Ross Coulthart

[Doctor Franger]

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere." — New York Times, 1936

Without reference to Stryer, I may be able to provide a little context.
This is probably a lone voice in an opinion piece, as by 1936 the likely 'trajectory' of rocket technology was widely known and understood by those in a position to understand. This is despite Goddard's paranoid secrecy (proprietary protectiveness) and Germany's advances by then being cloaked by state security.
The basic rocketry principles were established by Tsiolkovsky in 1903 (including escape velocity), and the 1920s and early thirties were replete with academic publications, experiments in 'rocket mail', 'rocket cars' and a UFA feature Woman on the Moon. Von Braun was recruited into an amateur club of enthusiasts, the VfR, which experimented with liquid fuelled motors (to the extent that the VfR's poverty would permit), with the stated, ultimate (overconfident?) goal of sending a craft out of the atmosphere. By 1936 the VfR had been dissolved and reconstituted under military authority, thus no longer free to communicate and collaborate with similar groups internationally, as they had previously done and of which there was a few.
So nobody except an uninformed harumphing naysayer would claim in 1936 that "a rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere".

(added p.s., VfR = Verein fur Raumschiffahrt = Society for Space Navigation) (fur takes an umlaut but dunno how to key one)

 

[tobigtofool]

Fifty years before Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins climbed into their small capsule to fly to the Moon, many people weren't even convinced that rockets would work in space. When a rocket engine ignites, it burns fuel and pushes exhaust out the back end of the rocket with tremendous force. According to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction -- which means the backward thrust of the rocket's exhaust also acts on the rocket, pushing it forward. Many people, including the author of a January 13, 1920 editorial in the New York Times, misunderstood Newton's law and assumed that rockets worked because their exhaust pushed against the air itself. With no air to push against, how could a rocket actually push itself through space?

I find the new York times thing interesting, apparently that was from a 1920 edditorial where the NYTs said that, and they made a retraction 50 years later!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionas...apologized-to-robert-goddard/?sh=f7370d745436

The "tyranny of the rocket equation", an argument that a rocket would never be able to create the thrust needed to carry the weight of the fuel that could provide it to reach space was indeed a real limitation to the science before ww2 where the first multistage rocket was tested, though the concept of them existed since well before then.

I recently watched the TV series Strange Angel, a fun show about Jack Parsons. I do recall a prominent scientist character scoffing at him for thinking a rocket would work outside of the atmosphere. Just a TV show, but a fun reference to the subject.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Could you provide evidence that he changed his tune?

See my last sentence.

 

[Doctor Franger]

i could correct you with any number of dictionaries, but i think it's funnier to disparage Greenstreet and his reporting...so i won't.

I have been warned about being troll-fodder ripe for plucking, but nevertheless. . .

If disparaging Greenstreet is "funnier" then presumably correcting me would be "funny".

Go right ahead and indulge yourself for the giggles, you have my permission.

Tabloid is a printing format, half the size of the broadsheet format. This is the literal meaning. Defined in English law for purposes of differential taxation. The two-volume World Book dictionary I consult for American usage says so, my Oxford E D Markworthy says so, my Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology says so. I have exhausted the english dictionaries on hand, so what dictionaries do you cite which disagree?

The figurative sense of Tabloid seems to apply to the NY Post, at least most people here seem to say so; I've always felt so but only by reputation. You may disagree but what dictionary are you going to cite about your opinion?

In regard to your comment of "I could and I would but I won't", you can take that and. . .

. . .take it back to the playground.

 

[deirdre]

(1) I thought we were here to debunk, not to disparage.

If someone wants to debunk it to help Greenstreet's reputation, they can. We obviously have Greenstreet fans here, so i wonder why they arent doing the debunking. (note: i dont really wonder 'why?', that was sarcasm.)

 

[FatPhil]

Tabloid is a printing format, half the size of the broadsheet format. This is the literal meaning. Defined in English law for purposes of differential taxation. The two-volume World Book dictionary I consult for American usage says so, my Oxford E D Markworthy says so, my Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology says so.

This tax is a fascinating piece of british history, revolving around its curbing of propagation of dissent - you could make a full-length documentary about it.

