It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photos: The Greatest Evidence UFOs Don't Exist

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by Brighter
 


Considering the wide range of inconsistency in the drawings made by the children, in addition to the extremely poor cross contaminating and leading interview questions presented to the children, there's nothing very compelling about this case except in giving near textbook example of enabling attention and positive enforcement in encouraging a false "truth".

We've seen this behavior from children during the infamous witch trials:
Torsåker witch trials

Hornæus was zealous in his work — by the time his task was complete, 71 people, 65 women, roughly one fifth of all women in the region, and six men, had been beheaded and burned.
...
The witch-hunt in the country continued; after the Torsåker witch trial, it reached the capital, where it lasted until 1676 and ended with the execution of Malin Matsdotter in Stockholm, after which the authorities proved that the child witnesses were lying and it had been a mistake.


Children are veritable lying machines.
It's a fundamental aspect with many in their development where they reach a stage in which they'll lie about anything for any or no reason at all. It's a part of social development.
This isn't necessarily universal, but, quite common and expected behavior for children.

When a Child Lies -Psych Central

All in all, the Ariel School case is not remarkable in the least bit.
We have X number of children making a claim, telling stories.

Anyone, of course, is more than welcome to try forcing this group of children telling stories into whatever shaped box they desire, but, in the end, it's just children telling stories and without any good credible supporting evidence to give any real credibility to the claims, it's just children telling stories, made even more sensational by an extremely poor Psychologist (with an agenda) asking leading questions.



edit on 2/27/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)


For your theory to work, you'd have to assume that the entire group of children were able to orchestrate what essentially amounts to an elaborate conspiracy that was able to fool a prominent psychiatrist, an elaborate hoax that not only involved corroborating their tales but also orchestrating some pretty extreme behavior in unison. Remember, the teachers report that the children all came running and screaming into the school building all at once, and afterwards were able to individually describe a series of events that were more or less consistent. To simply point out the fact that children sometimes lie is not the same as children being able to engineer a hoax of this magnitude. Not that that's not possible, just unlikely. So I'd argue that your theory rests on a false analogy.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 



For your theory to work, you'd have to assume that the entire group of children were able to orchestrate what essentially amounts to an elaborate conspiracy that was able to fool a prominent psychiatrist, an elaborate hoax that not only involved corroborating their tales but also orchestrating some pretty extreme behavior in unison.

This is a extremely inaccurate statement. Did you read the links? There was no conspiracy among the children during the witch trials. The understanding you have of the basic dynamics involved with something like this is very shallow. It would take one child to convince the others what they saw or were seeing.

To put this in perspective, the "object" was an estimated 100 meters away.

The object was described as being as big as a (child size) thumbnail when held up at arms distance.

It was a bright day so ANY vehicle would be reflecting sunlight and would be distorted from this distance.

Nothing was seen flying. From that distance, how could you tell if it was hovering 1 meter off the ground? The grass and brush was 1 meter high. The "beings" were described as being 1 meter high. None of this adds up.

The path of the object that was "hovering" 1 meter off the ground (the brush was 1 meter high too!) followed the electric lines which also follows an actual PATH. Where like a vehicle could drive.

How could details like eyes be described from this distance?

Some pictures had "beings" with no facial features.

The initial scare was due to kids thinking they were seeing Tokolosh Demons. Apparently this was a common occurrence in schools in Africa. So one or two kids being initially frightened by something like this causing panic is not unheard of.

The Cynthia Hind "investigation" was very interesting. She arrives 3 days later which gives plenty of time for memories and details to form. Memories and beliefs which are further reinforced by the simple fact she is a UFO investigator! In other words, the confabulation has already occurred. Even if they really did see aliens, there is no way to get around this!
She consistently called whatever the children saw "creatures", even when kid said she thought it was a gardener!
She consistently interrupts the children if it's not something she wants to hear. This "event" is largely her interpretation.
She is seen hand picking the drawings for the most flying saucer-ish looking ones. She is literally making different piles and holding up the coolest looking ones for the TV crew. We don't get to see the discarded ones and never will.

So far here is the situation. The children saw something that scared them. It was too far away to make out what it was. That is about what we know. No conspiracy necessary.

TWO MONTHS LATER: the famous HARVARD ALIEN ABDUCTION RESEARCHER arrives to "uncover" the memories of their encounter. He is clearly seen and heard leading the children's memories. Earlier I posted a snippet of the dialogue he had which you ignored. "What do you IMAGINE they wanted?" Followed by "how was this COMMUNICATED to you?" The rest of his interviews follow this same type of pattern. The kids don't even need to try to lie!

So you are saying that if a kid walked into a session with Mack and made up something like "I saw an alien at 100 meters away with big eyes on top of a glowing disk that communicated with me telepathically about how we are destroying the environment and here is my UFO alien drawing" you are saying that Mack, would have been able to detect this as a lie? Do you really think that?

A more likely scenario would be: a kid comes into his "session" with Mack fully ready to tell the most outrageous fib for some much needed attention but ONLY to be convinced by Mack that what he has just revealed was telepathically communicated to him by the aliens thus turning his initial fable into the "real" deal. That's exactly how Mack rolled.


In fact, it is known that Mack WAS completely fooled by one of his research subjects. I think she even made it into one of his books!

So now we have follow up testimony by the witnesses about how this whole thing was traumatizing. Is it surprising that kids were traumatized by TWO investigators that completely reinforced that whatever they were scared of initially was real? They saw "creatures" that communicated with them "telepathically". Why would there be any need for the kids to conspire? They have two prominent UFO alien researchers eating up every last alien story they can throw at them!


Remember, the teachers report that the children all came running and screaming into the school building all at once, and afterwards were able to individually describe a series of events that were more or less consistent. To simply point out the fact that children sometimes lie is not the same as children being able to engineer a hoax of this magnitude. Not that that's not possible, just unlikely. So I'd argue that your theory rests on a false analogy.

I need one of those "Picard face palms" here. A hoax of this magnitude? Kids got scared and drew pictures. Kids have been doing this since there were kids. USUALLY, the adults tell them that they probably didn't see anything. In THIS case, the adults told them what they saw was real and called in UFO RESEARCHERS? Do you not see the pattern of reinforcement here? Do you know how easy it would be to recreate this? Fortunately, where I live, this wouldn't happen because of something called ethics.
edit on 1-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Brighter

For your theory to work, you'd have to assume that the entire group of children were able to orchestrate what essentially amounts to an elaborate conspiracy that was able to fool a prominent psychiatrist, an elaborate hoax that not only involved corroborating their tales but also orchestrating some pretty extreme behavior in unison. Remember, the teachers report that the children all came running and screaming into the school building all at once, and afterwards were able to individually describe a series of events that were more or less consistent. To simply point out the fact that children sometimes lie is not the same as children being able to engineer a hoax of this magnitude. Not that that's not possible, just unlikely. So I'd argue that your theory rests on a false analogy.


Orchestrate?

Try Conformity, and sympathetic (subconscious) collusion resulting in organically reinforced group enablement.

In very simple words, for those lacking the facility or education to understand these all too simple elementary concepts in Psychology:

Monkey See; Monkey Do.

No "orchestration", planning, or even conscious cogent intent is required.
All it takes is one or two "Monkeys" to display any X behavior where then others do the same, and it cascades into self reinforcing social compliance.

This is one of the reasons John Mack (among several others) is an extremely poor Psychologist such it's remarkable he even has valid accreditation. He even contributed toward the enablement of the children in reinforcing their behavior (story).



Anyone still having trouble with this I encourage to enjoy the benefits of education here:
Introduction to Psychology with Paul Bloom (Yale) 20 video course
Introduction to Psychology - Fall 2011 (MIT) 24 Lectures
Carnegie Mellon Online (full course) Introduction to Psychology (requires sign up, but free)

Further, your position of "not possible, just unlikely" is, well, you may additionally benefit from familiarizing yourself with the concept of
Argument from Incredulity
to repair this defect, neglect, or poor understanding of reasoning.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

Brighter

For your theory to work, you'd have to assume that the entire group of children were able to orchestrate what essentially amounts to an elaborate conspiracy that was able to fool a prominent psychiatrist, an elaborate hoax that not only involved corroborating their tales but also orchestrating some pretty extreme behavior in unison. Remember, the teachers report that the children all came running and screaming into the school building all at once, and afterwards were able to individually describe a series of events that were more or less consistent. To simply point out the fact that children sometimes lie is not the same as children being able to engineer a hoax of this magnitude. Not that that's not possible, just unlikely. So I'd argue that your theory rests on a false analogy.


Orchestrate?

Try Conformity, and sympathetic (subconscious) collusion resulting in organically reinforced group enablement.

In very simple words, for those lacking the facility or education to understand these all too simple elementary concepts in Psychology:

Monkey See; Monkey Do.

No "orchestration", planning, or even conscious cogent intent is required.
All it takes is one or two "Monkeys" to display any X behavior where then others do the same, and it cascades into self reinforcing social compliance.

This is one of the reasons John Mack (among several others) is an extremely poor Psychologist such it's remarkable he even has valid accreditation. He even contributed toward the enablement of the children in reinforcing their behavior (story).



Anyone still having trouble with this I encourage to enjoy the benefits of education here:
Introduction to Psychology with Paul Bloom (Yale) 20 video course
Introduction to Psychology - Fall 2011 (MIT) 24 Lectures
Carnegie Mellon Online (full course) Introduction to Psychology (requires sign up, but free)

Further, your position of "not possible, just unlikely" is, well, you may additionally benefit from familiarizing yourself with the concept of
Argument from Incredulity
to repair this defect, neglect, or poor understanding of reasoning.





He actually almost lost his accreditation over this incident i think it was concluded he was just a stooge an didnt have any malice involved. This allowed him to stay at the university but his work on this immediately ceased. But i think several people on the board still wasnt happy they wanted him gone. Either he was an idiot or he purposefully manipulated the children either way it wasnt good.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


yes! and conformity too! Apparently this is the norm for South African schools.

www.iol.co.za...
www.highbeam.com...
www.news24.com...
www.news24.com...
www.ajol.info...

Outbreak: tales of mass hysteria


GOBLIN SCARE
Mhondoro, Zimbabwe: June and July 2002

In July 2002, a phantom goblin scare swept through the St Mark’s Secondary School in Mhondoro, Zimbabwe. The headmaster of the school, which is operated by the Anglican Church, reportedly fled the school and was hiding out amid claims by parents that he was in control of tiny creatures who were sexually harassing both girls and female teachers. Commotion surrounding the hysteria forced the school’s temporary closure. The community was in an uproar over the accusations and angry parents were turning up at the school, demanding to see the headmaster.


Several students and teachers told journalists that they had also been beaten by “invisible objects”. In all, at least 30 stud­ents said they had been attacked. One teacher, who did not want to be identi­fied for fear of being victimised, said that some of the students were possessed by evil spirits: “I witnessed one incident when a student went into a trance… He was demanding meat, threatening that after finishing with the students, the spirits would attack the teachers next. We are living in fear here.” The outbreak coincided with mid-term exams.


The strange turn of events left the school’s assistant headmaster in the “hot seat”, having to deal with the community. Somewhat “shell-shocked”, he was reportedly referring inquiries to the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. He also insisted that his name not be published in the newspapers, citing Public Services regulations. In trying to put on a “brave face”, he was quoted as saying: “Everything is now back to normal and I understand lessons have resumed.” Despite the reassurance, his words did not seem to be taken seriously and the situation seemed to be far from normal.


The first signs of trouble began six weeks earlier when some students claimed that “mysterious beings” were harassing them in their hostels at night. The creatures were known as zvikwambo and mubobobo in Shona, and tokoloshe in Zulu. According to one student: “About 30 students have been victims of the attacks and we can’t bear spending another night at this haunted place... A friend of mine was bitten on the arm after she wrestled with a ghost which wanted to sleep with her.”


Several of the school’s female teachers were said to be thinking about quitt­ing their jobs. Just like their students, the teachers said they were being sexually assaulted at night by strange creat­ures. A statement issued by some of the teachers read in part: “Sometimes we get up in the morning to find the bedd­ing mysteriously wet and we suspect foul play.”



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



He actually almost lost his accreditation over this incident i think it was concluded he was just a stooge an didnt have any malice involved. This allowed him to stay at the university but his work on this immediately ceased. But i think several people on the board still wasnt happy they wanted him gone. Either he was an idiot or he purposefully manipulated the children either way it wasnt good.


I understand that it was all dismissed under the grounds of "academic freedom" and was essentially reprimanded for being un scientific. definitely an interesting character. The general impression I have is naïve and gullible. Just been reading up on Donna Bassett who was the person that faked her way through his abduction sessions. After she went public with her findings of his very questionable techniques, Mack responded with something to the effect that he was on the fence if she was actually abducted or not.


the fact that Mack had not discovered Donna Bassett as a fake called into question his whole methodology. Mack replied: “I'm not yet convinced one way or the other — whether she did in fact hoax or whether she has in fact had these experiences herself. I don't know.”
www.csicop.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


You're naively applying the concept of social conformity.

Conformity is a convenient, often misapplied concept that in this case falls short of accounting for both the short-term and long-term behavioral, cognitive and perceptual aspects that these individuals display. None of the basic facts surrounding the case are amenable to a concept as simple as this. They suggest either mass-hallucination or veridical, corroborating perception. If this were a simple case of social conformity, you'd expect that at least one of these individuals would have at least suggested, throughout all these years, that some one or a group of them simply told a 'story' which influenced the behavior of the entire schoolyard. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Multiple witnesses were interviewed years later and insist that the event occurred as was originally described, and no one to this day has come forward in claiming it was a hoax, or claiming that there was the possibility of mistaken identification or that any kind of 'story' was involved. In other words, there is minimal evidence that arises from the case itself to suggest 'social conformity'.

The extreme and rapid shift in both short- and long-term belief structure and perceptual recall is grossly out of sync with the short-term temporal window in which the event transpired. Social influence in general takes far more time, and even then to solidify a far less extreme shift in ones perceptual and belief structure. This kind of change does not occur within the span of several minutes.

Most individuals, barring some quite rare cognitive and psychological disorders, are able to quite easily piece together a more plausible explanation for an event, given enough time, separation from the original social pressure constraints and given that such an explanation is possible. I see no evidence that any of the witnesses interviewed display any such traits. You're painting a picture in which children are nothing more than mentally retarded automata, a convenient picture for your case, yet one that falls short of what most of us like to think of as reality. What you're doing is force-fitting a very simple concept onto a case that fails to account for its complexity and various nuances. You're letting some abstract definition mold your understanding of the case, as opposed to extracting a relevant concept from the facts of the case itself. Being able to regurgitate a definition gleaned from some internet-certificate course in psychology is not the same as knowing how to properly apply it. That takes insight, proper understanding and judgment.

You also fail to realize that an extremely well-educated and well-practiced psychiatrist such as Dr. Mack would have considered 'social conformity' as a potential explanation for the event while moving through the explanatory ladder. He clearly wasn't impressed by such an explanation.

In short, the evidence is more in line with multiple witnesses simultaneously mass-hallucinating a similar event. I fail to see how this is a simple case of 'social conformity'. That seems likely due to a disregard for the basic events that were described, in combination with a misunderstanding of the constraints with which a pretty basic psychological concept are traditionally applied.

Thanks also for links to the internet courses. I'd recommend that you have a second go at the free one. With the money you save, you can even invest in a copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Psychology, assuming that's not already the primary text for the course.


AliceBleachWhite
This is one of the reasons John Mack (among several others) is an extremely poor Psychologist such it's remarkable he even has valid accreditation. He even contributed toward the enablement of the children in reinforcing their behavior (story).


Well given that your entire assessment is based on a false premise and a simple misunderstanding, and given that Dr. Mack would have immediately ruled that out as an even remotely plausible explanation for this case, we'll just interpret your understanding of Dr. Mack as "an extremely poor Psychologist" as due to wishful thinking.

Oh and by the way, Dr. Mack was a psychiatrist, not a psychologist. You'll learn the difference between the two in one of those internet courses.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


you have no idea what you are talking about. can you provide one source?



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

TBrains
And then there's me, a professional photographer who is an avid believer in Aliens and such, who is 90% of my time with my Nikon D7000 and my 18-105mm (or my 70-200mm 2.8f, which is far better for pictures of the sky), who has never seen anything remotely "supernatural" in her life. Never stopped me from believing in this stuff tho, but you gotta admit it's really unfair. I could counter-argue every claim in this topic with a single click, but it seems UFOs don't like me.

And that brings me to my point: if there were really high resolution pictures of UFOs around, wouldn't you guys simply find a way to disprove it's veracity? You'd say "nope, that's way too pretty of a picture, it's gotta be CG", and so on.



Well there are many threads on here that people have posted pictures on, and claimed a possible ufo only to to shown to be wrong using exif data and info on time date & location.

The whole point of the thread is the simple fact that in this day and age with more people with a camera of some description on them and of a quality that exceeds that of cameras of the 50's 60's & 70's why don't we see ufo pics similar to some of the classics of the 50's & 60's with the so called ufo only a few hundred feet away.

Also there are many pro,semi pro and like myself keen amatuer photographers that comment on images posted on these type of threads.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Brighter
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


You're naively applying the concept of social conformity.

Conformity is a convenient, often misapplied concept that in this case falls short of accounting for both the short-term and long-term behavioral, cognitive and perceptual aspects that these individuals display. None of the basic facts surrounding the case are amenable to a concept as simple as this.

Just curious. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? Those cases were far more severe than this. interestingly, they occurred in South African schools. Is that coincidence? This really isn't even a case of anything. You are ignoring the basic facts. The most exciting thing that occurred here was a visit from Mack. Other than that, it was pretty typical for Zimbabwe schools.


They suggest either mass-hallucination or veridical, corroborating perception. If this were a simple case of social conformity, you'd expect that at least one of these individuals would have at least suggested, throughout all these years, that some one or a group of them simply told a 'story' which influenced the behavior of the entire schoolyard.

You really don't look hard enough. There isn't that much material available on this but here is your "suggestion".
@ 8:25
Question: what did you think it was?
Answer: Well everyone was saying they were UFOs and everyt....(interrupted)
Question: other people were saying they were UFOs?
Answer: People were coming around and telling...

You really have an oversimplified view of how this works. People don't realize that they do this so no one is going to come forward.


In fact, quite the opposite is true. Multiple witnesses were interviewed years later and insist that the event occurred as was originally described, and no one to this day has come forward in claiming it was a hoax, or claiming that there was the possibility of mistaken identification or that any kind of 'story' was involved. In other words, there is minimal evidence that arises from the case itself to suggest 'social conformity'.

Same is true with the other cases of mass hysteria I linked that you didn't read. People that were effected don't go around believing they were the victims of mass hysteria. They believe they were attacked by magical beings. Whats the difference here?


The extreme and rapid shift in both short- and long-term belief structure and perceptual recall is grossly out of sync with the short-term temporal window in which the event transpired.

Do you watch a lot of star trek or something? This isn't even a real sentence. Are you saying this was a short event and people didn't have time to form an accurate memory and really didn't see a whole lot? Where are you getting this from?


Social influence in general takes far more time, and even then to solidify a far less extreme shift in ones perceptual and belief structure. This kind of change does not occur within the span of several minutes.

You speak with such authority. It didn't occur within the span of several minutes. Mack didn't arrive until TWO MONTHS later. People are STILL forming their beliefs about what happened. The initial "scare" happened like it does over and over again everywhere kids are but THIS time a UFOlogist was called in to confirm that everyone saw a "creature" and Mack came in to tell them they were communicated with telepathically.


Most individuals, barring some quite rare cognitive and psychological disorders, are able to quite easily piece together a more plausible explanation for an event, given enough time, separation from the original social pressure constraints and given that such an explanation is possible. I see no evidence that any of the witnesses interviewed display any such traits.
Honestly. where are you getting this?


You're painting a picture in which children are nothing more than mentally retarded automata,

more projection I see. That's your trait and how you are coming across.



In short, the evidence is more in line with multiple witnesses simultaneously mass-hallucinating a similar event.

No its not. They saw a vehicle behind some trees. it was far away. They couldn't make out what it was so their imaginations went a little crazy. Some white kids said it was UFO which trumped the Zulu zombie midget theory.


I fail to see how this is a simple case of 'social conformity'.

Yes you have failed at recognizing a simple non event. congratulations.


That seems likely due to a disregard for the basic events that were described, in combination with a misunderstanding of the constraints with which a pretty basic psychological concept are traditionally applied.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You have not provided any examples, supporting links or anything to back up anything you are talking about. You have all the markings of a fraud. You sound like you are ready to go off to Zimbabwe and tell the children there that they are seeing alien "creatures". There is no shortage of Zimbabwean schools you can visit where children see and are attacked by all kinds of "beings". Just stay away from schools anywhere near me and my kids. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Another bit of fun social phenomenon we can look to are the historic cases of Dancing Mania.


Dancing mania (also known as dancing plague, choreomania, St John's Dance and, historically, St. Vitus' Dance) was a social phenomenon that occurred primarily in mainland Europe between the 14th and 17th centuries. It involved groups of people dancing erratically, sometimes thousands at a time. The mania affected men, women, and children, who danced until they collapsed from exhaustion. One of the first major outbreaks was in Aachen, Germany, in 1374, and it quickly spread throughout Europe; one particularly notable outbreak occurred in Strasbourg in 1518.


