Ross Coulthart is the Australian journalist who conducted the first TV interview with David Grusch in 2023. We've been discussing another claim of his at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ro...reverse-engineering-program-at-area-51.13109/ , and that's where the quotes below originate.
Historically Ross has always been a good journalist. I would like to think he vets his sources.
Maybe in the past, but I think he has shown himself to be an ardent believer in various UFO conspiracies. In this tread, there is long interview with Coulthart about UFO cover ups and even includes his claim that there is a crashed UFO so big the government simply constructed a building over it to conceal it. He knows about it, but of course he can't share the details yet:
Wasn't it Coulthart who initially claimed Grusch's medical records had been leaked by the IC? That's three inaccuracies in one claim. No medical records were involved, only police records. No records were leaked, they were obtained legally through a FOIA request. The source for those records was local law enforcement, not the IC.
Not what I'd call responsible journalism.
I guess more to the point, it's not something that belongs in this thread. But in brief, Coulthart used one unreliable evidence-free source for his 2015 exposé on a UK parliament pedo scandal for 60 Minutes - said he'd keep us updated on the story, but never did and the story turned out to be bunk.
He gave us Jim's ET ball with zero evidence of extraordinary powers beyond Jim's story, and Garry Nolan said he had a machine that would tell us if it was alien in one month. It's over a year later and we have no further info on this "alien scout ship", and Nolan says he needs $64M to analyze it.
And on a purely personal level, he insinuated on Twitter that he knows who I am. He clearly has a specific person in mind with these details. Others have attempted to track me down or dox me (what fun) and generally I don't respond in the negative when they're wrong because there would be no benefit to me. So I'll just say that in this case, since I am 100% sure of where I live and whether I claim in my book to be a scientist, I can definitively say (though not prove to others without doxing myself) that his research is crap and/or he's trusting crappy sources. That he chose to use that research/sources in order to "scare" me into thinking he knows who I am should tell everyone all they need to know about his character and his motivations as well as whether he's "always been a good journalist".
He will say whatever he wants to say, regardless of how firm his information is, in order to promote his agenda.
His claim of a crashed UFO so big, the government constructed a large building over it to hide it was the kicker for me. IF this is true and he knows where it is and he wants to bust open the UFO cover up, just tells where this crashed UFO is. He wouldn't be giving up any sources because IF the story is true the sheer number of architects, engineers and construction personal involved means any number of people could have filled him in.
Coulthart's use of "verified as credible" instead of "verified as true" illustrates that Coulthart's notion of what verification entails is somewhat flawed—or that he's trying to mislead.
He hasn't made Grusch's DPSR cleared statement(s) available.
I suspect he's covering up how much Grusch's narrative evolved since then.
And I think that's often the problem with people who claim they know more and promise to reveal it one day but never do - they come to realize that what they could reveal is either rather pathetic or has since been refuted with contradictory evidence.
Anyway it seems that the Area 51 reverse engineering patch has died a quick death just like his other stories - Jim's ball, the Aussie outback close encounter with a flashlight (he interviewed and "verified" the witness) and the building-over-a-UFO. Moving on!
One note I love to make with Coulthart, outside of his other issued reporting, is the fact he's willingly and knowingly participated in media manipulation as part of a perception & reputation management effort. That alone is a bit of an ironic issue, not even touching on what the effort was for.
Coulthart was last seen being commissioned by Seven Network commercial director Bruce McWilliam to investigate war crimes allegations against Ben Roberts-Smith. He subsequently worked as part of the soldier’s spin team, trying to convince media figures that BRS was squeaky clean. In June, the Federal Court found Roberts-Smith was a war criminal who killed unarmed civilians in Afghanistan, a judgment he is appealing.
I looked into that event and found a troubling sign. It was reported that Coulthart had contacted some journalists and told them he had a witness who would support his story which would be put out soon. The witness and the story never appeared and as we know from the court case, Coulthart was wrong. Sounds very much like his UFO playbook - talk up secret witnesses but never provide any evidence.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...h/news-story/2232be0ea52995dcfc37798db6f9a4c9Coulthart told Nine’s journalists he had found a witness who contradicted their version of events and he was putting together “a story” of his own, the court was told.
Exactly (highlight mine):It was reported that Coulthart had contacted some journalists and told them he had a witness who would support his story which would be put out soon.
BRS did file a witness list that included 19 witnesses for "justification" (the public docket is at https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/ben-roberts-smith ), maybe Coulthart "verified" these for "credibility"?
One of the key murder allegations Nine made about Ben Roberts-Smith was that on a mission to Chinartu in 2012, he ordered an Afghan soldier, called Person 12, to shoot a man who was being questioned.
That allegation was found to be substantially true.
During evidence, Mr Roberts-Smith's witnesses suggested Person 12 could not have been present on that mission because he had earlier shot a dog and been stood down from the team.
But under questioning, several witnesses — including one codenamed Person 35 — admitted he was wrong about who shot the dog.
Justice Besanko's judgement found Mr Roberts-Smith had made the story up with Person 35, who repeated the "deliberate lie" in court.
"The applicant and Person 35 colluded to put forward a false story that Person 12 had been removed or stood down following a shooting incident on 31 July 2012," the judgement reads.
So perhaps Coulthart was deceived about BRS's innocence, which would exhonorate his character; but would still suggest he's somewhat gullible.
Between getting the BRS story wrong and getting multiple facts wrong on the Grusch police report, calling him gullible is generous. For his UFO reporting where he declines to share evidence, we can only rely on his good judgement which has been found to be lacking.
Someone please ask him what's his evidence for me being a scientist/author living in South Yarra. I'd actually love to know how he came to that conclusion. Could prove informative about the kind of sources he trusts.