Phil Imbrogno gone from field - he faked his educational credentials

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
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




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ohhhhhhhhhhh what tangled webs he wave!!!



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Oh, he made 3 distinct and incompatible excuses to me:

1. That he uses a different name when registered at school. He also said he has a second legal name (!). Might want to check on the legality of that. He uses the name we know him by for EVERYTHING else--it's not like a pen name.

2. That other people made those claims not him.

Then when I informed him that I had interviews with him saying with his own mouth those very same claims:

3. He said said that he makes stuff up to throw off the UFO stalkers.

I also heard about a 4th one:

4. Some nonsense about a sealed diploma (as though there is such a thing):

I don't know if the new excuse being promoted by Jeremy and Jeff is one of these or if he has concocted a new one but I look forward to hearing about it. I also VERY MUCH look forward to hearing what Don Ecker has found.

I assume that the gentleman assumes that everyone he talks to is bone dead stupid and will fall for at least one of the things he throws against the wall. He is probably right about that.

By the way, I am happy to talk to anyone about the evidence I have collected (as long as they won't publish it yet). I note that some of the above persons who claim to be interested in the "real story" haven't bothered to contact me.


Lance



edit on 9-7-2011 by lancemoody because: Addition



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
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?!



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
A few folks have sent me private messages but I am told that I cannot reply yet because I don't have enough posts (thanks Schuyler for explaining!).
Thanks for the support.



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


Yes, it really is hydra-like in its own way.



edit on 9-7-2011 by lancemoody because: Clarify



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
To clarify, I've criticized certain aspects of Paratopia in general, but I'd hate to see the Imbrogno scandal attached to Jeff and Jeremy (Paratopia) in any way. They've been reasonable in asking for the facts to play out as they may. These guys have done a lot to elevate the field. Jeff has been in the trenches for years exposing fraud and disrupting the paradigm, so let's not get carried away on that front. Jeremy is talented and in it for truth as well.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Unless I have completely misunderstood Jeff and Jeremy's responses here (and eslewhere) they seem only to want to give Phil Imbrogno the benefit of the doubt. Really there is nothing wrong with that. The problem they have, as I understand it, is that people seem quick to throw him under the bus. Maybe, and I know how unlikely this probably is, he did use a different name or whatever for school. It's ok to reserve judgement until (or unless) he comes forward and admits or cries foul. Just my 2 cents



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lancemoody
I don't know if the new excuse being promoted by Jeremy and Jeff is one of these or if he has concocted a new one but I look forward to hearing about it.


Let me put this as succinctly as possible, sir, so we're clear: Do not dare to pose the idea that we are "promoting" some sort of excuse for anyone. Nor that we are "promoting" anything other than deeper inquiry into this issue. To try an attach or insinuate anything more is an outright lie. Knock it off.

If you'd like to send me what information you have, you can reach me at paratopiapodcast AT gmail DOT com. We'll see if it jibes with anything as we go forward.

I said this doesn't look good, and I meant it. I am not in the camp of protecting or making excuses for Imbrogno - I barely know the man. If he has in fact lied and fabricated his educational background - I can personally assure anyone reading this I will make it very well known and very public.

However that this is just now being discovered seems off to me. Maybe it's a testament to just how retarded this field is (as I've said before). I want more information, and ideally I'd like to hear from Imbrogno himself.

EDIT: Also to ask directly Lance, I'm told by a couple people that you had the documentation and discussion of the Imbrogno matter up on your blog and then it was gone. Is that true? if so, why was it removed?


edit on 9-7-2011 by jritzmann because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by owlseleven
To clarify, I've criticized certain aspects of Paratopia in general, but I'd hate to see the Imbrogno scandal attached to Jeff and Jeremy (Paratopia) in any way.


Well how could it, we've only been observers to this point. There's no attachment to it in any way other than trying to understand what's going on like everyone else. Although it's good that you point out the inference - there's some in a certain camp that would love to try and give us a black eye over anything they can, any way they can get the dig in, even if there's nothing there.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I appreciate Jeff's comments above.

Yes, I do think that saying he and Jeremy were "promoting" the idea was overstating things. I did hear Jeremy say that the excuse offered by Imbrogno was reasonable so I do look forward to hearing it and why it can't be shared now.

I wonder how that excuse fits in with the ones he has already offered? Perhaps one of them will stick for his intended audience.

I am almost sure of it.

I also very much look forward to hearing the new revelations promised by Don Ecker. That might require even more excuses, I suspect.

I read the stuff about me supposedly taking down my blog, etc.

That never happened.

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.

As to why this wasn't discovered earlier, as a skeptic, I think I know the answer but I also know that stating my thoughts on the matter won't change anything or lead to anything positive. In my opinion some of the things stated in this thread (and many others) were red flags that I certainly saw. But I needed to look for something concrete. And I think I found it.

Lance

edit on 9-7-2011 by lancemoody because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Hi Jeff,

Yes, I contacted several people whom I thought might know how to contact Imbrogno or might have some insight as to whether or not I was barking up the wrong tree.

I contacted Gene Steinberg, Paul Kimball, Don Ecker, Kevin Randall and Angelo, one of the moderators of the Paracast forums, and I shared the documents privately with them.

When I heard that he was leaving the field, I was satisfied that I did not need to publish anything immediately. It probably should go without saying that this is not about a skeptical idea (although I do see implications about the unbridled will to believe). I probably would have eventually published something but I did want to take it slow because I didn't want to be wrong or do wrong.

I know from experience that when a skeptic shows some contrary evidence, that evidence is viewed with an hilariously exhaustive fine toothed comb amongst lots of talk about the motives of the skeptic, etc.

Perhaps a bit of that skepticism might be put to good use while listening to the unfettered and dubious stories of the storytellers every once in a while?

edit on 10-7-2011 by lancemoody because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Kandinsky,

Thanks for the above. I looked at the full exchange and have to say that your thoughts back in March were particularly prescient and insightful. I suspect they met deaf ears. I never heard anything more from Nick Redfern after that about the matter, did you? I wonder if Jeff Ritzmann ever thought about what you said there (he was also in the exchange but perhaps only to mention his own podcast)?

Nck Redfern is good writer and very nice guy but I distinctly feel that he writes about these things DESPITE his own reservations about them. Many of his books take the most flimsy of disconnected (and often discredited) tales and expertly tape together and prop up their cardboard shells so that they look good from a certain angle in the right light. But when you slightly move your head (figuratively speaking) the whole effect is ruined. The Men in Black book seems to be a prime example of this (having heard him speak about it, not having read it).

Put much more bluntly, I don't think Redfern is looking for the truth. It's bad for business and I think he avoids it.

Lance

edit on 10-7-2011 by lancemoody because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
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



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
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.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join