Stan Romanek’s word “Fallow” versus “Follow”

October 1, 2009 | By | 4 Comments

MUFON’s “head honcho” James Carrion had previously posted a blog in which he insinuated abductee Stan Romanek had fabricated an Air Force document which was used in his abduction case.  James’s accusation is based on a misspelled word which appeared on the government document as well as three other documents Stan was responsible for.  The word in question is “fallow” instead of “follow”.  I would assume James caught the misspelled word in the Air Force document, then searched other documents written by Stan and found the misspelled word in three others.  One thing I don’t know is, “How many documents James had researched to find the three in question or how he was even able to acquire the Air Force document for comparison?”  Stan had stated numerous times, the document was never given to MUFON.  Well, this post is not to lay blame on either side, but to look into the aspects of the misspelling of a word.

People misspell words everyday and unless you have the proper spell-checker embedded within the software you’re typing through, certain words will get through.  No argument here, we’ve all seen this.

Another issue is using a word out of context or contents… hmm… yeah context.  How about words like “follow” to “fallow” or my favorite, “from” to “form”.  These words will spell check alright and slip through your fingers, only leaving the reader with the unnecessary feeling of, “what did that mean?”

Ok, since the word “fallow” is of most interest here, let’s take a look at it.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: 1fal·low
Pronunciation: ?fa-(?)l?
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English falow, from Old English fealu; akin to Old High German falo
pale, fallow, Latin pall?re to be pale, Greek polios gray
Date: before 12th century : of a light yellowish-brown color

Well obviously all the documents were describing the color of the aliens.  They’re not gray or is it grey, but a light yellowish brown color.  Well, time to hop back to the Internet for answers.  Here are a few websites which talk about commonly misspelled words.  And yes, you’ll probably find some misspelled words or grammar issues in this blog too! I’m only human, or am I?

The Top 10 Words Most Often Misspelled on Web:
Independent, Accommodation, Definitely, Receive, Opportunities, Their, Occurred, Information, Official, Activities.

Most Commonly Misspelled Words:
Medieval, Harass, Grateful, Accommodate, Acquit, Amateur, Collectible, Embarrass (ment),  Immediate, Weird

Top 10 most misspelled words used in blogs:
Your-You’re, Then-Than, It’s-It’s, To-Too-Two, Were-Where-We’re, There-Their-They’re, A-An-And, Off-Of, Here-Hear, Lose-Loose.

Top 20 Most Commonly Misspelled Words (first 10):
Definitely, Sacrilegious, Indict, Maneuver, Bureaucracy, Broccoli, Phlegm, Prejudice, Consensus, Unnecessary.

Most Common Misspelled Words in the English Language:
Its, Supersede, Accommodate, Minuscule, Embarrassment, Millennium, Separate, Privilege, Inoculate, Harassment

30 of the Top 200 Most Commonly Misspelled Words (first 9):
Accommodate, Accomplish, Arctic, Auxiliary, Caribbean, Correlate, Defendant, Ecstasy, Embarrass.

Here’s something interesting from the website:

The Top 10 Commonly Misspelled Websites:
Wallmart (Wal-Mart), Amtrack (Amtrak), Geneology (Genealogy) Volkswagon (Volkswagen), Wikepedia (Wikipedia), Travelosity (Travelocity), uTube (YouTube), ESPM (ESPN), Mysapce (MySpace), Goggle (Google)

So, back to misspelled words which can show up on documents on the Internet or just happen to show up on government documents in your mailbox.  We can see in just these few cases, only a couple of words were in common.  Do only certain misspelled words pop up depending on the type of document written, or the person or persons writing them?  Or, do they show up due to the type of spell checker associated with the software used?  Let’s look at the word “fallow” again.  Lisa Romanek was so kind to send me this list of links in which the word “fallow” and “follow” were used and confused.

This link shows that many people use the wrong word, not meaning fallow, but follow.

Fallow is pointed out as being used incorrectly

Fallow me, instead of follow me.

James article…pointing out Stan’s error in spelling, as associated with 4 documents

“follow, follow fallow the yellow brick road” Used incorrectly in comment by anonymous.

Someone pointing out it is follow not fallow people


Chula comment, fallow…

“bloodhill comment”  fallow

7th rule…fallow the rules

fallow follow, tomato tomato

fallow under ay’s activity

first paragraph, fallow the links

#32 comment

See Dragon…fallow

“why does my cat fallow me”

“line 10 of directions”

“2nd line, Air Force group using the word follow as fallow” ….hmmm

bartb’s post

( Thank you Lisa )

What’s the conclusion?  The government document in question is out of Schriever AFB, Co.  I’m not going to detail what the document says, except for the last line stating, “we will fallow up as things unfold”.  This is where the dreaded word “fallow” shows up.  Here’s the question to the readers of this blog: Could a government document include a word which is misspelled but missed due to the misspelling being an actual word with a different definition? (Get that?)  Also, can this word be so commonly misspelled that it could be included with different documents associated to the same person?  Here’s another scenario:

What if the document is fake, but not at the hands of Stan Romanek in which James Carrion implies, but at the hands of another agency or individuals created for an unknown reason?

