James Carrion, Stan Romanek

August 28, 2009 | By | 37 Comments

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: Wikipedia.com)

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 (www.ufonut.com) 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.”

(If you want to leave a comment, my comment button is currently invisible to Internet Explorer 8. Just move your cursor outside of the lower right section of the reply box and you’ll see your cursor turn into a nifty hand.  Then just click to send your comments.)

Tags: ,

Category: Stan Romanek, The Z-Files

About the Author ()

For the past 28 years Chuck has been researching and investigating the UFO/Paranormal phenomenon. Chuck approaches his investigations with an analytical understanding, making sure to address all human known possibilities before venturing into the non-human or paranormal aspects of the sightings. (TV Shows in which Chuck's investigations have been featured on:) *2002, The Roswell Crash, Startling New Evidence: Documentary Sci-Fi Channel *2006, Sci Fi Investigates: Episode 5, The Roswell episode, Sci-Fi Channel *2009, Primetime: Outsiders, with Juju Chang, Alien Abductions, NBC *2010, SyFy Fact or Faked: Episode 6, San Luis Cattle Mutilation, SyFy Channel *2011, Chasing UFO’s, Episode 3, Alien Cowboys, San Luis Cattle Mutilation, Nat Geo *2013, Finding Bigfoot, Bailey Colorado episode, Animal Planet

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hi Chuck,

    With all due respect, you didn’t explain how the 3rd party witness who filed a report with NUFORC also used the same misspelled word. I did not need Stan’s permission to post the alleged Air Force document because I did not receive it from Stan. I don’t Stan is claiming copyright to the document unless he forged it.

    James Carrion

  2. Joseph Capp says:

    Thank you for the other side. I don’t like what James did only because he should have questioned Stan about the document before he put it on the internet. I do think that open inquiry doesn’t mean your a debunker. What I heard about Stan is he did have a great deal happen around him with many witnesses But if he seasoned the pot to make it taste better than he may have hurt his credibility. He needs to answer the question about the document and the independent witness.I agree with your assessment because so far we have never found a perfect UFO witness or experiencer and we never will because people who see UFOs are just as imperfect as anyone else.However there may be expediences that starts out real and than the person decided to make their expedience more exciting.
    I am reminded of what may have happened with early days of modern Mediums. Some of them seemed to be
    genuine and yet faked some seances. They just couldn’t count on the Ghost showing up on cue so they would create their own.
    I have stated to Stan that I don’t like what happened in the book it was not well documented and if i hadn’t heard of Stan I certainly wouldn’t believe he was the most documented abduction case on record from the book. So it is not just James Carrion that poses questions on this case. That document is powerful evidence and should have been out there in the first place instead of having someone else releasing it.
    My last question is why we hardly see any of the documentation where is it?
    Why does Stan showed the evidence at certain UFO meetings but never lets them be videoed?
    Is this all because the possibility of making money?
    Thanks for the article and maybe Stan can answer some of these questions
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  3. Lisa says:


    I have already tried to explain this to James,but he does not seem to want to hear what I have to say. Stan, his sister, and his friend all filed reports with NUFORC. Stan, Mark and Ann all wrote out their independant statements,signed and dated them and Stan typed and submitted them with them sitting beside him. The Big Mystery is solved. As far as the annonomous report, How would Stan or anyne else know why he can’t spell follow. I have a feeling many dislexic people struggle with that and other words.They tend to sound them out, and hope they get close. How many other mispelled words are in the annonomous report? MANY! So the guy can’t spell, neither can Stan. It happens. Now as far as the document that James got from someone other than Stan and I, that is interesting, I am curious who he got that document from. As I told James, the reason it was never released, is becasue we recieved a warning with the document not to release it to the public, for the safety of the person who sent it, and for our safety as well. We took that warning seriously, obviously James did not care, or perhaps in his investigating the document did not discover that detail. I have asked James to remove it, for the safety of my family and he refused to do so. He stated that Stan put my family in danger when he started talking about his experiences. That may be true, but I don’t think James should help the bad guys, hurt the good guys, do you Chuck? Truth seeker? whatever. No the usaf doc is not copywritten by us, the copywrite holder would be the USAF.
    There are other mispelled words in the document as well, more than just the word follow, did James point those out? NO! Truth Seeker? wondering…As far as the document goes and the annomous reporter, WE would love to know who submitted the report, and who sent the document. However, the document has been authenticated. At least we have that bit of proof to back us up.

    Have a great day Chuck 🙂

    Lisa Romanek

  4. Lisa says:

    Oh my gosh, I need to learn to use spell check too, how many misspelled words can you find in my post:) way to many!!!!! Can I edit it Chuck or is it to late? to Err is human, we all have spelling issues… sheesh

  5. This is my response to Lisa’s comment.

    If spelling of the word “fallow” is not a big deal, how do you then explain it also showing up on other online postings by “third parties” who support Stan’s story?
    See: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/08/_the….abc_tonight.php and

  6. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear Lisa,
    I don’t think your helping my making fun of the questions. You may be angry about James method but honest question shouldn’t bother you that much. Remember Shakespeare “tho protest to much” You sound like a debunker making fun of a subject so they don’t have to answer the questions. The link with the word hallow goes beyond typing up sightings for others. Does Stan government document also have these misspelled words. There was a third party who did the same thing. Can others follow-up on where this document was verified and how? Why isn’t the evidence out there for public inspection? This would at least give a overall picture. I ask again are you keeping the evidence because you are contracted or want to make a DVD or Book to sell? That is just capitalism, but it should be out there.
    I support Stan but I support the truth more, if he is telling the truth it time to put all the evidence on the table.

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  7. Lisa says:

    First of all I was not making fun of anything, I posted this response late last night, and was shocked to see how many errors there were in it. I was simply pointing out that we all have our own issues with spelling. As far as the document, I exlained why we did not post it, the rest of the evidence being withheld was a decision made between Stan and the documentary film maker, who is no longer invloved with us. We decided that waiting 5 years to release it all was to long. But when you are under contract, you are under contract. We are no longer under contract with anyone. Stan wrote Messages, and did you see the document in the book, NO…We honestly felt it was to dangerous to release it, becasue of the warning that came with it. I am constantly amazed by how people react to experiencers, as if they would do things differently. Well until you walk in our shoes,you have no idea what you would or wouldn’t do. You can not even begin to imagine the stress that we live with daily, the fear of who may break in to our home, and what they will leave or take next.ie: listening devices, tracking devices, etc…thin we are paranoid, think again…it has already happened may times!!!! The fear of being shot at or beaten up, the fear that just one of the threats against me and the kids could be followed through with in an instant…is overwhelming. You may think you know what you would do, becasue you are on the outside looking in. At this point, 9 yrs into his experiences, Stan has so much evidence it takes him 4 hours to do a brief presentation. He and others are looking to the best possible way to release it all, but it has to be done in a good way, not just flung to the net, and hope someone can figure out what it all means. Are you a scientist? Can you put scientic reports into laymans terms so that everyone can understand what the reports say? Well that too takes time, and a lot of effort to present it so that everyone can understand it. That is how you show the overall picture, with the science backing it up. And a way to present it all together, not in tiny pieces. That has been shown with the equations. No one get what the big deal is with them, becasue they are only a small piece of a very large puzzle, and we are hoping that someone somewhere, can help fit the pieces together…when all the pieces are on the table!!!!!
    Do I sound like I am making fun of the questions now?

    • Warren Peace says:

      Lisa, you are a crappy speller! The word ‘to’ is a preposition, which indicates motion towards, whereas the adjective “TOO” (as in “too much” or “Too Many”) means more than necessary, an overabundance, whatever, you should Google it for the real info. My point is that even aware of your English skill shortcomings, you continue to write, so please, educate yourself on the language, thank you.

      BTW, I believe Stan’s story, and Carrion sounds like a paid government shill. He also looks like a douche, but then, so do I. He does make some good points, though, and yet you answered them effectively (except in misspelling the word ‘TOO’ – SHAME ON YOU! ha ha…) Stan should ask these aliens to sit down with him, and let themselves be videotaped with Stan, so people can start accepting their presence. DIckweeds like Carrion are a necessary evil…
      Best regards,

      Warren Peace

  8. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear Lisa,
    I know something about how the intelligence community works and your best bet is to get the evidence out there. I know what it takes to fight death I had three terminal illnesses and I’m still here. Stan should know more than anyone else how big this news is, and how important it is for the people learn the real story. June Crain came out publicly and worked at Write Patterson with a top secret Q clearance. She told how she handled the Roswell material. Sometimes something is bigger than us and in a world now bent on me-ism maybe taking a chance is warranted.
    I am just saying you don’t have to wait there is noting holding you back but fear and that is exactly where they want you. I know what it is to live in fear and hopelessness. what I found is hope heals and fear needs to be confronted. Open the books for those that believe in you and you won’t be sorry.

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  9. Lisa says:

    Dear Joe,
    Thank you! I know your heart is good. I am sorry for being snotty; it is a reflex action, after all of these years of criticism. Stan started talking about all of this to keep us safe. I am sure not many people will not understand that statement, but it is a fact. The threats were really bad, and we were terrified. We were urged to talk to stay in plain sight. Staying in the public eye so to speak has ensured that we will not simply disappear.

    We are currently working to release all of the evidence, but as I said it takes time. And we want to make sure it is done right, not in a sloppy post it on the internet, and see what will happen kind of way. We were all witnesses to what happened when the “BOO” still photo was released, it was chaos!!! I thought most of the alien in the window videos on YouTube were hilarious by the way.

    The documentary version of the video was stolen from our home, and posted on YouTube two days later. By the same people who created the original fake alien in the window that was shown on Larry King Live. A police report was filed, but as you can imagine, nothing was done about…they got away with it, and still have it. I do not want that to happen again, but it could. NOTHING pertaining to this case is in our home…NOTHING!!!! You are right I am upset with James, and he is aware of my concerns. Does that make him a bad person? Of course not, it is ok to disagree, but it is good to listen as well. As he said, Stan is a public persona…in a weird way, but does that mean that we do not have a right to privacy? The right to decide when to release the details of our lives? I know many people want to know more details, others want to criticize, and it gets tough sometimes dealing with the negative comments. I tend to lash out, even to those who are trying to help. Do you also agree that all of the pieces should be gathered together before trying to put the puzzle together?

    If Primetime would have used everything we gave them, you would know a lot more than you do right now. We tried, and we will continue to try.:) Thank you for the comments, and encouragement.


  10. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear Lisa,
    I look forward to the future and the release of all the evidence. Sometimes we also have to look at the other side. There has been a great deal of hoaxing in the UFO arena, especially when it is publicized. Many UFO researchers have been led astray by people who seemed sincere. Of course the other side is UFO experiencers being slammed by UFO researchers because what they report doesn’t fit the researchers latest theory.
    The answer is to be open. Like Betty and Barney Hill and others courageous people history has judge them well and no one can call them a liar.
    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  11. Lisa says:

    I really don’t know about the mass of hoaxers in the field of UFOlogy. I have heard many people say that there are many, but do not know who they are. I have heard of Billy Meyers (sp) he is said to be a hoaxer, but I wonder about him…I don’t know how a one armed man could hoax the crafts that he claims to have seen. But like people questioning Stan, you have to stay objective that is hard to do at times. I feel there is a lot of truth in what the man says, but that is only my opinion, I have not done enough research about him or others to really have an opinion in regards to truth or not….Someone told me that his wife came out and said that he had lied about the whole thing, well being a woman and wife of an expereincer, I can tell you that the frustration of dealing with the ET and UFO experiences of your husband can make you very angry at times. It seemed to me that If the spouse is not strong enough to handle the criticisms that come with these experiences the anger builds towards the experiencer, perhaps (if it is true that she said he was a liar) she did it for revenge, for a life gone wrong, for being ignored, because her husband may have been like Stan ,obsessed with getting answers to “why him”…blaming him for what he could not help is understandable …but bad, but to take it out on him in such a way is horrible. I do not know the details, but it is a good possibility.
    I was asked on “the outsiders” program why I did not leave my husband… my answer was and is why should I leave him because you do not believe…. If he had cancer, would I leave him? NO, this is no different, it is something that is happening to him that he cannot control, just like an incurable disease, all I can do is hope that it goes away, and support him until it does!!!!!
    I am not a sissy, I can handle the pressure, and I have proven that over the past 9 years. I am still hanging in there. I may get a bit defensive, a bit snotty,angry, and a lot sad…but that too is to be expected, I do not like to be called a liar and I don’t like when my husband is called a hoaxer and liar either. And sometimes if someone questions the evidence I react, sometimes in a calm mature way, sometimes in a defensive way. That does not mean I am not telling the truth as some people like to point out, it means that I love my husband, and know that what he and my family has experienced is real. I am only trying to make that point!!!
    James wants to post links to my comments, and others…That is nice, but feel I have a right to defend myself against other people lying about me, Stan and our experiences…Thou protest to much???? Who wouldn’t defend themselves when they are being attacked? I have been simply trying to show the truth, to answer questions openly, and it backfires on me at every turn… If your wife or child was going through this, and you read a post bashing them, would you respond to it? Or let the world think that it was true? Would you try to give an answer to the “WHY” of it? That is the point I am trying to make. I will try in the future not to comment, in a defensive way. That apparently makes me look bad, instead of a being known as a good wife who defends herself and husband against negative comments. Again, I am sure my explaining my feeling on this is also going to be considered to be Defensive, instead of explanatory… Have a wonderful holiday weekend:)
    All my best to you,

    • Warren Peace says:

      Lisa, you should see Wendelle Stevens documentary on Billy Meier. Billy is legit – no way he is a hoaxer. His ex-wife tried debunking him, but that was just post-divorce nastiness (which I have been a victim of myself). Maybe Billy has lee the stress get to him over the years, and perhaps his ego has got the best of him now in his old age, but Wendelle’s investigation was extremely thorough, and I find it very hard to believe that Billy was able to dupe him. And let’s not forget about many, many corroborating witnesses. You should review his case and Wendelle’s video (for free on YouTube). I Hope the aliens stop bullshitting with Stan and let him get some easy evidence to share, like the Pleideans gave Billy Meier. If the skeptics don’t believe, then that is about their mental limitation, so “eff ’em!”

  12. Joseph Capp says:

    Lisa I think that would be smart. There have been many hoaxers. Recently J. Maussan and Linda Milton Howe have been been fooled, not to mention the hoaxers that came out of the Roswell case. So everyone is sensitive and just waiting to jump on anything that seems contradictory. I think it stems from the disappointment. Most of us want this UFO solved and out in the open already. The bottom line is that until all the evidence is out there how can we really debate with people like James. I am betting that Stan will do the right thing for the sake of the honesty and they mystery of the UFO truth.


  13. Sean says:

    I’m am very curious, has Stan, Lisa, or any of the family friends (who were witnesses) been administered a lie detector test. While not %100 accurate, it would be another source of confirmation for the authenticy of all this. I just finished the book, and honestly, whether the book is fiction or non – it is a great story to be told. I personally believe in extraterrestrial life and hope for it, but desire the evidence to prove it.

  14. Lisa says:

    It is not a secret that Stan took a lie detector test last summer, and failed it. I will tell you what happened, and you can decide for yourself what the reason behind his failing it was. C2C am offered to pay for a lie detector test, and Stan jumped at the opportunity. He was very excited, becasue we could not afford to do this ourselves and really wanted to have one done. We met the polygrraph examiner and he spent over an hour asking questions about Stan’s experiences. Then another hour or so going over the questions that would be asked. He explained to Stan that it was an all or nothing test. Either he got all of the questions right, or he failed. Sounds simple, right? Wrong! Stan was very ill at that time, he was fighting what we were told by many Doctors and a Neurologist was probably Lymes Disease, he aslo has Severe Reactive Hypoglycemia.It is, Medically documented. Regardless of his health issues, the examiner asked the questions in a way that the answer should be…maybe, but when you are only allowed to answer yes or no, that causes a problem. During the exam, Stan blood sugar level dropped, and Stan told the examiner that he was having problems. the test should have been stopped right then and there, however it wasn’t. The examiner told Stan that if they stopped the test, it would look like Stan was lying. Stan, being alone with the examiner, and not thinking clearly, decided to continue. ( Look up hypoglycemia, and see what some of the symptoms are)The examiner repeatedly asked Stan the same questions over and over again, until he got a respons that was “Questionable” . He deemed at that time, that the test was over, and becasue of one “questionable” response, he informed Stan that he failed. The results were announced on Coast to Coast (C2C).There was a lot of controversy surrounding this a few months later, when a young college student came forward, and accused the examiner of setting Stanup to fail. Brett was his name, and he said that he during a conversation with a man claiming/bragging to be the examiner in a Boulder coffee shop, told him that it was a set up, and that someone had to stop the “Blasphemer”. You can decide for yourself, what the heck happened, but if you figure it out, please let us know… C2C said they would investigate this allegation, and as far as we know it has never happened, nor do they want to discuss it with us. C2C hired this guy, and some people are questioning if they were involved with the set up. It is a mute point to argue, it is in the past.

    You have to decide for yourself what to beleive, just like the rest of us.

    I feel it would be hard for me or our freinds to take a lie detector test, in regards to Stan’s experiences. We do not doubt that he is telling the truth, so it would probably not be an accurate test.
    Thank you for your kindness and support, as well as your question.
    All my best to you,
    Lisa Romanek

  15. Joseph Capp says:

    Deear Lisa,
    I believer there are honest questions on both sides. Hey James Instead of just writing a blog on Stan why not ask MUFON to pay for a real professional lie detector test. Skepticism is deep in the subconscious of some people. They will not really look and they will find a way around the evidence. It is very possible someone convinced themselves this attitude is justified. The debunkers are ready to call many professionals within our midst a little off. There is a skeptical attitude that says any answer to a ufo is a good enough answer as long as it is not pro. Many skeptics about all phenomenon are so predictable in their augments. But make no mistake when they are that far gone they need to be right…sometimes at all cost. I am basically saying this person who gave the polygraph could have been of this mindset and thoughts this was nonsense, but just in case he stack the deck where Stan would have to loose. These types of actions are not unique. The cops allowed booze fed to Travis Walton and then they did a psych examine on Travis while he was intoxicated right after his abduction. The examiners declared after the test Travis was a liar. It seems Travis saw more than one UFO and of course that put him in the loony bin. So treachery from the skeptical side happens all the time.

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters

  16. Hi Joe,

    Why put Stan through another polygraph when the results will be questioned regardless of the outcome? Polygraphs are only good for one thing, and that is as a tool to raise any red flags that need to be followed up on, not as a litmus test for truth or falsehood. In Stan’s case, the “fallow” issue has already raised the glaring red flags. If Stan wants to convince the world that his evidence is solid, he should allow MUFON to pay for an analysis of all of his original video and photo evidence that has been touted in his book and in the national press.

  17. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear James
    I am fine with that if you will pay for it. But would you give the family a chance to review and refute the data before you published it? There is very little space by way of comments in your MUFON Journal I doubt that would suffice but maybe they would be willing to publish both pro and con if there are any. The family probably both think were nut…s were like two people talking in a room and acting like they are not there.
    I just want the truth in these matters and I don’t want the Witnesses attacked indiscriminately. It is hard to come forward if you are telling the truth. So the witnesses don’t even have to be close to perfect to have a real UFO experience going on. I just hope everyone can learn to trust each other enough to put egos aside.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters

  18. Hi Joe,

    Refuting the data would require that Stan hire his own recognized experts to do the analysis so that we can compare apples to apples. I would also like to hire a statitician that could calculate the odds of the word fallow showing up in all of those separate reports being due to chance. Also, I would like to interview in person Brett from the Boulder Coffee shop who posted his claims regarding the polygraph on the Internet but has yet to come forward as a real person.

    Unfortunately, Stan is a public persona now and having his claims attacked is par for the course just like Adamski and Billy Meier.


  19. Joseph Capp says:

    Hi James
    Well somehow he received money to do the test I am sure if there are people who believe in him enough he may be able to raise the money. So if he can you would consider a rebuttal. I rarely see rebuttals (Stan Friedman & Brad Sparks comes to mine) in the MUFON journal. I am asking this because I don’t know. I know you took to task Maussan and Linda Howe on follow-up investigation. I agreed with MUFON’s investigators conclusions on those cases by the way. But was there ever an offer to have them the opportunity to respond in the journal. I don’t what the policy is around that. As far as having someone come forward we don’t have to imply sinister motives to that because he could have many reason that are not related to this. Oh by the way you do know that people are laugh at and harassed (Trents) when they talk about UFOs and Aliens and such and then leave there name.
    Well of course this is just discourse it doesn’t mean anything if they don’t trust MUFON. I wanted to ask you by the way wasn’t there a MUFON state Director involved in this case or an investigator? They kept quoting MUFON in the book and I had heard there was. Attacking possible UFO witnesses in this type of case is shortsighted. First what when you do attack in a public forum you drive people away and you remind people of a debunker.
    Look I am not a crazy conspiracy nut but if some of this is true it could be disinformation and we should, considering the reports from past famous witnesses, at least entertain that possibility before we treat a Witness like a criminal. I would very much like to hear from some people who were there beside them and there friends and family?

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  20. Joe,
    Let’s call a spade a spade. I am not “attacking” Stan, I am questioning his claims based on the evidence at hand. This does not make me a debunker but a skeptical investigator. Debunkers summarily dismiss data without looking at the evidence, skeptics carefully study it. It is apalling that when an experiencer’s claims are carefully examined and questioned, they suddenly start screaming “debunker”.

    I find it amazing that Stan has gotten this far but still will not release his photo/video evidence to the public domain for scrutiny. By managing the evidence, his claims will always be suspect. We can put this whole issue to bed if he would simply release his evidence for analysis. He should have done this from the very beginning so he wouldn’t have to be put in the position of “refuting”. If he doesn’t trust MUFON, then release publicly so anyone can analyze the data.

    Stan’s case has been examined by many folks both in and outside of MUFON. It is funny how investigators see what they want to see, so even though the “fallow” red flags have been there from the very beginning of Stan’s alleged experiences, everyone has ignored them which does not constitute scientific investigation. So even UFO investigators find themselves on the spectrum of belief, from the believer on one end to the skeptic in the middle to the debunker on the opposite end.


  21. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear James,
    Why was MUFON involvement used in reference in the book ” Messenger” and what was the MUFON investigators conclusions? Either MUFON investigators was not expereienced or he found evidence that made him feel it’s genuine. That is one of the reason I was interested another was someone had gone to two presentations where he presented all the evidence but wouldn’t let it be filmed. He was involved in a book deal and from what he told me at the 40th he contracted not to because they were going to make a DVD or something. Money of course complicates things but it doesn’t mean they are lying. I think your are right to question but the tone of your blog, to me, it sounded snide and implied deliberate falsehood…this is a debunkers tactic and that is what I didn’t like. If you are really asking question and want dialogue are you going to get a positive response if you already put them on the offensive James ask your questions just leave out the rhetoric the snide remards and accusation.Your the Director of MUFON I think you should take the high road.
    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  22. Joe,

    What you personally like or dislike about the tone of my blog is inconsequential. I have cited just the facts in my blog, which is in no way a debunking tactic. There is no high road here, there is either truth or falsehood. The evidence shows a pattern of deception from the very beginning of Stan’s alleged experiences and it is up to Stan to prove that he is not the one behind “fallow”. As an investigator, you draw conclusions based on the evidence on hand. The fallow issue is documented. When Stan releases his photos and videos, then the rest of the story can be told. The bottom line is that even if Stan is having some real experiences, but is embellishing or fabricating evidence, the sum of that game is zero.


  23. Lisa says:

    I like that spell check has been added, that is a wonderful thing!!!


    Since James will not answer your question regarding MUFON’s involvment I will. The then Deputy Dirrector(GZ) was actually the guy working with Stan, from 2001 to 2003. Read the MUFON Journal, he wrote many articles! This MUFON investigator did not send the many samples of evidence to be analyzed, so we had to find others to do the analysis, and walked away from MUFON at that time!!! MUFON is actually in possession of these samples, have “them” analyzed James!!! So now James wants us to again trust not only him, but MUFON to handle evidence …that in my opinion is a ridiculous request. My Mom has a saying, ” Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!” We asked for James to assist us, he refused. As he says Stan is now a Public Persona, and all of the sudden MUFOn wants to be involved again? Sounds to me like MUFON is after the recognition that would come with being involved!THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION!!! Not being defensive, just answering a question that obviously James wants to avoid.I have been trying to stay out of your conversation. 😉 but couldn’t wait to see how many more times you would have to ask this question!!


  24. Joseph Capp says:

    Hey James,
    Well if you think coming with both guns against anyone who has inconsistencies than do what you need. But you are implying their is no possible other reason. Could it be possible the document was intentionally made to look like a phony. If Roswell was real and this is some type of conditioning by ETs than the government may be more upset by it’s implications and do something about it. Of course non of this is proven but it is possible. What you have implied is he is lying pure and simple no other explanations.Your tone does matter if you are really trying to get to the bottom of a case. However You did just the opposite which means to me you already had your mind made up and really weren’t looking for other info. You spung this document as a… gotya! So you may think that you have taken the high road but I can assure you it didn’t read that way. Sometime you can get to the truth more with an olive branch than a gun barrel.

    Joe Capp

  25. Joe,
    I am simply asking Stan to release his photo and video evidence for public scrutiny. If the fallow issue is a government conspiracy but the photo and video evidence is real, then it should be a no brainer for Stan to release them for public analysis.

    My mind is not made up but I sure have my suspicions, from the two years I have been following Stan’s claims, and after interviewing many of the investigators who have worked on his case including George Zeiler, Deborah Lindemann, Nancy Talbott, Leo Sprinkle, Ethan Rich, Leslie Varnicle, and Alejandro Rojas.

    The MUFON investigator Lisa is referring to is George Zeiler. Whatever physical evidence George allegedly received from Stan is still in his possession as nothing was passed on to MUFON HQ. Lisa’s assertion that I refused to help Stan is just plain false. As I wrote in my blog, I interviewed Stan in person in 2007, and asked him what he wanted to MUFON. His response was that he wanted MUFON to document any future experiences he was having. We have no such requests on file.

    So let’s stop dancing around the issues and focus on the evidence.


  26. Scott says:

    Carrion’s a MUFON problem needing to be resolved, i.e.: thrown-out. His comments on mufon’s s-team against real people seeing and video’ing real unknowns is sad. He looks for anything possible to debunk reports and the tv shows in every case proves that.

  27. Joseph Capp says:

    Dear James,
    You steal a document make it public with out notification (doesn’t MUFON have some rules against that?) right now you basically said that your investigator” allegedly” has some of the evidence…what do you think he lied? I agree with u the evidence should be out there but I understand why they don’t trust you. You seem to imply things way beyond what is happening… MUFON investigators conspiring with a witnesses…I don’t know James it sounds weird too.
    I ask Stan and Lisa to come forward with their evidence. I do have someone who can test material down to the NANO scale. I would ask him to do something for you but I can’t say for certain till it comes up. He is testing Chuck Wade’s material (for free). The man has a great deal of integrity and will not release any information or even a hint till everything is complete.
    I just hope the anger and frustration does not let us loose sight of what is important here. Every bit of good evidence we hold out there changes some minds, change enough minds and you change the world.
    We have in our community possibly, the most important information to hit mankind all of us should forever keep that in the front of our minds and spirits. James if you had notified the parties about the document before you put it out there I think there would be more understanding. Absence of evidence doesn’t mean necessarily lies but treating it them that way was the tone of your piece. I will side with respect for the witnesses, because many come forward in confusion and fear, until there is concrete evidence to the contrary.

    Joe Capp
    UFO Media Matters
    Non-Commercial Blog

  28. I stole a document? The chain of evidence is from Stan to one of the people he gave the document to, who voluntarily gave it to me. You call that stealing? What are you going to accuse me of next Joe? You have already called me a debunker. Lisa’s called me a liar. Scott Anonymous is calling me I don’t know what but I don’t pay attention to anonymous posters who hide behind their anonymity. If you can’t attack the data, then attack the person Stan Friedman is fond of saying. I am not saying George Zeiler lied about anything. Where did you pull that out of? I stated that he did not include any physical evidence in his files sent to MUFON. Funny how you graze over Lisa’s compleltely false accusations of me refusing to help Stan. Are you really an unbiased researcher Joe? You keep calling for me to take the high road while throwing accusations my way from the low road.

    So again, stop dancing around the issues. Stan had a chance to have MUFON analyze his document and his video/photo evidence two years ago and he refused. Maybe you should stop playing Armchair Ufologist yourself and interview like I have the parade of investigators who have been involved in Stan’s case. Do you think the “fallow” issue is the only red flag that I found?

    The focus should be on the analysis of Stan’s photo and video evidence becasue of all Stan’s evidence that can be analyzed that is the evidence that can be conclusively proven to be either original or fabricated. Scott Anonymous is probably alluding to the Mexico photos that MUFON technically showed to be not originals contrary to what the witness was stating. If you want to blame that red flag on the phenomenon or another government conspiracy, then your search for truth will end no where except walking in circles. Jaime Maussan took exception with our investigation in Mexico and came out with a series of TV shows denouncing MUFON. When I asked him if he would produce a show that was pro-MUFON if we conclusively showed the photos to be suspect, he said he would. After sending him that proof, he did not keep his promise. Double standards abound in this field.


  29. Joseph Capp says:

    James come on I live Brooklyn but I would never buy the Bridge.
    “Whatever physical evidence George allegedly received from Stan” … that is implying George is lying in my book.You did not say the “Allege evidence”. Either he received something or he didn’t. As far as being objective I think I am. You don’t seem to want to get to the bottom of this you just seem want to make Brownie points. Why didn’t you notify them about this? Are you trying to tell me that Stan didn’t inform that person not to share that document…did you ask?
    Why didn’t the person who gave the document to you come forward if he thinks it is fake? Why all this cloak and dagger? I believe the evidence should be out there that is why I am trying to get it going without making Stan defensive. I also have people who know them who are working on the inside to convince them to do this. The evidence will speak for itself I don’t need to attack them or make accusations. If they don’t come up with the evidence do you think the UFO community will just except them… they will be forgotten just like many of the contactees in the 50s. We both want the same thing but you go about it as if the Romanek’s s are criminals
    The public is very harsh on UFO witnesses so are many in the field of Ufology. I seen it. I read it. It’s like they are the bad guys. Many UFO witnesses hold back evidence and details because they think of the attacks even if it is good. We know that from sixty years of UFO history. Also money ,you don’t know what was done behind close doors without Stan’s knowledge to promote the book
    . You never really address your own tone in this, you claim MUFON has to be updated, changed…I agree…but change really starts within and you don’t seem to even want to look at your issues of communicating effectively to get what you need. You call them liars and they called you the same what do you expect. A lie by any other name is still lie.
    Lisa and Stan you can settle all this. If James is misleading you can silence him once an for all (at lease on this case) in the end it is up to you. But if you want to help the UFO community and the world the evidence has to be out there otherwise this debate will go on and on is some way or the other, and all you say you have been through will have been for nothing.

