62 children meet aliens in Zimbabwe?

hmmmm

i would look at all the evidence prsented on all sites before making your mind up on this one

we get the idea from the OP that this is in the middle of the wilderness, when it is not. Its stated they they have no TV access, but some of the children do. There are both white and black children living there and most of the children look quite intelligent, well dressed and with "modern times" and most proabably have seen images of aliens, ufos and know what the whole concept is about. In fact they dont look very "cut off" from the rest of society at all. Plus this is a PRIVATE school so their parents are most probably quite well off so most probably have access to "media" and also what you have to think about is the fact that as it is a private school they most probably dont live that locally so could be driven every day from a more built up area where the alien perception is widely known. The headmaster is not from the area, so could have thought and acted the whole think up with the children, too draw attention. Plus the pictures they drew vary too much.

if it had been in the middle of nowhere and the school was very basic with the children and the headmaster all living in very basic conditions and all being indigenous then it would be more believable

[edit on 31/3/10 by Smiler74]

Originally posted by sv_gravity 800
What’s important to note here, if in fact this story holds true.

A. They are telling the truth (amazing, this is a message of concern)
B. They are lying, AMAZING..

I think you are presenting a false dichotomy. The reality of the situation may be, and probably is, more complicated than either "they are telling the truth or lying." The children may be telling the truth as they know it, but their belief may not reflect what actually occured. A number of factors, mass hysteria, leading questions from researchers and the malleable nature of memories can contribute to this situation.

In fact, I think it is very plausible the kids saw something that scared them but did not think it was UFO or alien-related at first. It may have been parents and staff that interpreted it as such, and in subsequent re-tellings the kids began remembering it as an alien. There was four-days between the time of the incident and when Cynthia Hind investigated and two more months before John Mack investigated. That is plenty of time for memories to be molded and confused.

Originally posted by sv_gravity 800
62 Children would have had to pass a message or all gather and discuss how they all equaly agree “Humanity is destroying itself” smart kids. Even smarter kids if they all collectively, or one individual who some how influenced all the other kids, created this story to get this message of warning? Out. “Humanity is destroying itself” 62 kids huh… in a school where you can’t lye… damn this is amazing either way.

You're extrapolating something that isn't there. We can't say this is something that all the kids believed happened because the facts don't support it. In the videos, we see only a few kids (1 or 2?) relating this story. In fact, John Mack only interviewed 12 of the supposed 62 students that were witness to the incident; you can't claim all 62 children experienced the same thing when only 1/5 of them were interviewed.

On that same thought, we have to remember here that we are looking at this through an information embargo. We do not have all the facts and data, but only what Cynthia Hind and John Mack have allowed us to see. And it is worth noting their intention was not to give a full accounting of the case but rather present their viewpoint of it and convice of it's veracity. We may not necessarily have gotten the full picture.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Good case and the problem is there's 2 kinds of evidence.

1. There's nonsense passed off as evidence as put forth by the pseudoskeptic.

2. There's evidence as reported and investigated.

We always depend on investigators and trained professionals. I have never investigated a crime but I trust the trained professionals to do their job in most cases.

I have heard things like mass hysteria, the kids didn't see what they said they saw or John Mack and Hind are shading the truth.

These things are meaningless in the context of what has been reported and investigated.

Why didn't the pseudoskeptics go down there and investigate these things for themselves?

Sadly, most pseudoskeptics are not interested in the truth because to them the evidence doesn't matter. They want to make a general argument that no matter what the evidence says, it couldn't of happened in a way that doesn't agree with their pre-existing belief.

Good post and good case.

Matrix, do you have anything of value to add to the conversation, other than invectives and unthinking out-of-hand dismissals of alternative explanations that don't fit your uncritical face-value acceptance of these claims?

Can you tell us why alternative explanations are invalid in this case, without relying an appeal-to-authority, claims of investigator infalliability and outright dismissal? Can you tell us why apparent holes in the case aren't really holes? Can you tell us how this does not share similarities to cases of mass hysteria? Can you tell us what facts we've supposedly ignored?

