Sunday, December 27, 2009

Lisa Romanek Offers Up 'Bob Bicksler' with Claimed Sworn Testimony in Heated Debate with MUFON Head, James Carrion

James Carrion… Will you wave the white flag regarding the Stan Romanek experiences when common sense dictates?

By Lisa Romanek

Editor's Note--James Carrion has sent in his rejoinder to Lisa's OP-ED, which appears at the end the piece. Additionally, links to previous pertinent articles are there as well-FW
Lisa Romanek     Red flags are everywhere for MUFON’s International Director James Carrion, as he investigates the Stan Romanek case via website posts, blogs, online post and response to articles posted about Stan Romanek’s case of UFO sightings, alien abductions and much more. Oh yes and let’s not forget the Schriever AFB document that he obtained mysteriously from an unnamable source. What will be sufficient evidence to allow him to raise a white flag? In many of James Carrions replies he requests that the individuals who wrote the online reports to NUFORC in support of Stan’s sightingsprove that they are “real people.” For some unfathomable reason he is now asking that any anonymous blog posters identify themselves as well? I am at a loss to see the relevance of blog posters to the evidence in this case. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can log onto a site and post a comment, it does not mean that they are not real; it does not show that they are connected to Stan Romanek in any way.

The internet has become a device of disinformation as well as information. Many tactics are used to lend credibility to individuals as well as sneakily discredit with fictitious claims of knowledge that would support, in an effort to discredit. This is not a new strategy, it is just plain stupidity. And for individuals who are not able to discern the difference that make you gullible. No offense, I too wonder at many posts by individuals whom I do not know, who claim to know details that are incorrect. I ignore them as rubbish and move on, I understand some people want (or need) to have a connection to what is the big news for the day. I feel it is nothing more than that!

Mr. Carrion wrote the following in his comment on October 10th, 2009 on the site. The fact that the word fallow got mispelled in any single document or online posting is not the issue but that the mispelled word shows up in so many third party documents supporting Stan’s claims -third parties that allegedly have no relationship or connection with Stan. What are the odds that all of these third parties mispelled this same word (in documents supportive of Stan), is due to chance? The Romanek’s don’t want you to mull this over using critical thinking but would rather try to refocus your attention on the word fallow being a commonly mispelled word. I don’t buy their argument and I continue to consider it a red flag until one or more of these third parties come forward and prove themselves to be real people. Will the real John Mannon please step up? Not by posting again to the anonymous Internet but showing some ID in person so you can be verified to be a real physicist.

Ok so let’s break down Carrions reply a bit. He stated “The fact that the word fallow got misspelled in any single document or online posting is not the issue but that the misspelled word showed up in so many third party documents supporting Stan’s claims –third partys that allegedly have no relationship or connection with Stan.”

First of all Mr. Carrion the correct spelling for misspelled is that there are two s’s in it. It is my opinion if you are going to be so critical of other people’s spelling errors, you should be damn sure your spelling is correct! You state in the opening sentence that the fact that the word follow (of which you chose to be like the online posters, and spelled it incorrectly as fallow…not so clever) was misspelled in any online or single doc. was not the issue. Sounds like you are making it part of your issue.

Second, please be specific with what third party documents (many?) that you are talking about. Making broad general statements about many third party documents is not helping to rectify this debate. I see you wrote it as plural in that there is more than one document that you are referring to other than the Schriever AFB document. It is hard for people who may have knowledge of such “documents” to claim authorship of them if they do not know what you are referring to.

Third, your comment, “What are the odd that all of these third parties misspelled this same word (in documents supportive to Stan), is due to chance?” Again what documents are you talking about? Without these alleged documents, this argument is moot to say the least.

