This was another great show. Please keep on this case. Maybe public pressure will force a release of some evidence. If Peckman and Romanek were really in favor of disclosure, they would show everyone their evidence. Ironic that they want the Government to disclose what they know of UFO's, yet they themselves won't do the same.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
June 8, 2008 Stan Romanek
- Thread starter RedClover
- Start date
thegreenman
Skilled Investigator
I know I'm late commenting on this but all of my problems with Stan Romanek and his story are encapsulated in this link found on his website.
Stan's literary Agent
If you honestly have a true story to tell, getting a literary agent as a first step isn't exactly the way to go about it and be considered credible.
In other words If you want the true story:
"buy the book and the DVD Documentary, only $39.95 while supplies last. And if you act within the next 15 minutes we'll even throw in a set of Ginsu steak knives, a $19.95 value yours free."
pfft. I was actually hopeful there for a minute.
Stan's literary Agent
If you honestly have a true story to tell, getting a literary agent as a first step isn't exactly the way to go about it and be considered credible.
In other words If you want the true story:
"buy the book and the DVD Documentary, only $39.95 while supplies last. And if you act within the next 15 minutes we'll even throw in a set of Ginsu steak knives, a $19.95 value yours free."
pfft. I was actually hopeful there for a minute.
digigeek
Pompetus of Love
fitzbew88 said:
1) The part about scuffling with MIB is ludicrous. He started to get the better of the first guy and then decks the second guy with his bicycle lock chain? Give me a break, please. And, yeah, there were loads of witnesses to it all. People even tried to chase the black SUV. Who? What people? Where are they?
2) The constant mention of "the researchers" and "the scientists"...THEM, THEY. No names, ever. He just keeps alluding to some unnamed, uncorroborated research team that is driving this all.
3) David's mention of the call to the woman who had been involved. She clearly said that she dropped it due to Romanek's actions (unclarified) and that she thinks everyone else bailed as a result.
It all just smells like a sham to me.
The bit on his website where he is charging $100/hr consultation fees to other visitees is the coupe de grace.
This is a complete and utter hoax. I'm amazed at the gullibility and weakness of the media.
Graphimancer
Skilled Investigator
I fail to understand why some people want to cherrypick info, saying, "Well, even if the witness has been proven not-credible, or insane, or a huckster, that doesn't mean everything he/she says is false."
There is so much wrong with this case!
Don't cherrypick!
There is so much wrong with this case!
Don't cherrypick!
digigeek
Pompetus of Love
GSB said:
You know what? I may have fumbled there. It's Sparks. Right. Sorry, my bad.
Since we're talking about Sparks AND Romanek, they strike me as very similar. Really delusional and paranoid sounding. It's as if they are completely consumed by this - I've known some functioning mentally ill people in the past and they are a lot like that - and very easily led.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
I have issues with people that dismiss the case that haven't seen his evidence. It's a bit like commenting on a book you haven't read.
To be clear, it isn't cherry picking if you consider a case inconclusive, as I do. Cherry picking is coming to conclusions based on a filtering out of data/evidence.
Oh, I listened to the last hour since my last post. I heard nothing in that part that was conclusively damning toward Stan, but possibly others. Much of this stuff being considered is subjective and open to interpretation. Shooting the messenger because there's some questionable people involved might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
To be clear, it isn't cherry picking if you consider a case inconclusive, as I do. Cherry picking is coming to conclusions based on a filtering out of data/evidence.
Oh, I listened to the last hour since my last post. I heard nothing in that part that was conclusively damning toward Stan, but possibly others. Much of this stuff being considered is subjective and open to interpretation. Shooting the messenger because there's some questionable people involved might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Scott Story said:
Of course you're right in that if we find him being deceptive then: Game Over.
I'm troubled by:
1) The MIB event seems to "jump the shark".
2) Keeping the Peeping Alien film "hidden" --- via a Press Conference!
3) Element 115 and the Fermi equation's appearance in some of his "data".