Let's see if Matrix can actually manage to discuss and defend a case instead of just ranting about "pseudoskeptics." Let's see if she can do it without using the word "pseudoskeptic".

Smart money says no. Place your bets, folks.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Yes I can tell you why these alternative explanations are meaningless.

It's because they are just wild guesses that has nothing to do with what has been reported and investigated.

I could do the same thing with every court case or police investigation. I could throw out any and every possibility but these possibilities are meaningless.

For instance, you and others say mass hysteria could be the answer. This makes no sense. There's no evidence to support mass hysteria. This is just the pseudoskeptics throwing out any and every possibility because the evidence doesn't matter.

John Mack was a Harvard Professor and a Psychiatrist who investigated the case and he didn't mention mass hysteria.

Why should I believe or give any weight to your wild speculation on a message board years after the fact over Harvard Professor John Mack's investigation?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Yup, exactly as I thought. And you couldn't even refrain from using "pseudoskeptic".

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
For instance, you and others say mass hysteria could be the answer. This makes no sense. There's no evidence to support mass hysteria.

Actually, it has a lot of similarities to mass hysteria. The similarities are shown in earlier posts.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
This is just the pseudoskeptics throwing out any and every possibility because the evidence doesn't matter.

We haven't thrown out "any and every possibility" as you purposefully mischaracterize it. One explanation was examined, that being the possibility of mass hysteria.

You dismiss alternative explanations but can't tell us why other than "John Mack said so." You're operating off a script and haven't invested a single one iota of thought about this case. All you've done is nod your head and not actually said or contributed anything worthwhile or substanitive to the discussion.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I don't dismiss them if you have evidence to support them.

Which investigator interviewed the kids and went down there and investigated the case and said it was mass hysteria and how did they reach this conclusion?

or

Are we just dealing with your wild speculation that has no nothing to do with what has been investigated and reported?

I suspect we are dealing with the latter and therefore it's meaningless speculation that has nothing to do with the evidence as reported and investigated.

It's like if I go into a police station and look at an investigation and say the brother killed his sister but the investigation shows the brother had an alibi, this means I'm just offering meaningless and wild speculation unless I have the evidence to support my claim.

Debating your wild speculation is an exercise in futility.

I have not read all 10 pages so sorry if this info is a repeat. The main investigator on this case was the late Cynthia Hind. I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and Cynthia was a thorough investigator not prone to believing everything she was told. This case is in my opinion one of the most important contactee cases ever. There should be a follow-up and these kids tracked down and reinterviewed. It would be extremely interesting to find out what they think. It would also be interesting to see if any have had any unusual experiences since.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


You still have not provided anything of substance, instead you continue to rely on an appeal-to-authority. You're entire argument is not based on the what either John Mack or I have to say. Rather, it is based solely on the fact he's John Mack and I am not. You state numerous times you won't give any alternative explanation the slightest bit of thought, not because of the strength or veracity of the argument, but because I am not John Mack. This is not the hallmart of a critical thinker.

One need not go to Zimbabwe to examine this case. If you must go to Zimbabwe before you can disagree with Mack's conclusions, then it follows you must go to Zimbabwe before you can agree. However, if you think the information provided by Mack and company is sufficient enough to make a convincing argument, then it is sufficient enough to re-examine the case and draw a different conclusion.


[edit on 31-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by pogliaghi
I have not read all 10 pages so sorry if this info is a repeat. The main investigator on this case was the late Cynthia Hind. I lived in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe...There should be a follow-up and these kids tracked down and reinterviewed. It would be extremely interesting to find out what they think. It would also be interesting to see if any have had any unusual experiences since.

I agree. It would be very interesting to see what the students of Ariel School have to say. However, the political realities of Zimbabwe and a general reluctance to critically re-examine old cases prevents this.

Since you lived in Zimbabwe, we would all appreciate it if you could clear up any misconceptions we may have about the country. I know Zimbabwe has only one television station, but how prevalent is UFO related media or science fiction in the country? The idea of UFOs and aliens is ubiqitous to Western culture; is it the same or less in Zimbabwe? And what is Ruwa like?; there is some confusion whether or not it is an isolated place.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


No, you don't have to go to Zimbabwe to disagree with Mack's investigation but you do need evidence. Mack is not the only person that investigated and looked into this case.

None of them said anything about mass hysteria.

If you have evidence that the investigators came to the conclusion that this was a case of mass hysteria, then present it.

If you don't have any evidence to support your claim then we are just debating your wild speculation years after the fact. Like I said, that's an exercise in futility.

The best thing to do is narrow the focus of the debate to what has been reported and investigated. If not, you can throw out any and every possibility ad infinitum.

Of course I'm going to accept what Mack and others say over what your saying because you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. You haven't provided any names of investigators that investigated the case and said it was mass hysteria.

As far as I can tell, it's just your wild speculation.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I already presented the evidence earlier in the thread. However, you have continued to dismissed it and ignored it.

Come on, that's lame. Don't try to pull the racist card on me. Your Will Smith comment is out of order and you know that's not what I was implying. Not all black people are tribal but a high proportion of african tribes are black.

Then what are you implying by 'tribal'? More prone than the white kid to beleive in ufo's? How is the kids color relevant?

Did you notice the discrepancy where one child said the eyes came to a point on the inside and another child said the eyes came to a point on the outside?

I did notice descepencies yes, Though that wasn'y what I was I referring to.
for example at about 7:20 he asks 'how did those those thoughts come to you",
then continues to present a choice, one of which the child chooses, he dosent let her answer for herself.
This kind of leading seems prevelant throughout.

The descrepancies themselves are probably to be expected. Police, for example, cite it as common when
interveiwing multiple witness about an event.

In fact they dont look very "cut off" from the rest of society at all. Plus this is a PRIVATE school so their parents are most probably quite well off so most probably have access to "media" and also what you have to think about is the fact that as it is a private school they most probably dont live that locally so could be driven every day from a more built up area where the alien perception is widely known.

That seems a reasonable supposition.

if it had been in the middle of nowhere and the school was very basic with the children and the headmaster all living in very basic conditions and all being indigenous then it would be more believable

[edit on 31/3/10 by Smiler74]

Again this part seems overtly racist, it appears to imply a beleive that indigenous people are more prone to fancy, or/and that white children are less so.

On that same thought, we have to remember here that we are looking at this through an information embargo. We do not have all the facts and data, but only what Cynthia Hind and John Mack have allowed us to see. And it is worth noting their intention was not to give a full accounting of the case but rather present their viewpoint of it and convice of it's veracity.
We may not necessarily have gotten the full picture.

Agreed Absolutely.

Why didn't the pseudoskeptics go down there and investigate these things for themselves?


Sadly, most pseudoskeptics are not interested in the truth because to them the evidence doesn't matter. They want to make a general argument that no matter what the evidence says, it couldn't of happened in a way that doesn't agree with their pre-existing belief.

Good post and good case.

why not the beleivers?
Same could said of them equally.

John Mack was a Harvard Professor and a Psychiatrist who investigated the case and he didn't mention mass hysteria.

Why should I believe or give any weight to your wild speculation on a message board years after the fact over Harvard Professor John Mack's investigation?

His qualifications dont preclude his own person bias. Just as many 'professionals' beleive in these sort of things.
Why should anyone beleive John mack over their own conclusions?

The main investigator on this case was the late Cynthia Hind.

An investigator of what? Is she a child physcologist? Cynthia's own person beleif is not precluded either.

This is Harare, 17 km from Ruwa

z.about.com...

Ruwa image (cant find an overveiw). To all accounts Ruwa is rural/semi-rural area.

www.htbau.ch...

this is labelled 'Ruwa'

farm4.static.flickr.com...

some images of Ruwa

www.sokwanele.com...

Sorry if these points have been made already-
Zimbawbe was affluent at this time. It was composed of wealthy mixed color middle class, and this school is a typical private school for the time.

In many parts of Africa tribal groups are very superstitious and uneducated (in a western sense) however this group of kids is not. Beliefs and knowledge of alien forefathers is a common theme in many tribes (the dogon of Mali), however this group of children were generally as westerised as a school in Australia or the US at the time.

Mack is a very respected man, who put his entire career at Harvard (I think) on the line to investigate alien abduction phenomina.

In Melbourne in 1967 a similar case occurred. Look up Westall High School. Dozens of students and teachers witnessed a landing adjacent to school grounds in an outer suburban primary school. To this day everyone of them in still a sworn believer. The case has never been solved.

Almost one hundred people saw the craft, and kids saw it close up. So even in a large modern city like Melbourne witnesses are discredited over time and distance simply because these stories are ridiculed by the MSM.

I think something extraordinary happened. Even if these cases demonstrate elaborate hoaxes, the agenda of the perpurtraters is worth investigation.

I look forward to seeing the film.

You are refering to the Vorezneh (sp?) case. (early 90's I think)

It was intriguing as well.

Except the kids said the tall aliends had long conical noses.....

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Then what are you implying by 'tribal'? More prone than the white kid to beleive in ufo's? How is the kids color relevant?

Did i say anything that even hinted at white kids being prone to believe or vice versa? Your attempt at an argument is pathetic.

The colour is relevant to the validity of the story. As other people have mentioned, the OP described a situation in RURAL Africa where there is next to no technology. This implies a tribal area where, as I mentioned, there are not normally a lot of white people. However, there are pictures of white people posted. Since more info has been posted it appears that the original story was not very accurate and that this was a private and fairly well off school, not the poor, tribal situation originally described. The presence on white people was a clue that this was the case.

Therefore, what I have said was not anything to do with being racist, as you seem to be keen on labelling me, but an attempt to get to the bottom of the story. As I said, something didn't seem right with the original story and has since been shown that it wasn't right.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Frakkerface]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
why not the beleivers?
Same could said of them equally.

Exactly. If the information provided by Mack is enough for one to be convinced aliens landed at the Ariel School, then it is enough to examine and draw a different conclusion.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Why should anyone beleive John Mack over their own conclusions?

Matrix's argument is an appeal-to-authority. Instead of focusing on facts, telling us why alternative explanations are insufficient or providing a cogent argument to defend Mack's conclusions, Matrix instead focuses on who is an expert and who isn't or what an expert says. To Matrix, the evidence be damned. All that is needed is the word of an expert. It is lazy, uncritical thinking.

Therefore, what I have said was not anything to do with being racist, as you seem to be keen on labelling me, but an attempt to get to the bottom of the story. As I said, something didn't seem right with the original story and has since been shown that it wasn't right.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Frakkerface]

Thankyou for your clarification.

One of the kids drew this

www.ufoevidence.org...

how might theses look to kids if they had never seen one? They were a part of the Zimbabwe National Army's Armourment prior to 1994.

upload.wikimedia.org...

upload.wikimedia.org...

have a look at the very bottom vehicle in this page (stretch tank/personnelle carrier) Zimbabwe Army had these too.

selousscouts.tripod.com...

Full list of above Army's hardware and dates of purchase and origin.

en.wikipedia.org...

About Zimbabwe National army

www.mod.gov.zw...

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

I already presented the evidence earlier in the thread. However, you have continued to dismissed it and ignored it.

Err.. no you presented no evidence that THIS case is an example of mass hysteria. You merely argued that case Y was mass hysteria, therefore case Z might (should?) be too. It is fallacious to argue that other examples of mass hysteria is "evidence" that this case is too. It is no evidence whatsoever. At best it would suggest that collective hysteria is not implausible per se.

There are scientific criteria to determine if an event can be considered mass hysteria. These would include an evaluation of the physical, psychological, and social factors involved. You have not shown that the determination collective hysteria is warranted in this particular instance.

Merely the fact that people saw something out of the ordinary is not the determining factor.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by jclmavg]