Photos: The Greatest Evidence UFOs Don't Exist

White dot or it didn't happen!

Harte

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

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

Well here's another indication of your inability to engage in a rational, intelligent manner. You keep conversations superficial, where you're comfortable...what a joke.

Anyway, I've seen no indication that you or your friends here are capable of providing an even remotely plausible explanation for the case. Your laughably simplistic "mass hysteria" responses are nothing but begging the question and involve false analogies. The "pictures are inconsistent" argument, which I've already demonstrated to be fallacious, is, well, pathetic. But at least it's strong enough evidence to convince yourselves!

Can we say "gullible"?

As it stands, the Ariel School case is a very strong one. It's one of many cases that demonstrates that your attitude in general lacks anything but the most superficial foundation.

Brighter

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

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

Well here's another indication of your inability to engage in a rational, intelligent manner. You keep conversations superficial, where you're comfortable...what a joke.

Anyway, I've seen no indication that you or your friends here are capable of providing an even remotely plausible explanation for the case. Your laughably simplistic "mass hysteria" responses are nothing but begging the question and involve false analogies. The "pictures are inconsistent" argument, which I've already demonstrated to be fallacious, is, well, pathetic. But at least it's strong enough evidence to convince yourselves!

Can we say "gullible"?

As it stands, the Ariel School case is a very strong one. It's one of many cases that demonstrates that your attitude in general lacks anything but the most superficial foundation.

As it stands, the Ariel School case has been shown, and quite thoroughly at that, to be riddled with weaknesses, and your "is not!" rebuttal is just as convincing, failing to directly address any of the points made by Ecto and others. But that's your "style".

But at least it's strong enough evidence to convince yourself.

Yes, you can say gullible.

reply to post by Brighter

Here are the rough "facts" as described by the children:
-A UFO landed in the thickets.
-A small alien got out and walked on the top of the craft.
-Another alien came out of the craft and investigated the children.
-One alien was said to walk or run back and forth in front of the craft,
-They were wearing tight black suits.
-The alien on the roof all of a sudden vanished.
-Several children claimed to receive message telepathically "through their eyes".
-These messages were to save the world from it's own destruction..

So, of these statements by the children, which one(s) do you believe? Or is it your method to be selective as to what you believe so it fits into your own belief?

Brighter

Well here's another indication of your inability to engage in a rational, intelligent manner. You keep conversations superficial, where you're comfortable...what a joke.

Can you point out where? You sound angry.

Anyway, I've seen no indication that you or your friends here are capable of providing an even remotely plausible explanation for the case. Your laughably simplistic "mass hysteria" responses are nothing but begging the question and involve false analogies.

I'm not sure if you followed the mass hysteria point judging from your response. Can you summarize why you think its a false analogy?

The "pictures are inconsistent" argument, which I've already demonstrated to be fallacious, is, well, pathetic. But at least it's strong enough evidence to convince yourselves!

I don't think you got my point about the pictures. The pictures are worthless, inconsistent or not, because they are out of context. There was supposed to be around 40 drawings and we see 4 that look like a flying saucer. Where are the rest? On top of that, we don't know which drawing belongs to witch kid or what they were "supposed" to be drawing. You were a child once. What do you suppose the chances are of a child drawing a flying saucer during class time when they are asked to draw a flying saucer during class even if they didn't see one? We don't know very much about the drawings. If you can show otherwise, do so.

Can we say "gullible"?

yes we can

As it stands, the Ariel School case is a very strong one.

As it stands amongst people that believe it is I guess. It was promoted as a "strong" case. We don't have some fundamental information indicating strength. There is no actual evidence of ET. I think the most you can say is that something was there that spooked the kids. There is absolutely nothing indicating anything out of the ordinary. Can you explain what you think is so extraordinary?

It's one of many cases that demonstrates that your attitude in general lacks anything but the most superficial foundation.

Do you understand what projection is? Why do you insist on lashing out at me rather than discuss any point I bring up?
Enough about me.
Can you explain the road where the landing site was and why an alien space ship would hover above a road and follow it at about the same height as a ground vehicle? A vehicle would explain why no reports of anything flying were mentioned. Vehicles reflect sunlight. On a sunny day, how bright would lights have to be to be seen at 100 meters? Sunlight reflection would be seen. How much detail would you expect to see on a vehicle or a person from a 100 meters behind brush and trees?

So maybe you might want to address the points I made (several times now) about the facts of the case instead of commenting on me? I know I am interesting and all but aren't aliens more exciting?

reply to post by Brighter

Regarding your comment about mass hysteria. These are examples of mass hysteria which seem to be pretty common in the area. What happened at the Ariel school was not mass hysteria. I don't think it can even be classified as anything since there was nothing that seemed out of ordinary other than kids being kids.
www.iol.co.za...
www.highbeam.com...
www.news24.com...
www.news24.com...
www.ajol.info...

If you look through these cases you will notice how profound the symptoms are. Kids passing out, convulsions, etc. At the Ariel school, the most profound symptom was fear. No physical symptoms.

if you look here, this case involves "invisible beings". The same "tokoloshe" being reported at Ariel School initially.
1. Do you think the "beings" described in Mhondoro were real beings? They left physical marks in some cases.
2. Do you think the Mhondoro case was psychological? If so, what sets it apart from Ariel?
3. This is not an analogy. This is looking at two cases in schools in Zimbabwe which tokoloshe beings were said to be involved.
4. Would drawings of beings make this case any more real?
5. What would Mack have said about this case?
6. Can you answer any questions without commenting about what you think of me or anyone else?

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 involves 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.”

ZetaRediculian
Can you summarize why you think its a false analogy?

It's a false analogy because you've provided no evidence from the case itself that suggests that it is an example of mass hysteria. You've simply pointed to another case, which you've also assumed is a case of mass hysteria, and then attempted to draw some loose associations between the two. In other words, the argument went nowhere.

The content of the cases are quite different, and the very weak commonalities they do exhibit are not strong enough to draw any reasonable conclusions.

The most well-documented and proven examples of hysterical contagion in the literature are cases in which the individuals only perceive the effects of what they report as having happened. For instance, a group of people might report having mysterious bight marks on their body, and when asked, report being bitten by a mysterious insect. Yet, when pressed, they are often unable to give any kind of detailed, corroborating account of having actually perceived the cause of their hysteria. Another feature of such cases is that the original misunderstanding soon passes, and the individuals involved quickly realize their error. They're limited temporally.

This is obviously not the case here, and therefore the Ariel School case does not exhibit the essential features of well-documented, proven cases of "mass hysteria". This is why your analogy is false, and that is why to call this case, or the UFO phenomenon in general "mass hysteria" is simply begging the question and involves assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.

So my reasons for stating that your analogy is false are two-fold: 1) this case does not fit the standard model of hysterical contagion, and 2) the case you presented bears almost no resemblance to the case at hand. The two cases are in fact so different as to be almost laughable.

In other words, the purported analogy is based on assumption.

ZetaRediculian
I don't think you got my point about the pictures.

No, I understood it quite easily.

ZetaRediculian
The pictures are worthless, inconsistent or not, because they are out of context.

You're moving the goal posts. Your original implication, whether you want to admit it or not now that I've pointed out its fallacious nature, was that because inconsistencies existed, that that significantly detracted from their value. This of course if false, as I pointed out with a very simple, vivid example.

And please elaborate on what you mean by "out of context", and present evidence to support your claim.

ZetaRediculian
What do you suppose the chances are of a child drawing a flying saucer during class time when they are asked to draw a flying saucer
during class even if they didn't see one?

What evidence do you possess that the children were asked to draw flying saucers, as opposed to being asked to draw what they saw?

ZetaRediculian
There is absolutely nothing indicating anything out of the ordinary.

Actually there's plenty of information to suggest something quite out of the ordinary happened, although the exact nature of it is unclear. To say that "[t]here is absolutely nothing indicating anything out of the ordinary" seems ... oddly out of touch.

ZetaRediculian
Can you explain what you think is so extraordinary?

The main reason is that I've never heard an intelligent, compelling explanation for the events that were purported to have taken place. Actually, this thread is further evidence of that.

ZetaRediculian
Why do you insist on lashing out at me rather than discuss any point I bring up?

This also seems oddly out of touch. You're actually the one who called me an "idiot" earlier in this thread. Go figure, right? As to the second point, I have addressed some of your points and I am doing so now. Actually, the real issue is that you never seem to follow up with any kind of reasonable response.

ZetaRediculian
Can you explain the road where the landing site was and why an alien space ship would hover above a road and follow it at about the same height as a ground vehicle?

Hahaha, I'm sorry, this is just getting ridiculous. The "road"? And "follow it at about the same height as a ground vehicle"?

Have you done even the most basic research regarding this case?

The children reported watching the objects in the sky first. They reported that the objects then descended to the ground in a brushy area.

ZetaRediculian
A vehicle would explain why no reports of anything flying were mentioned.

This is false. UFOs were reported to have been seen in the sky in the days prior to the school event. And the children themselves reported seeing the same objects that landed as being in the sky before they had landed.

By any account, a normal "vehicle" does absolutely nothing to explain this. And in any case, your claim that "no reports of anything flying were mentioned" is patently false on multiple accounts.

ZetaRediculian
Vehicles reflect sunlight. On a sunny day, how bright would lights have to be to be seen at 100 meters? Sunlight reflection would be seen. How much detail would you expect to see on a vehicle or a person from a 100 meters behind brush and trees?

You could see enough detail to easily discern the basic structure and behavior of the sort of object that they described.

And I'm unimpressed by the suggestion that the children were blinded by sunlight, misidentified a common vehicle, and ended up with the visual and verbal accounts that they provided. That simply doesn't add up.

If you do have actual evidence to suggest that this is what happened, other than simply making a loose suggestion, I'd appreciate it if you would present that evidence.

ZetaRediculian
So maybe you might want to address the points I made (several times now) about the facts of the case instead of commenting on me?

I've addressed them frequently and I've addressed them once again.

And the "facts of the case"? Let's be honest and draw a distinction between facts and fabrications.

I hope it's clear now why I sometimes avoid addressing your "points" about "facts". They're not points and they don't even address facts. They're opinions that address an imaginary situation that conveniently supports those same opinions.

reply to post by Brighter

It's a false analogy because you've provided no evidence from the case itself that suggests that it is an example of mass hysteria

this is far as I got. I already said it wasn't a case of mass hysteria, several times. Try reading what I actually said before responding. Thanks.

I actually glanced over what you said. I have provided links and documentation to support my position, you haven't. You are essentially making up the parts you need. Yes there is a road. See the map. Nobody saw anything flying. Where is the statement? Link? I don't know what the kids were asked to draw and neither do you. Assuming a flying object seen the day before by other people is related to this is ridiculous. You havent provided anything that suggests this was anything other than kids being scared. you missed every point i made. Obviously this is a waste of time.


ugh. Why do I bother?

You're moving the goal posts. Your original implication, whether you want to admit it or not now that I've pointed out its fallacious nature, was that because inconsistencies existed, that that significantly detracted from their value. This of course if false, as I pointed out with a very simple, vivid example.

just quote where I said that. I have said several times that they are out of context. I have said several times there are only a few drawings to examine out of 40.

And please elaborate on what you mean by "out of context", and present evidence to support your claim.

it means that there is no context? It means the only thing you can say is that they are drawings. That's it. No context. I am really at a loss if you don't get this. And you need to provide evidence that these are meaningful. Can you provide one reference? Just one?

You're actually the one who called me an "idiot"

what's your point?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


From 2/23

Your not making a very good argument here. As far as the drawings, they are out of context. You don't know what the drawings represent. Do they represent what the kids "imagine" took place? You don't even know if the kid that drew any particular picture was an actual witness.

From 3/14

The pictures are worthless, inconsistent or not, because they are out of context.

Your response: from 3/14

You're moving the goal posts. Your original implication, whether you want to admit it or not now that I've pointed out its fallacious nature, was that because inconsistencies existed, that that significantly detracted from their value. This of course if false, as I pointed out with a very simple, vivid example.

How far do you "imagine" the "goal post" moved? So you have to invent my original implication to say my goal post moved? There is no foundation to any argument you presented about the drawings. none. zero. the whole case, in your mind, rests on that there is something to these drawings, There isn't. What "vivid" example do you imagine you presented? Another invention? Your point was that they were consistent. I pointed out they weren't and that it didn't matter anyway. And you had some lame example about a soccer match that was an actual false analogy that was dismantled by dragon guy. Is that what you mean?

Perhaps you missed the argument between Ectoplasm and me where he insists that because the drawings are inconsistent that it means anything.
ecto:

The children's description of the craft and beings are inconsistent.

me:

The drawings are entirely worthless because there is absolutely no context to any of them.

AND then he said it was "Feynman's diagram van" and then I was like "yeah whatever dude"

did you miss that?

Seriously. How can you distinguish between a random drawing of an imagined flying saucer and one of the ones you think represent an actual flying saucer?

reply to post by unb3k44n7


Luv your avatar, looks painful lol. I agree with you. Most people freeze and don't even think about taking pictures. Or they don't have camera on them. Most phone camera's suck and forget about night shots lol.

I think there are allot of sightings and allot of pictures. It is not something reported on. Who wants to be that person whispered about at work. People see that trying to report causes them more trouble than it was worth.

I have had several sightings in my lifetime. The first as a teen and the whole small town saw but no cameras, this was before digital cameras lol. The others over the years either no camera or the pic was terrible. It is very hard to take a good pic at night lol.

There have been some sightings, like in Colorado, that were awesome.

Every modern scientists now agree that there is life out there even though we don't have proof. They say that because we now know that there are literally billions of planets out there in countless galaxies. Knew break through and data from our probes basically make it mathematically impossible for there not to be other life out there.

I think soon we will have the proof everyone wants and needs.

The Bot

reply to post by dlbott

Most people freeze and don't even think about taking pictures. Or they don't have camera on them. Most phone camera's suck and forget about night shots lol.

I agree! I was in Mexico near Cancoon and I was really excited that there were wild spider monkeys at the place we were staying. There was also a tequila tasting but I don't remember that except it was one of the only threads I started. Anyway, the monkeys. I was outside our room laying in the hammock by the jacuuzi when I saw the tree branches shake. I knew it was monkeys! it was a whole family of them. I called for my wife to get the camera and by the time we took the pictures, all we got was a shot that looked like monkey butt. Very sad. I thought that it would make a good post about how its not a very good argument about how there should be all these pictures of UFOs. So I totally get why there might not be good pictures of UFOs or monkeys.

Brighter
post by Brighter

 

Anyway, I've seen no indication that you or your friends here are capable of providing an even remotely plausible explanation for the case. Your laughably simplistic "mass hysteria" responses are nothing but begging the question and involve false analogies. The "pictures are inconsistent" argument, which I've already demonstrated to be fallacious, is, well, pathetic. But at least it's strong enough evidence to convince yourselves!

Can we say "gullible"?

In reference to this or any UFO case, the burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptics, it lies with the person making this extraordinary claim or supporting that claim. Any Earthly scenario we give, no matter how outlandish, is going to outweigh the still unproven fact of alien beings visiting Earth. You have absolutely no factual foundation to begin asking for our rational explanation, when your "rational" explanation involves a UFO landing in a school yard, alien beings getting out walking around, aliens telepathically communicating with a group of 10 year olds and telling them the world needs to be saved. If anything is laughable, it's the people that believe this based solely on stories told by a group of children. Also people that take seriously the findings of "investigators": A Dr. who had a preexisting belief in alien abductions and a woman who was head MUFONs chapter in this portion of Africa. Why would you or anyone treat this as serious scientific study? It's straight out of tabloid journalism.

reply to post by Brighter

This is false. UFOs were reported to have been seen in the sky in the days prior to the school event.

And? Why does one misidentification verify another?

And the children themselves reported seeing the same objects that landed as being in the sky before they had landed.

I recall one child vaguely describing something in the air that sounded like an airplane. All indications were that this was something low to the ground much like any vehicle. It suddenly disappeared and didn't fly away. One kid said it went down the hill " And they disappeared into the valley down there. " huh? like it drove away?

By any account, a normal "vehicle" does absolutely nothing to explain this.

With the little information we have, Sure it does. Absolutely. without question. Look at the map. Listen to what the kids actually say. It followed the electric lines "hovered" and landed on a path. The electric lines follow the path. Its a bright sunny day. Go outside some time and look how cars reflect light from a 100 meters away. You can get some weird effects when they are partially obscured. Listen to the kids. They were seeing flashes out of the corner of their eyes, glimpses, shadows, gardeners, long hair...all very ambiguous and when someone is running around saying its a UFO, that's what the ambiguity shapes into.

And in any case, your claim that "no reports of anything flying were mentioned" is patently false on multiple accounts.

go find some then. I found several indicating that they didn't see it flying. So then what? We assume it was flying to appease your imagination?

You could see enough detail to easily discern the basic structure and behavior of the sort of object that they described.

So you are saying you can tell the difference between sunglasses and "large eyes" from 100 meters?

And I'm unimpressed by the suggestion that the children were blinded by sunlight, misidentified a common vehicle, and ended up with the visual and verbal accounts that they provided.

As you should be. Its a very unimpressive account. very mundane actually. It excites you though, and that's fantastic.

That simply doesn't add up.

Since you believe this is the best case ever, I believe it wouldn't add up for you. Its obvious to us common folk though.

If you do have actual evidence to suggest that this is what happened, other than simply making a loose suggestion, I'd appreciate it if you would present that evidence.

evidence? There are two pdf files with articles by Cynthia hind and a video "documentary" go look at them. A loose suggestion? Here is an example of a loose suggestion: "UFOs were seen days before this event, therefore this was a UFO." It was actually a "suggestion" by Cynthia hind because she couldn't prove it was flying. A "suggestion" which you bought and now are stuck with even though it is failing you miserably. You swallowed the suggestion and now you have to live with it. Not my problem. enjoy.

dlbott
reply to post by unb3k44n7

 

Luv your avatar, looks painful lol. I agree with you. Most people freeze and don't even think about taking pictures. Or they don't have camera on them. Most phone camera's suck and forget about night shots lol.

I think there are allot of sightings and allot of pictures. It is not something reported on. Who wants to be that person whispered about at work. People see that trying to report causes them more trouble than it was worth.

I have had several sightings in my lifetime. The first as a teen and the whole small town saw but no cameras, this was before digital cameras lol. The others over the years either no camera or the pic was terrible. It is very hard to take a good pic at night lol.

There have been some sightings, like in Colorado, that were awesome.

Every modern scientists now agree that there is life out there even though we don't have proof. They say that because we now know that there are literally billions of planets out there in countless galaxies. Knew break through and data from our probes basically make it mathematically impossible for there not to be other life out there.

I think soon we will have the proof everyone wants and needs.

The Bot

NEVER TRY TO TEACH A PIG TO DANCE, YOU’LL ONLY FRUSTRATE YOURSELF AND AGGRAVATE THE PIG!

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM THAT MAY STILL THINK THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT!

Stupid is to the marrow and there is no cure!

waltwillis


NEVER TRY TO TEACH A PIG TO DANCE, YOU’LL ONLY FRUSTRATE YOURSELF AND AGGRAVATE THE PIG!

We heard you the first time, Spam Boy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

waltwillis
NEVER TRY TO TEACH A PIG TO DANCE, YOU’LL ONLY FRUSTRATE YOURSELF AND AGGRAVATE THE PIG!

While that's a nifty saying, it's just not true. Observe my evidence:

Because aliens are smarter than us and would rather fly around without disturbing anyone using far advanced stealth.