It sounds like an episode from the Buffy series, no?

People danced, and they danced to collapsed exhaustion. In some of these instances, these Dancing 'Plagues', some people even danced to their very real, quite literal deaths.

Of course, to some folks, the only valid assumption to make is that Aliens are culpable.
Oh, magical thinking.
Dismiss any and all rational and likely attributions in favor of "magic"; god, demons, aliens.

There's no point in debating the subject any further with anyone disagreeing with the Psycho-Social model as they already found their answer in "magical" explanations which, they're quite conspicuously entirely incapable of producing or reproducing with adequate evidence to support their position long ago.
It's MAGIC. It's aliens.
How can we argue with that?




edit on 3/2/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


I did come across that. I vaguely remember being taught the "Dancing Mania" being caused by Ergotism or Saint Anthony's fire. I am probably confusing my mass hysterias. But it's a social phenomenon. Interesting. Speaking of ergot poisoning, the symptoms of the Colares UFO mass hysteria match pretty closely with ergot poisoning. That's also a very "unexplainable" case.


There's no point in debating the subject any further with anyone disagreeing with the Psycho-Social model as they already found their answer in "magical" explanations which, they're quite conspicuously entirely incapable of producing or reproducing with adequate evidence to support their position long ago.

Perhaps I am embarking on my own "dancing mania" with this discussion. Good point. The basic facts cant even be addressed like that 100 meters is too far for children to positively id a flying saucer that's behind brush and trees. And not all 62 kids saw it. and the 12 hand picked kids barely saw much of anything. But lets forget those pesky details and talk about how it just cant be explained when there is barely anything to explain! What exactly is supposed to have happened here? Someone with long hair was outside a school in Zimbabwe staring at little girls looking "interested"?


It's MAGIC. It's aliens.
How can we argue with that?

Better magic and cooler aliens!



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

ZetaRediculian

No its not. They saw a vehicle behind some trees. it was far away. They couldn't make out what it was so their imaginations went a little crazy. Some white kids said it was UFO which trumped the Zulu zombie midget theory.



Nothing trumps Zulu zombie midget theory.

I know this because I watch a lot of Star Trek.



When I was a kid living in El Paso I was convinced that the white, reflective object on top of the mountain behind my house was a crashed flying saucer, and I managed to convince my schoolmates of this. I even drew sketches of what I thought it looked like.

This is what it really looked like:



Mass hysteria, or kids being kids?
edit on 3-3-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



Mass hysteria, or kids being kids?

I vote for the kids being kids theory mixed in with some ridiculous old lady telling them what they saw was a creature. I can't get that hideous voice out of my head. Then you have Mack, a psychologist, that wants to essentially reinvent reality. Mack tossed out basic common text book psych interpretations a long time before this and bright thinks he would have figured this out? Nothing about Mack suggests he would have ever come to any other conclusion. EVEN if a kid told Mack to his face that he made it up!

we all have childhood examples we can draw from. I remember a few of us being convinced about seeing dinosaurs in the woods behind my school. Thank god nobody called in an old bat to tell us they were alien creatures and then someone else to recover my memories of being abducted or communicated with telepathically.

Mass hysteria is different. This case is unique only because Mack didn't get a chance to visit the rest of the Zimbabwean schools
edit on 3-3-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Basing any argument on the findings by John Mack or Cynthia Hind is ridiculous. Cynthia Hind was a MUFON investigator/coordinator for Africa and went into this incident thinking that this could be THE case for her. This was before she even thoroughly investigated it. She had a preformed belief and bias walking into this, so her investigation is not going to be one that's evenly balanced. She will favor an alien conclusion rather than not.
John Mack is someone else that went into this case with a preexisting belief in the abduction phenomenon. His conclusions, like Cynthia Hind, are more than likely going to be favoring interaction with alien beings. Given Macks belief in the abduction phenomenon over the years while having zero physical evidence ever to back up any of these claimed physical events, only showed his weak level of acceptance. No matter how well educated and well practiced you believed he was. It's only logical to think followers of this person would also accept these weak levels.

Neither of these people provided anything to this case other than their opinions. Opinions that are worthless to someone searching for an unbiased, clear investigation. Something they did not do. If you're impressed with a title (Dr. X said...) and place these people on a pedestal, such as many believers do, I can see why this only adds more credibility to this story for you. After all, you need to search and reach out for anything possible to help substantiate your claims in lieu of any actual real physical evidence. Understandable, but unfortunately another weak argument.