I know for a fact there is an unknown agency trying not only to intimidate Stan and his family, but also trying to and succeeding at times to infiltrate Stan’s investigation.  The last attempt was just a few days ago in which I responded.  We know there are individuals trying to disrupt Stan’s life and create disinformation in his investigation.  This government document could be a product of this, or it could be an actual document which was given to Stan from an unknown source.  And yes, the third possibility would be Stan created the document himself.  But, from what I’ve seen in people I’ve interviewed, this wouldn’t be a possibility in my eyes.  Am I bias?  I don’t think so.  Stan is still having experiences in which I can’t talk about.  So, what about the misspelled word?  How about we hear from you, the readers?  How many “official” documents have you seen misspelled?  Got some to share?  How about other thoughts on this issue?

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 (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Saturday, October 10, 2009

    Are you fallowing me?

    Stan Romanek recently took his story to the air waves on the Angela Joiner report to explain why the word fallow always seem to be showing up in documents related to his alleged claims of alien abduction and government conspiracy. Blogger Chuck Zukowski recently posted an article supporting Stan’s claims that the word “fallow” was a commonly misspelled word and was not evidence of any impropriety in his case. Well, I guess every word in the English language is mangled and misspelled to one extent or the other, but that is not what makes this misspelled word a GIANT, IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE, red flag in the Romanek case. Let me spell out the problem in plain English.

    * The word fallow shows up in Stan’s original UFO reports to the National UFO Reporting Center.
    * The word fallow shows up in the UFO report to the National UFO Reporting Center by a 3rd party witness that allegedly had no relationship to Stan Romanek but corroborates one of his sightings.
    * The word fallow shows up in an alleged Air Force document that Stan mysteriously received in his mailbox, subject “Project Romanek”.
    * The word fallow shows up on the Jeff Rense website in an online posting by alleged physicist John Mannon who supports Stan’s story.
    * The word fallow shows up on the Above website in a posting by another alleged physicist (TommyBoy) who supports Stan’s claims.

    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.

    Now I have said it before and I will say it again, if the Romaneks want to prove their claims, then they should release ALL of their alleged video and photo evidence for the world and independent researchers to examine and analyze. Instead they have tried to paint that I am on some sort of personal vendetta to discredit their claims. Taking their claims to the airwaves and the blogs with “I don’t know how that word got there” and “it is really no big deal” counter arguments is not going to settle this matter. Neither is trying to portray this as MUFON vs Romanek or Carrion vs Romanek.

    So critical thinkers, put on your thinking caps and weigh the evidence, and if you are a statistician, take it a step further and calculate the odds. Are you fallowing me here?

  2. Doug Theeditor says:

    As a professional book, magazine and website editor for 35 years it’s my opinion that the odds of follow being being misspelled by multiple authors on a related subject is nil, even if the authors are writing from shared source materials — 999 out of a thousand get the word right. Mr Carrion’s discovery means the third-party documents are not to be considered independent evidence supporting a claim so set them aside and consider Mr. Romanek’s claims, including his original reports to the National UFO Reporting Center, without them. If his claims are credible on the remaining set of evidence then his claims stand.

    Back to the documents: Someone is committing fraud. To discover the source one mustn’t assume that because Mr. Romanek used fallow in his documents he therefore authored the others. Even if you show he used fallow for follow in prior writings not related to the topic, someone wishing to discredit him could use that error to create a “Romanek” signature in related documents and then feed them to Mr. Romanek for release in his own defense. It works because he’s likely not to “see” the signature. Even if the Air Force author and the two physicist don’t reveal themselves, the possibilities still exist that either someone is trying to discredit Mr. Romanek or Mr. Romanek authored the documents. In either case, toss out the evidence and go from there.

  3. Daniel Hockley says:

    I am really unsure if this document was written by Stan, the Air Force or little fallow men. I only wish to answer a question you brought forward about where one might obtain a visual copy of the document in question. During a interview in the documentary ‘I believe in UFOs by Danny Dyer’ pt3 8:57 he does show the image of the questioned document to the camera. I also find the question mark in this document odd as well to close the sentence, “It also seems that he is getting inside help?” Is the writer asking the intended reader if it seems that inside help is involved or telling them? I’m not sure, just seems as though in a letter that appears to be a report intended to keep someones boss advised of the progress in ‘Project Romanek’ there would be more attention to detail. Doesn’t the Air Force (And other US Armed forces) pride themselves in attention to detail and not being sloppy? Again, not saying this is Romanek, but I think it may be someone trying to encourage his belief that he’s being watched. If you have any thoughts back please feel free.

    – Daniel

  4. Bob says:

    Stan is a fake. Don’t get me wrong, I love the topic of ufos and wanna believe they are real but what he is offering as proof is pretty laughable. I’ve seen and read almost everything related to this case. This misspelling of follow in multiple documents is evidence of a grand hoax being perpetrated by stan and his wife for financial gain.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: