Philip J. Imbrogno withdrawing from paranormal research!

[Walter Bosley]

Regarding military records, generally he who is not lying will gladly provide the DD214. Faking that document is a federal offense, so you'll notice the valor-stealers usually run when that request comes up...

---------- Post added at 04:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

My suggestion is this: radio and podcast hosts, as well as publishers, should require proof of credentials BEFORE having a guest on the first time. Guests should expect this the first time they're on a show. If they're legit, all that remains is whether the listeners choose to believe their claims of research or experience. I'll gladly provide my DD214, etc, to a host before being a guest.

 

[Ron Collins]

I agree that it would be awesome if the every first time interviewee was vetted before the appearance. But often times the interviewer doesn't even have time to properly research the guests material. I doubt any of them have read much since "Night Siege" for Imbrogno. I am not trying to make excuses for anyone. The reality is that we need to stop considering the these shows as more than entertainment. Itis not an audio encyclopedia. The guests usually make the circuit of podcasts and radio shows in order to hock a new or existing book. Sure there are good questions thrown out there but most podcasts go down the road of assuming nobody has read the material. In most cases that is absolutely true. So most of the show is spent covering the talking points. It is left up to the listener to purchase the book or research the finer details. I don't disagree with that format. It is useful for me in determining what paths I want to go down. I think it would be a good idea to create a place that displays the information Of properly vetted researchers. Then perhaps we would have a place to go in order to see if the researcher is who they say they are.

 

[Xylo]

I agree that it would be awesome if the every first time interviewee was vetted before the appearance. But often times the interviewer doesn't even have time to properly research the guests material. I doubt any of them have read much since "Night Siege" for Imbrogno. I am not trying to make excuses for anyone. The reality is that we need to stop considering the these shows as more than entertainment. Itis not an audio encyclopedia. The guests usually make the circuit of podcasts and radio shows in order to hock a new or existing book. Sure there are good questions thrown out there but most podcasts go down the road of assuming nobody has read the material. In most cases that is absolutely true. So most of the show is spent covering the talking points. It is left up to the listener to purchase the book or research the finer details. I don't disagree with that format. It is useful for me in determining what paths I want to go down. I think it would be a good idea to create a place that displays the information Of properly vetted researchers. Then perhaps we would have a place to go in order to see if the researcher is who they say they are.

I made that decision a while back. Some shows and show formats are more entertaining than others. I enjoy reading the discussion boards/forums more than I do most of the shows. Sometimes I'll hear or read something interesting and/or worth investigating.

 

[Kieran]

I wonder will Lance remember my request to him? No harm if he doesn't. Now if my memory is serving me correctly here ( like this was many months ago I asked him this) "Lance, if you have the time you should research and investigate the Hudson Valley UFO Case, and Phil Imbrogno? I gave my opinions, as to why he should do so, and I do believe Lance, thanked me for that post, as well.

I will admit, and not deny the fact, i was a very keen supporter of Imbrogno's UFO research in the past and, wasn't expecting Lance, to find anything useful like what he has found. Like I truly was of the believe like many people "Imbrogno" was trustworthy and had been vetted years ago. Imbrogno having co-authoring a UFO book with Hynek of all people further cemented that opinion of mine.

Anyway's it's Lance who most take full credit for this discovery, as he was the first person to instigate and get the ball roling on this first.

Imbrogno's thirty years of UFO research is no longer credible for the most part. An example of unreliable information would be: Philip Imbrogno claims of triangle ships been interested in the many Stone Chambers that are scattered all around the Hudson Valley?. I don't believe we can and should take his word for that any more! But still many paranormal events have been reported in this area for hundreds of years, but still this claim from Imbrogno especially is unreliable now. The stone chambers however do exist for real everyone can see them-but a paranormal connection or UFO connection with these stone buildings is becoming more unlikely. Still these stone buildings are not colonial root cellars, what a joke that is.

Imbrogno, has lots of "Interesting" paranormal stories in his books from people who he's claimed wished to remain anonymous! Obviously now we know why that was the case laugh! All these eyewitness accounts- anonymous ones provided and claimed by Phil to be true most be dumped and thrown out as being not trustworthy.

Many of the eyewitness accounts used for the book "Night Siege" are still fine, i think.? Why; because many of the eyewitnesses accounts are not from anoymous sources!! Night Siege has witness accounts from people who provided real names and job occupations.