I also want to point out. These "beings" were said to land, get out and walk around the ship and also said to run back and forth. Here is a supposed real UFO/alien physical event that lasted for a short period. Yet, nothing physical left behind? I guess believers ignore and skirt around this? "Brighter", what's your explanation as to why this is so?

I find this stereotypical "you need to save the world" message that the children got "telepathically", silly as well. Brighter, you take this message seriously? Several of them said it... must be true, huh?



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


Getting back on topic, what I find remarkable about the Zimbabwe case is the lack of any documentation. You would think there would be some clear photographs of the area showing where the object was. Even the "documentaries" make no effort at displaying this area. Why? so instead of photos of the actual area, we have children's drawings to examine? It seems more like they went to great lengths NOT to show this area. This should raise some flags for anyone thinking critically about this.

So the lack of photos is probably the best evidence that this was a non event.



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 

The only thing I heard about the site is that Cynthia Hind took radiation readings and got nothing. No photographs or videos of this area as you said. The landing site should be huge in this incident. Besides stories, we now have an area where something physical is said to have happened with not only a craft landing, but beings traipsing around in front of it. It's something that should not be ignored, but believers do and try to side track to focus on the children. That's because there is no evidence what-so-ever in that area where there should be. How does any logical person just ignore that?

The children's description of the craft and beings are inconsistent. Which is also glanced over and ignored by the believers as well. These are screen grabs below from some of the documentaries.
We have multiple glowing halos, a craft with jets shooting from underneath, football shaped with an antenna and door, a landed craft with four more around it, one that appears to be shaped like a ball with spikes, and one flying above power lines.

The same inconsistencies can be said about the beings described. Long hair, short hair, no hair, no faces, faces with big eyes, chubby, etc.




I've searched but haven't found a source showing all of the drawings. I think it would be even more obvious just how different each child's drawing is if we could see every one.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 



I've searched but haven't found a source showing all of the drawings. I think it would be even more obvious just how different each child's drawing is if we could see every one.
It looks like the video where you got the screen grabs from is the only source of the drawings. In the video she is making different piles of drawings. There was supposedly 40 or so drawings and she took the most ufo looking ones and then we only have a few of those scattered in the videos. I can only surmise that the one pile ended up in the trash. The drawings are entirely worthless because there is absolutely no context to any of them. If you tried, you might be able to match 3 or 4 to some of the kids that were interviewed. Other than that, we have no idea what they were told to draw or if they were just drawing UFOs because the other kids were.

The only thing that can be determined is that there was probably something there reflecting sunlight. Most likely a vehicle because the UFO "hovered" 1 meter off the ground following the electric lines which also happens to follow an access road which seems to be partially obstructed by thick brush which happens to be 1 meter high also. Apparently the light was so bright you couldn't make out the shape except when it looked like a flying saucer. It sounds like there was at least one PERSON seen with long hair. If you watch the Cynthia interviews, that description is pretty consistent. "Large eyes" were probably sunglasses which is consistent with long hair and a sunny day. During the Mack interviews, the person transformed into a more typical grey.

The initial scare seems to be from some of the African kids thinking the guy with the long hair was a "Tokoloshe". "The Tokoloshe is a dwarf zombie" that eats children. Apparently encounters with these are fairly common in Zimbabwe. The white kids said it was an alien which changed everything. www.vanhunks.com...
www.realityuncovered.net...

The only other documentation is in the form of 2 articles by Cynthia where she appears to have made up some of the story but you can glean some actual information from them.

www.ufoafrinews.com...
www.ufoafrinews.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

ZetaRediculian we have no idea what they were told to draw or if they were just drawing UFOs because the other kids were.

As a kid, I would've taken either opportunity to draw a rad flying machine during class time.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

conundrummer

ZetaRediculian we have no idea what they were told to draw or if they were just drawing UFOs because the other kids were.

As a kid, I would've taken either opportunity to draw a rad flying machine during class time.


All it takes is a nudge and a childs imagination can go wild. When my son was 8 he convinced 3 of his friends when they were spending the night that a monster was in my room. All of them swore they saw it and went into describing it to me. We had to go on a monster hunt and after which i told them that we must have scared it off. One of the boys said maybe his mom told him it was time to go to bed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join