4) The mysterious scientists still [secretly] analyzing the data.
Then again, I have some questions:
1) Seemingly objective investigators have experienced paranormal events at Stan's home --- some aerial.
2) Stan has been under at least modest scrutiny for a decade(?), and nothing blatantly fake has popped up (that I know of).
If Stan is a hoaxer, then he is one heckuva hoaxer. He has been pulling this off for a long time and managed to trick more than a few people. If he is merely a smart hoaxer, then why would he settle for something as ham-fisted as the peeping video to go national? He should know we're going to laugh ourselves to death when we merely hear it described. I laughed.
Preserving DVD sales and setting up for a book are not *necessarily* indicators of deceit. (Although I am not going to buy anything.)
I'm ignoring Peckman.
So, I have not written Stan off yet. At least I am still trying to be open to the possibility that he might be one of those infrequent individuals that act like a lighting rod for paranormal activity.
Make no mistake though, a couple of my alarm bells have gone off.
Graphimancer
Skilled Investigator
Well, I understand your reaction. Should the paranormal be a court of law where all tainted evidence is tossed out? Most of these stories are so damn muddy, anyway, that if you toss out the discredited fact AND the not-yet discredited fact then you have nothing.
I'm not a ufo guy, but that has given me a bit of an outsider's perspective on the scene. It looks like to me that an entire mythology has been built out of smoke and mirrors. Questionable stories grow old, take on the aura of truth by tradition, and each new generation builds the house of cards a little stronger. Stan's strange case just adds new cards, with all his misdirection and vaugeness.
When I started studying this field, I wanted it to work out and be real. If I had ever seen anything more convincing that dancing lights in sky (which I did in 1993), I would have devoted myself to this field with tremendous enthusiasm. I didn't see more, obviously, and what I've learned out of hundreds of hours of study is that it's all very nebulous, built of hearsay and oft-repeated stories.
Stan at first sounded like a stand-up guy, but the more I listened, and the more he waffled on his stories, the more I became convinced that his accounts were tainted. Seeing all this hidden evidence or not doesn't really change the equation for me.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Goody
Sailor Of Mind & Time
After listening to this show, I became intrigued...So i've been following Mr. Romanek around the internet & recommend listening to this particular interview (if it interests you):
http://www.sgradio.us/archive/SPU-StanRomanek-2-29-08.mp3
The sound quality is very nice (as he is in the studio, it seems) & it is also interesting to hear the same man explain his tale in a completely different environment, with completely, COMPLETELY (hehe) different hosts & also as this interview is before the one on the paracast, infact a few months.
Goody.
http://www.sgradio.us/archive/SPU-StanRomanek-2-29-08.mp3
The sound quality is very nice (as he is in the studio, it seems) & it is also interesting to hear the same man explain his tale in a completely different environment, with completely, COMPLETELY (hehe) different hosts & also as this interview is before the one on the paracast, infact a few months.
Goody.
I just had the chance to listen to the interview with Stan whilst driving yesterday. He did waffle, didn't he?! :
I'll sit back and wait for the book, video or whatever else is being planned for release before I make a decision as to whether or not the guy is legitimate. I do find it strange that other people experienced some of his claims with him, such as the ufos flying around his work. Have none of these people come forth to collaborate these sightings? Maybe they all had to sign NDA's. 
It could be this was discussed and I was hanging out my window cursing at the truck in front of me. 
Regards,
Astralis
I'll sit back and wait for the book, video or whatever else is being planned for release before I make a decision as to whether or not the guy is legitimate. I do find it strange that other people experienced some of his claims with him, such as the ufos flying around his work. Have none of these people come forth to collaborate these sightings? Maybe they all had to sign NDA's. It could be this was discussed and I was hanging out my window cursing at the truck in front of me. Regards,
Astralis
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
GSB said:
Big difference is Stan has evidence, Jim doesn't. Evidence of what? Not sure yet.
