Thursday, August 27, 2009

Lost in Space

Stan Romanek Lost in Space
By James Carrion
Follow The Magic Thread

James Carrion     Human behavior is normally fascinating to observe but even more so in the context of the UFO phenomenon. I have seen the most rational and scientifically minded individuals suspend their common sense in favor of their desire to believe when confronted with the ambiguity of data from a UFO report.

Case in point is the Stan Romanek case that has taken the nation by storm. Although new to the public, Stan's case was originally investigated by MUFON years earlier and his case was written up in the MUFON Journal and Symposium Proceeding. I decided to look into this intriguing case for myself, so my good friend Clifford Clift and I arranged to interview Stan Romanek in his home in Xxxxxxxx, Colorado on September 17, 2007 where the interview lasted some five hours.

Stan seemed to be an amicable guy and open to telling his story and he consented to having the interview recorded. What followed was the long tale that is now the subject of his book titled: Messages: The World's Most Documented Extraterrestrial Contact Story.

After the interview, Stan showed us numerous videos on his computer that showed flying orbs, aliens peeking in windows, and poltergeist activity. When I asked him for a copy of the time-line of his experiences, he agreed and printed off a copy. When I asked him for a copy of the alleged Air Force memo that was found in his mailbox, he refused. I subsequently located a copy of the memo from a third party source. I asked Stan if he would provide MUFON a copy of all of his videos to analyze and he was noncomittal.

When I asked Stan what he wanted from MUFON, he indicated that he simply wanted investigators to promptly follow up on any future activity that occurred to him. Unfortunately, Stan never subsequently called in MUFON investigators.

Warning Will Robinson!

After reading the existing MUFON reports on the case, I was puzzled as to the authenticity of Stan's experiences. They sounded amazing but how could I know for sure. I decided to take a forensic approach to the investigation and to look a little closer at the evidence at hand. Starting with the timeline Stan provided, I noticed that the word "follow" was misspelled as "fallow". Wait a minute I thought to myself, I have seen that misspelling before, but where? I soon found out.

Reviewing the numerous sighting reports filed by Stan, family members and friends on the National UFO Reporting Center's web site, I found that not only had Stan misspelled the word "follow" as "fallow" in his own report, but the same misspelled word could also be found in the report filed by his sister and also Stan's friends. I would have not given this further notice, thinking maybe one person had filed all of the reports on behalf of the others, except for two glaring red flags that subsequently popped up.

On NUFORC's web site is a report filed by an anonymous third party witness who allegedly saw a UFO send a beam of light on to Stan's van. Guess which word was misspelled in this third party report? Yep, the word "follow" as "fallow". I began to get a sick feeling that something was not right in all of this, and my suspicions were further confirmed when I got a copy of the Air Force letter. Yes, the same word "follow" is misspelled as "fallow" in this alleged Air Force document. Now, what are the chances that not only Stan's own documentation and reports, but also that of a third party witness and an alleged government agency document ALL have the same misspelled word. In my mind, the odds of this occuring due to chance were astronomical.

Now you can verify this all for yourself by examining the original documents:
Romanek's Time-Line

Stan Romanek Sister's Report to NUFORC

Stan Romanek Friend's Report to NUFORC

Stan Romanek's Own Report to NUFORC

Report From an Alleged 3rd Party Witness

Air Force Letter Allegedly Left in Stan Romanek's Mailbox
So, does this prove that Stan's experiences are all a hoax? Well, it is not conclusive proof, but it definitely raises enough red flags that a more thorough investigation is required. To ignore this data is unscientific, with the burden of explaining these glaring inconsistencies on that of the person making the extraordinary claims.

Now I am willing to give Stan the benefit of the doubt into how this misspelled word popped into all of these documents, but unfortunately the world at large may not be so forgiving.

1 comment :

  1. Dear UFO Chronicles,
    I agree with both James and you.

    I posted a article in my blog favorable to Stan. Although I hadn't witnessed his presentations some friends I respected their opinion. They had attended his presentation at a local Denver UFO meeting. They claimed the evidence was extensive.
    However as I wrote in my post. This evidence was not presented in his book so others could verify it. None of the presentations he gave were allowed to be videoed. I confronted Stan at the 40th MUFON symposium (he had a table there). I ask him why all the detail's of the investigation were left out of his book. He claimed he had no control over this and that of course another book is coming out with all the evidence or did he say DVD... I'm not sure.
    This is what happens when money becomes the driving force behind a famous UFO case. Can a person have genuine experiences and than lie to bring attention to himself? I believe so. I still feel Adamski had real experiences, but I also believe he told tall tales.

    Joe Capp


Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published, nor will "anonymous" criticisms. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum. -FW


Mutual UFO Network Logo