The latest scandal in UFO Land -- Phil Imbrogno's lies about his academic and service background -- is still being discussed. I'm not supporting Imbrogno's lies, nor defending him for doing so. His ideas about things UFO -ish are still interesting, and, while not new, still worth exploring. I had respect for Imbrogno and am sorry this happened. But, it does seem clear it did happen. Which made me wonder: why would someone feel the need to lie about his or her background, when it comes to UFOlogy? Phil Imbrogno isn't the first person to have been exposed for lying about his credentials, and realistically speaking, he probably won't be the last. Yet, why do some people feel they need to lie, in the context of UFOs?
UFO culture is a grass roots culture. Anyone --- despite the UFO Police and snarky researchers who dismiss whatever, or whoever, they don't agree with -- can live in UFO Land. (Well, except scofftics.) Anyone. It doesnt' matter if you have degrees or not, or what those degrees are in. Degrees do not denote intelligence; oh, they point to a specific type and tell us the degreed person has focus and perseverance in order to receive that degree. Don't misunderstand me, I am not "anti degree" and I have one myself. [Sidebar: full disclosure in case anyone tries to out little ol' me: I have an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Ed, a Bachelor's in English lit with an emphasis on Folklore, a Certificate in Ethnic Studies and Folklore, and two years of grad school. ] Does this make any more or less qualified than anyone else? Nope. Not a damn bit. I'm intelligent if discussing Beat poetry or folkloric applications but a goddamn dummy when it comes to math, business or 12th century military history.
So why do some feel the need to lie or exaggerate in context of UFO research? I have a theory. Ahem.
It's the damn debunker skeptoids. As well as those within UFOlogy, many of whom are in the UFO Police camp, who drone on about being "scientific" and academic and all kinds of -ics. No, I'm not implying science is useless, of course it isn't. We need it all in UFOlogy. But because someone holds a degree in the sciences, or at the least, in academia, does not make them any more qualified in any way to research UFOs. Not one damn bit.
In this culture we place a lot of esteem onto those who have college degrees. We automatically think they're smarter and better than the rest of us. Studying UFOs is a fringe thing to do, a kooky, silly thing to do. You're not serious or smart if you consider UFOs to be anything more than a curiosity. (I know, some co-workers and acquaintances think I'm not as smart as they thought I was, once they find I'm "into" UFOs. Surely someone intelligent wouldn't waste their time...) Some think that having a degree gives a little bit of legitimacy to an illegitimate field.
But there's no need. No need to lie about your background, whatever it is. As long as you're using your head, are truthful and honest and following your own voice, you can't go wrong. Despite what some others might say to you about that, the research and the work will stand on its own. And that's all you need.
5 comments:
Hello Regan, I think Imbrogno's academic claims were secondary to the way he made stuff up. In this light, the claimed qualifications were the tip of an iceberg. They allowed people to suspend disbelief and share in his stories although beneath the surface was one unfounded tale resting on another.
Regarding academic qualifications? In general, I'm all for them as they help to shed light on the critical-thinking skills of people before we hear/read their thoughts. In the same way employers require evidence of intelligence in potential employees, shouldn't we exercise the same caution?
This isn't always going to be the be-all and end-all as some very intelligent, self-educated people aren't qualified in anything. Likewise, people like Michael Salla are very well-educated and have less critical-thinking than a toddler near a fire.
I guess the best position is the same one we use in everyday life (or should!) and that's to give everyone a fair chance to be heard or read. Not a hundred chances and excuses...just a *fair chance.*
"I think Imbrogno's academic claims were secondary to the way he made stuff up. In this light, the claimed qualifications were the tip of an iceberg. They allowed people to suspend disbelief and share in his stories although beneath the surface was one unfounded tale resting on another."
Interesting perspective, to think lying about one's academic and military background is "second" to theories/ideas/research.
You don't know if Imbrogno "made stuff up" -- what stuff, where? Specifics. If you are referring to his theories on, say, Djinn and UFOs, then please provide examples. And in the end, it's opinion. There is no proof such stories are "unfounded" -- or, not. If you personally think they're ridiculous, fine. But that's opinion.
"Regarding academic qualifications? In general, I'm all for them as they help to shed light on the critical-thinking skills of people before we hear/read their thoughts."
I'm not for them or against them, they just are. "Critical thinking skills.." hmmm. Sure, I'll go for that. On the other hand, the thing about this realm of UFOs and related events, is that people -- myself included -- have experienced flat out bizarre stuff.
"In the same way employers require evidence of intelligence in potential employees, shouldn't we exercise the same caution? "
UFOlogy isn't a corporation. There's no HR of UFOlogy. "Intelligence" comes in many forms, not just academic. One of the stupidest people I ever knew was a professor of mathematics at a California university. Oh he knew shiploads of math, no dummy there. But he could barely cross the street without a map and a compass. Naive as hell, and not a lick of common sense.
Imbrogno's ideas aren't new, a fact I find surprising in that that isn't mentioned, and they're very interesting. I think he was on to something. Too bad he lied about his background. It simply wasn't necessary.
Either I wasn't clear or you misunderstood the post. His academic claims didn't represent the body of his writing or interviews. In this light, they were secondary.
'You don't know if Imbrogno "made stuff up" -- what stuff, where? Specifics. If you are referring to his theories on, say, Djinn and UFOs, then please provide examples. And in the end, it's opinion. There is no proof such stories are "unfounded" -- or, not.'
He said he'd been to a cave in Saudi that was big enough to contain the Great Pyramid.' There's no such cave.
He said he'd been to Saudi as a guest of a guy he served with in the forces. This guy was allegedly Chief of Security' for a Saudi Prince. Whilst there, he claimed that a cousin of the Prince told him all about secret, covert operations involving hunts for the Djinn.
He also described meeting a man in Saudi who described meeting these secret operatives and seeing a female Djinn appear in the desert and disappear in a vortex of sand.
Back home, he claimed an AFOSI senior agent approached him, at school, and confirmed the existence of a 'Stargate Project' of mixed-nationality agents travelling off-world to battle the Djinn and capture their technology.
These aren't his theories. They are straight claims of experiences he hasn't substantiated. When I wrote that 'he made stuff up,' there's no evidence whatsoever that he didn't.
There is evidence that his military history was 'made up' and that undermines his claims to have a 'buddy' in the Saudi security services. This then rules out his presence at a Saudi Prince's party and subsequent information received.
With that in mind, a large part of his recent writings on the Djinn is clearly 'made up.' Like I said, his academic claims are secondary to the rest of his accounts.
None of which gives any reason for me to fall out with you. If it came across as criticism of you, rather than him, it wasn't my intention. Likewise, don't fall out with me. :)
Thanks for the clarifications, I thought you meant his theories...
However, I still don't see how his "recent writings on the Djinn are clearly made up." The Djinn still exist, (maybe) regardless of what Imbrogno says he did ...or, what he didn't do.
Damn this rabbit hole!
Gordon Creighton from the FSR was a big proponent of the Djinn from the mid-70s until his death.
What I was suggesting (badly) was that Imbrogno's contributions can be deleted from our understanding without ruling everything else out.
There's enough to get our teeth into from people with more honesty. Although I favour the educated approach to scientific enquiries, there's more than enough room for intelligent, *uneducated* people with something to say.
Often the ideas that are easily dismissed come back and seem more plausible.
Post a Comment