Coulthart made several exaggerations and errors in discussing Westall. Let's look at them one by one, to demonstrate how he added bunk to this story - bunk that the audience probably took as facts of the case.

1. Invent a new testimony

Coulthart: "There's a science teacher called Andrew Greenwood standing with them watching the kids as they play and he looks up along with all the other kids and they all start screaming because there are either two or perhaps three elliptical metal discs hovering in the air just above the kids and Andrew is adamant that what he saw were disc-shaped objects."

As anyone with even a passing interest in this case knows, Greenwood was inside teaching his science class when a student rushed in yelling about a flying saucer. ​

I've exposed countless lies that Anjali (Angelia Schultz) has been telling since 2021, including lies to the property owners where she had her experience in 2018, lies to the public, and lies about me. I became aware of the following bizarre lie in early 2024. When I exposed it, Anjali called me the liar and later absolved herself of responsibility for the lie by saying... she forgot telling it.

Let's dive in.

The text screenshots reproduced here are the entirety of a conversation Anjali had with Bryan (property owner) in August to September 2023.

A day later, Anjali posted a lengthy and self-contradictory comment on an entirely different post of mine (about her press conference). In that comment she publicly exposed the alleged alcoholism of a mutual acquaintance, stating he is "drunk more hours than he is not, and he is not nice when he's drunk." (This person told me last year he was anticipating a smear campaign from Angelia Schultz.)

I deleted the comment and emailed that I'd only approve comments from her that specifically addressed her lies about me, which her comment entirely avoided.

Her reply:

 
​This is the tale of a chain with four links, at least one of which is lying.

When it comes to Angelia Schultz (aka Anjali, previously AnjaliTM, Añjali, .:Anjali:., Anjeli, Angeli), lies are par for the course - as I’ve demonstrated on this website. This time, she has three ways to deflect the lie onto others. Will she admit to being the lying link, or blame her ex-husband, her ex-partner, or her own daughter?
 
I’ve attempted to find out where the lie originated, and this time I’m naming names... because the lie is about me, and it’s a disgusting lie that involves a child.

The Calvine UFO made a comeback in 2022. It is, according to UK academic David Clarke, "the best image of an unidentified flying object ever taken" - an unsurprising opinion from the man who tracked down the photo 32 years after it was taken.

Before he became a part of the story he was investigating, Clarke found no good evidence the craft was real (alien or otherwise) and preferred the conclusion that it was a hoax.

Now he promotes the mystery of the photograph as a high-tech black project craft hovering over the Scottish moors in full view of two hapless hikers (but no one else) taking a break from their menial hotel jobs. He hasn't explained why his previous analysis was wrong. And he not only ridicules skeptical theories but misrepresents them.

The way Clarke has been dishonestly reporting on one aspect of this story in particular, for no apparent reason other than to mislead, leads me to conclude that he believes the photo is a hoax - specifically, that it is a 3D star ornament, a theory first proposed by Wim van Utrecht.

His accomplice in this deception is Andrew Robinson, the photography expert who analyzed the Calvine UFO. Robinson has softened his stance to include the possibility of a hoax, but can't come right out and say it's a model without undermining his "expert" analysis.

Ross Coulthart has a problem. As a key voice in ufology, that means he is a problem.

Looking over the stories Coulthart has reported on in the UFO space over the past couple of years, his credulity, poor sources, overhyping of weak evidence, and failure to issue retractions, are adding up to severely impact his credibility.

This is a rundown of some of his UFO work that I find problematic - cases that I personally find interesting. Unfortunately, this shoddy work casts doubt on all his reporting, especially when he often uses unnamed sources and is cagey about providing evidence - even while hinting he has it.