If you're interested in more, here are some potted highlights of the history:

The creation of broadsheets was a unintended consequence of the tax. The tax was per sheet, you were literally paying to get an official stamp on the sheet - increase sheet size, use fewer pages, pay less tax. (Alas this only works if you can retool your pressed for the larger sheets.) It took the government 13 years to realise their mistake:

Later limitations on the press came via taxation. The Stamp Duty on newspapers appeared in 1712, pushing up prices and
leading to the disappearance of many publications. Newspaper sheets had to be stamped at the Head Office at Somerset House
before printing. These stamps can be seen on newspapers of that period in the collection.
Of course, with tax came "tax avoidance", and newspaper formats evolved in a bid to escape or minimize taxation, which was
dependent on paper size and the number of pages. For example, the Stamp Act was passed on 1 August 1712 and the first stamp
in this collection is found on The Post Boy, August 2, 1712. However, The British Mercury of 9 August has no stamp, and this is
because the paper is eight pages long and therefore qualified as a pamphlet, incurring a different, lower tax. Before the Stamp
Act The British Mercury issues were two pages long (see 30th July 1712 issue, for example).

A side effect of expanding newspaper size was the proliferation of large, ornate mastheads that helped fill space, as can be seen
in Weekly Remarks, 2 March 1716, and many others. Finally, in 1725, the Stamp Act was revised to cover the longer newspapers,
and these subsequently returned to pre-tax formats. Heavier tax, of course put a strain on the commercial viability of
newspapers so that they became more dependent upon subsidies from political parties.

-- https://www.gale.com/binaries/conte...ps_17th_18th_nichols_collection_interview.pdf

It was blunty condemned by those who believed in the free flow of ideas, and corruption ensued:

The growing number of
newspaper was regarded with suspicion by the government of the
day, and they introduced the Stamp Act of 1712. The tax was widely
denounced as a "tax on knowledge". The tax was initially set at ½ or
1 pence depending on the size of the newspaper sheet. The tax was
increased relatively gradually to 2 pence over the next 77 years, but
the Government became increasingly concerned about the rise of
the radical press after 1789, and even more so after the Napoleonic
wars when the tax was increased to 4 pence.
The tax was applied unevenly. Originally it had been a tax on papers
that carried news, and did not apply to papers which only carried
opinion, and it did not apply to
monthly publications. And it was
possible to obtain an exemption if
the views expressed were generally
favourable to the Government.

-- https://www.fleetstreetheritage.co.uk/122.pdf

While Jonathan Swift is later held responsible for it:

In a debate, December 22, 1819, in the House of Commons on the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, Sir James Mackintosh, speaking of the passage of the original act of 1712, said: "Swift—being then a distinguished Tory, suggested the first idea of a stamp duty for the avowed purpose of preventing publications against the government,—Swift, that parricide who endeavored to destroy that very press to which he owed so much, to which he owed all his fame, and at that very moment all his preferment."

-- https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-act-of-1712/7FC7CAAD26017279FBC0C864E7064458

it appears that in a private letter he seems to acknowledge its immediate chilling effect:

I plied it pretty close the last fortnight, and published at least seven penny papers of my own, besides some of other people's: but now every single half-sheet pays a halfpenny to the Queen. [453a] The Observator is fallen; the Medleys are jumbled together with the Flying Post; the Examiner is deadly sick; the Spectator keeps up, and doubles its price; I know not how long it will hold. Have you seen the red stamp the papers are marked with? Methinks it is worth a halfpenny, the stamping it.

-- https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4208/4208-h/4208-h.htm

And as the cherry on top, I'm sure everyone's heard of what happened when it was rolled out in the colonies:

Parliament approved a Stamp Act for the North American colonies in March of 1765 in order to finance military expenses there. Documents now requiring an official stamp of the British Empire included:
[long list, elided]

The symbolism of everything from official business to recreation being controlled by British imperial authority was not lost on the colonies in North America. When the first consignments of stamped papers arrived in ships major riots ensued, most famously the Boston Tea Party. The Act was repealed in 1766.

