Phil Imbrogno gone from field - he faked his educational credentials

..... just trying to be more productive in the thread after my rant. I think that rietzmann and o'brian are actually the best parts of there respective shows in all honesty.

edit on 18-7-2011 by chipatmindcemeterydotnet because: spelling as usual

Thanks. Next time, please don't completely misrepresent the show's stance and outlook before you actually know what it is. Clearly, you don't.

In answer to the question - none of his "work" passes the filter any longer. Like hypnosis, there is no definitive line of demarcation to say what was legitimate data and what isn't. When there's no solid way to separate the two, it all gets tossed.

One would think the only real way is for someone to go through decades of "research" (if it can even be called that anymore) and double check the alleged facts. In this field, at least in a mass undertaking effort, I don't see that happening.

What this situation is likely to invoke is to entice the less than scrupulous or critical to pick up the tainted work and repackage it in some way - and play on the angle that such data was recovered by a "veteran researcher".

Someone else will pick it up and run with it in due time. It always happens. I'm sure this instance will be no different.

EDIT: I should say I'm a bit surprised that there isn't more resistance to this coming out (which could be due to it's near air-tight conclusion). Whenever a major upset occurs in the paranormal you get those who've built their own work upon the previous houses of cards - therefore they tend to defend the dethroned or discredited.

This whole thread is just sad. After reading BadBoys post (if it is indeed Phil) it makes him just look like the ultimate TROLL that now has you all infighting amongst yourselves. Last thin we need is a war amongst the "good guys" or a podcast flame war...


...it honestly sickens me since I enjoy all the shows that have been mentioned in this thread (well, cant really tolerate C2C)...

reply to post by Toxicsurf


Hey, if people would stop putting words in our mouths no one would have to say a word. I have no desire to get tangled up in a flame session. Far as I'm concerned this is a dead issue at this point.

In my published piece I point out one example of a story that Imbrogno told that simply could not be true. I also posted the audio of him telling the tale (did anyone notice my audio links or were they too camouflaged to see?).

As a reminder, Imbrogno said that Hynek told him that he thought Project Mogul was responsible for Roswell.
Hynek died in 1986. I confirmed with Kevin Randle that no one knew about the Mogul explanation until the mid-1990's. Hynek could not have said that.

The story sounded as though it was being made up on the spot. The technique was fantastic. He used tiny details that didn't mean anything (having vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup always available for Hynek). By lovingly crafting these details, he gets a full story out of one little impossible statement.

Imbrogno further used anachronistic ideas to pad out his story. He says that Hynek said that Roswell was a story that will never die, it keeps on being revived over and over getting better each time. But if the story was told before Hynek died, then this statement would have made no sense. Before 1986, Roswell has barely been revived once! Its long history had not really begun. No, this was Imbrogno putting a 2011 idea into the mouth of Hynek.

Now I didn't listen to many of Imbrogno's tales but I caught this whopper the moment I heard it, mainly because I know a pretty good deal about Roswell.

I honestly wonder how many of the stories were made up on the spot. I am sure that those of you who know cases very well could do the same with other stories.

I find this part of the thing fascinating.

Lance

What happened? Did I miss it? Never mind. Going back to sleep.

Lance, nice job on the article. Finally got a chance to read it.

Originally posted by lancemoody
I find this part of the thing fascinating.

So do I. In the absence of any actual paranormal phenomena, the purveyors of paranormal tales themselves provide the only profundity available on the subject. The real stories aren't about the phenomena, of which there is such a dearth, its the story of the people communicating those stories, or so it seems to me.

I searched him on google images and got this


Lol, I guess getting the t-shirt was a little cheaper and easier than actually going to MIT.

Originally posted by lancemoody
In my published piece I point out one example of a story that Imbrogno told that simply could not be true. I also posted the audio of him telling the tale (did anyone notice my audio links or were they too camouflaged to see?).

As a reminder, Imbrogno said that Hynek told him that he thought Project Mogul was responsible for Roswell.
Hynek died in 1986. I confirmed with Kevin Randle that no one knew about the Mogul explanation until the mid-1990's. Hynek could not have said that.

The story sounded as though it was being made up on the spot. The technique was fantastic. He used tiny details that didn't mean anything (having vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup always available for Hynek). By lovingly crafting these details, he gets a full story out of one little impossible statement.

