• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Expose Imbrogno cont.? Why? No idea


Staff member
Well, here I was this morning with some time on my hands. My wife is visiting her sister and family and I am here with just my dogs. (and as a side note, while on my computer, honest to God, this morning suddenly a strange dog popped into my office .. apparently he jumped over the fence, and he popped in to say hello. I escorted him out of the yard!)

At any rate, I was scanning some stuff up on the ATS site, looking at their Phil Imbrogno thread, and noticed there were additional pages there since I last visited. Now, any of you that were around last year know my feelings on what Imbrogno did. He lied about his academic background, he lied about his military service, he lied about his "adventures" in Viet Nam, I do not know how I could be anymore disgusted with this guy. And now, by the way the first time I saw this ... he popped up on the Rob McConnell X-zone radio show <lambasting the UFO field!> Jesus! Talk about chutzpa! However that is typical with frauds in general. So, why am I writing about this now?

If you read my report on Imbrogno .. Imbrogno, Fraud, Stolen Valor | The Paracast Community Forums and read Lance Moody's report then you know that Imbrogno's unmasking happened here on The Paracast. When Lance first approached me, as I reported in my report, I as very skeptical of his motives. Actually what I said was ..


"Okay Lance, before you and I go any further with this, I have a question for you.

Where are you going with this? What's the deal, like what bee got under your bonnet on Imbrogno?

Let me tell you what I think, okay? You know I was a cop and for what it is worth I still have those cop gut instincts. I think you fancy yourself as the next Phil Klass and you are looking around for some schmuck's scalp that you can hang on your belt, right? I mean lets not bull shit each other. You know I am a pretty straight ahead on kind of guy. I won't bull shit you and you don't bull shit me. A guy, like you, who thinks all of this paranormal stuff is horse shit sure hangs around on a forum that is devoted to it, and occasionally you go out of your way to stir the shit. Why? I mean Lance, why would a guy who thinks the UFO subject is bull shit hang around here with lots of folks who in fact think there is something to the subject, just so you might now and again take a piss in their corn flakes?

So here is the deal, you tell me what is up or I have no further interest in discussing any of this with you. Now, I do believe that is plain enough.


The reason for my rough tone with Lance was the fact that not long before we had a clash here on the DMR forum over a show with Dr. John Brandenburg that was just about to happen. In other words it had not aired yet. Lance popped in here using a somewhat disparaging tone about some of the research and John Brandenburg in particular. I was fully less than happy and let Lance know that. At any rate I was distrustful of his motives. However, Lance did a really stellar job on his unmasking Imbrogno which caused me to do my research on his military claims. Okay, that is out of the way.

So, here I am on the computer clicking on links when I ended up on the James Randi forum where the topic of Imbrogno was being discussed. I had not seen this prior but in Lance's initial note he said;

"Hello JREFers,

I just wanted to mention my recently published blog account of taking down the famous UFO author, Philip J. Imbrogno.

It seems that Imbrogno's impressive credentials were all a fabrication. Shortly after I began my investigation, Imbrogno announced that he was leaving the field. In my article, I also tie together this event with past frauds in UFOology.

Admittedly this is not related to the topic of Feminism in Skepticism but I still thought some folks here might be interested.


Lance Moody
My blog: notaghost com"

Prominent UFO Author exposed - JREF Forum

Okay, on the one hand I understand Lance being proud, from his standpoint, of taking down a fraud! But, having read the sentence "I just wanted to mention my recently published blog account of taking down the famous UFO author, Philip J. Imbrogno." several times, for whatever reason ... it hit me wrong. I recall stating to Lance that "I think you fancy yourself as the next Phil Klass and you are looking around for some schmuck's scalp that you can hang on your belt, right?" So my question to anyone reading this is pretty straightforward. Am I reading more into this than is there? I like to think at this point that Lance was simply following up on what he thought might be a spurious claim, and not simply aiming at a high profile UFO guy and trying to take the asshole down!!

Your thoughts?


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
I don't pretend to read anyone's minds, even my own. But what Lance did was worthwhile for everyone, because we need to expose the frauds. It might have been more politically correct to have the Imbrogno expose initiated by someone who didn't have strictly skeptical credentials, but so be it. I worry more about the pathetic attempts by some to restore Imbrogno's reputation. It just goes to prove that the fakers never go away.

One of my colleagues at the GCN radio network, for example, remarked about a radio show that Sean David Morton does for another network. She was totally unaware that Morton had faced government accusations for fraud, or that all of his claims had been shot down as fake by Royce Myers (of UFO Watchdog) and others.

Maybe we all need to be more proactive on exposing these people, which is another reason that Jeff Crowell and I have been working on a Paranormal Watchdogs site to continue the work. We welcome volunteers.

