Phil Imbrogno gone from field - he faked his educational credentials

Originally posted by lancemoody
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

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

Basically, NYC Jeff was trying to track down info on Imbrogno's PhD claims and contacted the schools that Phil says he attended, including MIT.

In the comments, Phil said that his thesis was not necessarily 'classified.' but it was unavailable until it got approved. Something along those lines. Then Rosemary chastised the poster for not just contacting Phil directly, since his email is available all over the place. Within days, the blog disappeared.

Originally posted by RonCollins
So Imbrogno has made 4 claims of education and I/others can not find even one of them that checks out.

Unfrigginbelievable. Thanks for the info Ron, much appreciated.

The question of alerting his school to the possibility of shenanigans concerning his credentials has plagued me. Though not a religious guy I do try to live by a western sense of ethics and morals. I do have a conscience. But here is the thing, I am also a parent. I wonder if my child was being taught science by a man that had lied to obtain his position an others had information about that would I want them to say something.

The case has been made that Imbrogno isn't hurting anyone. I somewhat take exception to that. He has committed fraud by using fake credentials to help bolster a reputation in hopes of selling books and charging for appearances. He profited from it, albeit he's probably not driving a Ferrari but still he has profited.

I could also argue that the most harm is potentially that these kids are being taught by a person that may be unqualified to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean he is not competent in the subject matter. But there is a reason teachers have a degree in their subject matter and a teaching certificate.

I want to stress that there isn't even remotely enough information amassed to make such a determination and any sort of premature contact would be insanely reckless and wildly inappropriate. That said, in my initial outrage over this I did think about, once the appropriate amount of clear information was amassed, that I might contact his school. Through the advice of friends and a bunch of thought I have since backed off my inclination. Perhaps that is more vindictive than the situation calls for. To be honest, I think we need to first be 100% certain the man needs to be condemned in this field before contemplating the next steps. Right now, I only feel about 90% certain and I think we only have about 40 or 50% of the data needed to determine any other steps that should or should not be taken.

There are quite a few concerns about whether his qualifications would be relevant to his employment with some folk seeing the worst and suggesting he faked his way in. This is possible, but I've found the US system has similarities with us in the UK. A person can be employed without academic qualifications as an enrichment instructor.

Also,

Unqualified teachers can find work in elementary and secondary schools; those working as teacher assistants in elementary and secondary schools earned an average of $25,120 ,and those working as self-enrichment instructors earned an average of $47,210 as of 2010, reports the BLS.

link

What would be required here is some qualities and skills from other experiences e.g. military specialisation, musician, dancer etc. These positions are frequently part-time and could make promotional work easier.

It's not necessarily a condemnation of his teaching reputation/credibility that this other side to his life is apparently fictional. Chances are he could be very diligent as an instructor. The only way, as I see it, would be to contact the school and ask, which would be fairly despicable without more information. Would it surprise anyone if the school had never heard of him?

ETA: I've repeated Ron Collins! Busy eating breakfast and going to work.

Originally posted by schuyler
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.

Hi Schuyler,

Just to clarify, I did not write to every faculty member and Dean at Dr. Jacobs' university. I only wrote to the faculty members in his own department.

I did this because Dr. Jacobs uses his status as a professor of History at Temple University to promote himself in the field, and because he had me sign a Temple University research consent form and led me to believe that I was a research subject of Temple University. The university subsequently informed me that this was not the case, and said that form that he had me sign, that cited them, was "unauthorized" by them.

I initially did all that I could to avoid publicly harming Dr. Jacobs. You can hear the recording of one of the conversations that I had with him (Audio Clip 8 on my website) where this is clear. In addition, I attempted to have his misconduct dealt with appropriately through the university.

It was only after the university, in my opinion, covered it up, and after I had finally heard the hypnosis tapes and realized what Dr. Jacobs did to me in those sessions, that I made it widely known in the field.

I took that step as Dr. Jacobs is actually harming people, and I wanted to prevent other people from being harmed like I was.

I do not know if that is the same situation with Mr. Imbrogno or not. However, I thought that I should clarify it, as you brought it up.


Emma

I'm not all that bothered by this.

We are all just playing pretend here.

We pretend that there is actually something to this paranormal stuff and he pretended to be qualified to research the things that we pretend exist.

Now we say that his lies call into doubt the things he said and the claims he made?

Well the things he said were about ghosts and the claims he made were about the paranormal.

And these things are as real as Imbrogno's credentials. There are no Djinn or ghosts.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I'm not all that bothered by this.

We are all just playing pretend here.

We pretend that there is actually something to this paranormal stuff and he pretended to be qualified to research the things that we pretend exist.

Now we say that his lies call into doubt the things he said and the claims he made?

Well the things he said were about ghosts and the claims he made were about the paranormal.

And these things are as real as Imbrogno's credentials. There are no Djinn or ghosts.

As long as it is presented as entertainment then that is no problem. No accountability or responsibility is expected if that is the case. It's when it gets passed off and sold as reality that causes the problem. One question I have always asked about frauds and hoaxers is, "Why don't they just sell it as fiction?"

Originally posted by trainedobserver
One question I have always asked about frauds and hoaxers is, "Why don't they just sell it as fiction?"

It is ghosts and Djinn... it is fiction.

No amount of credentials can qualify one to research something that doesn't exist, won't exist, can't exist, etc.

It doesn't matter if Imbrogno went back to school and did it all again, this stuff still wouldn't be real and the 'data' would still be bogus (because ghosts aren't real).

To answer your Question: I think it is the money and the camaraderie.

When you get into this field you get to play pretend with a bunch of other grown-ups just like when you were younger, you can make some money get some attention and really enjoy yourself. Who knows, maybe being just another one of us is better than being just another fiction writer?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
To answer your Question: I think it is the money and the camaraderie.

When you get into this field you get to play pretend with a bunch of other grown-ups just like when you were younger, you can make some money get some attention and really enjoy yourself. Who knows, maybe being just another one of us is better than being just another fiction writer?

I agree the subject matter is fiction based on superstition. However, that isn't how he is pitching it. It seems it would be easier to just pitch it as fiction, to write novels about an intrepid Astronomer, Theoretical Chemist, and Earth Scientist who is a middle school teacher (if you can make all that believable) who explores the world of the paranormal on the side and discovers Djinn are real.

One thing that I have heard over, and over is that there is no money to be made in the whole UFO/Paranormal research genre. Isn't that what they all say?

Is the whole business just a social club for pathological liars, psychopaths, paranormal divas, and folks who find them amusing? I don't think so, as there are serious minded individuals who look into the subject with some effort to be objective, but those are few and far between it seems.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It is ghosts and Djinn... it is fiction.

No amount of credentials can qualify one to research something that doesn't exist, won't exist, can't exist, etc.

And you know these things are fiction how? You can no more justify your own belief system using the same dismissive and utterly non-fact based criteria. They don't exist because exuberant1 said so! Stone cold that seems.

Here's a fantasy for ya: Believing that alleged transcripts provided by John Lear of alleged hypnosis sessions of Bob Lazar can--if nothing else--provide a better timeline of...what?...a hoax?

Pimpin' Big ~ They Ain't 'Fraid O' No Ghosts!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f92f06c98f30.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by The GUT


I don't see your point. You invoked Bob Lazar too.

There are no ghosts or aliens. It is fun to talk about the paranormal though.

The latest Paracast episode with Jim Moseley of Saucer Smear discusses the fakes and outright frauds he has discovered in the UFO field since the 1950s.

The Imbrogno business is discussed as well of course. Chris relates that according to Rosemary, who did her own checking, the M.I.T. security logs show Phil has never been on campus.

Originally posted by trainedobserver
The latest Paracast episode with Jim Moseley of Saucer Smear discusses the fakes and outright frauds he has discovered in the UFO field since the 1950s.

The Imbrogno business is discussed as well of course. Chris relates that according to Rosemary, who did her own checking, the M.I.T. security logs show Phil has never been on campus.

edit on 11-7-2011 by trainedobserver because: (no reason given)

I kind of like Jim Moseley. He's like Ufology's own court jester. While he's discussing the fakes and frauds he's uncovered along the way maybe he will man up and expose some of his own fakes & frauds he's perpetrated along the way.

Originally posted by The GUT
I kind of like Jim Moseley. He's like Ufology's own court jester. While he's discussing the fakes and frauds he's uncovered along the way maybe he will man up and expose some of his own fakes & frauds he's perpetrated along the way.

He has done that on previous episodes of the Paracast, but I don't think he did in this one. Sometimes I miss bits by jumping the commercials though.

reply to post by trainedobserver


Yeah, the whole MIT security logs stuff bothers me. It sounds a bit... improbable. How does a private citizen check security logs. Seems fishy.

Originally posted by RonCollins
reply to post by trainedobserver

 

Yeah, the whole MIT security logs stuff bothers me. It sounds a bit... improbable. How does a private citizen check security logs. Seems fishy.

Besides which, MIT is an open campus, is it not? Anyone can walk through. It's not a military base. In fact, if it's like my campus, anyone could just show up for a class. In the larger ones, no one would ever know whether or not you were enrolled. The issue is enrollment and degrees, not presence on campus.

reply to post by RonCollins
It's unlikely and worth being cautious. Then again, I can envisage a scenario whereby a security officer runs a check just out of a sense of the ridiculous that a UFO writer could *possibly* be at MIT. If the suggestion was also made that MIT's reputation could be tarnished by association...who knows?

I was a part-time security guy for my university's Halls of Residence to earn extra income. I didn't have access to card-logs and only registered students had the swipe-cards. Failing card-access, it's possible to enter Uni libraries and some departments with a recognised ID and a signature...none of which help substantiate clams of being enrolled there.

reply to post by schuyler


The further story is that he was supposedly helping to construct some sort of detector there and as a part of that would have to be cleared into secure labs. Still, I doubt this is something the curious can just call up and get someone to check on.

Originally posted by RonCollins
reply to post by trainedobserver

 

Yeah, the whole MIT security logs stuff bothers me. It sounds a bit... improbable. How does a private citizen check security logs. Seems fishy.

It is curious to be sure. I think the answer may be "she knew someone" who had access to or at least claimed to have access to that information. It would be interesting to hear but it's a side issue I think.

I think when the DOB searches and Don Ecker's inquiries come back we'll all have a better idea of what's what. It looks absolutely abysmal at this point.

Yes, the only documents I have are:

1. MIT letter.
2. Verifydegree.com search results
3. About 4 emails from PI.

I know nothing about the additional material recently mentioned on the Paracast. I was not contacted by them for any of their program discussions of this matter.

@Jeff Ritzmann, I have sent you an email (yesterday) as requested answering some of your questions and explaining why I am not sending you any documentation at this time.

I will at some point release some documents perhaps even sooner that you reveal Imbrogno's latest excuse!

I wonder if the time you have spent complaining (on your own site) about how suspicious you find my motives might be better spent inquiring with MIT?

Needless to say, some of that suspicion might have served you well during the times you let the gentleman in question drone on and on during your show.

Lance