Comments on: Stan Romanek’s word “Fallow” versus “Follow” http://ufonut.com/wordpress/?p=619 The cyberspace home to UFO and paranormal field investigators, Chuck Zukowski and Debbie Ziegelmeyer who specialize in UFO investigations including Roswell, alien abductions, and cattle mutilations. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:47:45 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Doug Theeditor http://ufonut.com/wordpress/?p=619&cpage=1#comment-53 Doug Theeditor Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:23:52 +0000 http://ufonut.com/wordpress/?p=619#comment-53 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. 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.

]]> By: James Carrion http://ufonut.com/wordpress/?p=619&cpage=1#comment-52 James Carrion Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:16:49 +0000 http://ufonut.com/wordpress/?p=619#comment-52 Saturday, October 10, 2009 Source: http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-fallowing-me.html <strong>Are you fallowing me?</strong> 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 TopSecret.com 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? http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-fallowing-me.html Saturday, October 10, 2009
Source: http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-fallowing-me.html

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 TopSecret.com 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?

http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2009/10/are-you-fallowing-me.html

]]>