-- https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Taxation_Stamp_Duties_-_International_Institute

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

On the Coulthart and Greenstreet debate, I don't think this is a very wise comparative debate. The issue at hand with Coulthart is his veracity and reliability as a source. The Greenstreet portion has absolutely nothing to do with this and has been centered around personal characteristics and his possible ideological beliefs based off comments made. The only attempt to even talk about Greenstreets' veracity has, not been about Greenstreet at all, but about NY Post. Someone can simultaneously be a major piece of shit but still have high veracity and reliability.

 

[Doctor Franger]

So we're saying Ross Coulthart is a tax cheat on top of everything else? It never stops with this guy!

But kidding aside, yes FatPhil, the tax history of the various print formats is indeed documentary-worthy. I happened to be already aware of the various newspaper formats, having worked in print production for the advertising business half a lifetime ago.
What's truly delightful is the etymology (where have I heard that word?), at least as according to Wikipedia, although I don't always take Wikipedia as gospel.

Apparently the etymology originates in the registered name of a new form of oral medication, the Tabloid, which was described as compressed, easily absorbed and readily swallowed.

And isn't that also the holy triumvirate of tabloid journalism?

 

[Doctor Franger]

Someone can simultaneously be a major piece of shit but still have high veracity and reliability.

Speaking as one myself. . .

But yes your point is sound. For my part, I plead guilty and will henceforth desist from contributing to side-tracking the Coulthart discussion.

 

[John J.]

Apparently the etymology originates in the registered name of a new form of oral medication, the Tabloid, which was described as compressed, easily absorbed and readily swallowed.

And isn't that also the holy triumvirate of tabloid journalism?

You could add "...and might have unpleasant side-effects in a minority of consumers" to the tabloid description.

 

[Stryer]

See my last sentence.

You're saying the evidence that he changed his tune about Qanon is that he hasn't promoted it lately?

By that logic Uri Geller doesn't believe in spoon bending because he hasn't mentioned it lately. Absolute rubbish.

 

[Mendel]

You're saying the evidence that he changed his tune about Qanon is that he hasn't promoted it lately?

By that logic Uri Geller doesn't believe in spoon bending because he hasn't mentioned it lately. Absolute rubbish.

Uri Geller never believed in spoon bending.

 

[Mendel]

I googled "Steven Greenstreet" QAnon, and found this as my 4th result:

Article:

Coronavirus conspiracy theories don't stop at Bill Gates and 5G

By Suzy Weiss and Steven Greenstreet
Published April 24, 2020, 4:02 p.m. ET

But while there are a lot of unknowns about the highly contagious virus, like whether it can be contracted twice, here are the Top 5 theories you can just go ahead and rule out.

• The coronavirus is a bioweapon
• Bill Gates is using COVID-19 to install human trackers
• 5G cell towers are to blame for the coronavirus
• COVID-19 will usher in 'New World Order'
• And lastly, the devil worshippers

Credit QAnon for this piece of fiction.

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/04/24/the-top-5-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-bill-gates-5g-more/amp/

 

[Mendel]

In my view he espouses an opinion as fact too fast.

Despite the fact that Greenstreet seems to have some weird beliefs about race and QAnon conspiracies.

Slam dunk.

 

[FatPhil]

You're saying the evidence that he changed his tune about Qanon is that he hasn't promoted it lately?

By that logic Uri Geller doesn't believe in spoon bending because he hasn't mentioned it lately. Absolute rubbish.

His home page, right now:

 

[Ann K]

His home page, right now:

"Believes in" is not the same thing as "is famous for this trick".

 

[FatPhil]

"Believes in" is not the same thing as "is famous for this trick".

As @Mendel rightly pointed out above in #132, all the evidence points to his attitude towards it being unchanged over time.
Technically he does believe in the bending, but he believes in using nitinol, or gallium, or his heel, to achieve the effect.

 

[Mendel]

"Believes in" is not the same thing as "is famous for this trick".

@FatPhil was responding to the "hasn't mentioned it lately" part.

@Stryer would do well to do more research on the claims before posting them. Wouldn't want to be espousing an opinion as fact too fast!

 

[Doctor Franger]

I can't find a clip on the Youtube, but I recalled something from his 1970s TV show; the final few seconds comprised a kinda sorta disclaimer. My best recollection is that the text (highly paraphrased, poorly remembered) warned that nothing on the show should be viewed as evidence of the supernatural, and that nobody has powers of ESP.
This was in the form of a typeset title card which held the screen for a few seconds, then a hand came in from the side with a texta and graffitied the "ESP" into "ESPecially URI".
After the previous content on the show, it seemed to me even as a child that he was trying to eat his cake and have it.
(yeah I know OT, but many people may not remember and I have never seen it on rerun. I concede that he may well still do this schtick but I have ignored Uri for many decades)

 

[FatPhil]

@Stryer would do well to do more research on the claims before posting them. Wouldn't want to be espousing an opinion as fact too fast!

Tell me, what's the endgame going to be? How is this conversation going to end? Realistically? and then, is it worth it?

 

[Landru]

The topic of this conversation is Ross Coulthart, not Uri Geller. This illustrates the problem using analogies. Pretty soon you are arguing the analogy.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Coulthart was on 3AW (talk radio in Melbourne) on Sep 26, 2023, with Neil Mitchell, a well-known personality here. Also on YouTube (link at the end). I've excerpted some quotes to give a picture of how he approaches UAP coverage and what his conclusions are. My emphasis. My comments for discussion in [brackets].

He is the first mainstream investigative journalist to ever cover UAPs, and the intel community may be using debunkers to ridicule him:

I finished working in mainstream media about four or five years ago and I looked around, and I thought what is the most taboo stigmatized subject in the media that we look at? and one of course is suicide, but the other that I've always been intrigued in is UAPs, unidentified anomalous phenomena or UFOs, as they're more popularly known. And I decided to do the basic concept of investigative journalism and apply it to uaps because to my great surprise nobody had ever done that before. ... I am probably the most vocal, the most well-known Legacy Media journalist that is taking this issue seriously. And so far all I've been on the receiving end of is an attempt at ridicule and denigration by, I suspect, sections of the intelligence community that are trying to debunk. but it hasn't really worked because my audience has more than quadrupled since the David Grusch episode went to air.

[Where is my check???]

He can't tell us the evidence/sources that convinced him many in the DoD and private aerospace believe NHI is visiting us:

Neil, as a journalist, you reach a conclusion based on a preponderance of evidence. I appreciate I'm dealing largely, with the exception of Nat, with off the record sources or sources that cannot be attributed or cannot be named. but I have convinced myself that there is sufficient evidence to at least believe that a large number of people in the U.S military and intelligence community and private Aerospace believe very very strongly that the world is being visited by non-human intelligences, and moreover that the United States and other countries have actually recovered non-human technology.

[Since he's seen no craft or aliens himself, presumably he's convinced it's real because his sources believe so.]

The reason for the coverup - used to be religious upset, but is now:

the United States definitely has recovered technology, I think that there is a Cold War battle underway [between Americans, Chinese, Russians] for the attempt to try to replicate that technology, to reverse engineer it. this has been going on since at least the end of World War II incredibly, and it hasn't been very successful.

Disinfo campaign began in 1952:

...a decision was made in 1952 after what's called the Washington flyover, where because of the such overt displays by these UAPs, a very jolted US military made a stern decision to shut down public interest in the phenomenon. And so a disinformation campaign was created to essentially persuade people that this was rubbish, that UAPs were things to be ridiculed and stigmatized, when in fact all along it's now emerging that the Pentagon has basically been taking this extremely seriously.

[See his book In Plain Sight, chp 3 "The Launch of Project Blue Book".]

Slight chance it's all a psy-op to fool adversaries:

This is why I'm not a hundred percent - I mean this is there is always the remote possibility, however remote, that this is some kind of advanced psyops operation by an advanced arm of US propaganda designed to impress upon America's potential adversaries that they've got something up their sleeve that they don't want to reveal, but they want them to know about. There's always that possibility.

[The rest of his interview, he emphasizes it's a global phenomenon & cover-up, so presumably all countries are doing the same psyop on each other if this theory is correct - but he thinks that's unlikely.]

His witnesses:

I think on the balance of probabilities, yes, I do think that we have what are called biologics. I do think that they have recovered biological material and bodies. and I've actually spoken to people who've told me that they've seen bodies and craft, and it's very confronting because I've gone uphill and down dale with these people and interrogated them sideways, and frankly if they're lying, they're very good liars... Most of the descriptions that I've heard concord with the classic Gray shape... I'm talking to people who've told me that they have seen these entities, these beings.

[To me, biologics, bodies, and entites/beings are three different things. I'd like some clarity. To me: Biologics could be as little as a tissue smear. Bodies means physical dead aliens. Entities/beings means living ones, not necessarily in a controlled setting - i.e. hallucinations in your bedroom qualifies, if you believe it's aliens.]

Consciousness research:

[the phenomenon] may also explain the other mystery in human life which is what happens to us after we die? because a large part of what I'm investigating at the moment is that what we're talking about here may not in fact be a technology as we understand it, which might explain why we're having so much trouble reverse engineering it. It might in fact be a manifestation of some kind of uber consciousness that is essentially - the theory goes, expressing itself through physical form to basically make humanity become aware. I mean I know this sounds kooky but I'm getting this from people in US intelligence...

[He has not gone too woo in previous interviews - is he heading in that direction?]

Stigma:

So there is a phenomenon that the Pentagon has officially admitted to Congress, under oath, is real, and yet a large part of the mainstream media, the Legacy Media particularly in the United States, still has its head in the wrong place and are treating this with the stigma, ridicule and taboo that the subject was being treated with for much of the last 70 to 80 years

[The Pentagon admitting the phenomenon is real is news to me. I thought they admitted they have some things they can't explain.]

Skinwalker fan:

I've spoken to other people in the intelligence Community, one is a former very senior official who ran the UAP task force for the US government, and that individual was visited by some kind of paranormal entity that - essentially like the hitchhiker syndrome - followed him home to his home in East Coast America from a site that he'd visited on the west coast. Believe it or not... Yeah, Skinwalker Ranch in Utah.

[I cannot take seriously anyone who believes anything about Skinwalker, see: Metabunk]

What frightens him:

multiple sources have told me that we should be taking the abduction phenomenon more seriously than we have done to date... I don't know whether the taking itself is real but I certainly think the phenomenon is real... I have not formed a view on this, and I'm not in a position to be able to because I can't verify it. I haven't seen it.

[He hasn't seen craft or bodies either and AFAIK is not an experiencer, so...]

Does he fear for the future?

No... my sources tell me, they're angry. I mean the scientists that I've spoken to who've been involved in looking and examining this technology, they're furious that they can't do what scientists want to do, which is to share this information. ... The big problem with these alleged recovered craft is the secrecy, the compartmentalization that has been used to protect this program has been such that it has hindered proper rigorous objective examination.

[Jim's magic ball is right there awaiting scientific examination. Just never seems to happen.]

Disclosure timeline:

...the sources that I've been privileged to speak to, people at a very high level in US defense and intelligence, people in the French government, the British government, the Russian government, across the world there are people who are in a position to assert that they know that the human race is aware of a non-human intelligence. and I think that the world will probably know publicly within I suspect 12 to 18 months [that] ... a non-human intelligence that has been engaging with this planet. And I know that there are moves afoot to get interviews with senior officials who may very well admit and say that very thing.
... I think the evidence suggests on the balance of probabilities that we are being surveilled by a non-human intelligence, and I think the world will probably know that for sure, as I've said, within 12 to 18 months. I don't think it's going to come from official disclosures unless the government is forced by this legislation to admit what Congress now knows in secret.

[Unexpectedly pleasing to see a timeline but he didn't give reasons for why he "thinks" this timeline is accurate. No indication that craft and bodies will be unveiled - this could simply mean people in high places saying they believe they're communicating with NHI, which would be disappointing for me and has sort of already happened.]

Reputation on the line:

Q: Ross just finally, a long career in journalism newspapers, television, five walkleys, gold Walkley, a superb career. Are you putting it all on the line here?
I guess I am in the perception of the audience. I mean I don't believe that the levels of proof that I'm relying on to make the assertions that I'm making are any different from the levels of proof - in fact I've probably been more rigorous and more stringent with myself than I would normally would be, because I've known how serious these allegations are.

[Again, I think he's relying on how much he likes the witnesses (in this interview, Tim Golladay is "a lovely guy", Jim Semivan is "a really good guy", meeting Grusch was "the most extraordinary thing") rather than seeing evidence himself. He uses the phrase "very senior" 6 times.]