Fourth, you said, “The Romanek’s don’t want you to mull this over using critical thinking but would rather try to refocus your attention on the word fallow being a commonly mispelled word.” It looks to me like you are the one who is focused on the word follow/fallow . How is this article showing that you (James Carrion) are not using critical thinking to prove anything—one way or another? It was not an attempt to refocus attention from the issue, it was an attempt to help you understand that “fallow” is a commonly misspelled word, and critical thinking WAS used to do so.

Fifth, you state, “I don’t buy their argument and I continue to consider it a red flag until one or more of these third parties come forward and prove themselves to be real people.” As Stan’s wife and using critical thinking I have taken it upon myself to contact the individuals who posted (some with Stan’s assistance) reports on the NUFORC site, as well as Peter Davenport in regards to the September 21st 2001 sighting at Daniels Park near Castle Rock, Colorado. Please have your white flag ready, and let this be the end of this ridiculous argument once and for all. Feel free to contact any and all of the following witnesses for verification! I am glad that the NUFOC reporting site exists since reporting anything to MUFON seems to result in public criticism, attacks not only on the experiencers but also their families. I personally take offense at being attacked and called a liar!!!! When an experiencers credibility is questioned and their integrity is questioned because of a misspelled word, and MUFON is connected to this behavior I am shocked and surprised that an organization of this magnitude would allow such an individual to continue in this very important position after such a blatant act of unprofessional and inappropriate conduct.
Mr. Carrion,
My name is Ann Romanek. I understand that there is confusion about my report in 2001 about a UFO sighting at Daniels Park which was one of the most astonishing and most startling experiences of my life. I requested at that time that my brother Stan Romanek type the report to NUFORC because I detest typing and I was intimidated by computers. I have been a MUFON volunteer for the past 4 to 5 years. I am appalled by your seemingly personal attack on those of us who wrote reports on what we witnessed and on my brother’s credibility. I do understand that a number of MUFON investigators and members do not share your feelings on this matter nor do they share your opinions on the credibility of this case!!!

Stan has recently asked that those who were there and reported anything on this experience that evening come forward and be heard, AGAIN! I and others who have witnessed these amazing UFOs are doing that now.

I hope this isn’t the way MUFON treats witnesses reporting these matters. It’s a heck of a way to have the truth come forward.

Ann Romanek

P.S. Please notice in the NUFORC note at the bottom of my report that Mr. Davenport thanks Stan Romanek for submitting not only this report, but several other reports from other witnesses to this same event. See Here.

NUFORC Report - Something Fallowed My Brother- click on image(s) to enlarge -
Mr. James Carrion

My name is Mark Stahl, I have been a volunteer for MICAP, MUFON and several other organizations for nearly 20 years and my contact information can be obtained through MUFON. I would like to address the issue that has recently come to my attention about a report that was submitted to NUFORC on my behalf in September 2001.

I wrote a report of the UFO sighting that was witnessed by me and many other people at a night watch that I hosted in Sept. of 2001 at Daniels Park south of Denver, Colorado. I handwrote the report and asked Stan Romanek to help me post it on the reporting center website since I’m not that computer literate. I would like to state that I WAS at Daniels Park on September 21, 2001 and I DID file the report shortly afterwards. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Mark Stahl
NUFORC Report - A UFO Fly's Over Us . . .
- click on image(s) to enlarge -
I, Bob Bicksler, did submit a report to Peter Davenport at the UFO Reporting Center in Seattle, Washington about an incident that took place on September 21, 2001. It was about a happening at Daniels Park south of Denver and I interviewed two witnesses who were amazed at what they had seen. If you wish to know the details go to the UFO reporting Center September 22, 2001.

That was my sworn testimony and I won't change a word of it.

Signed, Bob Bicksler.

NUFORC Report - I Talked To Witnesses . . .
- click on image(s) to enlarge -

Lastly, I would like to address the John Mannon comment you made, “Will the real John Mannon please step up? Not by posting again to the anonymous Internet but showing some ID in person so you can be verified to be a real physicist.” Where in this post does this person claim to be a physicist? If you have another post available with this claim please share that information as well.


