Ross Coulthart

Mendel

Senior Member.
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.

Claim

Historically Ross has always been a good journalist. I would like to think he vets his sources.

Debunk

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:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ross-coultharts-huge-buried-ufo.13040/
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".


Source: https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart/status/1694313332168396923


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.

Source: https://twitter.com/rosscoulthart/status/1694313332168396923


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.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ecret-report-into-war-allegations-court-hears
View attachment 62370
View attachment 62371
Short version:
Article:
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.

External Quote:
Coulthart 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.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...h/news-story/2232be0ea52995dcfc37798db6f9a4c9
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.
Exactly (highlight mine):
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"?
Article:
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.
 
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.

Claim


Debunk

Claim: Journalists with controversies can not be good journalists.

Debunk: Bob Woodward of Watergate fame led the charge on one of the most important cases in US political history. Despite this he has several controversaries. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/6-bob-woodward-controversies-075738

As do most journalists. They're usually hit or miss. I don't dispute Ross has got it wrong sometimes. In my view he espouses an opinion as fact too fast. A problem I have with both sides of this debate.
 
Claim: Journalists with controversies can not be good journalists.

Debunk: Bob Woodward of Watergate fame led the charge on one of the most important cases in US political history. Despite this he has several controversaries. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/6-bob-woodward-controversies-075738
These controversies are on a completely different level from Coulthart's misreporting, and I'd bet Woodward wasn't even wrong in half of these if not more.

Woodward: "Reagan [...] would only be able to "remain attentive only an hour or so a day." Wikipedia: "initially, Reagan worked two hours a day"

Woodward: CIA Director George Tenet said that there was a "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. reuters: Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refer to his comment as though they had to hear him "say 'slam dunk' to go to war with Iraq."

You don't get that with Coulthart and BRS, or the building-sized UFO for that matter.
As do most journalists. They're usually hit or miss. I don't dispute Ross has got it wrong sometimes. In my view he espouses an opinion as fact too fast. A problem I have with both sides of this debate.
Yeah. But your claim was, "always been a good journalist" and "vets his sources", and that's provably untrue.
 
My point is that you're cherry picking points to establish a narrative. This simplistic attitude won't get us any further in establishing the real narrative.
 
My point is that you're cherry picking points to establish a narrative. This simplistic attitude won't get us any further in establishing the real narrative.
How would you go about establishing whether Coulthart and his sources are credible?
 
In my view he espouses an opinion as fact too fast. A problem I have with both sides of this debate.
Please cite examples where
• a skeptic espoused an opinion as fact and was later proven substantially wrong
• a skeptic bolstered a factual statement by claiming unnamed sources that then never materialized
 
Addressing @NorCal Dave and Coulthart's fascination with woo

External Quote:
NorCal Dave said:
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:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ross-coultharts-huge-buried-ufo.13040/
His interest extends to, of all things, the "Ancient Egyptians could not work granite" subject and the questionable claims of UnchartedX. Here's David Miano's debunking video and a screen grab from it (About 55.50).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcl82hQr8xc&t=2s


IMG_2133.jpeg
 
My point is that you're cherry picking points to establish a narrative. This simplistic attitude won't get us any further in establishing the real narrative.
For me, he's been wrong enough times for me to consider him unreliable. I no longer trust a word he says - although of course he may sometimes still be right or truthful. I just can't tell anymore which is infinitely worse than trusting something is true or knowing something is false.

When someone promotes evidence-free extraordinary stories (like Jim's ball), I think we have to question why. Why put that several-minutes-long segment into his TV special? It was bad judgment because he should have realized the story would be laughed at for various reasons, not least of which was the lack of evidence.

And then why sensationalize it to a ridiculous degree (given it was a nothingburger) - "solid testable evidence of alien tech!". How could anyone think that a guy who admitted using LSD was credible regarding a magic metal ball that weighs exactly 50lb? Did he have nothing more informative or convincing to fill that slot? Did he honestly think it was a great story and would make the show successful (i.e. money, and I suppose spreading the word about alien scout ships falling from the skies)?

This story was also horribly researched. I don't know how much of that is his team's fault but his name was on the show and he should have checked his facts. The worst error was presenting footage of the allegedly similarly magical Betz ball rolling around by itself, which Nolan referenced as well - they clearly did not know this footage was a recreation for the History Channel. That was their only actual evidence for any balls doing anything paranormal and it was laughable.

Source: https://youtu.be/5wVRjjrvQsM?si=OMCaWOmCX93TqtUu&t=47
 
Last edited:
This is not cherry picking to establish a narrative. The discourse around it is much more casual, but what is being done here is assessing source veracity.
Of course it is. Could you point out where are the facts that he presented about Ross that talks to his skills?
 
Of course it is. Could you point out where are the facts that he presented about Ross that talks to his skills?
We are not talking about his skills. We are assessing his reliability and veracity as a source. This is something we see commonly brought up with former- types too. Skills do not really impact reliability or veracity at all. Most of these tools are poorly misunderstood as more than what they are - tools. You can use the tools inaccurately, or you can use them accurately and still come away with skewed conclusions because of how you proceeded with something or the data involved.
 
Please cite examples where
• a skeptic espoused an opinion as fact and was later proven substantially wrong
• a skeptic bolstered a factual statement by claiming unnamed sources that then never materialized
Are you serious? My field, neuroscience is replete with such examples.

A famous example is this one in response to speculation that smoking may be related to lung cancer:

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."
 
We are not talking about his skills. We are assessing his reliability and veracity as a source. This is something we see commonly brought up with former- types too. Skills do not really impact reliability or veracity at all. Most of these tools are poorly misunderstood as more than what they are - tools. You can use the tools inaccurately, or you can use them accurately and still come away with skewed conclusions because of how you proceeded with something or the data involved.
Actually the claim was that he is a good journalist. So yes skills and tradecraft are part of that.
 
Are you serious? My field, neuroscience is replete with such examples.

A famous example is this one in response to speculation that smoking may be related to lung cancer:

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."

If you were really in "science", you wouldn't consider that a "cite".
 
Actually the claim was that he is a good journalist. So yes skills and tradecraft are part of that.
We are not talking about a claim, we are assessing the reliability and veracity of Coulthart as a source. I'm not sure if I'm wording this badly but I'm trying to be as direct as possible. Skills have literally no standing on this. I can be very crafty with interpersonal deception and your source reliability and veracity assessment of myself be skewed because of it. I could have bad communication skills and because of it you do not accurately assess or observe certain indicators important for the assessment. I could know how to use these analytical skills, inaccurately apply them, and come away with the wrong conclusion because of it- but it will have amplified perception because it went through the analytical process backed by the skills.

So no, skills really don't matter all that much, positive or negative they can still skew the assessment, because the assessment is not about ability, it is about reliability (ie can I rely on what you are presenting) and veracity (is there accuracy).
 
We are not talking about a claim, we are assessing the reliability and veracity of Coulthart as a source. I'm not sure if I'm wording this badly but I'm trying to be as direct as possible. Skills have literally no standing on this. I can be very crafty with interpersonal deception and your source reliability and veracity assessment of myself be skewed because of it. I could have bad communication skills and because of it you do not accurately assess or observe certain indicators important for the assessment. I could know how to use these analytical skills, inaccurately apply them, and come away with the wrong conclusion because of it- but it will have amplified perception because it went through the analytical process backed by the skills.

So no, skills really don't matter all that much, positive or negative they can still skew the assessment, because the assessment is not about ability, it is about reliability (ie can I rely on what you are presenting) and veracity (is there accuracy).
I am talking about the claim because the thread was started based on my claim that Ross was a good journalist.
 
Are you serious? My field, neuroscience is replete with such examples.

A famous example is this one in response to speculation that smoking may be related to lung cancer:

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."
so,
• not related to this discussion
• not related to UFOs
• not related to anything metabunk covers

How is this related in any way to "this debate"?

(And, "smoking is related to lung cancer" was never a "speculation" past the 1950s.)
In my view he espouses an opinion as fact too fast. A problem I have with both sides of this debate.


How would you go about establishing whether Coulthart and his sources are credible?
 
Last edited:
Could you point out where are the facts that he presented about Ross that talks to his skills?
Skills:
External Quote:
The KSJ Science EditingHandbook

The insights, knowledge, tips and resources all editors need to meet the highest standards for quality of science journalism.
Article:
Sources and Experts: Where to Find Them and How to Vet Them

Vetting sources is a journalist's skill.

P.S.:
Article:
We keep our pool of sources above-board and diverse by finding them outside our personal networks (and inherent biases), through legitimate institutions, and with careful research. We vet them by asking these three crucial questions (borrowed from The Pocket Guide to Bullshit Prevention):

  1. Who is telling me this information?
  2. How do they know this information?
  3. Given number 1 and number 2, is it possible that they are wrong?

If the answer to number 3 is yes, we search for a new source until it becomes extremely unlikely that they could be wrong. We won't settle for anything less.


P.P.S. "As the Spartan said, there is no genuine art of speaking without a grasp of the truth, and there never will be". —Plato, Phaedrus
 
Last edited:
You're going to have to explain both the personal attack and why it's not a cite. You sure you're not confusing this with citation?

External Quote:

cite
verb

1. refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work
- no URL possible for that, it's a POST query for "define cite" to startpage.com, and is its self-generated result not referring out to an external resource

You did not *refer to* anything - bo book, author, or scholarly work was mentioned. Not a cite.

You appeared to be quoting something, yet the search engines don't seem to be able to find that exact quote - so were you paraphrasing rather than quoting? If so, then don't - it's against the posting guidelines. And if it is a quote, then provide the source, not doing so is against the posting guidelines.
 
My point is that you're cherry picking points to establish a narrative.
• Grusch "medical records" leak
• "UFO as big as a building"
• 2015 exposé on a UK parliament pedo scandal for 60 Minutes
• "verified as credible" instead of "verified as true"
• Jim's ET ball with zero evidence of extraordinary powers
• hasn't made Grusch's DPSR cleared statement(s) available.
• Area 51 reverse engineering patch
• trying to convince media figures that BRS was squeaky clean

that's a frickin cherry orchard, all of it in the past decade and much of it in the past 12 months

Article:
Coulthart has won five prestigious Walkley journalism awards, including the most coveted top award for Australian journalism, the Gold Walkley. His broadcast television investigative journalism has also won the top broadcast award, a Logie. In 2010, his reinvestigation into the murder of two young Australian tourists by IRA terrorists 20 years earlier revealed new evidence suggesting complicity in the attack by Irish Sinn Fein boss Gerry Adams.

So, maybe it's accurate to say that Coulthart used to be a good journalist?
Article:
On a February 21, 1994 episode of the Australian TV program Four Corners, Coulthart broadcast an allegation that the Australian Secret Intelligence Service "secretly holds tens of thousands of files on Australian citizens, a database completely outside privacy laws". [...] While Samuels and Codd did find that certain grievances of former ASIS officers were well founded,[5] they observed that the information published in the Four Corners program was "skewed towards the false",[6] that "the level of factual accuracy about operational matters was not high",[7] and, quoting an aphorism, that "what was disturbing was not true and what was true was not disturbing".[7] They concluded that the disclosure of the information was unnecessary and unjustifiable and had damaged the reputation of ASIS and Australia overseas.


This looks like Coulthart either lucks out with his sources or he doesn't.

Remember, we're not here to determine whether Coulthart is a "good journalist" in general. We want to determine whether he promotes bunk.

It appears Coulthart has a long history of promoting egregious bunk at times.
 
Last edited:
I am talking about the claim because the thread was started based on my claim that Ross was a good journalist.

As I mentioned before, maybe he was in the past, but in terms of current UFO reporting I would argue he is fact a bad journalist. The discussion of the Reverse engineering patch is a good example of his bad journalism.

Coulthart offered a 3rd to 4th hand story about a UFO at Area 51 as a factual statement. He offered a photo of the patch as evidence that this secret anonymous source was telling a true factual story. He, or his staff of Investigative Journalist should have properly vetted this source. He claims that they did, but it appears to have been woefully inadequate and he/they simply believed what they were being told.

Soon after the story broke, people found that the patch had been offered on various online auctions. Our own @jarlrmai, not an investigative journalist as far as I know, found the old eBay listings from a "lockheedskunk117 (skunk)". Myself and @deirdre, also not journalist, went through skunk's history on eBay and deirdre found the record of the patch sale as well as records that skunk had sold a signed ticket stub along with it. He claimed the ticket was signed by Jorden in front of him in the '90s, something that was obviously untrue as deirdre found the record of him buying the stub.

The patch on eBay was shown to be the exact patch Coulthart was using. In Coulthart's telling, his source snapped a photo of his Great Uncle's secret patch. In skunk's telling on eBay, he worked at Area 51 and the patch was his. This is public knowledge that amateurs here on Metabunk found.

In addition @Charlie Wiser brought up the Twitter/X user, "Billsmafia716y(Billy)" who claimed to be Coulthart's source, and it became apparent that "Billy" and "skunk" are likely the same person, telling different stories about the patch depending on the situation.

Billy/skunk may have even told a 3rd high-breed version of the patch story if we are to believe member @Eddie.Pieboldt.

In short, Coulthart had a bad source, something people here figured out, but Coulthart and his team failed to do. That's bad journalism.

The irony is that while showing that Coultart's source was questionable, we came to the conclusion that patch having something to do with Area 51 EE&G employees seems likely, though unproven.
 
• Grusch "medical records" leak
• "UFO as big as a building"
• 2015 exposé on a UK parliament pedo scandal for 60 Minutes
• "verified as credible" instead of "verified as true"
• Jim's ET ball with zero evidence of extraordinary powers
• hasn't made Grusch's DPSR cleared statement(s) available.
• Area 51 reverse engineering patch
• trying to convince media figures that BRS was squeaky clean

that's a frickin cherry orchard, all of it in the past decade and much of it in the past 12 months

  • Charlie Wiser is a scientist living in South Yarra who wrote a book.

Yeah I know it's a tiny thing, but I get a kick out of it. BTW, debunking pays well!
1694483343561.png
 
  • Charlie Wiser is a scientist living in South Yarra who wrote a book.

Yeah I know it's a tiny thing, but I get a kick out of it. BTW, debunking pays well!
View attachment 62404

Damn girl! I really like your blog, but it got you a $2.1 million home?! Seriously though, even if you did live there, so what? Debunking is not about egalitarianism, it's about evidence. Mick is upfront that he made a nice chunk of cash making video games and selling the company he helped found.

I take this post to mean Couthart and his team have again failed to properly vet or identify Charlie Wiser, just like they did with Billy/skunk.
 
Damn girl! I really like your blog, but it got you a $2.1 million home?! Seriously though, even if you did live there, so what? Debunking is not about egalitarianism, it's about evidence. Mick is upfront that he made a nice chunk of cash making video games and selling the company he helped found.

I take this post to mean Couthart and his team have again failed to properly vet or identify Charlie Wiser, just like they did with Billy/skunk.

I will neither confirm or deny Coulthart and his team's vetting ability since it's of no benefit to me. Let's just say my opinion of his investigative journalistic ability (not to mention integrity) plummeted even further after he tweeted that.
 
Another flunk from Coulthart: He failed to detect a witness was spinning a yarn about what is basically the greatest UFO footage of all time, which imo is a pattern for him (see: Jim's ball). He never spoke about the case to analyze how he was fooled.

Earlier this year he was part of the team investigating an Australian UFO witness with amazing footage taken while camping in the outback. He interviewed "Michael" by phone, at the request of Chris Lehto. Coulthart's conclusions:

I cannot find any good reason to disbelieve him... I detect no guile or lying in his demeanour...
He knows how to use a computer but he's not a hacker with the capability to render a CGI video on a home computer. If this is a fake, he had help.
Source: Timestamped

Coulthart verified the source's truthfulness based on things like: he sounded truthful, volunteered a minor criminal past, and couldn't have faked it (with CGI) because he said so. (Witnesses sounding sincere also helped convince him of Westall, but that's for another post.) He doesn't seem to understand or consider that practical effects could be used to fake it.

Lehto made two podcasts about the case Apr 7 & 14, 2023. The first "Uncovering UAP Secrets with Ted Roe - new Aussie UAP Video" included low-res footage with no sound. "Ross says he's legit" - Lehto at 1:05:33.

The second "Mysterious UFO Caught on Camera: Alien Ship or Just a Flashlight?" a week later had hi-res footage with sound. The title suggests Lehto was considering a flashlight explanation, but he dismissed that quite thoroughly in the podcast with some theory about light and lenses, all of which was irrelevant given I did later recreate the footage with a flashlight.

When I initially saw it yeah I thought it was a flashlight... but the deeper I dug into the story... [etc, credulous analysis]
Source: Timestamp

I recreated the footage using an LED flashlight behind a camera lens (X-user TechNFighter's idea) and uploaded it the same day of the second podcast so he wouldn't have seen it but he did see it later on X. My recreation:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZv_NcSLsZU


This episode also featured Coulthart's email about the interview [timestamped] with Michael, which covers his previous UFO experiences, family stuff etc. as well as how credible he is. And since Lehto dismissed a flashlight, nowhere did he re-examine Coulthart's conclusions in light of the possibility it was a hoax and the witness had fooled them both.

Icing on the cake is that the thumbnail for that episode has a doctored image of the UFO. Credit to TechNFighter on X who tweeted about it in April.


Source: https://twitter.com/TechNFighter/status/1652412920368889856


My comparison (summary of the X thread):

1694500097847.png


Lehto's dismissed a flashlight explanation and never mentioned a camera lens being used (if in fact he knew of that idea) yet he's smoothed out the image to remove the notches that identify the UFO as a lens.

I don't blame Coulthart for the thumbnail, of course. This is an indication of Lehto's deceptiveness and one would hope Coulthart refuses to work with him again. What I do blame him for, not that I think this will ever change, is that he (1) was fooled by a witness with an extraordinary claim, and (2) never revisited the case to my knowledge, never acknowledged the debunk.

Lehto and Coulthart were both tagged in some discussions about the flashlight solution. Lehto was clearly swayed by the flashlight explanation but wouldn't accept it. I assume he shared the idea with Coulthart, and did share it with Michael:

Source: https://twitter.com/chrisotis78/status/1654605231391383554


The way these promoters drop the case rather than admit a debunking solution is valid and then reassess how & why they were fooled by witnesses is a constant frustration to me and no doubt other skeptics. Lehto fell back on dismissing my recreation because it didn't have the exact same colors and flares as the UFO footage. I'm going to guess this attitude comforted Coulthart too, as he's never spoken publicly about the case let alone to address the debunk, despite his role in validating the witness Michael regarding - and this cannot be overstated - perhaps the greatest UFO footage of all time (if it turned out to be a visiting ET craft).

I do not think Coulthart is capable of acknowledging his own credulity, which means he may not be capable of improving his already lax investigative skills in this field.
 
Last edited:
Following up on the idea that Coulthart does not seem to be skilled at assessing witnesses, which is a crucial aspect of investigative journalism - especially in ufology where physical evidence is sparse - I'll cover some of what he's said about the Westall school sighting in SE Melbourne 1966. This case is really important to him:

As an investigative journalist who came into the subject of UFOs, UAPs, with a high degree of skepticism, I was brought around by this story. This is one of the foundation myths of Ross Coulthart's conversion to the fact that the UFO phenomenon is real.
Source: Ross Coulthart on Howard Hughes, The Unexplained, Mar 22, 2022 [8:00]

Coulthart interviewed witnesses in 2021 for a 7 News Spotlight special "Secrets of the UFOs" (not the Jim's ball one). Link at end. The problem with his approach here is that he relies on the generalized myth of the story (probably relayed by the main researcher Shane Ryan) and his own interviews with witnesses, instead of studying how the story evolved over time - which would tell him a lot about how reliable the witnesses are today.

Two witnesses told him things that contradicted their earlier testimony. How important the differences are is up for debate but the fact is he did not investigate, just accepted their newer (more sensational, natch) versions without question.

Two girls Tanya and Terry jumped the fence and ran to the Grange (woodland ~300m away) where they'd seen the flying saucer apparently go down. Their stories diverge at this point, and each has an additional problem with their testimony that Coulthart let slide.

TANYA appeared for the first time on camera in this show, but she'd told Shane Ryan's producer Rosie Jones her story in 2011. She was one of two girls (the other was not Terry) who claimed they were interrogated by men in suits - probably because they wanted to know what she'd seen at the Grange. She:
recalls being interviewed by two men, who she thought were police
Source: Westall Flying Saucer Incident Facebook Page, 2016

The other girl interviewed was Jacquie (who had jumped the fence after Tanya):
The two men wore good quality suits they were dark in color. One spoke and one observed... A few years after the sighting I came to the conclusion these men were ASIO.
Source: Jacquie, Westall Yahoo Group, Sep 12, 2008, via archive from Keith Basterfield

Whether or not they were ASIO, they must have been Australian in order for Jacquie to think so. The "police" would also have been Australian - if they were American they would not have been identified by a 12-year-old as "police".

