It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Announcement of Stan Romanek Polygraph Results

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Yes, this is why polygraphs have always been controversial, never sufficiently reliable, and rarely admitted as evidence.

Think about it:
Question #1: "Do you know if the 'Boo' tape has been edited, manipulated or changed in any manner?".

Was Stan being asked if he KNOWS? Or was he being asked if the tape was edited, changed, or manipulated? Two different questions and he was only given the option of giving one yes or no answer.
A more useful question would have been "To the best of your knowledge and recollection, was the tape edited, changed, or manipulated?"

Question #2 "Prior to the Boo tape being shot, do you remember making fake reports?"
Again, was Stan being asked if he REMEMBERS? Or was he being asked if he ever made a fake report?" He could answer, "yes I remember" and "no I have not made any fake reports".
More useful question is "To the best of your knowledge and recollection, have you ever made a fake report?"

Question #3 - "Is the Boo tape a hoax?"
Again, is Stan being asked if the tape itself was a hoax perpetrated by him or someone he knew or did not know? Or was he being asked if the alleged "alien in the window" a hoax? He only knows what he taped. He can not say definitively that someone else did not perpetrate a hoax against him. And it is known that elements within the U.S. government are fully capable of perpetrating that kind of hoax or building false evidence around a legitimate and authentic event in order to discredit the entire event.

If Stan would have refused to take the test, then people would say it's because he's a liar. I've heard that he was also invited to delay the test so that the pretest interview could be done properly with more time but that the examiner added that if Stan delayed the test then people would say he was a liar.

So both the circumstances and the questions are highly suspect. In a court of law, Stan, his witnesses and the video itself would be admissable but but the polygraph test would not, especially given that he was medically unfit to take the test.

A better source of information on the entire UFO/ET reality can be found at
This polygraph would be useless even if he passed the test with flying colors.

Soome people really want to believe-Stans a fraud.

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:03 PM
reply to post by Rinorino2

Whether the original's a fake or not this link made my day
Thanks for some much needed humor !

[edit on 19-9-2008 by maudeeb]

posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:12 PM
Thanks for the OP.
I had actually forgotten about ol' Stan.

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Whatever happened to this? He release his dvd? Might I torrent it now?

I dont know some of his videos are interesting, truly not sure what I think of the alien.

And wtf is so wrong with money? every one here likes money.

Its always about money.

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 04:05 PM
I just watched a documentary on bbc3 " I believe in UFO's: Danny Dyer" which featured this video , and the interviewer went to stan romaneks house and spoke with him as he showed the guy the video!

he also claimed to have a nanochip in him which was researched by a university and had chips the size of viral cells in it !

can this be verified or is this all just a hoax?

BBC3 I believe in ufo's

check at 24 minutes !

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:07 AM
just read his book. Hard to fraud this. I tend to take this serious. Its all connected to 2012.

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:41 AM
According to his site

He has like 3 new books coming out. Fraud/sci-fi or not Messages was really good, I'm looking forward to any new books and "updates".
To anyone who's not familiar with this guy or the story. Its a timeline on his site also.

Its a interesting case.

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM
All the "experts/witnesses" are getting money some how

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

Although he failed the test what about all the eye witnesses and the technical data he came up with while under regression etc etc ?
Your legal system in the US doesn't accept the Lie Detector test as evidence, this result is the reason why.
It's not admissible because it's not always accurate there are too many variables that may affect results.

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in