Monday, August 31, 2009

A Rebuttal To James Carrion's Article On Stan Romanek

Carrion Romanek Debate
By Chuck Zukowski

Chuck Zukowski     It came to my attention James Carrion, MUFON’s International Director, who also refers to himself as “Truth Seeker” has submitted a blog on Stan Romanek who I am one of the Independent Investigators for. Hey James! Are you sure you’re not known as “The Smoking Man”? he he (ie. old X-Files) I don’t think James smokes, but after reading his blog on Stan, maybe he should start. Yes I’m a MUFON Field Investigator as well as a MUFON STAR Investigator, but I’m also an Independent UFO Investigator which includes “non” MUFON investigations. For various reasons, some people prefer not to use MUFON, so people like me are available for them and their needs. (Especially after James’s last blog ”feud” with the “Open Minds Forum”.) I guess I’ll be getting pretty busy.

Ok, I love James’s first paragraph in his blog on human behavior as if he is “above it” to observe and manipulate. Here let me quote it:

“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.”

Wow, very eloquently written James, but slightly flawed. It’s every UFO Field Investigator’s intention to suspend society’s common sense “brain washing” ideologies to at least allow the possibility or shimmer a light to the notion life could be visiting this planet (whew one breath). One definition of “Common Sense” states:

“Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”.

The key words here are “judgment” and “perception”. James, it’s your judgment and your perception about Stan Romanek that leads you to your conclusions. Your perception is based on the “Stan” data in which you’ve been introduced to. That’s ok, one’s personal common sense perceptions generally drive one’s personal opinions.

James does bring up a good point involving the the word “fallow” which appears not only in Stan’s Time Line, but also in his sister’s and close friend’s UFO reports submitted to the National UFO Reporting Center’s website. James really didn’t have to go through all this trouble, Stan would have told him. Stan submitted the reports for his sister and friends. No big deal, I’ve submitted reports to MUFON as well as the NURC on behalf of eye witnesses for one reason or the other. Usually, because they either don’t have a computer or they just prefer I do it. I submit them to “enhance” the data base with sightings so we could possibly look for future patterns. Attorneys and accountants submit information all the time on behalf of their clients with the full consent. Stan had full consent of the eye witnesses, all you had to do was ask them.

Now let’s discuss the “controversial” document, the “alleged Air Force memo” which was found in Stan’s mailbox and you acquired without the consent of Stan Romanek. You even stated this yourself, “I subsequently located a copy of the memo from a third party source.” A third party? A third Party? Geeesh… Can you say “Smoking Man”? Again?

James! What the hell! You posted this document through your blog without Stan’s consent? Can you say, “MUFON Board of Directors Meeting?”

Is this standard MUFON Investigative practice? I mean, if the MUFON Investigation manual was changed to accept this protocol, then as a Field Investigator I need to know this. This really concerns me. Even if the document was altered, it’s not ethical for any MUFON investigator especially the head of MUFON to release it without the consent of the witness. Or is it now? You just might have made everyone of your STAR team and Field Investigator’s job, a little harder now (ie: Why should I give you my documents? If you don’t believe me or find a flaw in them, then you’ll just release it to the Internet without my permission!).

I can’t explain why the document has the word “fallow” in it. You’re insinuating Stan is responsible for that document. Well maybe or maybe not. As investigators we find flaws in every investigation we do. Nothing is “cut and dry”. If the eye witness testimonies and hard evidence out weighs the flaws, then “hell” it’s a good case. Stan has a tremendous amount of good evidence, and yes, evidence in which I question too! The problem with Stan’s case is, the eye witness testimonies from individuals who experienced first hand paranormal activity are too many! I mean, a lot!

“Paranormal: Unusual experiences that supposedly lack a scientific explanation, or phenomena alleged to be outside of science’s current ability to explain or measure” (Source:

Yep, you may not agree with me, but I do allow a few inconsistencies in my investigations, if I didn’t, then I wouldn’t have any investigations to do. There’s always holes, no investigation is perfect. If I found just one perfect investigation, then we would have our definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation to this planet!

Ok next, let’s also discuss this excerpt from your blog.

“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.”

That statement is determined by “whom” you talk with. Stan claims MUFON wanted all the prior data before they would work the investigation. Stan denied MUFON’s request, so MUFON denied Stan’s investigation. Stan will discuss this on a video interview he did with me on 8/27/09 originally set up to discuss the ABC special we were both in. The interview is in the process of being cut to format and will be on this site ( within a week or so of the release of this blog. Remember we do this for free, including Matt and Trina who are responsible for the video interview. We still need to work our day jobs to support our “not so” drug induced UFO habit.

In summary of this blog, there will always be inconsistency with every UFO involved investigation we do. The mere controversy surrounding the UFO phenomenon is an inconsistency in itself! I for one went on national TV and said, “Stan Romanek’s case falls within the 2% of unknowns I needed to investigate.” (sorta quoting myself then, but maybe quoting myself now…) Yes I knew about the documents, yes James discussed the “fallow” word with me at the last MUFON Symposium, and no I would never post a witnesses document on the Internet without their approval, and yes, “I still believe in Stan Romanek.”


  1. After watching his MUFON quests and reading his blog, mufon related or not, I suggest it's time for Carrion to move-on. That is turn the reigns of he holds at MUFON over to a fresh thinker.

    I still cringe when I witnessed this man continually throw witness photos and statements back in their face; discrediting scientific analysis through discrediting the witness for lack of witnesses of their UFO event.
    Yes, it's time to take a closer look at MUFON/Bigelow/Carrion and make some judgements on their true focus re the UFO Problem?
    Carrion may be the big wheel at MUFON (for now), but he has no idea how to investigate a witness report w/out trying to distort or be-little the witness.
    I don't have same respect for MUFON as o I once did.

    1. u no mufon has taken a few hits and is not held in the same regard that it once was,,,, but the romanek fans have seemingly headed for the hills. it should be instructive, however, in determining future icons which will be coming down the pipeline. there were many red flags which should have been paid attention to, but for many in their zeal to hitch on to an abductee "personality" these red flags were basically ignored. while it may be questionable whether stan is a simple fraud or a very sick individual, in either case he is a black eye to the field of ufology. ufology is on tenuous ground as is, anymore charlatans will only serve to remove all doubt as to the authenticity of the entire field.


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