Yet Tanya told Coulthart in the 2021 show:
...there were two gentlemen waiting there and I was with them probably for about 15 minutes being questioned.
Coulthart: What nationality were they?
Definitely American.
C: Americans.
Yep. They didn't want me to speak of the incident to absolutely anybody.

An investigative journalist would have asked her why she thought 5 years earlier they were police, and why Jacquie thought they were ASIO, i.e. Australian accents. It's suspicious to me that only in front of Coulthart does she change the story - did he suggest it and she went along with it? He then uses the (unlikely) fact of American officials bullying schoolgirls as evidence of an international conspiracy.
The thing that really comes home to me Tanya is the fact that you corroborate that American officials were there, trying to shut the story down.

The incident itself: Tanya remembers jumping the fence but "by the time I arrived it [UFO] had gone." [Source: Facebook, Nov 23, 2021]

Other witnesses over the years (before she was found around 2011) recall her being hysterical and possibly taken away in an ambulance (and to top it off, vanishing never to be seen again, which she later said was not true). This was the "myth" being passed around the witnesses for years.

TERRY has a version of this myth in her own testimony: she claims she jumped the fence, and at the Grange found Tanya was (depending on the year of retelling) dazed, passed out, awake and recovering from a faint, or hysterical. And the UFO was very much still there - which Tanya should have seen, but she did not.

What the UFO was doing presents a second inconsistency with Terry: this has varied wildly over the years, from the UFO being overhead and zooming off when she arrived, to it being landed on/near the ground for (up to) several minutes, and that she walked up and felt its heat before it took off. An investigative journalist would have asked why her story has changed given the later versions are embellished. [References for all Terry's testimony on my website, scroll down to green box.]

Nobody at the school has corroborated Terry's story over the years (that is, she apparently told no one at the time that she was at the Grange, or saw a UFO, or almost touched it and felt its heat) - in fact Tanya's version contradicts it - and Terry was not interrogated by men in suits despite her extremely close encounter.

Coulthart was clearly taken with Terry - "this gorgeous girl who is now in her 60s, she's as naughty now as she was back then" [Howard Hughes, The Unexplained, Mar 22, 2022] - and felt no need to check her logically inconsistent testimony.

Secrets of the UFOs, 2021:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEczN_8Q380
 
Last edited:
It's suspicious to me that only in front of Coulthart does she change the story - did he suggest it and she went along with it? He then uses the (unlikely) fact of American officials bullying schoolgirls as evidence of an international conspiracy.
a) Coulthart has an American audience now.
b) If this was an international conspiracy, then the Australians must be in on it. If the Australians are in on it, why send Americans and not Australians to talk to the girls?

The premises here are
• government is evil
• evil is dumb
which is gleaned from Hollywood, but not reality.
 
a) Coulthart has an American audience now.
b) If this was an international conspiracy, then the Australians must be in on it. If the Australians are in on it, why send Americans and not Australians to talk to the girls?

If the thing was an ET flying saucer, I don't know why the Americans had to be involved at all. Can't Australia handle its own UFOs? Since when do UFOs crashing in Australia belong to America?
 
I recreated the footage using an LED flashlight behind a camera lens (X-user TechNFighter's idea) and uploaded it the same day of the second podcast so he wouldn't have seen it but he did see it later on X. My recreation:

The video on the left side of the screen is " perhaps the greatest UFO footage of all time "? I missed that one, but yeah, some sort of flashlight or something seems obvious. Incredible.

Somewhere here on the forum @Z.W. Wolf posted some screen shots of YouTube comments from Letho's channel where many of his supporters were begging him to accept the notion of boka(sp?) and internal lens reflections. Letho wasn't having it, as he had never heard of boka, it didn't exist and could not account for the UFO lights in whatever he was promoting. Again, these weren't all pesky skeptics trying to debunk him, some were supporters and subscribers pleading with him to accept that boka is a real thing and his continued denial was making him look bad.

I guess they just don't care. Coulthart, Knapp, Corbel, Letho, Mauson and the rest seem to get into a feedback loop with a small number of ardent supporters and just keep turning out bogus or at least questionable material. There seems to be no real consequence for them. Knapp and Corbel did a whole story on the Triangle UFO that was chasing the Marines at 29 Palms. Turned out it was just flares, yet there they were at the congressional hearing front and center and guest of Burchette.

