The Zimbabwe Incident 1994.

[psyche101]

Yes I particularly like your carefully crafted hypotheses earlier. The way you set out in a totally neutral fashion the salient points of the phenomena taking care not to leave out important information from the witnesses and the investigators. You are unbiased in your analysis, and your thoughts show a certain depth of insight that this challenging subject undoubtedly demands. It's also good that you show respect for those who have investigated the subject passionately over decades.

Thank you for your post.

Glad you enjoyed it. Thank goodness you are able to see the incredible differences between what has been claimed to be "the same description" which it clearly is not. With people trying to just qualify ET instead of taking the entire picture into account we all lose, just like when people who wanted the Plasma's in the 50's and 60's to be Aliens, they made sure Plasma research was shut down, and we all had to wait several decades before that very important research was again picked up so that we all could benefit. Such is the danger with UFOLogy, personal interest gets in the way of empirical results, which really, are al that should matter. Now don't forget to let me know how you go with dimensions.

Thank you for your cordial reply. I look forward to the day when I see a case that I cannot put a dent in. Not seen that in my 38 years of following the phenomena, but hey, perhaps tomorrow.

[DONTEATUS]

THe day may never come for our lot on this world the more I see, We will no doubt be the end of our own story ! The planet may have others to nurture but we have not shown enough respect for that yet ! IMO

[quillius]

Hi Quillius

I know what you mean mate. And Xmas just around the corner.

Yes, 62 children were at the school, and supposedly witnessed this event. Cynthia Hind only offered up 12 interviews, yet she claims she spoke to all students and supposedly had 35 drawings of the sighting. All this seems to be squirreled away somewhere, but what is even more interesting about that number is that Dr John Mack, and a colleague visited the same people shortly thereafter and spent 2 days interviewing only 12 witnesses.

I am pretty sure every single website on the net lists 62 witnesses, see if you can find more than 12 recollections. I somehow doubt that you will, from what I have read, and what I could find, these 12 are the only ones that made the cut, Cynthia decided the rest were "similar enough" that this sampling would be what would be sufficient, I disagree and feel this is selective information gathering.

In my Opinion, the Westhall Australian sighting is far better corroborated, I do not know why some consider Ruwa a better case. The african incident has much inconsistency, some children say the craft landed some say it hovered, and some say the spoke to occupants, some say the occupant ran immediately, and then we have the Hind selective evidence of 12 special witnesses. One thing Cynthia could not resolve was the claims fo the craft landing. She admitted no evidence supported that claim, and the Bamboo stumps she felt would have been a deterrent for any machine.

Cheers.

Hey Psyche, yes Christmas will soon be upon us...still its such a magical time for the children...especially whilst they still believe

I am looking into this case more now and I have still to watch the interviews (although i promised Boon I would do last night), anyhow, just as a quick counter to some of your initial points.

I think it would be more suspicious if there were no inconsistancies. For example the landed/did not land question....if there were lots of bushes, bamboos and growth (as many have said there was), add 100 metre distance, then add 62 children (of varying heights) trying to gain a clean view of said object then I would say some of them thinking it has landed is quite plausible. The same goes for the occupant running, some may not have seen him straight away and only caught him running hence differing accounts. Some spoke to occupants, this may or may not be true, I dont see how this falsifies any acount. As for the Hind selective evidence, this is soemthing I will look into, but this in itselfmay raise doubts towards Hind and intentions but I dont believe it raises doubts about the children and their accounts, even though this may turn out to be the case.

Edited November 8, 2011 by quillius

[booNyzarC]

I am looking into this case more now and I have still to watch the interviews (although i promised Boon I would do last night)

*taps foot impatiently and looks at the clock*

[quillius]

*taps foot impatiently and looks at the clock*

ok ok...I will do it today without fail.

[crystal sage]

Yes.. the 1966 Westall sighting... My husband was one of the school children who witnessed it...

Westall '66: A Suburban UFO Mystery (1/4)

[thewild]

Interesting... very interesting.

[quillius]

Yes.. the 1966 Westall sighting... My husband was one of the school children who witnessed it...

Hey Crystal,

This sounds very interesting, may I suggest you start a thread so we can capture the full debate and related information in one place, I am sure this case warrants attention.

Would your husband be willing to participate in the debate/discussion?

[zoser]

Glad you enjoyed it. Thank goodness you are able to see the incredible differences between what has been claimed to be "the same description" which it clearly is not. With people trying to just qualify ET instead of taking the entire picture into account we all lose, just like when people who wanted the Plasma's in the 50's and 60's to be Aliens, they made sure Plasma research was shut down, and we all had to wait several decades before that very important research was again picked up so that we all could benefit. Such is the danger with UFOLogy, personal interest gets in the way of empirical results, which really, are al that should matter. Now don't forget to let me know how you go with dimensions.

Thank you for your cordial reply. I look forward to the day when I see a case that I cannot put a dent in. Not seen that in my 38 years of following the phenomena, but hey, perhaps tomorrow.

If that's the case then could I ask why are you here? Why not go off and study car mechanics or something? It's got to be better than automatically trashing people's propositions and ideas without due reasoning? Yes?

Edited November 8, 2011 by zoser

[zoser]

Interesting... very interesting.

Very similar to the Zimbabwe incident imo. Witnessed by children and locals but with no visible alien presence. Just craft.

[quillius]

I've read a bit about this case before, but I hadn't seen any of the interviews. The kids are a bit difficult to read. If there is any truth to lie detection with eye movements referenced by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), portions of the accounts appear to include genuine memories but the majority appear to be constructed.

hey Boon, finally watched the video in the OP.

To be honest I found it fascinating, and I found the children quite easy to read at times. However I can see why you ended up where you did with regards to the genuine memories versus the constructed. The constructed 'feel' that you noticed is actually constructed, but this is by the child and not a pre-programmed response. It is not entirely a lie but more of a case of being led by interviewer.

For example, the first girl at around 3.40, is being asked to confirm what she means by evil and how it was perceived this way. This is a very difficult question for the child....show them a picture of a monster and they will say it looks scary, if you then ask them why they can easily articulate and explain its because of its big hairy ugly face and big sharp teeth. Now lets say this monster is just a man with no expression, this man can be preceived as evil by the child, but now when you ask them to explain what they mean by this they will struggle. And I feel this is the case here, the girl couldnt really explain why but was led by interviewer and ended up saying its because she was scared he would take her with him...I dont believe this to be the accurate truth.

summary in brief, I believe she saw something that looked similar as described and it scared her. I dont believe she thought it would take her and that this is why she thought he/she/it was evil.

at 4.20 the lady talking about when the children came screeming...now I have a problem with this part of the accounts. The lady on tuck shop duty (one of the mum helpers that was not participating in meeting) said the kids came screeming and shouting but thought not much of it as they always did this. Now the teacher speaking in video clearly is giving the impression that the screams were not normal children playing screams but something more sinister. Not sure how I can reconcile this difference, only in that the 'mum helper' felt bad afterwards for not investigating straight away (I have also seen somewhere that she did not want to leave the food and money unattended)

anyhow moving on,

5.30 the boy comes across as perfectly sincere without a flicker of lying IMO. I also find the comment regarding the inability to draw the alien sitting a striking point in understanding the differences in pictures drawn, this I believe is simply down to ability to draw and also interpretation.

The last girl I believe is also being led at times. Her use of the word maybe is quite telling adn sadly the interviewer led her following this comment which I didnt like to see. I think for a Psychologist his technique in extracting the truth was poor at times.

again in summary I believe the girl is telling the truth for the most part and where it is suspect, this is merely down to the interviewer and the girls inability to understand articulate what she went through and how.

Lets face it if its true and she was telepathically spoken to whilst enduring a mixture of emotions during the experience, how do we expect her to give an accurate recollection coupled with reasoning and understanding...which I felt is what the interviewer was trying to achieve.

anyway I will look at as many of the interviews as I can and be more specific with my view.

So far though I am quite certain form the first few bits that they did experience something very strange and this is not a constructed event.

[Mentalcase]

I've read a bit about this case before, but I hadn't seen any of the interviews. The kids are a bit difficult to read. If there is any truth to lie detection with eye movements referenced by Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), portions of the accounts appear to include genuine memories but the majority appear to be constructed.

I was thinking this as well Boony. Especially the blonde girl in the beginning. Usually when lying, a person will touch their face. The girl had itched her nose around the last question. The questioning seemed coached. Unfortunately, there is nothing that will come of this case. So whether they were coached or not, there isn't enough evidence here.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Mentalcase

[bee]

hey Boon, finally watched the video in the OP.

To be honest I found it fascinating, and I found the children quite easy to read at times. However I can see why you ended up where you did with regards to the genuine memories versus the constructed. The constructed 'feel' that you noticed is actually constructed, but this is by the child and not a pre-programmed response. It is not entirely a lie but more of a case of being led by interviewer.

[snip]

thanks for the thoughtful appraisal Q.....I thought that the interviewer was really bad at interviewing the children.

The questions were difficult for them and he was sat gawping at them like they were specimens.

They did seem to be saying what they believed was expected of them at times.

I'm thinking that they may have been spoken to in a group at some point...maybe the whole school

was spoken to in an assembly.....with the head teacher saying things like....

'some of you have had a scarey experience...and been frightened' etc etc etc

Their parents probably reinforced this scarey aspect as well, because they, the parents would

have felt scared themselves about what had happened to their own child at the school.

Then the interviewer comes along with his ham-fisted interview and leads them into the same areas of thought...

I watched it last night ...will need to watch it again, but just wanted to say the above.....

edit....just watched it again...and I may have been a little hard on the interviewer when I said

he was gawping at them like specimens...but for some reason that's how I must have perceived it and

remembered it from last night.

it's a fascinating story.....that one little girl who said the being looked at her like it

was interested...that was such a thoughtful answer she gave.

I note that the same little girl who said she had a 'bad feeling' said she only felt it when

she got home....ummmm not during the experience itself. Why should the bad feeling come when

she got home...you would think that would be when she felt safe. I'm guessing that the re-actions

of parents to the whole thing might have had something to do with that.

The parents would obviously be scared about what happened and some parents freak their

children out without meaning to....?

I believe those kids did experience something way out of the ordinary...maybe a craft

and beings...?

I don't think they were 'coached'...at least not deliberately...but the adults and children

around them might have influenced the way they felt about it all...and how they expressed the

story.

Everyone around them expected them to be scared...so they obliged????

just pondering

Edited November 8, 2011 by bee

[DONTEATUS]

I just love Bee`s pondering ! We all should ponder a bit more you know !

[psyche101]

Hey Psyche, yes Christmas will soon be upon us...still its such a magical time for the children...especially whilst they still believe

Gidday Mate

When they stop believing at my house, Santa stops coming. I think Santa will have quite some respect at my place for years to come.

I am looking into this case more now and I have still to watch the interviews (although i promised Boon I would do last night), anyhow, just as a quick counter to some of your initial points.

I think it would be more suspicious if there were no inconsistancies. For example the landed/did not land question....if there were lots of bushes, bamboos and growth (as many have said there was), add 100 metre distance, then add 62 children (of varying heights) trying to gain a clean view of said object then I would say some of them thinking it has landed is quite plausible. The same goes for the occupant running, some may not have seen him straight away and only caught him running hence differing accounts. Some spoke to occupants, this may or may not be true, I dont see how this falsifies any acount. As for the Hind selective evidence, this is soemthing I will look into, but this in itselfmay raise doubts towards Hind and intentions but I dont believe it raises doubts about the children and their accounts, even though this may turn out to be the case.

I cannot resolve it as easily as that, I cannot see such great inconsistency being so easily explained, I honestly do not think the heights would be that varied so as to have an entirely different perspective as the age range is only 5/6 to 12 years, and if you look at the pictures they drew, that I posted, the best one can hope for there is a vaguely common theme. Also, not a single description seems to fit the descriptions of what the children first claimed to have seen i.e. Suddenly, they saw three silver balls in the sky over the school And after landing, we have squared saucers, brown plasma looking saucers, one with an antenna on top, round, flat top, dome top, and that is just from the few examples. I struggle to see any similarity, and cannot fathom how these drawings corroborate a single thing. Also with the drawings, we seem to be shortchanged as well. The principal of the school received 30-40 drawings. Why is the rest of the information not publicly available? I can understand using a sample in an article, but why refuse to allow access to the rest of the information? What does it tell us? And with regards to the landing site, it was Bamboo stumps that Hind mentioned, they would stick inches to say one foot out of the ground, and their robust nature would make for a very uneven surface. Here is a picture of the school, as we can see, any growth is low level, not tall enough to create that level of confusion. But then in the same article, it is said one could be lost walking through this area. More inconstancy and not backed by a photograph. This to me reeks of a story that was made up as it went along. The occupants are more inconstancy, the one account Hind offers as "one of the more observant ones" also heavily contradicts every depiction of the drawn Alien. It supposedly had long black hair. Look at those drawings, not a one has hair at all.

Cynthia Hind Said:

I walked, on my own, along the electricity pylons for quite a away, caught up in thorn bushes, trampling blithely over snake holes and discarding all caution. I found no place where some object could have landed and pressed down the foliage. In fact, I should think the bamboo stumps would have been a deterrent. The day was hot, around 33 C (91F)...

Where some spoke to occupants (via telepathy wasn't it) there is more inconsistency. Some children claimed they felt messages of peace, some ran screaming that the entity had come to eat them. Mate, bugger all matches up here, the mystery element appears very much contrived.

Where I do believe the answer to this case lies is in the following bolding:

On Friday 16th September, at approximately 10:15, 62 children from Ariel School, a private primary school in Ruwa (about 20 km from Harare) were in their playing field for the mid-morning break. Suddenly, they saw three silver balls in the sky over the school. These disappeared with a flash of light and then reappeared elsewhere. This happened three times and then they started to move down towards the school with one of them landing (or hovering) over a section of rough ground made up of trees, thorn bushes, and some brown-grey cut grass with bamboo shoots sticking up out of the ground. The children are not allowed in this area although it is adjacent to their playing field and is not fenced off, because of snakes, spiders and perhaps other harmful creatures. One can soon disappear from view while walking here, and there is only one very rough track used by tractors in an attempt to clear this area.

There is a line of electricity pylons and according to one boy, the object followed along this line prior to landing. There is also some controversy as to whether the object _landed_ on the ground or hovered above it. On Tuesday, 20th September, I went out to the school with a BBC reporter and their television equipment, as well as my son and Gunter Hofer, a young man who builds his own electrical equipment, viz, a Geiger counter, a metal detector and a magnetometer, to try and see if the object left any traces behind.

LINK

I am sure you can see where I am going here. The "Spaceman" could even have been a linesman. I do not know of any avenue of investigation along this path, although to me it seems rather obvious that this is a definite option here. I wonder if Phil Klass ever had a look at this case.

[psyche101]

If that's the case then could I ask why are you here? Why not go off and study car mechanics or something? It's got to be better than automatically trashing people's propositions and ideas without due reasoning? Yes?

I could ask you the same question? Why are you here? This is not a advertising agency for UFO cases and those that blindly follow them, as I said earlier, this is a discussion forum, yet you did not read the last line of my post, which explains your question in full. I did not trash any members propositions, are you trying to tell me that you are the author of these cases and that they are genuine, and that nobody should attempt to refute them? Are you attempting to claim these recollections and wild explanations as your own? Because if so, I challenge you that they are not your thoughts and research at all, they are the culminated efforts of others. Therefore I am not "trashing" anyone here at all. What you seem to resent is that I challenge those conceptions as opposed to accepting them blindly when you post them. Are you upset that others are not fawning over your "information"? You should do a search on Karl12. He has a few years on you here, and would have covered every case you already have, in better detail.

What do you have against critical thought? Does the notion that all UFO's might be explained in a mundane fashion scare you? Are you worried that you will run out of things to wish for? As far as I can see you have a serious problem with having to back these wild theories. You don't want to prove them, you just want to believe them, and for some reason it seems important to you that other just believe them, as well. For all your protesting, where are your critical arguments? Where are the carefully constructed cases and information that refutes the items that make me skeptical? Can you do more than complain that I do not blindly believe, or is the the extent of your argument? I have expressed due reasoning, if it is beyond you, that is not my fault. You are the one who has not done so, you post a Youtube clip and go wowee, looky peeps, kewlers. I am beyond that thanks.

Edited November 8, 2011 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Very similar to the Zimbabwe incident imo. Witnessed by children and locals but with no visible alien presence. Just craft.

Yes, isn't it. Now who contributed a valuable item for conversation, this being a discussion forum and all, to your thread, that you say I do not contribute to?

Hrrrrrmmmmmmmmzzzzzzz????

[psyche101]

hey Boon, finally watched the video in the OP.

To be honest I found it fascinating, and I found the children quite easy to read at times. However I can see why you ended up where you did with regards to the genuine memories versus the constructed. The constructed 'feel' that you noticed is actually constructed, but this is by the child and not a pre-programmed response. It is not entirely a lie but more of a case of being led by interviewer.

For example, the first girl at around 3.40, is being asked to confirm what she means by evil and how it was perceived this way. This is a very difficult question for the child....show them a picture of a monster and they will say it looks scary, if you then ask them why they can easily articulate and explain its because of its big hairy ugly face and big sharp teeth. Now lets say this monster is just a man with no expression, this man can be preceived as evil by the child, but now when you ask them to explain what they mean by this they will struggle. And I feel this is the case here, the girl couldnt really explain why but was led by interviewer and ended up saying its because she was scared he would take her with him...I dont believe this to be the accurate truth.

summary in brief, I believe she saw something that looked similar as described and it scared her. I dont believe she thought it would take her and that this is why she thought he/she/it was evil.

at 4.20 the lady talking about when the children came screeming...now I have a problem with this part of the accounts. The lady on tuck shop duty (one of the mum helpers that was not participating in meeting) said the kids came screeming and shouting but thought not much of it as they always did this. Now the teacher speaking in video clearly is giving the impression that the screams were not normal children playing screams but something more sinister. Not sure how I can reconcile this difference, only in that the 'mum helper' felt bad afterwards for not investigating straight away (I have also seen somewhere that she did not want to leave the food and money unattended)

anyhow moving on,

5.30 the boy comes across as perfectly sincere without a flicker of lying IMO. I also find the comment regarding the inability to draw the alien sitting a striking point in understanding the differences in pictures drawn, this I believe is simply down to ability to draw and also interpretation.

The last girl I believe is also being led at times. Her use of the word maybe is quite telling adn sadly the interviewer led her following this comment which I didnt like to see. I think for a Psychologist his technique in extracting the truth was poor at times.

again in summary I believe the girl is telling the truth for the most part and where it is suspect, this is merely down to the interviewer and the girls inability to understand articulate what she went through and how.

Lets face it if its true and she was telepathically spoken to whilst enduring a mixture of emotions during the experience, how do we expect her to give an accurate recollection coupled with reasoning and understanding...which I felt is what the interviewer was trying to achieve.

anyway I will look at as many of the interviews as I can and be more specific with my view.

So far though I am quite certain form the first few bits that they did experience something very strange and this is not a constructed event.

Hey Quillius

Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Mokele Mbembe or the Ropen? People will genuinely look you square in the eye and tell you there is a Sauropod Dinosaur living in the Congo. There is a lot more to what Scepticus said than perhaps meets the eye.

[psyche101]

Yes.. the 1966 Westall sighting... My husband was one of the school children who witnessed it...

Westall '66: A Suburban UFO Mystery (1/4)

May I ask what his recollection is?

[psyche101]

thanks for the thoughtful appraisal Q.....I thought that the interviewer was really bad at interviewing the children.

The questions were difficult for them and he was sat gawping at them like they were specimens.

They did seem to be saying what they believed was expected of them at times.

I'm thinking that they may have been spoken to in a group at some point...maybe the whole school

was spoken to in an assembly.....with the head teacher saying things like....

'some of you have had a scarey experience...and been frightened' etc etc etc

Their parents probably reinforced this scarey aspect as well, because they, the parents would

have felt scared themselves about what had happened to their own child at the school.

Then the interviewer comes along with his ham-fisted interview and leads them into the same areas of thought...

I watched it last night ...will need to watch it again, but just wanted to say the above.....

edit....just watched it again...and I may have been a little hard on the interviewer when I said

he was gawping at them like specimens...but for some reason that's how I must have perceived it and

remembered it from last night.

it's a fascinating story.....that one little girl who said the being looked at her like it

was interested...that was such a thoughtful answer she gave.

I note that the same little girl who said she had a 'bad feeling' said she only felt it when

she got home....ummmm not during the experience itself. Why should the bad feeling come when

she got home...you would think that would be when she felt safe. I'm guessing that the re-actions

of parents to the whole thing might have had something to do with that.

The parents would obviously be scared about what happened and some parents freak their

children out without meaning to....?

I believe those kids did experience something way out of the ordinary...maybe a craft

and beings...?

I don't think they were 'coached'...at least not deliberately...but the adults and children

around them might have influenced the way they felt about it all...and how they expressed the

story.

