Phil Imbrogno gone from field - he faked his educational credentials, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 02:14 PM by schuyler
reply to post by Kandinsky



Teachers in the US usually must have a B.A./B.S. In my state they must go for a "fifth year" of educational credits earned in the summer months before they are ganted a "Standard certificate" as opposed to a "Provisional." In some states, they have to work for a Masters, usually in education. The whole salary schedule revolves around degrees and credits. They are not required to have PhD's (in the K-12 system), though it would earn them a few extra bucks if they did. Any teacher's salary and credits is public information and could probably be pried out of the school district with an FOIA request. In our area, you can just look it up on the web.

The salary schedule is a two-dimensional grid with time-in-grade down the left side low to high and credits earned left to right, low to high. The highest salary is at the bottom right. There is a great deal of incentive to move right. Down is automatic. So someone with 20 years experience, BA + 135 credits is making a very good salary. Lots of places salary plus benefits exceeds $100K per year. Yeah, teachers get summers off, but if you're going to play the credit game, your summers are spent in school for many years and the fact is, any teacher really trying spends a lot more than 8 hours a day on the job. They all have "homework" to one extent or another and nobody fixes up their classrooms for them, so this is "donated" time.

The post degree credit issue is a bit of a scam some places. In my state teachers could earn credit for courses like, "Sightseeing Vancouver, BC" which amounted to a group tour. Pay the tuition, get the credit, raise your salary. A few years ago my state did a review of these "soft credits" and disallowed a bunch of these courses, so it's harder to do now. But the fact is, public school teachers' coursework and expectations are not all that high. A PhD from MIT would be MOST unusual.

My former spouse was a grade school teacher for many years, so I am very familiar with the setup, went to all the parties, read all the documents, etc. I'm not particularly "pro-teacher" Indeed, I hate their unions with a passion, but I'm just responding to your question. Hope this helps.

Whether Imbrogno used fake degrees to boost his own public school teacher salary is at this point unknown, I would guess. That might be an interesting avenue to follow because that would take this from fake bragging rights on shows and book jackets, which is unethical, but probably would not interest a prosecutor, to criminal fraud, which definitely would.
edit on 7/9/2011 by schuyler because: spelling, as usual



reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 02:32 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by schuyler

Thanks for the information.

The questions about his honesty in the field of UFO and paranormal research shouldn't necessarily apply to his commitment and qualities as a teacher.


reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 05:24 PM by The GUT
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to
post by lancemoody

...When he later did the rounds of podcasts, he was relating the story of visiting Saudi and a cousin of the Prince of Saudi was telling him all about secret off-world missions to battle Djinn. It stank to high heaven. He then reinforced the doubts by claiming a high-up Intel veteran had checked his record, discovered Imbrogno had a top secret clearance and proceeded to tell him even more about these covert operations to capture Djinn technology.

A trip to Saudi Arabia would be easy for him to verify. Even at the time, I couldn't understand why nobody 'in the field' questioned how a high-school teacher could have a security clearance some 30 years after leaving the military.

And that's not the only case that stank to high heaven. Too many of his "stories" protect the identity of those involved with no ability to fact check his--or his subject's--uber-high strangeness experiences. Protecting peoples identity is not without journalistic precedence and is often justified, but too much of it when making incredibly fantastic claims starts--after awhile--to suggest at least some of the material wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

The whole Saudi story seemed to me just a variation of tales that fairly mimic stories about the U.S. government's attempt to attempt communication with discarnate entities but extrapolated & massaged onto the Saudi/Islamic arena. Imbrogno might have felt that outside fact-checking would be difficult in such a scenario.

But before we put the "Jinn" concept in the same trashcan as a bunch of faked credentials, here's what Gordon Creighton had to proffer on that particular subject. I sure did like that feisty maverick Creighton...I hope he was an ethical researcher even if he landed outside of the mainstream as he delved deeper into the subject:

A Brief Account Of The True Nature Of The 'UFO' Entities


reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 05:51 PM by owlseleven
reply to post by lancemoody



Lance,

I'd like to blame you in advance for Chris O'Brien packaging at least two episodes with esteemed researcher, Rosemary Ellen Guiley.


reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 05:52 PM by schuyler
Originally posted by Kandinsky
When he later did the rounds of podcasts, he was relating the story of visiting Saudi and a cousin of the Prince of Saudi was telling him all about secret off-world missions to battle Djinn. It stank to high heaven. He then reinforced the doubts by claiming a high-up Intel veteran had checked his record, discovered Imbrogno had a top secret clearance and proceeded to tell him even more about these covert operations to capture Djinn technology.