My favorite to end with - psi abilities from the aliens!

some of them are suffering health effects, but there are others who are also claiming to have had things happen to their brains after they were exposed to the phenomenon that have given them, well, PSI abilities, the ability to have precognition or understanding of things that they previously couldn't understand, understanding of advanced physics.

[Zero evidence provided by him or by science that psi exists, let alone where it comes from]


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

 

[Mendel]

Coulthart was on 3AW (talk radio in Melbourne) on Sep 26, 2023, with Neil Mitchell, a well-known personality here. Also on YouTube (link at the end). I've excerpted some quotes to give a picture of how he approaches UAP coverage and what his conclusions are. My emphasis. My comments for discussion in [brackets].

First, an aside, because many people on Metabunk don't know this:
When you introduce content to a thread, it's good to use EX tags, because then that content can be quoted and discussed.

And I decided to do the basic concept of investigative journalism and apply it to uaps because to my great surprise nobody had ever done that before.

So, not like Knapp?

a large number of people in the U.S military and intelligence community and private Aerospace believe very very strongly

a) depending on what a "large number" is, this sounds reasonable (esp. since this would include BAASS), and b) he doesn't say these believers have evidence.

I think that there is a Cold War battle underway [between Americans, Chinese, Russians] for the attempt to try to replicate that technology, to reverse engineer it.

If that were true, the push for disclosure in the USA would give China and Russia an edge?

the Legacy Media particularly in the United States, still has its head in the wrong place and are treating this with the stigma, ridicule and taboo that the subject was being treated with for much of the last 70 to 80 years

the ardent UFO believers thinking every unexplained report must be aliens are doing a good job of keeping the stigma alive.

one is a former very senior official who ran the UAP task force for the US government

sounds like Jay Stratton/Axelrod, why won't Coulthart name names? Is that what journalists do these days? Talking in dog whistles?

the compartmentalization that has been used to protect this program has been such that it has hindered proper rigorous subjective examination.

Except when Metabunk does it, it's not right, either?

"subjective" examination??

the Russian government

See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dmitry-medvedev-and-the-aliens.12032/

Thanks for the excerpts!

 

[Charlie Wiser]

First, an aside, because many people on Metabunk don't know this:
When you introduce content to a thread, it's good to use EX tags, because then that content can be quoted and discussed.
View attachment 62987

Thanks - I'll try and figure out what this is...

he doesn't say these believers have evidence.

He implies he's privy to the evidence that made them believe, which thereby convinced him, but it was off the record so he can't tell us. His use of "believe" here is disconcerting though. Don't these sources KNOW? (Elsewhere he's more forceful on the point.)

why won't Coulthart name names? Is that what journalists do these days? Talking in dog whistles?

In this case he may have tailored his answers for the Aus audience, who wouldn't know who these people are. It would help keep things clear, especially as a historical record, if he did name names where it's obvious who he's talking about.

the compartmentalization that has been used to protect this program has been such that it has hindered proper rigorous subjective examination.

Except when Metabunk does it, it's not right, either?

He went into some detail about his "boots on the ground" way of contacting people, and I'm guessing that's a reason he is so derisive of "armchair" debunkers - sorry, Metabunk. When asked if all his info is second-hand, he said yes - but that:

the unique way that I did my research was - I was fearful that if I used email or phones I would leave an electronic trail, and I was mindful of the fact that I wanted these people to feel secure in communicating with me, so with a lot of my early research, because I was visiting the US a lot for work, I would literally hand drop letters. I'd hire a rental car and go and drop letters in people's letterboxes so there was absolutely no possibility of there being any kind of official interdiction. And it was a number of those people who contacted me and basically because of the security that I'd taken to ensure that I protected their address and their identity, exchanged with me information over highly secure encrypted communications what they knew. And then I went and met those people.

"subjective" examination??

The YT transcript gave "subjective" but on listening again I'm pretty sure he says "objective". I've edited the quote in my initial post.

 

[deirdre]

The YT transcript gave "subjective" but on listening again I'm pretty sure he says "objective".

you should also always add the timestamps when quoting a video.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

you should also always add the timestamps when quoting a video.

Can't be bothered. You may do it. Or delete my post.

 

[Mendel]

Can't be bothered. You may do it. Or delete my post.

I try to provide timestamps even when quoting from a transcript so that people can more easily watch the quote in context, if they so desire.

 

[Stryer]

Slam dunk.

Only in your world M. I happen to think racism counts as a weird belief. Qanon too.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Only in your world M. I happen to think racism counts as a weird belief. Qanon too.

This thread is about Ross Coulthart and his UFO reporting, which in the latest interview seems to be increasingly fringe, with super-consciousness, psy ablities from alien contact and full Skinwalker Ranch. And still not a speck of evidence.

If you would like to discuss Greenstreet and provide evidence that he is a Qanon believer and a bad journalist then we should start a new thread for that.

 

[NorCal Dave]

In this case he may have tailored his answers for the Aus audience, who wouldn't know who these people are. It would help keep things clear, especially as a historical record, if he did name names where it's obvious who he's talking about.

Maybe. The story of Stratton/Axelrod bringing a contagion home with him form Skinwalker Ranch is in the book and has been around for a while now, as is the fact that he went on to head the UAPTF. But this same thing happened in Shellenbarger's latest UFO/Grusch story discussed in another thread. Shellenbuger and his associates wrote:

A former US Air Force intelligence officer working at Kirtland Air Force Base in the 1980s through to the first decade of this century admitted to British journalist Mark Pilkington and others that he spread disinformation about UFOs with the aim of misleading civilian UFO investigators in order to cover-up both US military as well as nonhuman technology programs.

https://public.substack.com/p/dozens-of-government-ufo-whistleblowers

Which sounds exactly like Richard Doty:

As a result, Bennewitz claimed to have uncovered evidence of aliens controlling humans through electromagnetic devices, and furthermore claimed that UFOs were regularly flying near Kirtland Air Force Base and the nearby Manzano Nuclear Weapons Storage Facility and Coyote Canyon Test Area.[26]

On July 1, 1989, William Moore revealed that he tried to push Bennewitz into a mental breakdown by feeding him false information about aliens.[26] This was corroborated by a declassified CIA document that claims Moore and another officer of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Richard Doty, are responsible for a disinformation campaign against Bennewitz.[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bennewitz

I'm just wondering if the new UFOlogist reporting tactic is to rehash older known stories without giving the actual known source so that it sounds more like a secret revelation from an inside source or something like that.

Maybe just sloppy reporting.

 

[Mendel]

I'm just wondering if the new UFOlogist reporting tactic is to rehash older known stories without giving the actual known source so that it sounds more like a secret revelation from an inside source or something like that.

It's as if they don't want us to research what they're telling us. Hmmmmmm.

 

[FatPhil]

Only in your world M. I happen to think racism counts as a weird belief. Qanon too.

@Mendel's post was nothing about the holding of racist beliefs. If you are going to reply to his post, then respond to his actual point.

That particular point was about inconsistencies, contraditions, in your argumentation. Flying off onto a completely different point does nothing to bolster a case that you can coherently support a contrary stance in a discussion.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I'm just wondering if the new UFOlogist reporting tactic is to rehash older known stories without giving the actual known source so that it sounds more like a secret revelation from an inside source or something like that.

This seems plausible in a general sense - sources do seem to be getting obscured and it has the effect of masking when people are just repeating each other.

That radio show is extremely mainstream though - Neil Mitchell is a popular host on the most popular station in Melbourne (15% audience share). So maybe Coulthart didn't want to flood that particular audience with too many names that would be meaningless. He didn't even volunteer "Skinwalker Ranch" when telling the hitchhiker story - the host prompted him.

Source.

 

[Doctor Franger]

For context;
The main talk radio stations in Melbourne are 3AW and ABC Melbourne, both of which qualify as 'mainstream'.
Per Charlie Wiser, 3AW claims 15% market share, ABC around 7%.
3AW is a commercial station, ABC Melbourne is publicly funded, with their expected differently proportional needs for sensationalism.

Coulthart does not seem to have appeared on ABC radio since some author-publicity spots in July 2021 to spruik his In Plain Sight. His spots were on two ABC stations out of dozens (16 national networks and between 2 and 14 local stations in each of eight states),
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/radio
neither of which were the main markets of Melbourne and Sydney (one was in the deep north, analogous culturally and intellectually to the USA deep south).
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/progr...e-real-ross-coulthart-in-plain-sight/13477372
His ABC absence is, I am guessing, due to not being invited, because it seems he has no self-imposed exile.