Imbrogno further used anachronistic ideas to pad out his story. He says that Hynek said that Roswell was a story that will never die, it keeps on being revived over and over getting better each time. But if the story was told before Hynek died, then this statement would have made no sense. Before 1986, Roswell has barely been revived once! Its long history had not really begun. No, this was Imbrogno putting a 2011 idea into the mouth of Hynek.

Now I didn't listen to many of Imbrogno's tales but I caught this whopper the moment I heard it, mainly because I know a pretty good deal about Roswell.

I honestly wonder how many of the stories were made up on the spot. I am sure that those of you who know cases very well could do the same with other stories.

I find this part of the thing fascinating.

Lance

edit on 18-7-2011 by lancemoody because: (no reason given)

Project Mogul, was declassified in the early 1970's, so for me Hynek, may have known before 1986; the mogul balloon explanation would become eventually the second explanation for the Roswell crash?

I honestly, do not know if he was told something before it became public knowledge, but I don't think we can rule it out, can we?

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Toxicsurf

 

Hey, if people would stop putting words in our mouths no one would have to say a word. I have no desire to get tangled up in a flame session. Far as I'm concerned this is a dead issue at this point.

I agree with Jeff here. There was a little 'strangeness' in how the story first broke, and not everyone had exactly the same information at the same time. Remember that Imbrogno was running interference here and mucking up the works with further disinformation as the revelations happened. The way I see it he was trying to pit various groups against each other, and he failed to do so. All the parties involved came to more or less the same conclusion at more or less the same time. I see this as a win-win here. I think we ought to reflect on the fact that truth has prevailed here rather than poke sticks into the hornet's nest just for our own further entertainment.

Hi Kieran,

It is very unlikely that anyone had discussed the Mogul explanation in regards to Roswell prior to the 1990's. Kevin Randle agrees with me on this matter. Robert Todd seems to have initiated the idea about 1993.

Furthermore, as I mention, the anachronistic statements simply don't hold water and take the story further away from plausibility. They are 2011 statements put into the mouth of man who died in 1986.

I we are going to give the benefit of the doubt on every matter, then there is little point in discussing this stuff? Most anything is "possible", right? But, using that as the litmus test for credibility may not get you closer to the truth.

Lance

Originally posted by lancemoody
Hi Kieran,

It is very unlikely that anyone had discussed the Mogul explanation in regards to Roswell prior to the 1990's. Kevin Randle agrees with me on this matter. Robert Todd seems to have initiated the idea about 1993.

Furthermore, as I mention, the anachronistic statements simply don't hold water and take the story further away from plausibility. They are 2011 statements put into the mouth of man who died in 1986.

I we are going to give the benefit of the doubt on every matter, then there is little point in discussing this stuff? Most anything is "possible", right? But, using that as the litmus test for credibility may not get you closer to the truth.

Lance

edit on 19-7-2011 by lancemoody because: (no reason given)

What about Charles B Moore could he have talked to Hynek about Project Mogul been behind the Roswell Crash?

I'm still open minded and still neutral on what Hynek may have known and not known, in regards to Roswell, but I accept my point is pretty weak without hearing from the man himself,

I think it is very likely that when the Hudson Valley stuff is reexamined we are going to find a few "witnesses" never existed. I think he was able to con Hynek early on. That association set him up for over over 20 years.

Ron,

While I agree with you that Imbrogno's work around the Hudson Valley area is indeed compromised, let's remember that it has little to no impact on the actual sightings that did indeed occur in the area (the one I currently live in), and for which there are many witnesses and compelling reports. As someone who has seen UFOs on more than one occasion, it pains me to know that there are some who would use this terrible situation to further discredit those of us who have had genuinely anomalous experiences. Ultimately, Imbrogno is the worst kind of element regardless of what sandbox he would have chosen to piss in, it just so happens that he went after one of the easiest places to generate interest and legitimacy without backing any of it up, a terrible problem at every level of the field, and one that will only get worse over time.

dB

Richard Dolan reminded me of something we discussed over at my blog.

The new edition of Night Siege is supposed to be revised and expanded.
I think it would be fascinating to compare the old stuff and the new stuff and check up first on the new stuff.
After I made the suggestion, I think Mr. Dolan said that he might do just that.

Lance

I apologize, I made a duplicate post.

Imbrogno being identified as a fraud was the right thing to do. It wasn't a celebratory thing; just necessary. His BS claims had little impact on the areas of ufology that interest me, or others in this thread, so I've had no revision of beliefs to get on with. He's left right? So who cares?!

Now we're beginning to focus on Night Siege, it's begun to piss me off a lot. His BS is all over the revised edition of Night Siege. Chapter 16 (They Came Back!) is an abduction-fuelled carnival that seems emblematic of his breathless, story-telling. He naturally explains the lack of abduction reports in the 1st Edition as J. Allen Hynek's choice.

I have been asked over the years by many UFO researchers if there have been any close encounter-abduction type cases in the Hudson Valley. My answer to most was no. Only to few did I admit that there were abduction cases and plenty of them. This denial of such cases was at the request of Dr. Hynek since he wanted "NIGHT SIEGE" to be a documentation of the many UFO reports in the Hudson Valley. Hynek also wanted to keep these cases quiet until we had more data about the sightings in the area.

With so many reports over the years, and with the sightings still continuing, it was only a matter of time before the growing number of abduction cases in the Hudson Valley had to be dealt with.

To this date I have been contacted by at least 75 people who feel as if they had more than a sighting. Of the 75, there are 25 that would be suitable for further study. Of these twenty five, ten come from professional backgrounds. All do not want any type of publicity. I will explore two of these cases in this article. At the witnesses request, I have changed their names to protect them. I would also like to inform the reader that Whitley Strieber, author of the best selling book "COMMUNION" experiences took place in the Hudson Valley area.

Since the publication of his book many people have come forward with incredible stories, people who would otherwise would have kept silent.

On July 2 1987, I received a call from a 36-year-old woman from Toms River, New Jersey, whom I shall call Gail. Gail was very troubled on the phone, and insisted that she talk to me about a UFO related experience that she had...

...etc, etc, etc by Phil Imbrogno

With the death of Hynek and Bob Pratt's looming retirement, it's anyone's guess to what extent Imbrogno had carte blanche to add his tales to the edition. Certainly, the last chapter doesn't read like any of Bob Pratt's work. What's pissing me off about this is two-fold; he's apparently added a layer of BS to the book and will eventually have tainted Hynek's reputation by association.

It's a skip and a jump from identifying BS in the 2nd Edit to questioning everything in the 1st Edit and then regarding Hynek as 'gullible' which further taints everything hewas associated with.

I know that CUFOS has an impressive archive of tape recordings of witnesses that dates back to '73 and beyond. In the 80s, Hynek and associates were experienced in this work and would have set up tape recorders for the 'UFO hotline.' In this case, I hope the phone accounts in the book were taped and that follow-up interviews were also taped. At least this will limit the damage caused by this lying SOB to his own work and not infect others.

Hi Kandinsky,

I think Bob Pratt died in 2005.

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody
Died in 2005 but retired in '99. Book revised in '98.

Ahh, I see.

Here is some curious text from the 1987 Publishers Weekly review:

"Famed UFO author Hynek died in 1986, "as the book was being written," but the authors maintain that he participated in the investigation and include the transcript of a Hynek interview with a witness."

I have not read the book but wonder if the Hynek name was an arrangement with his estate/family and if his actual participation was minor?

Is his participation in the text clearly evident?

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody
I'm fairly sure that the 1st edition was authored by Hynek. It's in the tone of his other books and describes plenty of anecdotal accounts in his typically sober way. The narrative isn't too leading either.

In the revised edition, the final chapter cites Budd Hopkins and goes on about alien abductions. This is a distinct addition to the book and wouldn't have been allowed by Hynek, if he'd still been alive. It's also distinct from Bob Pratt's style which is why I made the point that he retired shortly after in '99. I believe Imbrogno initiated the revision of the boo and was unable to help himself from putting himself centre-stage and bringing in the BS.

The text linked above, describes how he kept the secret of alien abductions at Hynek's request. I'm more inclined to think that his association with Hynek (though, interestingly not CUFOS!) limited how far he could tell stories. On Hynek's death, Imbrogno no longer had reasons to be honest imo. The storytelling went into overload and led to all this.