From John Mannon 1-19-4:
Hi Jeff -

I have been enthralled with the Romanek case for some time now it is a great story. As I fallow his adventures on your site, I see something that others have missed. This is in response to Byron Guernsey's comment and star chart. I noticed that Stan Romanek's #6 equation is depicting Orion - but Orion is upside down Please see attached. (copied from See Here).

I would also like to hear from John Mannon, but will not hold out hope for such a meeting. If this post was from 2004, I think it unlikely, but what an awesome challenge to an individual who wanted to make a simple comment. “The Truth Seeker” demands now that you prove that you are real or else… ? I would also like to meet the real “truth seeker” from the site, Follow The Magic Thread. Oh yes that is right James you are “the truth seeker.” Let’s see if you can accept the truth once it is presented to you or if you will continue to pursue this ridiculous issue instead of focusing on the real evidence in this case. You have a copy of the document from Schriever AFB, what have you learned of the authenticity of it? Tell us the “truth” of what your critical thinking had revealed! I would think that as MUFON’s International Director you would have friends in high places that would pay to have it analyzed, again. Focus on the big picture, and stop making MUFON look bad by your actions.

In conclusion I would like to share an email message from Peter Davenport, the Director of the NUFORC site. (National UFO Reporting Center or also, Hotline: 206-722-3000 (use only if the sighting has occurred within the last week)

(An email communication between me and Peter Davenport)

Hello Mr. Davenport,

I know you are very busy and have a lot of messages to get through so I will keep this as short as possible. My name is Lisa Romanek, Stan's wife. I am writing to get your permission to post the full reports that Stan and other witnesses sent to you regarding the 9/21/2001 sighting at Daniels Park, and also if needed the 9/30/2001 reports as well. I am not sure if that is allowed or against your policy or not so I figured permission prior was easier than apologizing later.

James Carrion MUFON International Director has taken issue with the fact that Stan posted reports for his sister and friend Mark on your site. He is very focused on the word follow misspelled fallow in some of the reports. We have asked that each person, who reported on your site for these sightings claim ownership of them (which they have) to prove to James Carrion that they are real people...he does not think they are regardless of our explaining that Stan did indeed file the reports for two of these witnesses — Ann Romanek and Mark Stahl on your site with them sitting next to him. (You even posted a note at the bottom that states that Stan helped them) Any further info you can recover for my quest would be greatly appreciated.

Many Blessing for all your great work!
Lisa Romanek
Hi, Lisa!!

“Thank you very much for your note,…and please convey my regards to Stan, if you would. Please feel free to use the reports, as you see fit. I would offer to return the original mailed copy of Stan’s reports, but because of several computer failures, I suspect that they either are gone for good, or it would take a lot of time for me to find them. Hence, please feel free to copy them from the website.”

“I am very interested in having reports of all sightings, no matter when they occurred. My position is that if a serious-minded person sincerely believes that he/she has sighted a genuine UFO, that is information that should be 1) recorded, and 2) made available publicly. If you ever run into other folks, who have serious stories to tell, I would be most grateful if you would please direct them to our website, with encouragement to write down the details of the event. For your interest, Lisa, I estimate that out of 10,000 Americans who have been witness to a genuine UFO sighting, only perhaps one of those people has ever written it down!! What’s going on here??!!
Peter asks that if you have memory of, or if you have written down any sightings recent or not, please submit them to NUFORC National UFO Reporting Center’s website,

More . . .

Carrion's Rejoinder

I am getting wary of posting any more responses about the sinking ship that is the Stan Romanek saga. The Romanek marketing machine counter-attacks just highlight that they are in a serious credibility quandary from which they obviously have no intention of extracting themselves from, nor do they intend to release publicly their photo/video evidence for analysis. Their petty personal attacks and rallying of their faithful does not prove Stan’s case and only reveals their very worn strategy of “thou does protest too much”. Critical thinkers can see through Lisa and Stan’s bolstering of their defenses as eluding the truth and my blog has already done enough damage to their credibility to sink a battleship. Unfortunately, they feel obliged to go down with the ship. Bon voyage.




