Oh, you mean the never-corroborated bit of allied propaganda:
The sudden spread of the rumours in the spring of 1915 six months after the events happened is also puzzling. The stories published then often attribute their information to mysterious anonymous British officers. The latest and most detailed examination of the Mons story by David Clarke suggests these men may have been part of a covert attempt by military intelligence to spread morale-boosting propaganda.
Circular reasoning.
The problem is that some insist that angels submit themselves to a rectal probe, biopsy, and samples taken for GC/MassSpec and other tests, or else "they don't exist."
There *is* such a thing as varying degrees of evidence, varying degrees of reliability of witnesses, and the like.
History is *full* of uncorroborated accounts, and just to say that "the evidence is weak, therefore this didn't happen" is not logically sound.
The reason people do it is to exclude many false positives -- you know, the null hypothesis, and all that.
But nobody ever addresses the possibility of false negatives, because they combine the approach with naturalism implicitly.
Hence, circular reasoning again.
The canonical response seems to be, "FSM".
But just because you allow for the possibility of anything "rum" or "uncanny" does not mean that you are required to admit or accept all of them.
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas.