from Stan,6 this person/they will be more readily inclined to do “weird things” for their benefactor.

And it all fits with Stan’s strange sense of humor and his obsession with me.

To return to Stan’s “confession clip”: Stan says in this audio he had been set up about this casino story, but that he wasn’t arrested, “Just ask John van den Heuvel, it’s true”, which would confirm that he is innocent of hacking casinos.

Stan had confided through emails earlier on that with Joran van der Sloot too, he had cut ties. Alan had his say in this audio also:

and both seemed scared of Robbert, they seemed to think or acted that Robbert had put some sinister curse on them.

I haven’t talked much about Alan, Stan’s husband. The truth is, I like him, just like Stan, but I don’t like their covering up of fraud and deception (Robbert van den Broeke, Joran van der Sloot, et cetera related). That makes all of this extra incomprehensible, I mean, they spent many years in the make-the-other-crazy-but-often-not-in-a-fun-way game. There were and are some sidelines with Alan, like the time I talked to him through his Twitter account. That didn’t end very well and he even deleted that account. Later, and in line with what Stan often did, he denied, but also confirmed that he had been that person on Twitter. I also received emails from him, but most were obviously from Stan using his email address. I could tell not only from the language used, but in these emails Stan simply wrote about the he-person: Alan. Some of the emails were from Alan and in these emails he always seemed very friendly and truly reaching out to me as an independent person (from Stan), although he seemed outraged a couple of times at some of my responses on Twitter. It can certainly be called a fact that he is an absolute insider in everything, since, as Stan’s husband, he lives with Stan day after day.

Stan kept saying, over and over again, that he loves me, even calling me an “universal source of love”.

The “old” Stan, December 25, 2018:

Sending emails from the mailbox of Robbert van den Broeke:

And, same day:

The “new” Stan:

My firm impression is that many more people are involved in the Robbert van den Broeke-Stan Pluijmen-Joran van der Sloot and so on (than the already in this and previous blogs mentioned names) case, possibly even well-known names from the Dutch and international conspiracy and para world, and that casino fraud and para-fraud are not the only illegal business. Also consider Stan’s rare stubbornness about Natalee Holloway’s alleged remains in Grave 15 at the St. Anna Churchyard in Aruba. Even Joran briefly mentions that St. Anna in the clip Stan via the mailbox of Robbert van den Broeke dropped in my mailbox: (I provided English captions):

In April 2020 I received an invitation from a Dutch radio maker to talk about all this and Stan also received an invitation. Stan doesn’t want to and again only communicated this to me:

Stan says some interesting things in these audios and especially in this audio “15”: that he hates the web of lies he got into, and that he is threatened from all sides, but that it’s okay by him when/if I publish all his audios because he loves honesty. He also says that he had already recorded an entire audio for me, was “too honest” – and wonders if there is such a thing as “too honest” – and that he consequently deleted this audio. He talks (again) about his (former) drink and coke problem, and says the audios between 2018 and now on average were recorded with this addiction slur. He also asks if I don’t want to make fun of him and that he loves me. He goes on to say that he doesn’t think he can buy everything off with money. He doesn’t feel like thrill journalism about Joran van der Sloot, and that he’s not exactly boosting himself for being Joran’s friend ,and that this journalist who invited both him and me to talk about Joran van der Sloot and co must think he’s retarded. And also in this audio you can notice that he wanted to say something, but then “caught” himself, something “too honest” again?, and then his sentence stops.

To me it all seems the tip of the iceberg, and my hunch based on the thousands of emails and media files I received in total, is that this whole case has been a smoldering volcano that will erupt once. My personal hope is that this eruption will be thorough and that the whole cesspool will really open. There will be many “losers”, but also some big winners, and I hope Natalee Holloway’s parents will be among those winners to get the information about their daughter Natalee Holloway, which they have been entitled to for all these years, but never got. It is now (on May 30, 2020) exactly 15 years ago that she disappeared.

Something else to conclude this with: to this day, Stan never got my “secret request” (and no, this request is not about money). I asked something from Stan on Twitter, but it is up to him to see what it is, and because they claim to be clairvoyant, I was amazed that this wasn’t, and still isn’t, the case. And Stan, yes, this secret request still stands.


[1] BN De Stem: Hoevens medium Van den Broeke niet langer verdacht van bedreigingen: ‘Ik heb de schijn tegen’
Internetbode: Rechtzaak tegen Robbert van den Broeke geseponeerd

[2] His turn to conspiracy theories with regard to the Corona Virus didn’t go unnoticed and was picked up by several media groups. NRC GeenStijl Mentionable is the fact that only a fraction of the YouTube commenters on this GeenStijl clip knows Robbert, some even think it is staged or that Robbert is an actor. It could also be they don’t recognize him, as he has changed very much in appearance. Van den Broeke received more publicity in May, 2020 when he was interviewed by Ybeltje Berckmoes of aspiring Dutch broadcaster “Ongehoord Nederland“, “channeling” Right-Wing leader Pim Fortuyn who was murdered by Volkert van der Graaf on May 6, 2002. Both aspiring broadcaster “Ongehoord Nederland” and Robbert were buried under severe criticism and scorn directly after this was aired.

[3] Robbert van den Broeke Bedankt zijn volgers ! and Medium Robbert van den Broeke talk about Constantia Oomen.

[4] See my Parameter blogs Fallen Angels and Behind The Scenes Of Robbert van den Broeke, Part IV (August 2018).

[5] See my Parameter WordPress and this external linkScreenshots in case the link won’t work at any time:

[6] Here are some links to that:
Van der Sloot openhartig over Natalee in nieuwe video
John van den Heuvel: Joran wist niet dat hij gefilmd werd
Joran van der Sloot verdacht in witwaszaak

Blogs By Constantia

Appreciate my blogs! If you appreciate my Parameter blogs and want to show your appreciation with a small contribution: you can! In this way you help to maintain independent writing. Go to my personal website to donate (see sidebar).

🌟 With many thanks to Rob Nanninga, Sjaan, Manfred and Luciënne (the latter for what she did in the Robbert van den Broeke & co case in 2016) 🤗


Stan, Alan en anderen

Dit blog is ook gepubliceerd op mijn Leeuwenharten WordPress. Als u zich afvraagt waarom dit toch aanzienlijke blog ook op de Leeuwenharten website verschijnt: dit is een belangrijk deel van mijn leven en het heeft als zodanig ook een echte impact. Bovendien heeft het een zeer directe overlap met Rob Nanninga, aangezien ook hij hiermee bezig was en is, als het klopt dat er een leven na de dood is (in wat voor vorm dan ook). Ik krijg regelmatig de indruk dat Rob me helpt in deze zaak, als het ware de heren dwingt hun kaarten op tafel te leggen.


Al vijftien jaar ben ik met deze zaak bezig, een ongelooflijk lange tijd. Er zijn een paar noemenswaardige veranderingen en ontwikkelingen.

Het eerste noemenswaardige feit is dat ik Robbert van den Broeke definitief geblokkeerd heb in het zenden van emails naar mij. Hij werd in oktober 2018, naar verluidt wegens gebrek aan bewijs, vrijgesproken in de haat- en dreigmails zaak1, en kreeg zelfs een schadeloosstelling, maar dit was geen enkele reden voor Van den Broeke om nu een scheld- en dreigvrije zone in te wandelen en hij bleef doodleuk doorgaan met zijn haatmails richting mij.

Aan Rob Nanninga kon ik merken dat hij tegen 2012 wel een beetje een streep had gezet onder de Genverbrander zaak; voor hem was de kous sok wel (bijna) af

nu Robbert definitief ontmaskerd was als oplichter en ook nog eens aangetoond was, dat Van den Broeke online tirades afstak waar de honden geen brood van lustten, maar ik bleef de deur veel langer op een kier, dan wel open, houden. Al geruime tijd is het eigenlijk voor iedereen, behalve voor Van den Broekes meest loyale fans, kraakhelder dat Robbert van den Broeke in feite een verloren zaak is, en het in die zin logisch bekeken niet veel zin meer heeft noch eervol is zijn capriolen te onderzoeken en tegen het licht te houden. Van den Broeke is muurvast komen te zitten, en het enige dat hij nu alweer jarenlang doet, is het eindeloos herhalen van zijn kunstjes: het afsteken van diverse “spirituele” preken, het faken van geesten en buitenaardsen in zijn foto’s en video’s, al zijn “liefdevolle” boodschappen voor zijn fans en al zijn haat richting mij en skeptici in het algemeen.

Tegenwoordig sluit hij zelfs bij de mainstream complotkwaks aan, bijvoorbeeld wat betreft de gehypte verbinding tussen 5G en het Corona Virus. Een van zijn eerste, gewraakte complot-clips hierover had hij toch nog verwijderd.2 Deze complottheorieën zijn verre van onschuldig aangezien complotgelovigen ze meenemen in hun dagelijkse leefstijl en keuzes, en hun kinderen of zichzelf vervolgens niet meer laten vaccineren, omdat ze bang zijn dat de staat in het geheim microchips bij hen inbrengt of dat ze vergiftigd worden met kwik. Sommige mensen gaan zelfs zo ver dat ze 5G masten, of wat ze daarvoor aanzien, in de hens steken. Van den Broeke heeft in het afgelopen jaar een zeer grote hoeveelheid YouTube clips gepubliceerd, waarin hij allerlei “spirituele” thema’s behandelt en hij heeft zelfs mij een paar keer publiekelijk aan de schandpaal trachten te nagelen.3 Toch lijkt de nieuwe trend bij hem de “preekvideo’s” te zijn, en ik zou dat eigenlijk best heel prima vinden als het daarbij bleef. Hey, iedereen mag op zijn preekstoel gaan zitten, niet waar?  Maar helaas blijft het daar dus niet bij, want Van den Broeke levert ook nog steeds zijn bedrog kunststukjes af, inclusief zelfbeschadigingen op zijn voorhoofd waarvan hij beweert dat het buitenaardse dan wel Christus tekens zijn. Ik moet zeggen dat zijn verzameling aan “spirituele” onderwerpen op YouTube onderhand indrukwekkend bont begint te worden, en zijn interesse in dit soort onderwerpen lijkt dus niet gespeeld. Toch blijft er voor mijn indruk weinig reden over nog veel tijd en energie in hem te steken.

Robbert stuurde me dus weer een complete vrachtlading aan haatmails en clips, een gedeelte is in de Google Drive. Er is één Robbert van den Broeke activiteit die ik niet onvermeld wil laten. Toen Van den Broeke nog steeds actief met Johny Webb samenwerkte, die van de octopus, presteerde hij het om met een “channeling” van niemand minder dan Adolf Hitler te komen. Echter, de begeleidende tekst en clip werden op Webbs Facebook en YouTube gepubliceerd. Ik tweette hier vervolgens over en hierop hebben een of meerdere mensen (ik was het niet) Webb bij Facebook gerapporteerd. Hierna ging de Facebook pagina van Webb, waarop hij voorheen dagelijks zeer actief was, definitief op zwart. De clip staat echter nog steeds op zijn YouTube kanaal, en ik zette ook een kopie ervan in de Google Drive, je weet maar nooit:

In de herfst van 2019 liet ik op Twitter het idee vallen de Robbert van den Broeke blogs die ik geschreven heb in een boek om te zetten, en ik was hier zelfs al een aantal weken mee bezig geweest (dit ligt op het moment stil). Vanzelfsprekend zat Van den Broeke er direct met heel zijn gewicht bovenop en kreeg ik een aantal haatmails hierover binnen. Ook Stan Pluijmen liet zich niet onbetuigd en had het er een paar keer over in emails, maar hij uitte zich meer in de zin van: “Dat boek komt er niet, toch?”

Opeens brak er iets in me op 14 december 2019, toen er weer eens mail van Van den Broeke binnenkwam waar de haat letterlijk vanaf droop. Ik besloot hem geheel te blokkeren. Elke keer als hij me nu mailt, wordt zijn email ogenblikkelijk roemloos afgevoerd door Gmail, die daarop een automatische boomerang naar Robbert terugstuurt met het berichtje dat hij geblokt is en waarom. Sinds ik deze filters zo instelde, is er geen enkele Robbert van den Broeke mail meer binnengekomen en ik ben erg blij met deze beslissing!

Stan, Alan en anderen

Stan Pluijmen is echter een andere zaak. Stan leek nooit hatelijk of een hater, zoals Van den Broeke, in de emails die hij met zijn eigen naam ondertekende. Het is een lang verhaal en het voert te ver alles “weer” te gaan herhalen. Het komt er kort gezegd op neer dat ik Stan niet geblokkeerd heb en nog steeds een kans geef. Ik hoopte altijd dat hij toch nog over de brug zou komen, dan wel komt, dat hij zich los zou maken van Robbert en dus niet meer zou meedoen aan het para lieg-en bedriegspelletje. Maar Stan gaat toch wel op en neer als een jojo. Stan mailde mij echter in toenemende mate mails met teksten waaruit af te leiden viel dat hij veranderd was en dat hij zelfs deels toegaf dat er sprake was van bedrog bij en met Robbert van den Broeke. Ondanks dat blijft Stan stug volhouden dat er een deel in Robbert zit dat echt “helderziend” is. Hoe dan ook, Stan en Robbert zijn geen bedrogskoppel meer, dat wil zeggen: ik zie daar geen aanwijzingen (meer) voor. Stan leek zowaar bezwaard door het verleden, en natuurlijk weet hij als geen ander hoeveel ernstige haatmails ik heb binnengekregen van Robbert en van zijn eigen, bedenkelijke, nog erg behoudend uitgedrukt, netwerk. Hij begon me financiële compensatie aan te bieden in de vorm van BTC (bitcoin), maar lange tijd hield ik die deur gesloten en liet vallen dat ik alleen in officiële schenkingen via een notaris geïnteresseerd zou zijn. Al jaren was hij bezig met het geldaspect van deze zaak en het mij voorhouden van dikke geldvissen, mij geld aanbiedend als ik al mijn blogs op Parameter zou verwijderen, zie daartoe ook mijn vorige Parameter blogs.4

Stan leek behoorlijk wanhopig te worden over het bestaan van mijn Parameter blogs, hij probeerde het ook op een andere wijze en trachtte me te verleiden mee te gaan in een “codewoord” deal: als hij/zij instaat waren een codewoord te raden dat ik in gedachten zou nemen, en aan één iemand officieel zou toevertrouwen als bevestiging, dan zou ik al mijn blogs moeten verwijderen. Echter hapte ik niet in het aas dat Stan voor me uitgeworpen had.

In 2020 begon Stan zijn BTC pogingen om een reden die ik niet ken aanzienlijk op te voeren, hij zei/zegt dat het was/is om me te helpen omdat hij me mag en van me houdt. Ik werd toch wel weer wat nieuwsgierig of hij zomaar (weer) iets zei en ik postte mijn BTC adres publiekelijk op mijn Genverbrander10 Twitter account (Twitter naam op 14 oktober 2020 veranderd naar RobConstantia).

Dit was overigens niet de eerste keer dat ik dat deed, ik deed het ook in 2018. Ik leerde bitcoin in 2017 kennen toen ik probeerde bij een buitenlandse website mijn allergiemedicijn Ebas – ook wel bekend onder de marktnamen Kestine en Ebastine – te bestellen. Dit medicijn is helaas dus echt niet te krijgen in Amerika en de doktoren die ik hierover in Davis raadpleegde, kenden het zelfs nog niet. Op deze buitenlandse website vragen ze of om BTC, en dan krijg je standaard 10% korting op je gehele bestelling, of om een bankoverboeking, en die zijn hier, in tegenstelling tot Nederland, aan de zeer prijzige kant. Daarop trok ik de stoute schoenen aan en creëerde een account bij Coinbase (ik zit overigens tegenwoordig meer bij een andere cryptocurrency “bank”). Net als voor veel andere mensen toen was dit allemaal zeer nieuw en onwennig voor me, en op een gegeven moment publiceerde ik zelfs mijn BTC wallet adres op  mijn Twitter account ConstantiaUSA. Ik heb geprobeerd de betreffende tweet terug te vinden, maar ik meen me ook te herinneren dat ik die na een poos toch maar weer verwijderd had, want ik kom hem inderdaad niet meer terugvinden. Pas recent, in april 2020, begon ik het cryptocurrency gebeuren iets meer te begrijpen. Je kunt, als ik het goed heb, best je BTC wallet adres publiceren, maar dan is het wel raadzaam vooraf even je BTC account dicht te timmeren tegen hackers die op slinkse wijze zouden kunnen proberen je geld weg te sluizen via een storting naar een ander BTC adres (maar houd me ten goede). Toen ik hier recent wat over aan het lezen was, besloot ik maar snel even wat extra veiligheidsstappen te doorlopen in mijn actieve BTC account. Maar destijds in midden? 2018 hoopte ik stiekem dus dat iemand BTC in mijn wallet zou storten, wat natuurlijk niet gebeurde.

In mijn Parameter blog maakte ik al melding van het feit dat ik geheel op spontane impuls en min of meer grappend op Twitter tegen Stan Pluijmen had laten vallen dat ik bereid was voor 1.5 miljoen mijn Parameter blogs inderdaad weg te halen. Slechts met een dergelijke grote som aan geld zou ik mij dan echt gecompenseerd voelen voor alle haat en ellende die zij mij aangedaan hebben. Het onderliggende idee hierbij was dat ik met een dergelijk fortuin heel anders zou kunnen gaan leven, en dat ik dit werkelijk kon zien als een échte, serieuze schadevergoeding, voldoende om dit alles achter me te laten.

Ik mailde Stan hier niet over, en ik mailde hem helemaal niet, alles ging via Twitter.