  1. Mrs. Romanek,

    If you want to clarify this situation, please be kind enough to explain who Clay Roberts is, and what role he plays in determining what Stan will and won't go public with - based on my brief interview of your husband, I see little reason to believe the vast majority of his claims. Is it possible that he's seen a UFO with some other witnesses? Sure. Is the "alien in the window" footage legitimate? In my professional opinion, based on the little I've seen, not a chance in hell. Does Stan have a profit motive for making his claims? I certainly think so.

    David Biedny
    Co-Host - The Paracast

  2. Mr. Biedny,

    Clay Roberts was the documentary film maker that was working with us for the past 5 years. He is no longer doing the documentary and we are no longer under any contract with him.
    You have a right to believe or not believe. I think the vast majority of the evidence Stan presents speaks for itself...
    It is more than possible that many others have witnessed UFO's while with Stan, that has never been in doubt. The "alien in the window" video is legitimate, and based on what you have seen which I am sure is very little then you can't have much of an least not a professional one! As for Stan making these claims for the past 9 years as a money making plot... to use your words...not a chance in hell! Did he write a book about what has happened to him, YES, has he made a lot of money from it NO. It was not about making money it was about sharing his experiences and possibly helping others who have gone through the same kinds of things. Stan's responsibility is to raise the awareness that UFOs and ETs are real. I guess that he has done that because people are still talking about it and they are still reading about it. Even if the response to us is sometimes negative, it is still an acknowledgment that people are hearing the "Messages."

    Lisa aka Mrs. Romanek

  3. James,
    Are you warily waving the white flag? Are you willing to admit that at least a few of your perceived red flags can now be dropped and this debate can be put to rest?
    I am amazed that you will not accept "the truth" even when it has been presented to you. You demanded this proof, and I provided it. Are you now going to ignore the facts because the authors of these reports you previously claimed to be fraudulent, not written by “real people” on the NUFORC reporting site, are no longer anonymous… simply because you are wary? Are you going to contact these individuals, or are you simply going to cling to your perception that we are "rallying our faithful" as an excuse to not address or acknowledge the truth? I feel that if you don’t contact these individuals and verify that they are "real people" you have just proven that you are not the "truth seeker" that you claim to be.
    Apparently my Christmas wish will not come true. I had hoped that this would put an end to this ridiculous debate. The “real people” came forward as you asked and the fallow/follow issue has been partially explained AGAIN.
    Now you are wary of posting any more responses about the sinking ship that is the Stan Romanek saga? Wary is defined as: On guard, watchful, careful and cautious. Is that what you meant? Or are you weary, defined as: Physically or mentally fatigued, it is also defined as having one's interest, forbearance, or indulgence worn out. I am just curious if you are wary or weary? Looks like this debate will go into the New Year.
    As for a Sinking Ship...I know for a "fact" that someone’s ship is sinking, but it's not mine!
    All aboard… The New Year is fast approaching!

  4. So, Mrs. Romanek, based on your logic, the ends are a justification for any means. Contracts with documentary film makers? Profit motive, clear and simple. If your husband was actually interested in what you claim, he would have released the "thing in the window" video to folks with the relevant professional credentials capable of performing actual objective analysis, instead of relying on the comments of a single video-editing instructor, someone lacking any significant understanding of the process of visual image analysis or experience in actually examining anomalous video footage for signs of fabrication or tampering. To my knowledge, even though you claim that you're no longer bound to a contractual gag order by a documentarian (who we may presume was interested in maximizing exposure for the purposes of inflating potential profit on this project, as he essentially admitted to me on the single phone call I had with him), the footage Stan claims to have has yet to be released for public consideration. Please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken about this statement.

