Revolver Map



Sunday, July 10, 2011

What I've learned from the Phil Imbrogno fiasco

As I mentioned the other night, a then new thread had appeared on Above Top Secret that was authored by David Beidny. Rather than going back through it all, you can follow this link for my post about it or go to the thread at ATS for more info, I would like to spend a little bit of time telling you what this has taught me about the ufological 'field'. For the most part they are a bunch of bratty kids in a sandbox. All I have seen in that thread on ATS, is a good portion of veiled insults and misquotations and other such immature behaviors. I would say that I am shocked by this, but really I'm not.

Regardless of what comes of the Phil Imbrogno degree fiasco, I now have even less desire to be involved in the ufological issue. (Wonder why I prefer the moniker 'Fortean Philosopher'? It's not just that I identify with Charles Fort's world view) Now to be fair there are a good number of reasonable people that participated in (and are still participating in) that thread at ATS. But some bigger name people have been really just fighting back and forth about the issue. Not too shocking I know. I can't understand why people can't just disagree and still be civil.

The Imbrogno thing, one way or another, is certainly gonna be an opportunity for Ufology to reassess itself. As I stated in the post the other day, if Imbrogno has or doesn't have the degrees that he claims to this doesn't make him any more or less qualified to go running around looking for UFOs. People, both inside and outside of the field, fail to keep in mind the fact that at the moment there is no 'Degree in Ufology'.

This will probably be the last time I bring this up until I see more information one way or another, because it ultimately doesn't change anything for me. In my reality tunnel, there still exists an actual, external and quite possibly Non-Human, element behind some UFOs. Whether Phil Imbrogno has  a degree doesn't change this for me.


Lance said...

Hi Tony,

I appreciate the thoughts above. I've seen a lot of people make a similar hopeful prognostication that this event might somehow cause folks to reassess the way things are done.

I'm hope so, too but looking at this from the historical perspective (that is really my overriding interest in the topic) I really have some serious doubts that anything will change at all:

Jim Moseley wrote a devastating 1957 exposé of George Adamski but Adamski went right on ticking through the 1960's.

I have a radio interview in which Phillip Klass politely (really!) but systematically chats with Dan Fry and absolutely destroys every claim the man had ever made about his credentials (including a false PhD) and experience. Yet Fry is still referenced in the literature all the time.

The names go on and on...Lazar, Meier, Schmidt, etc.

Many of these folks are still active, providing nothing truthful and nothing helpful. Their spinning of yarns lays an opaque white veil over the idea of UFOs, an idea that seems destined to remain featureless and and impassive on and on into oblivion.



Tony Morrill said...

All great points. That just goes to illustrate one of the issues that I've seen in this field. Believer's keep on believing and debunker's keep on debunking, very rarely conceding that the other may actually have a valid point.

Anonymous said...

Imbrogno not only faked his education, he also faked his military service. To us veterans, this is known as stolen valor. We're looking for Imbrogno and would appreciate any help from the people out there. He needs to be brought to justice for his crimes.

Post a Comment