Everyone around them expected them to be scared...so they obliged????

just pondering

I have absolutely no doubt the Children had some level of influence, but I agree, they most probably did see something. What that something was seems to be lost in the interpretation. What I find the most frustrating aspect of this case is the children. Only a big old meanie would not believe the children at face value, so it leaves little room for discussion in most circles.

[quillius]

thanks for the thoughtful appraisal Q.....I thought that the interviewer was really bad at interviewing the children.

The questions were difficult for them and he was sat gawping at them like they were specimens.

They did seem to be saying what they believed was expected of them at times.

I'm thinking that they may have been spoken to in a group at some point...maybe the whole school

was spoken to in an assembly.....with the head teacher saying things like....

'some of you have had a scarey experience...and been frightened' etc etc etc

Their parents probably reinforced this scarey aspect as well, because they, the parents would

have felt scared themselves about what had happened to their own child at the school.

Then the interviewer comes along with his ham-fisted interview and leads them into the same areas of thought...

I watched it last night ...will need to watch it again, but just wanted to say the above.....

edit....just watched it again...and I may have been a little hard on the interviewer when I said

he was gawping at them like specimens...but for some reason that's how I must have perceived it and

remembered it from last night.

it's a fascinating story.....that one little girl who said the being looked at her like it

was interested...that was such a thoughtful answer she gave.

I note that the same little girl who said she had a 'bad feeling' said she only felt it when

she got home....ummmm not during the experience itself. Why should the bad feeling come when

she got home...you would think that would be when she felt safe. I'm guessing that the re-actions

of parents to the whole thing might have had something to do with that.

The parents would obviously be scared about what happened and some parents freak their

children out without meaning to....?

I believe those kids did experience something way out of the ordinary...maybe a craft

and beings...?

I don't think they were 'coached'...at least not deliberately...but the adults and children

around them might have influenced the way they felt about it all...and how they expressed the

story.

Everyone around them expected them to be scared...so they obliged????

just pondering

Morning Bee,

you have made some very valid points. I fully agree especially with the bolded part, I believe that is exactly what has happened, and I think it is this element that Boon initially highlighted as constructed, and I can see how it was read in this way.

There is so much simple truth in much of what the children say, questions such as 'how did they make you feel' are not good IMO and confuse the issue. They do not look like they are trying to recall things they have be told or coached to say, but (as you pointed out) they try and say what they think they should be saying.

The basic parts i.e. a shiny object in the area, small people walking around, descriptions of the eyes and colour...these are all valid IMO, the detail however can be easily exaggerated/misidentified in such an extreme/unusual occurance, especially with children.

[quillius]

Gidday Mate

When they stop believing at my house, Santa stops coming. I think Santa will have quite some respect at my place for years to come.

Gidday matey, lol good to hear my problem is my eldest is very shrewd and great at spotting lies (have taught her a thing or two in that respect), i.e. matching wrapping paper/labels etc, so I am having to use a few layers of deceipt to pull it off...still it keeps me on my toes

I cannot resolve it as easily as that, I cannot see such great inconsistency being so easily explained, I honestly do not think the heights would be that varied so as to have an entirely different perspective as the age range is only 5/6 to 12 years, and if you look at the pictures they drew, that I posted, the best one can hope for there is a vaguely common theme. Also, not a single description seems to fit the descriptions of what the children first claimed to have seen i.e. Suddenly, they saw three silver balls in the sky over the school And after landing, we have squared saucers, brown plasma looking saucers, one with an antenna on top, round, flat top, dome top, and that is just from the few examples. I struggle to see any similarity, and cannot fathom how these drawings corroborate a single thing. Also with the drawings, we seem to be shortchanged as well. The principal of the school received 30-40 drawings. Why is the rest of the information not publicly available? I can understand using a sample in an article, but why refuse to allow access to the rest of the information? What does it tell us? And with regards to the landing site, it was Bamboo stumps that Hind mentioned, they would stick inches to say one foot out of the ground, and their robust nature would make for a very uneven surface. Here is a picture of the school, as we can see, any growth is low level, not tall enough to create that level of confusion. But then in the same article, it is said one could be lost walking through this area. More inconstancy and not backed by a photograph. This to me reeks of a story that was made up as it went along. The occupants are more inconstancy, the one account Hind offers as "one of the more observant ones" also heavily contradicts every depiction of the drawn Alien. It supposedly had long black hair. Look at those drawings, not a one has hair at all.

I am sure you can see where I am going here. The "Spaceman" could even have been a linesman. I do not know of any avenue of investigation along this path, although to me it seems rather obvious that this is a definite option here. I wonder if Phil Klass ever had a look at this case.

I personally think that they would have a different perspective, for example my children are aged 5 and 7(nearly 8) and there is a 30cm difference in their height, now if we accompany this differential with 62 children all vying for position to see, some already crying scared, sun shining brightly, lots of commotion, all looking at different times and turning to see or turning away at different times...I hope you can see how we would get some varying accounts especially with some detail. I think you are right about the common theme, I think it is here we need to focus to assist in trying to figure out what may have been there (assuming we agree something was there).

I agree we have been short changed as far as drawings are concerned. The initial video is interesting as you can see Cynthia going through the pictures and you can see her seperating them. I am holding off delving into why she may have done this as it is secondary at the moment until I can establish exactly what parts of their storys seem truthful, then what parts seem accurate and finally what parts are 'influenced'.

I still believe if there was a 'craft' and it did hover close to the ground, the uneven surface from different angles could easily be mistaken as landed or hovered, hence the differing accounts, especially from 100metres distance. The sun shining and differing angles could also account for differences in colour and shape..we have only to look at the sun hitting an aeroplane to see the different shapes, colours and sizes we perceive.

And yes I would enjoy reading Klass' take on this.

[quillius]

Hey Quillius

Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Mokele Mbembe or the Ropen? People will genuinely look you square in the eye and tell you there is a Sauropod Dinosaur living in the Congo. There is a lot more to what Scepticus said than perhaps meets the eye.

Hey Psyche, yes I have. I do not know much however as far as their history and any cultural relevance etc

all I would say is that neither of these require a craft and they do not go hand in hand with small 'beings', so I am unsure of where you are going with this. If it is to show what people do and do not believe in then I would simply counter by saying every nation/culture has some cryptid embedded somewhere...like the bogeyman.

This does, I think, make the case stronger, as I mentioned above crafts have no place to go hand in hand with cryptids, especially large dinosaur types.

I understood scepticus line of thinking, hence why I thought it prudent to quickly view some of the interviews, which to me confirmed no way an act....I would happily bet my house on that aspect alone.

[bee]

I have absolutely no doubt the Children had some level of influence, but I agree, they most probably did see something. What that something was seems to be lost in the interpretation. What I find the most frustrating aspect of this case is the children. Only a big old meanie would not believe the children at face value, so it leaves little room for discussion in most circles.

I see your dilemma....

(hey psyche...I owe you a couple of replies, in a couple of other threads but I am going to be away

from the forum for a few days and I don't have the time to reply to you properly now as I am rushing

around getting ready....just thought I'd take the opportunity to say that here...so you didn't think

I was ignoring you.... )

Morning Bee,

you have made some very valid points. I fully agree especially with the bolded part, I believe that is exactly what has happened, and I think it is this element that Boon initially highlighted as constructed, and I can see how it was read in this way.

There is so much simple truth in much of what the children say, questions such as 'how did they make you feel' are not good IMO and confuse the issue. They do not look like they are trying to recall things they have be told or coached to say, but (as you pointed out) they try and say what they think they should be saying.

The basic parts i.e. a shiny object in the area, small people walking around, descriptions of the eyes and colour...these are all valid IMO, the detail however can be easily exaggerated/misidentified in such an extreme/unusual occurance, especially with children.

Morning quillius....thanks for that....you have to feel for those kids, whatever they saw/experienced,

it put them right in the lime-light with all the adults feeding their own fears and belief-systems into the 'experience'....

I agree with the bolded above...cheers...

[quillius]

I see your dilemma....

it seems Psyche is a big softy deep down

Morning quillius....thanks for that....you have to feel for those kids, whatever they saw/experienced,

it put them right in the lime-light with all the adults feeding their own fears and belief-systems into the 'experience'....

I agree with the bolded above...cheers...

yes yes yes, fully agree. I still have that comment the girl made going through my head 'they looked 'evil'...and then she is pressed to explain evil?!?! tut tut tut , I have come to the conclusion he was no child Psychologist, and I think to an extent even he was quite shocked with the whole event.

oh and have a lovely time