• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Philip J. Imbrogno withdrawing from paranormal research!

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
As this thing progresses it becomes more evident to me how Imbrogno and others like him can perpetrate such longstanding fraud. By the nature of the comments made by several people in this thread and others, it is apparent that the concept of a confidence man is either foreign or wholly misunderstood by many. I don't think the paranormal/ufo interest demographic has a larger percentage of folks ignorant of these or a disproportionate number that understand and exploit it. However, paranormal and UFO buffs and enthusiasts are perhaps more susceptible to fraud because there is no regulation, no accountability, and little motivation to expose it in the UFO/Paranormal genre of faux-reality entertainment. Also, it always in the best interests of hoaxers, fakers, frauds, and con-men to poo-poo skepticism of any kind that might reveal their scam.

It is in the best interests of many in this industry to label those who question and doubt much of the absurd and unlikely subject matter they present as half-baked debunkers, noisy negativists, or government agents. When people are vilified for asking questions and for doubting, it is extremely revealing. Sweet Jesus in a baby-cart. When this is over, we're going to have an even better picture of who is interested in truth and who is interested in just selling us something, anything with a paranormal label, truth not required. Those who sell such crap will have an even better idea of how large and accepting their demographic is I imagine unless some attitudes and thinking changes.
 
Remember that it's not as if there's an HR department in the UFO field that examines one's credentials to make sure they are genuine. We have to all become that HR department and get the job done. What Lance did here was to remind us that there are fakers in our midst. If we hope to be taken seriously, we have to expose them before someone does it for us.
 
As this thing progresses it becomes more evident to me how Imbrogno and others like him can perpetrate such longstanding fraud. By the nature of the comments made by several people in this thread and others, it is apparent that the concept of a confidence man is either foreign or wholly misunderstood by many. I don't think the paranormal/ufo interest demographic has a larger percentage of folks ignorant of these or a disproportionate number that understand and exploit it. However, paranormal and UFO buffs and enthusiasts are perhaps more susceptible to fraud because there is no regulation, no accountability, and little motivation to expose it in the UFO/Paranormal genre of faux-reality entertainment. Also, it always in the best interests of hoaxers, fakers, frauds, and con-men to poo-poo skepticism of any kind that might reveal their scam.

It is in the best interests of many in this industry to label those who question and doubt much of the absurd and unlikely subject matter they present as half-baked debunkers, noisy negativists, or government agents. When people are vilified for asking questions and for doubting, it is extremely revealing. Sweet Jesus in a baby-cart. When this is over, we're going to have an even better picture of who is interested in truth and who is interested in just selling us something, anything with a paranormal label, truth not required. Those who sell such crap will have an even better idea of how large and accepting their demographic is I imagine unless some attitudes and thinking changes.

I think what you are gaining insight into is part of a deeper psychological predisposition towards belief in 'things' which validate our struggle and give us meaning, and it's certainly not limited to the paranormal fanbase -it's the very essence of what culture is constructed upon. Ernest Becker's work The Denial of Death was probably the first work to air out this peculiar brand of susceptibility found in human consciousness, and then Terror Management Theory took the ball and ran wild with it. Anyway, not trying to come off like a snob here, I just wanted to offer some perspective to discharge some of the gravitas here. Truth has little to do with it, people gravitate towards symbols and illusions that validate their culturally-inspired versions of reality and meaning.
 
Truth has little to do with it, people gravitate towards symbols and illusions that validate their culturally-inspired versions of reality and meaning.

As someone who has rejected a culturally-inspired version of reality and meaning I was personally heavily entrenched in (the Christian faith), I like to think that abandoning my most cherished and closely held beliefs was an act of personal honesty and a desire to be true to myself. What a human beings motivations are, are perhaps hidden from conscious awareness and leave us with behaviors, emotions, and thoughts whose true origins are not apparent. Perhaps I actually did that for some other reason unknown to me, but I do like to think that some humans can be motivated by a desire to see things as they are, no matter how unpleasant. I say that all the while holding the firm conviction that such a thing, seeing things for how they actually are, is not a possibility in the absolute sense for a human being and that there are many things that I willing do not see as requiring some unadulterated application of the truth and that I do that for personal convenience rather than conviction. I do see the point that all versions of reality and meaning are the products of human culture as varied, homegrown, and self-styled (to some extent) a great many appear to be to those who hold them. I want to believe a desire for truth can be a real motivation in a person's world-view even if it is to realize that we do not and perhaps cannot realize the truth, that we stumble through an illusionary existence where we imagine ourselves one thing but in reality we are something else entirely.

Reading that again, I think I sound a bit pretentious there. Having said all that, I have to admit I can be as duplicitous and deceitful as the next person and don't mean to imply anything different. I can only hope for better out of myself and others.
 
I was personally heavily entrenched in (the Christian faith)


Me to and how! Born and bred and raised to be a Christian. I realized the other day that I'm a Christian the same way I'm southern. :rolleyes: Not the most solid reason for a belief. But, on the other hand I also have some very core and deeply held convictions about spiritual reality and what it means to live and die. Those things were not jettisoned when I began to question my faith. I still go back and forth and still find the idea of God becoming flesh a really strong reason for hope. But, on the other hand I also know that there is no old man in the sky with a long white beard and a firey temper. I'm also still sure that "He who is without sin should cast the first stone." That and Treat others the way you would want to be treated is my only true "religion" these days. So, sure the dude lied. Sure, I'm gonna take everything he ever said or says with a grain of salt. I do that with everybody anyway. But, I would like to hear his side of it instead of all the arm chair psychology that I'm hearing here. But, he may not speak on it at all. Maybe that's a good thing but it would seem he should at least talk to the folks who bought his books. If only by a statement. Of course the world at large could care less. 8)
 
Well the list of excuses is growing. You can go read a comprehensive list over on the ATS forum that Lance has posted. So, he has made statements in response to this whole business. They just don't make any sense. Another is being promised by the paratopia guys and we have Don Ecker's findings to hear yet.

Given how complicated this is I do not think the circumstances will allow Mr. Imbrogno to admit to any wrong doing. It may a large problem legally. So, I think we just continue to hear more improbable excuses. We're up to four or five now. I'm waiting for the erased by the government or some version there of to be offered up.
 
Hey Trained can you give a link or tell me where to look over there? It's a huge site and I go from time to time but I'm not a regular and I'm not sure of which thread at ATS it's on.
 
Whew, after reading all that I am just starting to realize how much jealousy and sniping there is in this "field." Do any researchers or investigators actually like or respect each other? It's like a catfight everytime I hear one host of a podcast or show talk about another host of a podcast or show. The beleivers all want their "theory" to be right. The debunkers have a "poor widdle me" attitude that is just silly. I'm sorry guys but I don't think there is a "field" of ufology no matter how much the debunkers and the believers want to "believe" there is one. There are people (some good, lots bad) looking into things and the podcast are fun. But, I would caution anybody who gets their worldview off a message board. That being said I still feel like there's blood in the water. But, I bet that we are here (God/Darwin/Universe willing) next year and still arguing about ulitimate reality. So, Phil Imbrogno goes into the "Darwin Award for stupidity" box. Next. :-)
 
We don't talk about other shows, other than the big daily one we all know about. :)

Personally, I don't listen to the other paranormal programs either, not because I'm not interested, but I don't have the time. I'm busy enough doing what I'm doing, and keeping abreast of the real developments in the field and other fields.
 
I wasn't really talking about the Paracast. You do a good job of staying just out of reach. After some of the stuff I've read I don't blame you. 8) But, some folks do like to "drop" your name from time to time. I've complimented you before on your restraint.
 
As someone who has rejected a culturally-inspired version of reality and meaning I was personally heavily entrenched in (the Christian faith), I like to think that abandoning my most cherished and closely held beliefs was an act of personal honesty and a desire to be true to myself. What a human beings motivations are, are perhaps hidden from conscious awareness and leave us with behaviors, emotions, and thoughts whose true origins are not apparent. Perhaps I actually did that for some other reason unknown to me, but I do like to think that some humans can be motivated by a desire to see things as they are, no matter how unpleasant. I say that all the while holding the firm conviction that such a thing, seeing things for how they actually are, is not a possibility in the absolute sense for a human being and that there are many things that I willing do not see as requiring some unadulterated application of the truth and that I do that for personal convenience rather than conviction. I do see the point that all versions of reality and meaning are the products of human culture as varied, homegrown, and self-styled (to some extent) a great many appear to be to those who hold them. I want to believe a desire for truth can be a real motivation in a person's world-view even if it is to realize that we do not and perhaps cannot realize the truth, that we stumble through an illusionary existence where we imagine ourselves one thing but in reality we are something else entirely.

Reading that again, I think I sound a bit pretentious there. Having said all that, I have to admit I can be as duplicitous and deceitful as the next person and don't mean to imply anything different. I can only hope for better out of myself and others.

Ok. Please forgive. I'm locked and loaded with a Venti 'Kenyan' Ice Coffee. I'm holding ample fuel to ramble.

Not by any stretch of the imagination was I trying to suggest that because we're hardwired for "stupidity" (I acknowledge the use of this word represents a very crude shortcut) we shouldn't strive to know truth, or learn from the mistakes encountered when trying to do so. No, what I'm trying to suggest is far subtler than that. First, we are psychologically predisposed to fight to protect ourselves from having to contemplate death and dying. So, we create and affix to illusions that best support this underlying instinct. The consensus may be that those of us whom are faith based are more predisposed to this tendency, however I would argue that both camps of skeptic and believer do so with equal rabidity.

Secondly, and I think most of us in this forum are well aware of this, it seems that what we get a glimpse of in the competing camps of Skeptic and Believer is a vision of the gross inadequacy these categories, i.e. pitting humankind's fantasies, instincts, beliefs and self-styled perspectives against the very best of our bullshit debugging methods that have been devised to attain evidence and/or "data" on truth, which at this point equates almost solely to the application of the scientific method.

Watching from afar, it seems that more often than not the issue is lost in the debate, and when its not, rarely are we left with any notable movement going either forward or backward. Instead, and what's even less productive, is in the end we have only managed to inadvertently strengthened the resolve of each competing camp and each of the illusions associated therein. Very little insight is gained into the "true" nature of these problems and an even bigger one is created around the dialectic limitations of having to undertake an exploration of these issues in the first place.

Beneath this problem lies the rancor of a still throbbing wound, the remnants of a critical blow that was delivered upon the collective psyche when its cultural counterpart was subjected to its first hardy dose of logic, reason and inquiry via scientific method, all of which repsented a significant shift to a world view that since its dawn had been inspired, engineered and controlled by faith. Despite all the noise of the academic elite, and the troubling musings that have pissed off competing klatches of philosophic and scientific schools for untold generations, global culture doesn't appear as if it has come to a place where it can comfortably engender the consequences of entertaining such a debate. Sure, the debate is happening in certain spheres of society, and it rages on, but if you look closely for signs of true progress and insight into the nature of reality I think you'll see a reflection of the very same issues that handcuffed those that dreamed up the debate in the first place. Yes, I know, we have a million groovy gadgets and toys, biogenetic and medical advances that many would say prove otherwise, but I'm talking about age-old immutable philosophic differences, i.e. any progress of which might be represented by a bunker-busting blow to either side of the materialism vs consciousness debate, and any variation thereof. I'd propose that each side is hadicapped by a reflection of a similar critical weakness, and that is humankind's psychological predisposition to hold onto death-denying illusions. Faith provides one means of living forever, and on the other hand science is holding a promise of the same kind. And it is through each of these avenues that humanity has found a way to perpetuate meaning and purpose, primarily by hard-wiring and transposing these concepts of immortality into the very fiber of our culture.

So yeah, we can debate all we want over which camp has the upper hand, and we can continue to strive to cultivate and perfect methods that can approach, unveil, construct and reconstruct truth, but acknowledging intellectual rigor and honesty isn't the sole issue of importance here. It's about people finding purpose and meaning and a reflection of the version of immortality they wish to project into or onto culture. Perhaps if we start by acknowledging the versions of faith we project into these exhanges, as well as into our illusions which propel and perpetuate the debate from both ends; the essential fragility of our of species, as well as the whole goddamn goofy enterprise, then maybe, just maybe we could get somewhere.

So, in a sense, charlatans may not be doing us a disservice in this "field" at all. Perhaps they are best suited to serve the aspect of the issue we are not comfortable nor willing to address.
 
.............So, in a sense, charlatans may not be doing us a disservice in this "field" at all. Perhaps they are best suited to serve the aspect of the issue we are not comfortable nor willing to address.
Good post. I think the charlatans are doing the "field" a service as such. As are the people who "out" them. Those who are despairing of this current state with Phil Imbrogno need not worry unneccessarily about the Short or long term ramifications of this situation.
I think it's a matter of how you look at it. It could be said that by outing him the "field" is conscientiously practicing self regulation in a responsible and timely manner. Sure it is upsetting but we must move on. We also must learn from the lessons learnt by these issues.
It is also a reminder that maybe instead of immersing one's self in the genre and trying to find answers, one could possibly try looking at it from another perspective. The so called "field" seems to be heavily populated by those in the entertainment industry. The authors, the podcasts, the conventions, the researchers. All have their fingers and other appendages dangling in this industry. As Hotkafka said, the warring and controversy that rages within this industry and in society in general , whether it has to do with UFOs/paranormal or movies etc., will always be a stumbling block to any enlightenment that may occur.
Like tyder, i take what is said, written or broadcast by those in this field with a grain of salt. Whether they are believers, non believer, debunkers, bloggers, authors, radio hosts or not. Some things are interesting and have potential, some are ridiculous and are laughable. But overall i am not altering my life or opinions because of any of them.
Phil Imbrogno today, whose next?
 
Like tyder, i take what is said, written or broadcast by those in this field with a grain of salt. Whether they are believers, non believer, debunkers, bloggers, authors, radio hosts or not. Some things are interesting and have potential, some are ridiculous and are laughable. But overall i am not altering my life or opinions because of any of them.
Phil Imbrogno today, whose next?

Great post Phil.

That is one of the lessons in all of this to be certain. It's all got to be taken with a grain of salt, or should I say healthy skepticism. It is the only way to approach any of this business. I don't think the question is, Are we too skeptical?, rather it should be, Are we being skeptical enough?

 
I don't think the question is, Are we too skeptical?, rather it should be, Are we being skeptical enough?


If by skeptical you mean thinking for ourselves and understanding that everybody comes from their own agenda. Then NO, we are not skeptical enough. If you mean the Phil Klass, James Randi "It isn't there cause I can't believe in it and I'll pull up dirt and curse sand rant at ya." Then Yes, we are too skeptical. There is no "entity" that answers to the name "Science." If we could just understand that then maybe real scientist could and might even attempt to validate some of the research. However, when a Nobel Prize winner is blacklisted (Google Josephson, Brian) then it doens't bode well for real scientific research into the paranormal. When a magician is your go to authority because he's a "skeptic" but a scientist that does the research is an idiot because he actually researches. Well, then I think you have a real problem with getting legitimate researchers into the field. The people like Rhine and Sheldrake are under costant fire instead of honestly being able to present their work. Well, uhh, actually Rhine has passed on. :p But, you get my drift. Scientist like Polikinghorne and Pin Van Lommel are not on the talk radio and Oprah circuit. There are some legitimate people out there. But, the sad thing is it's the loud and the flashy ones that get the attention. So, yes be skeptical. I'm a true skeptic believe it or not. But, don't join a group and call yourself a name because then you become just another church. :cool:
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig --><!-- END TEMPLATE: ad_showthread_firstpost_sig -->
 
Listening to the latest paracast and I have a question. Chris, did Rosemary explain how she got access to the M.I.T. security record information? It sounds like she did more than just attempt to verify his attendance through the registrar's office. It's a great episode and the Don Schmitt story is a timely one.
 
The so called "field" seems to be heavily populated by those in the entertainment industry. The authors said:
:o:cool:::):eek::exclamation:


(Sorry PairOfCats, my quote didn't work like it was supposed to!:()
 
I gotta be honest, this whole MIT security logs thing seems a bit dubious. How does a private citizen get to check security logs? This seems like a fairly damning claim but I would like to know how it came about. Are we to understand that she contacted some department and asked for them to look at the logs and then they told her that they didn't see him listed there?
 
Hey Trained, David Biedney made a thread about Imbrogno on ATS.

Here tis! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread725236/pg1

Yes this post is interesting...but I disagree with dB.

---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Whew, after reading all that I am just starting to realize how much jealousy and sniping there is in this "field." Do any researchers or investigators actually like or respect each other? It's like a catfight everytime I hear one host of a podcast or show talk about another host of a podcast or show. The beleivers all want their "theory" to be right. The debunkers have a "poor widdle me" attitude that is just silly. I'm sorry guys but I don't think there is a "field" of ufology no matter how much the debunkers and the believers want to "believe" there is one. There are people (some good, lots bad) looking into things and the podcast are fun. But, I would caution anybody who gets their worldview off a message board. That being said I still feel like there's blood in the water. But, I bet that we are here (God/Darwin/Universe willing) next year and still arguing about ulitimate reality. So, Phil Imbrogno goes into the "Darwin Award for stupidity" box. Next. :-)

Yea, lots of hating going on!

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

Let em drop, I say. :)

Yea, after going through the ATS site I now realize the drama and negative name-dropping. I had no idea the paranormal field was similar to academia...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top