The more I hear from Coulthart, the more he sounds like a scoundrel. Like a pharmacist who has moved from pharmaceuticals to snake oil because that's where the money is. Maybe the analogy can be refined by saying "discredited, unemployable pharmacist".

 

[Mendel]

Only in your world M. I happen to think racism counts as a weird belief. Qanon too.

Yep. Please review https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ross-coulthart.13159/post-302734 to find your claim that Greenstreet is a "QAnon backer" disproven by evidence, showing that you "espoused opinion as fact too fast" (your own words). This is part of my rebuttal of your larger claim, that "both sides" on "this discussion" about Coulthart do it, that still stands wholly unsupported.
It seems clear that you do it, so maybe there's projection at work here?

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Ross Coulthart demonstrating his understanding of first-hand evidence. From a NewsNation interview Dec 12, 2023, link at the end.

Q: Do you know anything about this first-hand information that [Grusch] has? He says he's writing, he's going to release in the next week or so some sort of op-ed with new first-hand information. Do you know what he's talking about?

Coulthart: I do, yeah, I've got a pretty good idea... I've been waiting for a while for him to provide a rejoinder to the critics who've constantly asserted that there is no first-hand evidence. I can't talk with any specificity because I frankly don't know. I suspect it's something to do with either photographic or video material that he may have seen but I'm only speculating.

Regardless of what Grusch ends up putting in his op-ed, Coulthart is defending the idea that seeing photos is first-hand evidence of the US government having in its possession NHI craft.

My take is that a photo (depending on what it depicts and its provenance) is the photographer's first-hand evidence, given he saw the thing first-hand, but Grusch writing about a photo (or by implication about a photographer) makes him a second-hand witness to the thing being photographed (albeit a first-hand witness to the photo).

We're all first-hand witnesses to UFO photos.

Coulthart goes on with a slight deflection - the question was about Grusch having first-hand evidence. Coulthart rewords it as first-hand evidence involving Grusch, which provides a lot of leeway but places Grusch once again as a second-hand witness:

But I just want to emphasize as well for the people who say that there is no first-hand evidence involving David Grusch, they miss the significance time and time again of the finding made by the Inspector General of the I.C. when he referred David Grusch's matter to Congress for investigation, that Mr Grusch's allegations were credible and urgent. And he based that not just on Mr Grusch's allegations but on the first-hand evidence of multiple witnesses, in fact dozens of witnesses who've since come forward over the past two years to give evidence to Congress.

(I have still not seen evidence that "credible and urgent" - whether referring to Grusch's complaint or the dozens of witnesses - refers to anything but illegal SAP oversight/funding rather than NHI craft specifically. Grusch never explained how many of his witnesses worked on alien craft vs. how many worked on regular SAPs with illegal funding. Coulthart always spins it as a credible and urgent complaint about NHI craft backed up by dozens of witnesses.)


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJkffULI5Yg

[starts 00:35]

 

[Mendel]

We're all first-hand witnesses to UFO photos.

Some of which were actually photos of hoaxes, of airliners, etc., regardless of what some other people who saw these photos thought.

 

[Ravi]

So, any update from Ross? I clearly remember he said, a long time ago, "we will see evidence of ufos very soon". I guess "soon" is Australian for "in the next century or so".

 

[RTM]

He probably uses the Elon Musk calendar.

 

[Haliate2854]

"we will see evidence of ufos very soon"

I have come to learn in my many years of watching these claims being made that what they mean by "evidence" is usually just "something that convinced me", not actual proof, because the proof will always be "classified", and that's why you should believe them, because the proof is just out of sight, but its there I tells ya, you just have to believe...
My best guess is that he is referring to whatever will be in the Grusch op-ed, could be that presentation he gave in private that detailed some method of tracking objects in space, or possibly that section of a missile Kirkpatrick mentioned in his interview last week.
Whatever it ends up being, you can be pretty sure it wont be physical, it will probably be a mention of a piece of something they will claim is part of a UFO.