Goggs Mackay

Staff member
I have written in this forum about those who fake or inflate their backgrounds so I am not gonna go over that ground again. However, you bring up an interesting point that has been on my mind since I started participating in discussions in this forum.

I am interested in why skeptics (leaning to debunkers) bother to hang around forums that are about paranormal/ufo topics. We all know there is a full spectrum to what 'skeptic' can mean and I mean those who always seem to jump onto ANY explanation of UFOs that is mundane, even if that explanation is about as unlikely as a real spaceship!

I don't have any real problem with guys like Lance Moody - as far as I can see he comes along, does his bit of debunking and trots off again. That's fine really but as Don says above, if you really think there is nothing to UFOs and other paranormal topics, why would you choose to hang around sites that are about just that?

My problem with skeptics is that they are the exact opposite of 'believers' in that they both trumpet cases that for them, exemplify they subject. And of course, they both avoid like the plague, anything that does not.

Some people in this field don't like to advertise their interest when at work etc and that is fine, not everyone is open-minded about interest in such things. I wonder what the skeptic-debunkers tell their friends about coming to the forum? 'Oh, I only go to tell these idiots what's what and show how silly they all are.' Could that be the size of it? Or is it some kind of religious zeal that dictates people who believe in UFOs need saving from themselves?

I'd really like such a skeptic to post about why they hang around paranormal forums. I mean, we get it! You think people who see UFOs are just mistaken or are lying. You wish to show them what it alternatively could have been? That's fine too although it presumes that people interested in UFOs are not interested in objective truth. Well that is not the case.

I'd much rather find out what was behind a real case and it be a mistaken sighting instead of going through life trumpeting something that was never the case. So my point is that there are enough people interested in the truth about UFOs to cover any and all alternative explanations. I don't think there is much call for 'specialists in finding explanations which sit easier' - which is kinda what I think skeptics are.


Paranormal Adept
I have mixed feelings on Lance's motives. I think it's all of the above. ;) But, let me tell you why I like Dark Matters and respect the hell (from what little I know from internet interaction) out of Don Ecker. I like straight ahead folks. Ya don't have to clean up when they come over to the house and if you poot or burp you just say escuse me an go on. :p So, many people who take the paranormal seriously are afraid of the "intelligent" skeptic. They bare the neck to the blather and try really hard to convince the psuedo skeptic that they really are too smart. :p Don, on the other hand simply takes all comers with the same level look and doesn't waste a lot of time trying to convince people that he's not a simpleton or full of woo. I'm seen it here on this forum. Somebody will state something and then throw in the word "science" and of course that means they are smart as hell and the rest of us little sky god believing, ufo hunting, Saquach loving, 9-11 truther, Obama questioning racist idiots had better just roll over. ;) But the truth is folks. Nobody really and truly has a clue to what is going on here on planet earth.


Paranormally Disenchanted
I think you may be reading too much into it. Lance does do a bang up job. His blog and his comments in this forum have a perspective that is much needed and although I don't always agree with everything, I have a great appreciation for his approach and skepticism. I think Phil Klass was another animal entirely. I don't really understand why there would have to be any motive considered for exposing a fraud and a bald-faced liar like Phil Imbrogno other than the obvious one. It was the right thing to do. Phil Imbrogno clearly took advantage of a great number of people over the years and I'm glad Lance bothered to check his claims. I honestly think Lance shares the common interest of many people reading this, namely Ufology and the Paranormal, and his only motive in exposing frauds or offering alternatives to things like the 1953 Lockheed UFO case is because of his love of the subject.

Goggs Mackay

Staff member
The issue with exposing Imbrogno is entirely separate from general UFO stuff, granted. Perhaps I don't Lance enough - I shall look, though as I said, I have no actual problem with Lance - I was more going with the general thought about why skeptics come to such forums. I must find out what 'love of the subject' means regarding Lance!


Paranormally Disenchanted
The issue with exposing Imbrogno is entirely separate from general UFO stuff, granted. Perhaps I don't Lance enough - I shall look, though as I said, I have no actual problem with Lance - I was more going with the general thought about why skeptics come to such forums. I must find out what 'love of the subject' means regarding Lance!
If you collect Long John Nebel episodes you have a love of the subject in my opinion.


Paranormal Maven
Gordon, good post. And for Heavens sake, I can mention that a post Steve made on the dreams thread has to do with what was brought up in your post without being accused of bringing in other threads, can't I?

I consider myself a skeptic, and on UFOs and vanished civilizations that built the pyramids, etc., I have expressed my views very clearly. This forum covers a lot of subjects, nuclear power plants for one is a major topic (and don't get after me, Angelo, for just mentioning that!). I really like this forum, I like the show even more, and that last one about Chris's expedition in the Grand Canyon was superb. I was riveted.

But I just like to deal in facts, and I think I do a lot of reading and research before I post, and I draw on previous knowledge and reading before I post, and on the few times I have expressed belief I have declared that on that specific point, there is no empirical evidence.

But I have also pointed out that those expressing belief in UFOs, intelligent extraterrestrials, alien abductions, conspiracy theories about suppressed knowledge, conspiracy theories about nuclear plants, wild speculations on this and that which are buttressed by youtube videos, unattributed sources, so-called alternative sources, and so on, should be confronted with an opposing view. I see too much of just "liking" this post and that post, of adulation of posts, almost sycophancy, that serves a perpetuation of wild and far out stuff that is often just vomited onto the page.

I want to make a point I made a while ago concerning subscription to these (and yes, it's my opinion, but based on everything I have read and studied about science and history, and it doesn't mean I'm a know-it-all) wild and far out things that defy mainstream thought and scholarship (and mainstream is not a bad word, for Heavens sake). That is,

that belief in some of this stuff, while titillating and goose pimply and I can understand that, in itself smacks of what I have termed (my own creations),

"primitive" religion, "proto-religion," "incipient" spirituality, and that these are yearnings for something beyond what we usually see on good ol' terra firma and in the mundane world.

There is actually more empirical proof, more data, more scholarship, more peer-reviewed research on what I would call truly sophisticated religion that goes far, far beyond this proto and primitive religion, than is exemplified by some of these far out beliefs. But when belief in the major religions come up, it is met with derision and ridicule. Or even, to start with, belief in God, which for centuries to this present day reputable thinkers, scholars, scientists, theologians, philosophers, and people combining all these descriptors, have explored in quite a rational way.

Yet what is subscribed to by many, as listed above, intelligent extraterrestrials, etc., is a pale and ephemeral version of what can be a very sophisticated and even empirically backed up spirituality. This is not to deride the proto and primitive beliefs, but belief in vanished civilizations, lost knowledge, etc., is NO LESS RELIGIOUS than, well, religion that has been (whether people like it or not) subjected to very real scholarship and study and been shown to be far more credible than alien abduction, conspiracy theories, alternative history, etc. And I do maintain that some people (I mean that in the general plural) are very, very threatened that THEY would feel ANY form of RELIGIOUS belief.

So, to say whether a particular person should or should not be on this forum is a question I cannot really fathom at all.

But I understand your post, Gordon, don't get me wrong. Kim:)


Staff member
My post at Randi.org does sound kinda braggy. I regret using the words "take down". I was trying to get word out about my blog (for some reason) and perhaps was a bit too prideful for my own good.

I had a similar discussion with another person (well known to Paracast listeners) who also claimed some false credentials (a long time ago). That person removed all mention of the false degree and I was satisfied.

Lance, okay and thanks for dropping in. I truly appreciate your taking the time to answer my inquiry. Like I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I prefer to believe that you found Imbrogno's claims to be spurious and proceeded from that point. As I stated last year and will state here once again, you did a really fine job on this investigation. And, hopefully you also helped me to temper my sometimes too quickly impulse to mistrust motives.


Angel of Ioren

Friendly Skeptic
Staff member
I'm a skeptic. I look up to James Randi and I consider Carl Sagan a hero. Does it mean I'm not allowed to have an interest in UFOs? Just because I'm of the opinion that there are mundane explanations for them does not mean I should be excluded from discussing them.
As for Lance, he took his time with this thing. There really should not be an "us vs. them" mentality since at the end of the day there really only is one truth and we're all looking for it.

Frank Stalter

Paranormal Maven
The truth is the truth. For the life of me, I've never understood why people feel the need to inflate or invent credentials. The bottom line should always be what gets produced.

Goggs Mackay

Staff member
Angelo, you do not even come close to my definition of a skeptic/debunker. I'd always thought you are pretty open-minded but far from gullible. I consider myself very skeptical also, and this varies due to who knows what but it is there!

The skeptic/debunker I am talking about is of course as welcome to post in this forum as any other, no-one, least of all me is questioning anyone's right to be here. I am interested in the motives of someone who seeks to find absolutely any other explanation other than unknown for things like UFOs. The only motive to come here - and we're talking ufos only here - is to get into arguments with people who disagree. I am not trying to be down on anyone or start namecalling but there are millions of places to talk about various things in the world but to choose this one says to me an interest in the subject. If you are interested in the subject but only as far as trying to find explanations that fit with the belief that all UFOs are explainable.
Phil Klass is one of these guys.

There is only one truth really and there are those who are convinced they already know what it is! I don't!