From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:20:21 -0700 Archived: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 06:08:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Incident At Tablada Aerodrome Seville '86 >From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:10:42 +0100 (BST) >Subject: Re: Incident At Tablada Aerodrome Seville '86 >>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:59:08 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >>Subject: Re: Incident At Tablada Aerodrome Seville '86 >>>From: Vicente-Juan Ballester Olmos <ballesterolmos.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:18:20 +0100 (BST) >>>Subject: Re: Incident At Tablada Aerodrome Seville '86 >>>>From: Scott Corrales <lornis1.nul> >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>>>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:59:51 -0400 >>>>Subject: Incident At Tablada Aerodrome Seville 1986 >>>>Inexplicata >>>>Spain: Incident at the Tablada Aerodrome Seville Spain >>>>Report by: M. Filpo >>>>Date: 29 September 1986 >>>>Time: 3:30 a.m. >>>>Duration: Approximately 15 seconds >>>>The report was made by a police officer at the base and was >>>>furnished to the author of the report. >>><snip> >>>This 'case' is a non-event, i.e., a fraud, as reported to me in >>>writing by the Spanish Air Force's Tactical Air Command, >>>following my request that an inquiry was done after this story >>>was known years ago. No such military intervention ever >>>occurred. >>>All is untrue. >>Vicente-Juan, >>I suggest you take it up with J.M. Garcia Bautista and the >>sources. I am not removing this news item. >Scott, I have no need to take it up with with anyone. It is an >example of false, preposterous information and thats it. It is >up to anyone to decide to live in a world of fantasies ot not. >If you wish to go with it, it is entirely up to you. Hi, Vicente-Juan, Scott, and Listers, I'm going to have to side with V-J on this one, since, if there's good evidence a case is either a hoax, confabulation, or mis-ID, and there's inadequate contervailing data to support the claims involved, it is incumbent on the promoter or distributor of said stories, when told of data that a case is bogus, or at least suspect, it's up to the originator and/or promoters/distributors of such a case to either provide better docs and evidence, refute the claim of hoax, etc., or simply remove the case from public distributiion. Some time ago, I sent Scott an email with some basic, minor corrections to one of his "This Week in Inexplicata" posts here, providing better and/or working links to sources he cited, and Scott simply replied via email "The day I work for you and take orders from you, I'll gladly do everything you ask of me" which I found both snotty and beside the points I made to him to improve his blog postings and messages here, and which I had offered as just suggestions to fix some bad links, initially. That kind of attitude, and rudeness, has no place in honest, fair, or balanced reporting on the UFO scene or cases, IMHO. In fact, it reflects inadequate vetting and poor research, and says more about the source, negatively impacting proper, scientific ufology by casual, superficial, or sensationalistic, reporting, and which is no form of objective research or investigation, than anything else. Do the work, Scott, and learn how to take basic critiques of your reporting style and details as they're intended, and perhaps your efforts will be better received and enhance your credibility. That's your choice, or obligation, if you intend to stay in this "game" very long. Steve Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp