Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
He doesn't have to remember, he can watch the video of his interview 18 months after the incident.
There's no reason to think he had access to this.
He doesn't have to remember, he can watch the video of his interview 18 months after the incident.
that's an odd add on.Also he told me there's no way he'd have had a watch like this.
i thought the footages were 18 months apart?which Dallyn explained means green house - there were two, red and green, and Dallyn was red (hence the red hat in his footage
that's an odd add on.
i thought the footages were 18 months apart?
i had a little one with a nose likethat so i got to see it from different angles. we cant really see the eyebrows due to his hair and he is in a squint due to sun the whole time i think. it could well be him 18 months earlier physically, not sure if thats a birthmark on him (in red hat) or just a play mark..cant really see it in older videos but hes got a beard. dont see it on beige hat boy.
oh. i disagree with that. i feel oninstagram he knows the audience is IN the camera. where when you skype the people you are talking to are on your computer screen.With the camera, like he did consistently on Instagram video you posted.
im not sure who i believe to be honest more...Dallyn or Ariel PhenomenonAriel Phenomenon has admitted they got it wrong.
The point is, in the transcript of the interview with the Dutchman you posted, he acknowledged aliens as having been there and offers a suggestion as to why. What he believes aliens to be now doesn't figure into the 1994 and 2008 interviews, unless he expressed those beliefs at those times.From what I can gather, he believes alien sightings are demons and angels.
Agreed, to my knowledge he has not said specifically he saw aliens. It's not the story changing as much as it is the tone of the story. Watch the Instagram video, he took/told the story seriously, called it "mind-blowing." Compare that to his recent interview where he was more flippant, calling it a joke. Same basic story, but the way he tells it is, the tone, is what's different.He didn't really change his story, he just added a new facet to it. His childhood and 2008 testimony is consistent. In 2023 he reiterated that those flashes he saw were in the sky and that he has always maintained he never saw a UFO or aliens.
He took credit for starting the UFO rumor by going along with the little kids who thought a shiny rock was a UFO. I think he's exaggerating that part of the story, or misremembering. It seems clear he didn't witness most (or all) of the event because he never mentions seeing the "men" that many other kids saw (i.e. aliens). I think he probably got there too late, so while he saw something shiny (which he thought was a rock, or is saying now it was a rock) the men had gone by then.
I don't disagree, but I didn't say he was grown up when the Instagram video was shot. I was only referencing his reason given for coming clean.Not all 18-year-olds are grown up. Most of them aren't, in my experience.
Lot of "maybes." One or more of those could be true, but we don't know. The only reason we have as to why the tone of the story changed is because he grew up. I find that difficult to believe, but if others find it believable, more power to them.Maybe he was having a bad day or has been through some life experiences since then. He's been on podcasts since the doco last year. I can only guess his motivations: maybe he enjoyed his 15 mins of fame, maybe he believes exaggeration is acceptable for the cause of spreading skepticism, maybe he doesn't realize he's exaggerating.
There's some speculation about what that might have been in this separate thread: 1994 NASA STS-64 Mission & Lights Seen in the Sky Over Africa.flashes he saw were in the sky
An experiencer and former patient of John E. Mack, and a subject of Budd Hopkins, who was given access to Mack's archive material to tell the story about Mack's involvement with alien abduction investigations, and his fight with Harvard.I have no idea who Nickerson is,
The only reason we have as to why the tone of the story changed is because he grew up. I find that difficult to believe, but if others find it believable, more power to them.
Article: 9:02
I don't know what you saw in that documentary, I have always maintained that I never saw any aliens walking around
and if you watch the Randall Nixon documentaries, I was always talking about something that I had seen in the sky that I wasn't sure what it was,
and I've never changed until, obviously older and I started to really examining from a logical perspective what I had seen
and what I had learned in my later life aliens, and about spirituality and about obviously the physics,
So you've got to come to a point where you are able to look beyond your own thoughts and step out of yourself and look at it very critically
about what you what you actually observed, not what you think you observed
and i try to make the most logical assumptions about what happened during that day
and what I observed and then obviously during that time did my own research to find out more
about what was transpiring not only in Zimbabwe during that day but what was happening in other countries during that time
and the movies also, and everywhere, X files and all the mythology about aliens at that time so,
@Giddierone -- not familiar with this term. Is it a it of UFOlogy slang? Or what?An experiencer
Experiencer is a term used to describe someone who believes they have had direct contact with aliens. In Nickerson's case he believes he was repeatedly abducted and experiemented on by aliens from an early age. It doesn't necessarily mean experimentation, but rather contact (which need not even be physical). The earlier "contactees" (of the 1950s) typically reported much more pleasent "experiences" with aliens who showed them wonderful things or reassured them in some way.@Giddierone -- not familiar with this term. Is it a it of UFOlogy slang? Or what?
The thing about Vico is that he is one of the vast majority (1 of more than 180) of children who didn't see aliens. Have we heard from any others? No, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. After the initial media storm in the 1990s the story has remained relativly low-profile until James Fox / Randall Nickerson's films in the 2020s brought it to wider attention. The story has been driven by a small group of supposed witnesses, many very poor interivews, and the superstar profile, and tragic story of John Mack.trying to give him the benefit of the doubt
I would be wondering what had been on TV or in cinemas recently. The British incidents are a bit too early for Close Encounters (released in 1978 in the UK) but not for Star Wars (1977).It is hard to conjure up a direct causative link to these events in the 1970s and the Ariel School incident on another continent in 1994
One might suspect the head teacher of underestimating ten year old boys who have watched, say, Star Trek. Especially if Sci Fi is not the teacher's choice of entertainment...After allowing for variations and embellishments [the head-teacher] is loathe to believe that the children are capable of a sustained sophisticated hoax; that they did see something they hadn’t seen before he is prepared to accept.
I would be wondering what had been on TV or in cinemas recently. The British incidents are a bit too early for Close Encounters (released in 1978 in the UK) but not for Star Wars (1977).
I've read (a post by @Giddierone? Apologies if I'm wrong) that science fiction films and TV programs (including for children) were broadcast by the local TV channels at that time.
And an interesting coincidence (remembering that the incident happened on Friday 16th September 1994):
(1) Cynthia Hind wrote in The Proceedings of the 8th BUFORA International UFO Congress (ibid., PDF below),
-She didn't say "...the day before" (Thursday 15th September) so we're talking Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.Some of the Standard Four's (10-year olds) had a discussion earlier that week in one of their general
discussion classes about UFOs.
Content from External Source
(2) At about 21:00 on the night of Wednesday 14th September, a stage of a Soviet Zenit-2 rocket, the launcher for Cosmos 2290, re-entered the atmosphere creating a bright fireball, disintegrating into a number of fireballs, seen over much of Zimbabwe. Many people at first thought it was a comet or meteor, and it generated many UFO reports.
This was nationwide news in Zimbabwe, and the state-owned radio broadcaster ZBC asked listeners to 'phone in with their accounts.
So, on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, some of the pupils have an in-class discussion about UFOs.
On Wednesday evening, a bright fireball is seen across Zimbabwe and becomes national news.
On Thursday, the children are in school, perhaps discussing the fireball on the news, and some talking about their classroom discussion about UFOs. We know the UFO discussion and the fireball are coincidences. They might not have.
On Friday, the children are not supervised during their mid-morning break (they are normally supervised).
Some claim to see a UFO (or UFOs), a smaller number claim to see an alien (or aliens). Most see nothing.
The period of UFO/ UFOnaut activity falls entirely within the short unsupervised break.
No child reports receiving a message of any sort- not to their teachers, not to their parents. Not until questioned by John Mack over 2 months later.
Yes, I reviewed local TV listings for several months on either side of the sighting and wrote up my findings here: https://gideonreid.co.uk/demystifyi...e-children-of-ariel-school-in-september-1994/@Giddierone has demonstrated that SF / fantasy films and TV shows were shown by Zimbabwe TV, including shows aimed at children,