    And as of yet, like Mr. Carrion, I am unconvinced by your explanations of the issues that Carrion brings forward, which I had also noticed in the process of your controlled release of information and claims of corroborating witness reports.

    And this is to say nothing of your husband's association with Jeff Peckman, the marketer of the "Metatron Harmonizer" nonsense.

    The only people talking about your husband's claims, are doing so in the vein of incredulity and critical deconstruction. If you want to believe that Stan has somehow moved the discussion about UFOs and "ETs" forward in a pragmatic, realistic or constructive fashion, may I refer you to someone selling a certain bridge in Brooklyn.


  5. James Carrion responds to Lisa Romanek:

    Lisa, your broken record of “See my evidence and repent” is leading the Romanek party nowhere except to the land of lost credibility. Getting your friends and family members to “come forward” as a way to put to rest the anonymity and fallow issue doesn’t cut it. Did you forget about the key “fallow” witness who saw the UFO beam Stan’s van? How about Mr. Mannon? How about the guy on the ATS forum? How about the Air Force person who allegedly penned the “fallow” letter. Nice long-winded attempt at getting nowhere.

    The only thing I am wary of are those who make claims they can’t back up. So I will say it again: Quit manipulating evidence and release ALL the photo/video evidence that Stan has. Seems like you ALLWAYS and CONVENIENTLY sidestep that issue with your retorts. Hording the evidence that could prove Stan’s claims leads me to believe you are afraid of what the analysis would show.

    Oh, yes, one other thing. Tell Stan the next time he wants to threaten me with a lawsuit to be sure he thinks about taking that step very carefully – because in a court of law he is not going to have control over manipulating facts like you and he and your posse do in the forum of public opinion. Maybe the world should know more about how Mr. Romanek operates behind his fa├žade of innocent experiencer.

    So, there will be no more responses Lisa on my part to your ridiculous maneuvering. I would rather spend my time with the expert statisticians who are going to calculate the odds of how that word “fallow” could show up in all those Stan related documents. Feel free to get in the last word, fill it with more twisted logic, point out mis-spelled words, proclaim your righteous indignation, etc. – just don’t have any illusions that I will wave a white flag anytime soon.


  6. James,

    How about the fella who wrote the report regarding the beaming of Stan's van, the Schriever AFB doc., the ATS poster, and John Mannon? You are a self appointed Investigator, Interrogator, and debunker of the Romanek case... what have you learned? Perhaps you should quit manipulating the evidence!!!! Looks like you are having other people do you research for you as is evident in this comment: "I would rather spend my time with the expert statisticians who are going to calculate the odds of how that word “fallow” could show up in all those Stan related documents." Calculations of the odds? Is that the best you have to offer in the way of research and investigation?

    I complied with what you asked me to do, I had the posters of the reports from the 9/21/2001 sighting, (posted on the NUFORC reporting site) claim them, and then you say it is not enough. If you want anyone to believe your claims then you had better find a way to prove them otherwise it is just nonsense, and everyone knows it.

    Your most recent article to which you allude to in this post in nonsense...utter rubbish, another attempt to draw me and others into a debate...! Blatant Lies are apparently what keeps you in the public eye, unsubstantiated claims against Stan and others is apparently what makes you feel important...

    Have a good evening,

  7. David Biedny,

    What in the world are you talking about? I will correct your statement..."So, Mrs. Romanek, based on your logic, the ends are a justification for any means. Contracts with documentary film makers? Profit motive, clear and simple." I have never said that. You asked who Clay Roberts is, and I told you. I am sure you are aware of how contracts work, and when we signed with him back in 2003 that contract dictated that "we" could not release the "Alien in the window" and many other things. Where in that did I imply that an ends is justification to any means? Mr. Roberts is no longer involved with us, because he and others were about greed, and money. That part of your comment was partially accurate if people know who it was you were talking about. Everyone who knows us understands that this is not about money... this is about the message, telling the story of Stan's experiences. Anyone who is about greed is not involved personally or professionally with us. PERIOD END OF STORY!
    Please do not try to imply to know what we think, how we feel, or what our motivations are. You Mr. Biedney do not know us, our friends, or our family. And as you have stated you know very little about this case. There is a lot of information that has not been released, from the scientists who have analyzed the evidence, video footage, and photographic evidence as well. These are Stan's experiences, Stan's evidence and when he is ready to release it...he will. I am amazed when people DEMAND that the evidence be released. We are not afraid of it being analyzed by the way, as Carrion implies. But I can guarantee that it will never be released to James Carrion!

    Have a good night,

  8. Mrs. Romanek,

    Thanks so much for confirming what Carrion has pointed out - making huge claims, and then failing to release the evidence that could potentially support those claims, is as close to an admission that the evidence is potentially damning to Stan's claims, as you're ever going to make. Please name a single recognized and capable video analyst that has looked at the window footage and declared it to be genuinely anomalous, and how they reached that conclusion. Otherwise, as we say in Yiddish, you've got bubkas.

    And that's it for me on this topic. There are genuine cases to consider, as we've done this week on my show. In my opinion, your husband is not the real deal with regards to his statements regarding paranormal issues. Obviously, you have a vested interest in claiming otherwise, no surprises there. But the way in which you've responded to both Mr. Carrion and myself on this page should be enough for any intelligent person to get a handle on your husband's many unsupported claims.



  9. Mr. Biedny,

    You have a knack for twisting my word to suit your argument as is evident in this comment: "Thanks so much for confirming what Carrion has pointed out - making huge claims, and then failing to release the evidence that could potentially support those claims, is as close to an admission that the evidence is potentially damning to Stan's claims, as you're ever going to make." I did not say he would not release the evidence... I said "These are Stan's experiences, Stan's evidence and when he is ready to release it...he will." Perhaps I should clarify that the Evidence speaks for itself, and when it is released their will be no doubt. What you do not understand or care to acknowledge is that “We” have been shot at on more than one occasion, Stan has been beaten up, we have been threatened to shut up or we and our children will be killed, and found dead in the dessert, our home has been broken into so many times I have lost track of when and what was taken or left behind! Releasing the evidence could be dangerous. Are these treats real? Hell, I don’t know, but I am not willing to risk my children’s safety to find out…would you? So you and Carrion can harass all you want for the release of the evidence, but until we know it is safe to do so, it will not happen!!!
    I can't stop you or Mr. Carrion from having an opinion or voicing your opinions... but please refrain from voicing mine for me by twisting my words! Another of your comments:"But the way in which you've responded to both Mr. Carrion and myself on this page should be enough for any intelligent person to get a handle on your husband's many unsupported claims."
    My opinion is this... The intelligence people already know the truth; the intelligent don't waste much time with trivial crap like this debate, and those with half a brain try to debunk the truth at every opportunity! Regardless of what I say, you say, or Carrion says the truth still remains the truth.
    But it does not take a rocket scientist to see through what Mr. Carrion is doing. I am really curious what you have to gain from all of this! Why have you decided to join into this debate when as you have said you know little about it! It is disheartening to see that people with the ability to see the truth prefer to wear their blinders... when it suits them. I guess we are all guilty of that!!
    You can comment all you want about how ridiculous the claims I have made about the threats are, and how I am over dramatizing this who situation… but Sir, they are very real. And I am not willing to risk my family to find out if it the threats are a bluff.
    Mr. Carrion can tell all of the BS lies he wants, I cannot stop him, but I will state Here and Now that Stan Romanek did not call and threaten a lawsuit against Carrion… I don’t know what Carrions new game is, but I think he has lost his marbles!
    I can’t wait to see what happens tomorrow, a text message, a tweet?
    I like getting the last word in… and since You and James have signed off on this debate, I will say Goodnight all!

