• 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!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

June 8, 2008 Stan Romanek


Forums New posts
you know, I saw the supossed video of the window thing on youtube. I have to say the way it moved reminded me quite a lot of a puppet.

on the other hand there's supposedly a lot of corroborating evidence and/or testimony, plus a lot more first hand evidence and video.

But as you said on the show, its all under wraps.

If Stan's case is genuine, and I think it is, being on the show will hopefully get him to question who he's working with on this and maybe try to get something better going, maybe he can get Nancy back into this case.

That may be what he's trying to do considering he seems to be in contact with her again.
 
This entire Stan Romenek cluster f**k of non-disclosure agrements, having people represent your case that are beyond shady,trying to obtain money for a documentary and so forth is like an uncaged zoo where the animals are all fighting over a piece of meat.

I hope Dave and Gene will shead more light on this. If Stan is legit then he sure has allowed other peole to run the show and shut him up. If he is not legit then he will deserve the wrath of DB! I still wonder how his case got on Larry King?
 
I haven't listened yet, my internet just started working again. I hate my ISP. But will listen soon. I've been hoping they'd have Stan on.

Anyway, Stan got on Larry King due to the Peckman guy and the vid. If it wasn't for that, doubt Stan would have been on. His case started back in around 2000-02 if I remember correctly. I followed it for awhile and was intrigued. Then some things happened that were sorta red flags to me, but I still wasn't quite ready to dismiss the case. He then went into "hiding" for awhile and I've only heard stuff from him of late due to this window vid and this Peckman guy, who I don't recall knowing about til recently.
 
karlemids said:
Can anyone post links to this vid/pics please?

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Which ones?

The site that allowed me to view the vid/pics has been long gone. Some pics and vids are at the new site however, but I can't get the vids to work. http://www.stanromanek.com/

I'm about halfway through the Stan Romanek show atm. His story hasn't changed at all over the years. I've seen the vid he spoke about first btw with the multiple witnesses. Can't really recall what the object looked like, only that it was red. I do recall hearing different people commenting on the "ufo" though. It did appear to be a multiple witness sighting.


For what it's worth, I think he's telling the truth about Peckman only being recently involved. I do not recall his name anywhere near this case early on. MUFON was handling it.

I might have comments after the rest of the show. There's quite a lot to his case.
 
karlemids Here's a link to the pic. http://www.alienvideo.net/0805/stan-romanek.php
The "video" has not been released.
Good show guys. Yep. There's lots of red flags that come up with Stan's stories. I won't be holding my breath....but you never know I guess.
ETA - oop's Packrat beat me to it. ;)
 
Thanks for posting those links.
.As allways, great no-holds-barred questioning guys.
My gut feeling on this is that Stan is being ecconomical with the truth.
 
I don't know what to make of this. Either the alien footage is real or it's bogus. Release it, Romanek. The end.

EDIT: Jeez, here's the obvious question for Clay Roberts... he needs money to tell the world about this? Hey, how about the day you had a press conference? How about the day Romanek went on Larry King? Weren't those two free days in which you had the world's ear?
 
Anyone ask Bernard Haisch about the equations? Supposedly these are zero point field propulsion stuff, and Haisch is probably the best qualified to find any usefulness in the gibberish. My initial look-thru impression is that there are little bits of real symbols mixed with gibberish, with the last page seeming to be the highest ratio of sense to nonsense.
First guess? Maybe aliens did visit him, but the disinformation branch took over from there to discredit while maintaining the distraction level. Like dealing with computer security, you would have to hire the original criminal to filter out the false leads from anything good. Without the source code (the science that supposedly spawned the equations), it's useless. Could be old parts of how to extract helium from natural gas for all we know.
 
The wrap-up on this show was great stuff, but the interview itself was a chore to sit through. For the sake of comparison, it's interesting to me that when Jeff Ritzmann talks about his experiences, even as bizarre as they are, I tend to believe that he is not fabricating anything and that he is simply recounting the events that he experienced. The same thing goes for David's various experiences that he has retold -- when he presents them I am left believing that he has done his best to give an honest account. In this interview, Stan Romanek came off sounding no where near as believable as Jeff or David. To be kind, I'm won't accuse Stan of lying, but it sounded like he was recounting some prepackaged answers. I thought the notion of him experimenting with various things to come up with a scent like the one he had experienced was ridiculous. That's one of those indicators that just screams "if I give a lot of unusual detail that no one has talked about before it will sound more plausible." When Gene asked Stan if he ever smelled any sulfur-like smells, Stan started to answer and then paused to think, and then answered "No". That seemed awkward and suspicious to me. It also didn't make sense that his sister would be the one to discover that he had open wounds on his body -- he didn't notice that his wrists were injured when he woke up? Come on.
 
Great show Gene and Dave! You did well with what you had to work with.

The whole documentary 'thing' has me worried though. It does unfortunately appear that Stan Romanek (if not in on the deal) is being somewhat manipulated by the other's involved for monetary gain.

Seriously, if I had the level of experience and video/photographic 'evidence' that Stan has, I would be happy to supply the raw video to anyone!. If D.Biedney offered to analyise it, would I try and get him to sign an NDA? NO! unless of course I had something to hide.
 
[this was in reply to P. Packrat's post, which appears to have been removed!]

I never said that I believe that Stan is lying, but I find his witholding of what could be very compelling evidence damaging to his noble cause of informing as many people as possible. His testimony is very interesting, but his video and photographic evidence could seal the deal imo.

Im just questioning the motives of his associates.
 
This case is very simple. I don't care how much he sounds like a liar or a soothsayer. Irrelevant because he has video of an alien.

He has video of an alien. Sounds like a nice guy? Yeah-yeah, great. Don't we all. HE HAS VIDEO OF AN ALIEN!

It either holds up or it does not. His testimony is completely irrelevant in the face of this video (unless it turns out he videotaped a prank perpetrated upon him or something to that effect. So there's his out.)

Once you say you have a video of an alien, you're finished...or you're about to change the world. One of the two. But why are we listening to his story prior to seeing the video? Isn't that backwards?
 
I'm curious. Who here is just recently finding out about this Stan Romanek case? Stan was very open with his vids and pics for a few years. He wasn't witholding anything that I can recall. I watched a lot of his stuff. He left the scene due to some reasons I have not been able to confirm, and now is back, and now is saying it's in other people's hands.

I recommend to sit back, not jump to conclusions on the bases of your "gut" (try usin your freakin head) and wait. Is it really that hard to consider a case inconclusive? Do you really need to knock, or accept it yet? In my view, it's no where near done. Question yes. But many people question (rhetorically) don't hear an answer within the hour, then conclude the case is rubbish. &&*(^%^%$%#
 
valiens said:
Paranormal Packrat, you've seen the video? Do you believe it's authentic?
Click to expand...

Hi Jeremy. Which video, there are many? I have NOT seen the alien vid. I have seen a still, and I am NOT impressed. But, I cannot say that it's a hoax either. Not yet:)

When it comes to this stuff I don't use belief, if that makes sense. I saw his early stuff, and was impressed. I could not explain it away in a mundane fashion. There are multiple witnesses, and some MUFON members confirm witnessing some weird occurences with him. It's a long story. Anyway, there were some red flags with his case, then he left the scene. I consider his case inconclusive at the moment. I will go on record saying that if he hoaxed some of the vids, I have a lot to learn. He stumped me.

Jeff R. Might know about Stan's 2000-02 vids. I recall Rense dealing with it, however I cannot recall if Jeff was still affiliated with Rense then.

Has anyone got the vids to work at Stan's new site? I haven't.
 
Yeah, the alien video. The still looks awful. There are some common sense issues missing here, namely that because the still looks awful, if it's real, would you really think to yourself, 'Self? Me, here. Gee, you know I really want to enlighten the world to the aliens and, uh...I've got this video that's real but just taking the stills makes it look fake. If I present a still to the world with no video, people will think it's fake. I know! I'll hold a press conference and only show the still! Yeah!'

Huh?

This, to me--and I'll admit I'd not heard of this case until recently--but just to me, it smells so bad, it's so anti-intuition that it might just be real. "So bad it's good." That's all it has going for it.

Again, this is about the alien vid. I've not seen his UFO stuff, but if one falls does it all fall? Or is this going to be a Billy Meier thing where we cling to his early "good" work because something about it has to be real or else we're dopes for having bought it in the first place.
 
Paranormal Packrat said:
I'm curious. Who here is just recently finding out about this Stan Romanek case?
Click to expand...

Yes, only within the past few weeks following the alien-in-the-window story.

Paranormal Packrat said:
Stan was very open with his vids and pics for a few years. He wasn't witholding anything that I can recall. I watched a lot of his stuff. He left the scene due to some reasons I have not been able to confirm, and now is back, and now is saying it's in other people's hands.
Click to expand...

So, why is not including the alien video in the currently released material? I find the information on his site VERY interesting, especially the equasions and multi witness events.

Paranormal Packrat said:
I recommend to sit back, not jump to conclusions on the bases of your "gut" (try using your freakin head) and wait.
Click to expand...

I am "using my freakin head", and its asking me why is this guy witholding what could be the most important footage to hit the UFO/ET scene for a while.

Paranormal Packrat said:
Is it really that hard to consider a case inconclusive? Do you really need to knock, or accept it yet? In my view, it's no where near done. Question yes. But many people question (rhetorically) don't hear an answer within the hour, then conclude the case is rubbish. &&*(^%^%$%#
Click to expand...

I am questioning the case while keeping an open mind, but there are certain elements that im uncomfortable with, such as the involvement (and apparent control) of people with what could be questionable motives.
 
I just read what Jeremy had to say above a previous reply of mine, and I just wanted to say, I agree with his stance. It's ok if you don't of course, but his comments could be my own. Give or take a word:) I would say, stfu about the vid UNTIL you are going to show it. Anything else is promotion.
 
Back
Top