If that post from Badboy666 (was from Phil) what's the deal with 666 stuff, (mark of the beast) crazy stuff hey! My English is not the best or that great, so I have no right to criticize anyone besides myself, but that post from "Badboy666" certainly would not have been posted by someone who had achieved a legitimate and MIT masters degree- Put it this way it would have been pretty obvious to me had, i seen this writing style before now (from phil?) that he'd barely got out of high school. Remember Phil was claiming to have a certain level of education (university standard). He was living in the states, as an American born Italian, as far as i know as well, and Phil country language officially is English- Badboy666 here well could not spell very basic spelling mistakes at that, grammar was very poor in that post ( like Phil has numerous books on sale worldwide) something is very wrong there? - The negativity shown by Badboy666 was incredible. If that is Phil he needs help, he is delusional at best, insane might be stretching it, but that post came from someone lacking something up top (slang for being fucked up in the head)

​

 

[Ron Collins]

Many of the eyewitness accounts used for the book "Night Siege" are still fine, i think.? Why; because many of the eyewitnesses accounts are not from anoymous sources!! Night Siege has witness accounts from people who provided real names and job occupations.
​

Are we sure? Has anyone actually checked? I can make up names that sound real (Thomas Moseire). I can tell you that Thomas lives in Mustang Oklahoma with his wife Bethany and the son Craig. I can say that Thomas has worked in accounting for a construction company for the past 14 years and drives a blue 2003 Ford F-150. If you read that in a book you would say to yourself, "Self, I think this is a real guy." and you would be wrong.... I think. Unless I have some weird psychic ability or something. The point is that this fictitious guy sounds real and if you think the author is a reputable man then you dont even question it. You rely on that author to be factual. you go on with the rest of your life believing Thomas exists.

Listen I have yet to find 1 fact about Philip Imbrogno that wasn't layered in bullshit. I fail to see why this would be any different. Perhaps, just perhaps, he conned Hynek into believing him and that bought him inclusion into Night Siege. I don't know, but it seems plausible. The guy has literally conned thousands of people for over 20 years. In the last few years he got carried away. He probably got too comfortable and thought his lies were bulletproof. Thats why he eventually got caught.​

 

[temujin68]

Not sure you're aware of it, but requests going through St. Louis can take scads of time. I know, I've submitted requests there in the past. In addition, a fire in 1973 allows them to drag their heals and sometimes, outright ignore looking for older records which in many cases were destroyed.

You got that right about St. Louis. I got out of the Army in 1991 and lost my copy number 2, DD-214 the copy that you need to have for all military benefits and identification. Sent in my request to St. Louis for it in 1992 and followed up after that through VA reps. I still havent received it yet. I did get a letter from St. Louis about 12 years ago stating that they were still working on my request.

 

[Kieran]

Are we sure? Has anyone actually checked? I can make up names that sound real (Thomas Moseire). I can tell you that Thomas lives in Mustang Oklahoma with his wife Bethany and the son Craig. I can say that Thomas has worked in accounting for a construction company for the past 14 years and drives a blue 2003 Ford F-150. If you read that in a book you would say to yourself, "Self, I think this is a real guy." and you would be wrong.... I think. Unless I have some weird psychic ability or something. The point is that this fictitious guy sounds real and if you think the author is a reputable man then you dont even question it. You rely on that author to be factual. you go on with the rest of your life believing Thomas exists.

Listen I have yet to find 1 fact about Philip Imbrogno that wasn't layered in bullshit. I fail to see why this would be any different. Perhaps, just perhaps, he conned Hynek into believing him and that bought him inclusion into Night Siege. I don't know, but it seems plausible. The guy has literally conned thousands of people for over 20 years. In the last few years he got carried away. He probably got too comfortable and thought his lies were bulletproof. Thats why he eventually got caught.​

I have the book Ron, but i gave it to one of my friends to look over and read a while back. So it would be handy if I had it now here for reference.

Well I don't know it's possible of course Ron, but some people named in Night Siege have appeared on actual videotape. Like this video for example.
http://youtu.be/mbszKTB5eBc

Are they who, they say they are? I think so, but one can never be so sure? There was three people involved in the research and writing of Night Siege, so it can' t be all rubbish, surely?

I'm not going to start disbelieving the Hudson Valley sightings happened just because Philip Imbrogno has been proven to be fraud and a liar.

 

[MikeSee]

I have mixed feelings about Phil and the MIT sham background. On the one hand, I'm none to receptive to the faking of credentials. On the other, you kind of hate to throw out the baby with the bath water. Granted, much of Phil's work is kind of "out there" -- both conjectural and highly speculative -- and I don't give much credence to a good deal of it. On the other hand, he does appear to be someone who has been willing to go poking around and probing at the edges of conventional thought, even if many of his conclusions are utterly out of this world. Still, I've emailed him before with questions about some of the odd stone structures he's explored and documented up in the Northeast and he's been very direct and decent in replying, even if I wouldn't be one to accept many of his conclusions. This MIT business is a sad affair, but I'd like someone to give Phil a chance to come back on the Paracast, explain his supreme lack of judgment about his credentials, and perhaps redeem himself in some small way. What do you say, Gene and Chris?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Gene has publicly extended an invitation for him to appear on the show to address this whole unfortunate affair.
We haven't received a response as-of-yet...

 

[Jeff Crowell]

The problem is, philosophically speaking, that just off-the-cuff the fact that Imbrogno faked his credentials does not mean that 100% of his work is corrupted nor should it be all cast out wantonly. It's like James Randi. The fact that Randi's homosexual does not mean his work as a skeptic is invalid, by any means. I'm not defending homosexuality, here, I'm merely stating the fact that being a homosexual would not mean you cannot be a legitimate skeptic. Going back to Imbrogno's offense, here's an example; say I make the claim that I have a Ph.D in medical science and conduct lessons and seminars on cancer. No one bothers to check my credentials because I talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk, and in 3 years I, miraculously come up with a cure for cancer. I continue speaking and lecturing for another 10 years when someone discovers, for whatever reason, that I am not actually a Dr. Now I'm sure I'm drummed out of the medical field at that point, but are we really going to go over all my research, including the proven cure for cancer, and toss it all out? Are we going to discard a cure, that (for the sake of this argument) had been proven time and again over the last 10 years? Of course not.

The real question becomes, then, how much of Imbrogno's claims, research, and findings ARE bullshit, and how much of these items are legitimate? Considering he's been in the field for 30 or so years, it would be a massive undertaking to answer that question. Unfortunately it's something we may be pouring over for as long as Phil, himself, had been gathering the evidence to begin with.

Also, just a side note, I'm NOT making excuses for what Phil did, at all. It's still a capital crime in this field, but I am saying that we need to be careful about the ramifications of the fraud in relation to the work that he has done.

 

[Michael Allen]

I have mixed feelings about Phil and the MIT sham background. On the one hand, I'm none to receptive to the faking of credentials. On the other, you kind of hate to throw out the baby with the bath water. Granted, much of Phil's work is kind of "out there" -- both conjectural and highly speculative -- and I don't give much credence to a good deal of it. On the other hand, he does appear to be someone who has been willing to go poking around and probing at the edges of conventional thought, even if many of his conclusions are utterly out of this world. Still, I've emailed him before with questions about some of the odd stone structures he's explored and documented up in the Northeast and he's been very direct and decent in replying, even if I wouldn't be one to accept many of his conclusions. This MIT business is a sad affair, but I'd like someone to give Phil a chance to come back on the Paracast, explain his supreme lack of judgment about his credentials, and perhaps redeem himself in some small way. What do you say, Gene and Chris?

I feel the same way...give the guy a chance to come clean.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Gene has publicly extended an invitation for him to appear on the show to address this whole unfortunate affair.
We haven't received a response as-of-yet...

I have 100% more respect for someone who screws up, comes out in the open, and admits to the mistake. It shows professionalism and it's a mark of being an adult.

Unfortunately I don't believe we'll see that from Phil Imbrogno. So far all we've seen is weak, dodging tactics ("My diploma is sealed") and feeble attempts to divert blame back on the accusers. All marks of someone completely guilty of that which he's accused of, and too immature and childish to face the heat he's caused on himself. I can almost hear him saying it now, "Do you know who you're dealing with?? I'm Phil Imbrogno. I"m kind of a big deal around here."

Ultimately, it sounds like someone needs to approach Imbrogno privately and ask him to come on the ParaCast and lay out his own story. Then we'll find out whether or not he's worth any kind of forgiveness or quarter......on any level.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Besides, confessed felons and other offenders can often reveal the "truth" in best-selling books and TV shows. But Phil Imbrogno was not known well enough in the field to gain that status. In fact, when I asked Jim Moseley about him, he barely knew who Imbrogno was, beyond his co-author credit in "Night Siege." He didn't realize he had written loads of other books since then, and had made a number of claims about personal paranormal experiences and investigations since then.

So maybe this is one issue that isn't worth following up.

Sure, if Imbrogno was willing to let it all hang out, we'd have him back.

In another case, when Pennsylvania UFO investigator Butch Witkowski's credentials came under question, I gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. He declined, but I see he is returning to the UFO convention circuit anyway, as if nothing happened. I hope that doesn't portend Imbrogno's return in a few years.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

In another case, when Pennsylvania UFO investigator Butch Witkowski's credentials came under question, I gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. He declined, but I see he is returning to the UFO convention circuit anyway, as if nothing happened. I hope that doesn't portend Imbrogno's return in a few years.

I think there are enough of us out here offended by Imbrogno's indiscretion enough that if he tried it, even several years down the road, we'd crucify him. I'm 40, still pretty young by UFO researcher standards, and if I happen to see Imbrogno at convention in 30 years trying to pawn off his work as if this never happened, you can bet your bottom dollar that my 70-year-old ass will be up on that stage calling "Shenanigans!!" Then you'll see a geriatric fist fight like no other! Sure, I may break a hip, but it'll be worth it to expose what he's tried to do.

 

[Decker]

My take on Imbrogno is real cut and dried.

He has gone into hiding, will not respond to anyone (with a UFO or paranormal connection) trying to make contact with him, and will lay low. He was caught and will not come out to talk about it, end of story. And, anyone who thinks that "Well, he lied about his education and military but that does not mean he lied about his research!") are simply playing with yourself. Why would you believe him about UFOs or the paranormal when he lied about something so fricking easy to check out? His academic background? Come on, wake up. Imbrogno is 101 % discredited. Down the tubes, as full of BS as a cow pasture. Time to move on.

Decker

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Totally agree Don. However, can't ignore Rosemary work in the book who is the genuine paranormal researcher.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...however, can't ignore Rosemary work in the book who is the genuine paranormal researcher.

I agree and I am glad that REM hasn't been slimed too much by this sad and tawdry affair... She has responded really well and taken the high road...If it had happened to me, I'd be extremely pissed off and let him have it!

 

[chikane]

I have mixed feelings about Phil and the MIT sham background. On the one hand, I'm none to receptive to the faking of credentials. On the other, you kind of hate to throw out the baby with the bath water. Granted, much of Phil's work is kind of "out there" -- both conjectural and highly speculative -- and I don't give much credence to a good deal of it. On the other hand, he does appear to be someone who has been willing to go poking around and probing at the edges of conventional thought, even if many of his conclusions are utterly out of this world. Still, I've emailed him before with questions about some of the odd stone structures he's explored and documented up in the Northeast and he's been very direct and decent in replying, even if I wouldn't be one to accept many of his conclusions.

I'd agree that his false claims about his credentials don't necessarily invalidate everything he might have written or said, however, how do you separate what might be true or not? it's virtually impossible... Ufology has this speciality that it still remains a kind of unofficial field of study, with a lot of "research" resting on testimonies, documents subject to dispute on their veracity, etc... It's not like hard science where even if someone make some errors that tend to discredit him, some of his work still remains by its own methodology and data and can be reviewed per se independently of any doubtful affairs. In ufology, much of what can be put forward rest a lot on the trustworthiness of the author since the data is subject to much caution. So when someone is caught making fraudulents claims deliberately much is taken with it. That's why skeptics try so hard to discredit people, even with personnal attacks, because they know that if they can impede on their reputation and trustworthiness it would harm a lot. Personnally I'm not interested in having constantly to wonder whether what I'm reading is just some science-fiction or real stuff! (though some of Imbrogno's stuff might not be faked - here I tend to think notably about his early work on the hudson valley sightings, where witnesses have come forward).

This MIT business is a sad affair, but I'd like someone to give Phil a chance to come back on the Paracast, explain his supreme lack of judgment about his credentials, and perhaps redeem himself in some small way. What do you say, Gene and Chris?

I think it's fair that Gene and Chris proposed to Philip Imbrogno to come on the show to explain this affair though I have difficulty to imagine him justifying why faked his credentials.

 

[Sparks]

Ok but is there another side to this story ? We all know that there has always been disinformation like the Richard Doty types at work in this field.
Is it possible that Imbrogno was involved in deliberate disinformation ? IS it possible that he knew all along that someday he would implode and cast all his work in to doubt ? This is a great scenario for a disinformation specialist. The Richard Doty's of the world must be loving this we already have serious researchers thinking about leaving the field again ( Hello Don Ecker ) Nice take down Phil.

I know it's more probable that Imbrogno is just a charlatan but in this UFO field you just never know for sure.

Sparks ( my real last name )

 

[bbridges]

Don is like a brother to me. He took this very personal, which says a lot about the caliber of man he is. He's working through it, and I think he'll be back better than ever,if he chooses to. By the way, Tuesday is Don's birthday and I'd like to be the first to wish him many more.