I for one, and probably many of us here on Metabunk that are not Aussies had never heard of Coulthart before the Grusch case. Now he's all over the UFO world, so it's working for him.

Can't Australia handle its own UFOs? Since when do UFOs crashing in Australia belong to America?

You guys have AC/DC and INXS, but we have MIB. Just let the Yanks handle the UFO stuff mate ;).
 
The video on the left side of the screen is " perhaps the greatest UFO footage of all time "? I missed that one, but yeah, some sort of flashlight or something seems obvious. Incredible.
If that's a genuine flying saucer from outer space, then yes I think it's perhaps the greatest UFO footage of all time. This is the full hi-res clip, timestamped and complete with the witnesses' exclamations (my comparison has edits).

Source: https://youtu.be/A2PI4-MKssc?si=gn1BPxWf8qJyBhUl&t=13


The thing came right down over the witness who got a lovely (mostly) in-focus shot of it from only a few feet away. Daylight would've been better, but I can't think of any UFO footage that's better than this and that is also a genuine flying saucer from outer space. Yes it's the best in a field of one, but still.
 
Jim's ball: a separate post for the record with more context.

1694581876210.png


This metal ball was featured in Out of This World (7News Spotlight 8/21/22) and shows bad judgment on Coulthart's part, IMO. The story is ridiculous in the context of being "out of this world" or in any way UFO-related. The evidence for the overhyped claim of alien tech is zero. The evidence in fact points to a manmade object. Garry Nolan, immunologist, was asked to do a metallurgy analysis. The show was pulled from YouTube after 1M views and later I think from 7News website (I can no longer find it). This is a private YT upload.

Coulthart expressed this single regret the day after it aired, seemingly admitting that the hype about it being "solid testable evidence of alien technology" was premature although it was the entire foundation of the segment:
One of the things that frankly I would be more cautious about in terms of how we present it, is the sphere story, for the simple fact that we just don't know yet whether it is or isn't non-human technology... And just to be clear, we're not saying that that moment when the ball rolled across screen that that's the ball doing that under its own speed. That was the producer with a sense of humor, I suspect. I didn't even know that was going in the cut frankly.
Source: UAP Society podcast, 8/22/22

Also from that podcast:
[Jim] believes that it might be extraterrestrial technology, and I think it's important to at least investigate that.

I don't know how to describe Coulthart's reporting here except to call it credulous. Jim Marlin claims his ball was deposited with similar balls, over 40 years ago, by a UFO passing over the house of Dennis Hopper's bodyguard in New Mexico. Is Jim's conviction in his ball a valid reason to spend time on this "important" investigation and put it out to an international audience, given no evidence of unusual properties? Surely a journalist's time is better spent chasing after a solid lead rather than a magical tale.

Jim claims in third grade he was paralyzed and abducted from bed by three creatures, and floated through the walls. (This is a typical sleep paralysis account.) He admits to psychedelic drug use when he was "younger".

Quotes from the show about the sphere's powers:
[This] gent tells us he may well have solid testable evidence of alien technology.
Jim: Sometimes I feel like it's protected me... I've seen it do some things that I can't explain... I was just mindlessly rubbing my feet on the sphere while talking to a friend of mine, when suddenly there was this flash of light and I was shot across the floor on my back. I was 6 to 10 feet away from the sphere. There's no explanation for that.
You think that's alien technology, don't you.
Yes I do, I absolutely do.

Then:
Jim: I have since seen videos on the internet of spheres just like this one flying in the air, doing all kinds of things, and apparently they're all over the world.

This leads to a segment on sphere-shaped UFOs (mention of Patrick Jackson who thinks specks on old photos are orb UFOs) and Jim's ball watching footage on TV of a balloon probably:
1694588228875.png

[30:28]

Coulthart segues into the Betz sphere from the 1970s. In probably the most damning mistake of the entire show when it comes to investigative journalism, we are shown widely used vintage-looking footage of this sphere rolling around. After Garry Nolan is presented with Jim's ball scrapings (acquired with a screwdriver) for testing, he refers to that footage as if it's real. The footage was a recreation for the History Channel.

Nolan says that if the ball is anomalous, "you've got basically a UFO scout vehicle sitting in [Jim's] house in Texas."