  10. James Carrion Responds:

    What are you denying Lisa? That Stan called the MUFON office? That Stan asked for the MUFON legal department? That Stan asked for the legal address MUFON could be served at? That Stan called Leslie Varnicle and left a voice mail with the same demands? Are you saying that someone was impersonating Stan? Are you also denying that Stan has threatened legal action against MUFON in conversations with others? State it plainly and clearly so all can understand.

    James Carrion

  11. James,

    Stan and Leslie Varnicle are friends and have been for many years. Stan did leave Leslie a message asking her if there was a legal department in MUFON but only after your post was on the Internet! Stan and Leslie had a conversation regarding your article of a threat of a lawsuit. Stan asked her what was going on and if she knew why you would write such an article. Stan already knew that there was no such department after the disaster years ago with our MUFON investigator who kept (stole) important evidence belonging to Stan. MUFON could not take legal steps to recover the evidence for lack of such a department! I don’t see how a phone call or voice message to a friends personal phone asking a question can be seen by anyone as a threat to sue MUFON or you for that matter, especially after the article was posted!! I would love to hear this voice mail that you are so fired up about. After this post to me concerning the voice mail we called Leslie to let her know that you have now involved her into this situation,using her name in a public forum, and update her on the latest drama. She said she did not save the message Stan left her, and also that the voice mail that Stan did leave did not indicate that Stan was going to sue or threaten to sue MUFON or James Carrion. I am really surprised that you would use your MUFON personnel's names without thier prior consent.
    Anyone who would have a need to contact MUFON would probably need to do a Google search, and in doing so would have access to the legal address. This is what I found when I did a search. I found the phone number, the address the email the fax.
    MUFON Headquarters

    International Director, James Carrion
    155 E. Boardwalk Dr. Suite 300,
    Fort Collins, CO 80525

    (888) 817-2220 Fax(866) 466-9173

    MUFON Headquarters at

    After your post Stan was very upset, and he did have conversations with Leslie and others within MUFON asking for assistance in clearing this whole mess up. He voiced his opinion very loudly about you and your unconventional (my word) way of overseeing MUFON and how he feels it is being run into the ground,I guess he is allowed an opinion. To my knowledge Stan has never threatened MUFON or you with legal action. We are shocked and confused by this whole lawsuit drama that has unfortunately been started, and even more surprised that you didn’t contact us to have a conversation and at least ask us what is going on before going off half-cocked on another tangent and posting another article. If you don’t have our phone number, you know plenty of our friends who have it! Please feel free to call me anytime. I am always willing to have a conversation, especially if it will help avoid situations like this. We do not always have to agree, but we do need to be civil and honest in our statements here.
    I do not know who called your office James, and as you have already stated unfortunately you were not there to take the call; if you had been I am sure none of us would be having this conversation. I would, however, be curious as to who in the MUFON organization did take the call.
    There is no legal action being considered or perused against YOU or MUFON, there never has been.

  12. James Carrion Responds:

    And the manipulation of truth from the Romanek camp continues. On December 28, 2009 at 10:36AM, Leslie Varnicle sent me an email that stated “Contact Stan Romanek. He left a message on my home machine asking if MUFON had a legal department”. The same messages were received at MUFON HQ on the same day - December 28th, 2009. Note the date and time that my blog article was posted at as December 29, 2009 at 6:07AM, a full day later! Unless Stan’s friends have the ability to time travel him forward to read the article I was going to post sometime in the future, your story doesn’t wash. What kind of twisted storytelling are you going to resort to next? Wait! First send Stan forward in time to make sure it is not going to backfire on him like this ill-fated attempt at legal intimidation.


  13. I hate to post to such an old article, but the "I'll release the evidence when and if I choose to" is used by a certain debunker now located in the Czech Republic and known to most people who follow the UFO field.

    And everyone knows just how truthful that fellow is.

    Personally, I have real problems with anonymous claims that suddenly become non-anonymous AFTER someone points out obvious problems with their reports.


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