I realize we're heavily into hindsight is 20/20 now, but for the record, security clerances don't work that way. You are given a security clearance because your job, and only that one job, requires it. It isn't transferrable and it does not last 'beyond the job.' If you leave, it's null and void. Even if you stay in the same job, it must be renewed every few years, which means another round of investigations (which are not cheap.)

Just to give you an idea of how bad it is my son-in-law is an army officer. When he was stationed overseas he had a security clearance because of his role in intelligence matters. He was transferred back to the states after three years, a perfectly normal procedure in every respect, and was prevented from working in his field for six months because his security clearance had not transferred with him. It was a totally bogus bureaucratic screw-up which still had these consequences.

Further, you have to be "read into" any operation which entails you signing a bunch of papers acknowledging you are unworthy scum and pledging your grandparents as collateral--that sort of thing. Most every Top Secret clerance is SCI: Sensitive Compartmentalized Information. This basically means that if you are working on, say, listening to the Bad Guys (tm) in Sudan this does not entitle you to know anythung about top secret aircraft programs in Nevada.

That's not to say there aren't things very wrong with our security strategy. Manning is a good example. When my kid's security clearance was up for renewal they had a contractor come visit me, the Dad, and ask if my child was a financially responsible person, etc. I lied through my teeth. the lady was so frightened of my dog (Yeah, that's him up there, a very scary looking brute, huh?) so she cut the interview short and ran from the house. Sheesh!

The idea that all you have to do is show your top secret decoder ring to an Intel guy and he will start spilling his guts is preposterous. I know this is a day late, a dollar short, and full of hindsight, but it's the kind of thing somebody ought to have caught at the time it happened.


reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 06:28 PM by simone50m
reply to post by schuyler


You caused me to snap into action, and sift through Youtube Intelligence. Ohhhhhh EmmmmGeeeee! I may now be in hyper danger! Danger Will Robinson! Not only is there a Secret Decoder Ring, but it's "Secret Squadron" under One Captain Midnight.
www.youtube.com...
Shuyl, 'bits-and-pieces' are flying together in my brain. So that my own time in the air Force was not in vain.
I SUSPECT that none other than Special (needs) Ops'er Kal Korff, and our man of intrigue Imbrogno, have been part of this deep black global web called Secret Squadron.
edit on 9-7-2011 by simone50m because: wth?!



reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 12:41 AM by jritzmann
Originally posted by lancemoody
I have never discussed this on my blog.

Indeed I didn't release anything about this and had no immediate plans to do so. That was done without my input but supposedly verified independently. I have not seen that evidence. It was only after I heard the new excuses that I decided to chime in.


Fair enough on the blog. I'm curious how that got started. However if I can pose another question: Why would you, a self-proclaimed skeptic, not have any plans to release what you had found out regarding the educational background of a fairly well known UFO researcher? This seems rather odd to me seeing as this is often the M.O. of skeptics, to bring to public attention the information they seek out that refutes the popular belief and those that proliferate it. Yet you had no plans to release what you'd found. Why not?

To that end, how was this released without your input? As I understand it, you were the genesis of this inquiry into Imbrogno's background, so presumably any "leak" of that would have had to have come from you.

One could surmise that you didn't release the info you had because perhaps you didn't feel it solid enough, and leaked it to a party who would just run with it? I don't know, I'm asking. Because I have to be forthright and say I've seen your online interactions for quite awhile now and you're kinda the guy that seems to like rubbing people's noses in it when ya got the goods, if you take my meaning. Why would you of all people pass up such a golden opportunity? Can you understand why I'd see this as very strange and out of place?


reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 03:50 AM by Kandinsky
reply to post by schuyler

Thanks again. It's been interesting to wonder why nobody wanted to get active and check out the claims earlier. At least some researchers would have entertained doubts and stayed out of it.

I'm fairly sure Nick Redfern had doubts and he expressed an intention to investigate further when I asked him about it. It was on one of Richie Rich's blogs in March...Nick Redfern's Deal With the Devil quoted below...

K: Admittedly, I don't know the answer to that, as it's literally only been about 48-hours since I finished the book, and that was my first exposure to the story.

Maybe publicizing the story might hopefully provoke deep debate and digging to answer these questions.

Personally, I'm going to see what else I can find on all this.


I found the aftermath of the Hopkins/Jacobs debate changed my outlook on ufology. Guys who I'd admired were seen to be hypocritical, disingenuous and childish. The way some shut up shop and killed the debate has done more damage to my own perspectives on the 'field' than any of the shenanigans of Salla or Greer. In this light, I wonder if researchers contained their doubts to avoid similar troubles?

Shooting the messenger is a serious issue in ufology as many in this thread have experienced.

Being called an asshole by Don Ecker is more like a badge of honor and he's one of the good guys around here. No doubt, he'll have been talking to Phil and will call it how he sees it.


reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 10:40 AM by trainedobserver
reply to post by lancemoody



Echoing Kandinsky's disenchantment with ufology of late, I have to agree with you that truth has most certainly been viewed as bad for business by many in the talk show ufo and paranormal show/convention set. If people are wondering why it took so long to flush this latest fraud out, there is where they should look. A prevailing attitude of what best preserves the illusion rather than reveals it.

There are exceptions to the rule to one degree or another. I think Matthew Williams is doing some excellent work on the crop circle front for example. The level of frustration the makers have now with the researchers has reached a level where the truth is coming out with guys like Colin Andrews and Terje Toftenes making breaks from the intellectually disingenuous crop circle mainstream.

My naive hope is that this Imbrogno business will bitch slap the individuals and organizations mining the demographic of paranormal interest into a similar period of lucidity and reform if you will.

Those who still wish to choose one the excuses from Imbrogno's ever growing multiple choice list of improbable scenarios please be my guest. It's pretty telling.
edit on 10-7-2011 by trainedobserver because: left out ... words
edit on 10-7-2011 by trainedobserver because: added a sentence



reply posted on 10-7-2011 @ 10:52 AM by jritzmann
reply to post by lancemoody



Lance-
Was there something there that made you doubt the information? I mean a name given to a university and that university saying they never had that person there seems kind of cut and dry. (I find that personally pretty damning) So my question would be, what made you question it? Obviously there was something.

As far as our Djinn episode with Imbrogno, I found it interesting but all hard to swallow. I also questioned the UFO document story he related. However like every other program he's been on, we looked at Phil as someone who'd been around a very long time and figured at some point he'd been vetted. This isn't some new-comer who no one knows. Again, I can't figure out how something like this rolls on for so long (if untrue) - I think, you probably see this field like I do to a point: that it's easy to skate in with wild claims and no one bothers to check. But, if you're involved in any long term capacity you do make enemies, and those enemies will invariably want to get the dirt on you if there is any. It's hard to figure that Imbrogno is just now being looked at. However, I don't think he's been using the "PhD" or "Dr." thing for very long - what, a year or less? I'm not sure on that.

In any case...

If true, this teaches us all a hard lesson that no one is exempt. Not even people who've been around for decades and worked with "legendary" figures in UFOlogy.

Let's face facts here: no program he's been on in all these years apparently has checked into his background. Not Ecker, Steinberg, C2C, Paratopia (the plethora of others) or even the NY Times who did a piece on him. Ultimately it's incumbent on us all to look closer.

Also Lance, you'd said no one approached you about the documentation you had. I asked several posts ago if you'd send me what you had. I'll be busy with other stuff today, but if you could send it along at some point today I'd appreciate it.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Theory of the Federal Reserve and Petrol Dollar Reserve
  Posted 16 days ago with 4 member flags
Henrik Palmgren makes false claims re: global living
  Posted 8 days ago with 1 member flags
A few that blew the coup
  Posted 5 days ago with 1 member flags
Santos Bonacci (astrotheology)
  Posted 6 days ago with 0 member flags
Cubes, Everywhere in movies (symbolism)
  Posted 5 days ago with 0 member flags
i hear the low hum... but only inside?
  Posted 4 days ago with 0 member flags
When conspiracy theories lead to tied-up thinking.
  Posted 2 days ago with 0 member flags