An insight into Coulthart's approach:
When it comes to the evidence, nothing beats a good witness.
Unlike the many other people Coulthart could have profiled with claims of magic paperweights or whatever, Jim Marlin knows people in the music industry. I'm left with the impression that a congenial guy who's had an interesting life qualifies him as a good witness in Coulthart's book - because actual evidence sure doesn't.

Two more sources he trusts for whom he's expressed personal feeling - just pointing out a pattern here:
[Tim Burchett] I may not necessarily agree with politically… but he is a good human being. God bless him, he's an amiable congenial Southerner who passionately believes that there has been a coverup.
[Source: UAP Society podcast, 8/22/22]

I was shocked when this beautiful man [Nat Kobitz] rang me out of the blue.
[Source: Project Unity podcast, 6/30/21]

Nat Kobitz was a warm, generous and hugely intelligent patriot, who was fiercely proud of the work he did for the US Navy. I loved our chats.
[Source: Coulthart, In Plain Sight (2021), Chapter 22]

Coulthart did actually attempt to debunk Jim's ball:
Obviously I've spent a fair bit of time ringing engineering shops trying to find a 50-pound ball bearing and um there aren't many, I can tell you.
[Source: Project Unity podcast, 8/22/22]

On the show we see Coulthart measure Jim's ball as having a circumference of 32", which is diameter 10.2". It weighs exactly 50.0lb. I didn't call anyone but from my armchair I found this online manufacturer that sells ball check valves - covered in rubber, so their weight and diameter will be slightly more than the bare ball.
1694589510335.png

[Source: Flomatic Valves (a manufacturer)]

Because Nolan is yet to release any analysis of the possible "UFO scout vehicle" despite saying he'd have results one month after he was filmed for that show, the ET origin of the ball remains an intriguing open question - at least in the way Coulthart talks about it. More recently he again linked Jim's ball to the worldwide orb sightings mentioned by Sean Kirkpatrick and:
A lot of people are impatiently demanding that we sort of account to them for what we've been able to dig up on the metallic spheres. And all in good time, when I'm good and ready, will report... I've been approached from all over the world, after having the piss taken out of me last year for doing that story and giving credit to a guy in Texas, clearly, I knew a lot more than I was letting on. And clearly a lot of people now are coming forward to me with information. And I think at some stage we'll be able to reveal what we know.
[Source: The Good Trouble Show, 6/30/23] - timestamped

Coulthart's opinion of how science works:
[Jim] believes that it might be extraterrestrial technology and I think it's important to at least investigate that. And what fascinates me is - I mean obviously 99% of the messages that I'm getting are very supportive, but there's always those acid debunkers who come in and go: "This can't possibly be true, you know, so for that reason you shouldn't even be giving it any kind of air time and what are you doing as a journalist even considering this?"
And I think, if anything, what that demonstrates to me is unscientific dogmaticism. It demonstrates the very kind of behavior that is unscientific. Any scientist should consider possibilities. Essentially all good science is fundamentally based on observation and then deriving a hypothesis from that observation and testing that hypothesis.
[Source: Project Unity podcast, 8/22/22]

A reminder that Jim's ball was not observed to do anything.
 
Coulthart was clearly taken with Terry - "this gorgeous girl who is now in her 60s, she's as naughty now as she was back then" [Howard Hughes, The Unexplained, Mar 22, 2022] - and felt no need to check her logically inconsistent testimony.
Unlike the many other people Coulthart could have profiled with claims of magic paperweights or whatever, Jim Marlin knows people in the music industry. I'm left with the impression that a congenial guy who's had an interesting life qualifies him as a good witness in Coulthart's book - because actual evidence sure doesn't.
I get the impression Coulthart is good at presenting the human angle of a story.
If I was his boss, I'd pair him up with someone who provides the rigor.
 
I get the impression Coulthart is good at presenting the human angle of a story.
Absolutely - and there are plenty of media outlets platforming human stories. Those stories are generally one-sided by design which is not what ufology needs (but perhaps what it wants and deserves).

If I was his boss, I'd pair him up with someone who provides the rigor.
Instead it's Bryce Zabel, who writes TV dramas.
 
so,
• not related to this discussion
• not related to UFOs
• not related to anything metabunk covers

How is this related in any way to "this debate"?

(And, "smoking is related to lung cancer" was never a "speculation" past the 1950s.)



You have a habit of changing your semantics depending on the answer given.

You asked the following and I provided it.
 
Back
Top