    Joseph Capp
    UFO Media Matters

  30. Lisa says:

    I am not going to resort to pointing fingers any more, I am simply going to state a few facts, First James, I was here at my house when you and your friend (very sweet man) came to visit. Do you remember that? I agree with the fact that you asked for the photos and such, but at the same time said that MUFON did not want to be involved with Stan and this case! In saying that why would you think that we would turn over original video and pictures to you, if you were not willing to help us? Second, I am not a liar, I detest liars! I am not fabricating anything I have said on any of these posts, nor have I not answered a question posed to me. I have 4 people who can attest to the fact that all of Zielers files were recovered, and these 4 people went to his house and got them. I have also been told that George has requested the “Romanek” files and evidence be returned to him, from MUFON!! So maybe you should contact George and ask him if he is in possession of them, if so at this point maybe they are safer where they are! If not perhaps wander down to the basement or wherever it is that you store your files that have not been lost, and search for many many containers of evidence that Zieler was given app. 5 years ago!
    Third, Thank you Joe and Sean (Anonymous) for your insights, and for having an opinion and voicing it. this is about searching for the truth, so I am going to make an effort to begin going through reports filed at NUFORC myself and see how many “fallow’s” I can find, and perhaps other misspelled word! Have a great day gentlemen,
    P.S. I only used my first name too, does that make me anonymous as well? just curious.

  31. Your interpretation Joe. Focus on evidence, not people.

    You have actually hit the nail on the head. Why indeed did no one come forward and question the alleged Air Force Document. Could it be they are too eager to believe?

    Yes, Lisa and Stan can settle this, but will they?


  32. Joseph Capp says:

    I hope at the end of this we see the evidence…give it to the world does it matter now?


  33. Lisa,

    I said nothing of the sort and Clifford Clift who was there on the interview with me can vouch for that. You were not present in Stan’s office when I offered MUFON’s assistance, and I never stated that MUFON did not want to be involved in the case.

    I am very familiar with the files that George gave us because we had them digitally scanned. The boxes he gave to MUFON HQ had documents only, no physical evidence. Why do you focus on these side issues instead of trying to prove your claims with releasing the photo and video evidence? The bottom line is that if you don’t trust MUFON, then release the original photos and videos publicly. What do you have to lose by doing so?


  34. Bobby Morrison says:

    Coast 2 Coast ~ why in the world would someone go a CIA controlled radio program and expect a result the CIA does not want to produce?
    Must be a glutton for punishment.
    And if the heat is more than one can take why not get out of the kitchen, Meaning If one cannot take what comes with opening ones mouth then the best course is to keep ones mouth shut.

    I don’t feel sorry for the Romanek’s. They wanted publicity, just like the Balloon Boy story, now you got it and now you deal with it.

    If the Romanek’s just stay quiet for a few years this will blow over and they can resume their life.

    Money does not = happiness, never has and never will. Better to be poor and happy than dream big and pay the price.

  35. Warren Peace says:

    What a waste of time reading the hissy fit between Joe Capp & Carrion the Douche. I would never have given him the time of day, but I would not have mis-spelled Fallow, either… hey, I’m a good speller. Lisa Romanek is clearly a terrible speller, and Stan is a crappy one as well (and he’s still a published author!!!!!) But who cares, Stan is a pretty good story teller. BTW, Adamski was legit, and so was Meier – not only was their work investigated (and later debunked – clearly a Dept. of Naval Intelligence effort), Billy was shot at numerous times, he had multiple witnesses, too. Anyone being debunked as much as Billy & George are obviously legit – otherwise they would not have generated as much negative energy!

    Here’s to the truth of the FACT of extra – terrestrial beings living on Earth, visiting Earth, and flying their scout craft and interstellar ‘mother ships’. They are here, they have made contact, and we will know as a culture that they are real – hopefully in my lifetime…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: