Phil Imbrogno gone from field - he faked his educational credentials

Hi Jeff,

I think I have posted all the info that I have--it's really rather simple.
The main item of documentation is the certification letter from MIT and I have shared that with several folks. The text of that document has been published in several places (including your own site) and is accurate.

I'm not going to send it out any more at this time but I am certain that you can get your own confirmation from MIT directly. I simply emailed and later spoke over the phone with their office (they did a check using only the last name with the same results). I encourage anyone to do what I did thus taking my motives and so forth as a "debunker" and "evil blogger" (quoting Jeremy here) out of the picture entirely.

I used the online degree verify service but only in the initial stages. I don't consider it to be definitive enough. I have those negative reports (it costs 7 bucks a shot, I think).

I also have several emails from Imbrogno himself which I am not going to release at this time (but I have, in general, spoken of some of their content).

If you need to know more send me an email or PM and I can arrange something off-the-record.

By the way, I have always admired your work analyzing photo and video evidence, especially the stuff you did on Meir.

Thanks,

Lance

As I've stated, while I might not see eye to eye with Lance Moody on a number of issues, in this case, he has done some good work (along with at least one other person who was also looking into Imbrogno, that I know). I appreciate his tenacity, and am thankful for what he has done here.

And while I know that the Paratopia guys would love to bait me into an exchange, all I'll say right now is this - based on what I know about them (which is substantial, given that I introduced them to one another), I find neither of them trustworthy in the least (and I have emails to back this stance up), so anything coming from them is _totally suspect_, IMO.

dB

Hello David!

You should see how well I get on with the new co-host!

Lance

reply to post by davidbiedny


Really want to go down that road?

Thanks Lance.

However I have to ask yet again, why this all has to be "off the record." You rather despondently said in the beginning stages of this thread that you didn't have anyone approach you about the documentation. I approached and asked for it, and gave my email address. Now, you don't want to send it out to anyone else. All I'm asking is to show me what you have. Why is that an issue?

Please know this isn't a dig, I'm just perplexed as to why this cannot be sent all of a sudden.

Originally posted by lancemoody
I encourage anyone to do what I did thus taking my motives and so forth as a "debunker" and "evil blogger" (quoting Jeremy here) out of the picture entirely.

edit on 10-7-2011 by lancemoody because: Format

The whole "half-assed debunker" thing is pretty ironic as it appears the whole "blog that disappeared" and "harassing debunker" thing is coming off as pretty half-baked or half-assed itself. The more I hear your motives questioned in outing this fraud the more confused I am by it. The whole "wait for Imbrogno's side" diversion ignores the fact that Phil has already offered up several explanations that don't pan out and as Lance points out are contradictory. So what are we waiting for anyway? Something that is going to supersede the sealed diploma excuse?

I really don't think Lance owes anyone anything here, anything at all. He is under no obligation whatsoever to share his results with any other "researcher" who takes an interest in this issue. Already we've seen one web site shamelessly "break the story" for reasons of their own. Give it a few hours and Greer, Salla, and Birnes will all be crowing that it was THEY who broke the story and it's all theirs. Hell, let's get Strieber, Hopkins, and Jacobs on here, too, so THEY can wax eloquent on how smart they are. If anyone else has something useful to add, by all means let's hear it, but it's beginning to feel like every abductee-wannabe on the planet wants to bully his way into a piece of the pie and see his name in lights.

Curioser & curioser, although the way I see it, everyone posting in this OP--even if from different belief systems as regards anomalous phenomena--are basically on the same side: Truth.

So maybe we should get the Imbrogno issue out of the way as a first point of business. Then again: A juicy flame war can be a riot to watch in the mine-studded battlefield field called Ufology.

I have a funny feeling that this particular issue is going to get bigger, nastier, and enmesh more folk than it might have first seemed.

Peace Y'all!

Originally posted by jritzmann
Thanks Lance.

However I have to ask yet again, why this all has to be "off the record." You rather despondently said in the beginning stages of this thread that you didn't have anyone approach you about the documentation. I approached and asked for it, and gave my email address. Now, you don't want to send it out to anyone else. All I'm asking is to show me what you have. Why is that an issue?

Please know this isn't a dig, I'm just perplexed as to why this cannot be sent all of a sudden.

Maybe all y'all should do an end-around run on those "other" guys and have Lance on the show? Maybe invite Imbrogno too. What about Ecker? And Biedny too for that matter. Could be big.

However I have to ask yet again, why this all has to be "off the record."

Hey, I'm saving some stuff for my blog! I will eventually write all this up.
I have sent the MIT letter to several folks (including at least one here on the thread).

You guys have accepted the mysterious waiting period that the gentleman has requested without question--maybe this is kinda like that?

Lance

Originally posted by schuyler
I really don't think Lance owes anyone anything here, anything at all. He is under no obligation whatsoever to share his results with any other "researcher" who takes an interest in this issue.

Good to hear from you Schuyler, always a pleasure. No one's obligated to anything, no, but when public statements have been made over this sort of thing, it's good to provide the relevant data. It's even better to provide it after you've bitched that no one contacted you for it, and then someone does.

I'm not interested in having my name in lights over this story. It's an interesting story, but hardly changes the field in a drastic way - this kind of thing has happened before and likely will again unfortunately. I personally have no desire to do an entire program on this past a mention, and probably having to add a 30 second addendum statement to prior shows in our archive with Imbrogno to inform the audience who may be unaware, of the possible developments.

Clearly this whole discussion has decided to get hostile, personal and evasive, and seems to be more concerned with who gets credit for discovery (which seems rather incidental at this point since Lance is the one who brought this all to light as far as I'm concerned - he gets the credit and if it all checks out he deserves all the accolades for it.).

All I'm asking is to examine his data which he himself has publicized. This is what skeptics always gripe about: that no one wants to share data and they are shut out by UFOlogists and others.

Skeptics are said to be an open book, willing to share data they've collected with everyone. I'm rather concerned why in this case the skeptic seems unwilling to share the data he griped that no one asked for from him. Well I asked and now the door is strangely shut. That leads me to think that perhaps Lance's case here isn't as strong as he claims, and he's worried about the ramifications if he's incorrect.

Based on discussions I've had today, I think it's highly likely he is correct. So, therefore I don't understand the issue. I tend to think something is being hidden or withheld, which makes me suspicious. But that's ok...maybe he wants someone special to break the story, or for his blog and that's fine. It's his story.

I'll just leave the thread as it sits, and wait to hear the news like everyone else.

Hello everyone. This is my first post here.

A special hello to Schuyler, I hope you are doing OK.

Anyway, I was reading this thread and decided to offer a glimpse at some of the research that has been done to verify the claims of Imbrogno. Lance shared a PDF of the MIT letter with me I was shocked. How could this guy pass muster with radio shows, podcasts, TV (GMA, Oprah, 1 Chicago area new report, and some stuff from the History Channel), book reviews, and speaking engagements? Had nobody actually checked him out? Apparently the answer is a resounding "No".

Let me start by saying that though lance and I come from somewhat different views regarding UFO's and the paranormal, he has always had a very valuable insight and has always done his homework. I have continued to speak to him about this and make him privately aware of my efforts to investigate and help expose Imbrogno. I can tell you all that his intent was never to hurt Imbrogno. In fact I think he was OK leaving it all alone as long as Imbrogno had actually retired from the field.

First I will recap the claims. Anyone can verify this by listening to 2 different podcasts in particular and the BIO page listed below:
A) ESP Dark Harvest Podcast (espdarkharvest.podbean.com...) 55:30
B) Djinn BIO page for Imbrogno prior to its removal (www.dh22.com...)
C) Universal Truth Evolution Radio (www.youtube.com...) 6:45

Here is the list of education claims:
- B.A. in Astronomy From UT
- Bachelors in "Earth Science" from Boston College (Earth and Environmental Sciences)
- Masters from MIT
- Soon to be PHD from MIT

So you already know that Lance tried to find a record of a PHD from MIT. I thought I would check out the rest of the education claims. Here is what I found.

1) I called the registrars office and spoke to a very nice woman. She told me to go to the National Student Clearinghouse website (www.studentclearinghouse.org...) as that was the preferred method of degree verification. I paid $6.50 and did a search for a Bachelors of Science Degree in Earth Science. The department is now called Earth and Environmental Sciences and the degree program is now called "Environmental Geosciences" if you care to know. Anyway, this is the result they emailed to me.
A) Boston College Response (www.dh22.com...)

As you can see, no degree and no record of attendance.

I later heard that Imbrogno had claimed that he had a "Sealed Degree" or "Sealed Diploma". So I called the same friendly lady at the BC registrars office to ask about it. She laughed and said that she had no idea what that was and that she had never heard of such a thing.

At this time, I did not have Imbrogno's birthdate. I now have it and have resubmitted the search.

2) I used the same National Student Clearinghouse site to check on the masters degree claim and paid another $6.50. Here is the response.
A) MIT Response (www.dh22.com...)

As you can also see, there is no degree and no record of attendance. Again, I did not have Imbrogno's birthdate. I now have it and have resubmitted the search.

3) University of Texas. The Austin campus does not participate in the NSC but they do have an online tool for any graduate fron Fall 1977 to present. (registrar.utexas.edu...) Anyone can repeat the same search at this site and as you can see you will not find Imbrogno. I also called and submitted a search from 1973 to 1977. It has been unsuccessful but they did not complete the search. They have to search microfiche records so it takes time. I have asked for a new search now that I have his DOB but I really need his grad date/year to make the search easier for them. I do not have a document on that as it was only a few phone calls. However, I will request a document to confirm the result once we have it.

So Imbrogno has made 4 claims of education and I/others can not find even one of them that checks out. Granted, to be sure I need to wait until the the search with the DOB information included has come back to be sure. If anyone has approximate alleged graduation dates/years that would help as well but at this point I expect it to be more confirmation of his fabricated education credentials.

I know that Don Ecker is doing some more research but he is not sharing anything at this point.

That is all I can share right now. I hope having the evidence consolidated helps to demystify this a bit. (also, I am notorious for misspellings and bad grammar. I have programmed for many years and the first things to go were my already abysmal spelling abilities and my semi-decent grammar. I am hopeful these shortcomings will not detract from the post.)

Hey, I know I said I'd stay away but this will clear up something:

I thought it must be Lance's blog that was shut down after a post called "Imbrogno Imbroglio," where Phil and Rosemary Ellen Guiley chimed in, since he's the one investigating, but Angelofioren told me that never happened.

I just remembered who pointed me to it, and called him and he pointed me to it again. Turns out it's someone called "NYC Jeff." The blog is still taken down. It was this:

yaufob.wordpress.com...

(I tried to give a cache link with the title of the article in the side bar to a different blog post of NYC Jeff but ATS won't let me. At least I don't know how.)

So who is that?

Sorry I had the wrong person, Lance.

Do you know him? Why was he raising the ire of Imbrogno/Guiley over this if you were the one investigating? Was he investigating too? Anyone know?

reply to post by RonCollins


Hey, thanks, Ron.

reply to post by RonCollins

Welcome aboard and thanks for weighing in with that info. It makes the issue a little clearer--for me anyway.

I bet we all can remember when we lost our innocence. I was 12 and had read quite a few Fortean and UFO books that year and while at the library I decided to dig deeper into some of the curious and fascinating accounts I had read.

I was rather shocked to find that the "research" some of these writers had done while not non-existant, had relied heavily on stories that had been printed years before in some rather trashy pulp magazines and often found no where else...or if so regurgitated from the same pulpy source. Jerks.

That's why I salute Paratopia for the Hopkins/Jacobs expose--that took some guts--and Lance (even if he is a stinkin' sceptic ha) for any work and effort that cleans the cesspool up some.

reply to post by RonCollins


Thanks, Ron (and hello back!) The thing that is getting me here is the possibility that Imbrogno used these same fake degrees to establish his credentials as a public school teacher. In my state the public school districts check these sorts of things by requiring transcripts. As I understand it, they have a method of checking if teaching certificates are current. (How I know: There was this teacher's strike in Spokane. One of our friends decided to cross the picket lines and be a scab substitute. They checked her credentials via the State before Spokane hired her. Standard procedure.)

Now, either Imbrogno has faked his school teacher certification as well, OR his fakery is strictly for his UFO personna, which is completely different from his high school teacher personna. If the former, then this is grounds for instant termination and potential prosecution even to the point of a felony. If the latter, well, yeah, it's "bad," but probably not of interest to TPTB in any form. Other than us weirdos on ATS, nobody much cares.

The question I put before this group is this: It's one thing to expose this guy as a fraud and point out that much of his so-called "research" is made up and maybe he should just go away. It's quite another thing to "expose him to the authorities," if you will, and potentially take away his livilihood, his means to make a living. I don't have a problem with the former; I'm unsettled by the latter.

What do y'all think? If this is proven out the way we all suspect this is going, is it "our right" (used loosely) to point this stuff out to his employer, or does this go beyond what our business ought to be? If you will remember the precedent of Jacobs, whose accuser has written to every faculty member and Dean at his college, this is not unprecedented. Put succinctly, it's one thing to discredit the guy (literally, in this case.) It's another to detroy him.

reply to post by schuyler


I would argue that Jacobs mentally abused her and used his credentials (and Temple paperwork) to aid him. Imbrogno isn't harming anyone. Huge difference. If he's guilty, let him slip away quietly... and come back in five years when nobody's looking, like Don Schmitt.

reply to post by Jeremy_Vaeni


I used the wayback machine, and followed some links to find his new blog. yaufob2.wordpress.com...

Just wanted to say that I agree with Schuyler above and that was one of the reasons I didn't break the story. I imagine I would have eventually mentioned it but certainly not this quickly.

Jeremy, I looked at the link icculus provided but I don't see anything relevant there. I have no idea who this is.

Can you post the gist of the conversation?

Lance

Originally posted by Jeremy_Vaeni
reply to post by schuyler

 

I would argue that Jacobs mentally abused her and used his credentials (and Temple paperwork) to aid him. Imbrogno isn't harming anyone. Huge difference. If he's guilty, let him slip away quietly... and come back in five years when nobody's looking, like Don Schmitt.

Yeah, what Jacobs did was cruel & unusual, but the issue here--for me--isn't so much that Imbrogno propped up his credentials as to what that says about the validity of his work.

If he's been feeding the public fictionalized accounts of anomalous phenomena then I would differ and say that is harming folk.