The Ariel School, Zimbabwe UFO sighting - has it ever been debunked?

[John J.]

'Before the sighting of the "landed UFO" at Ariel the reentry of a Russian rocket booster was thought to be a UFO.'

Which of the witnesses present ever mentioned a Russian rocket booster or anything resembling one? Did the booster even have beings on board?

@Giddierone is not suggesting that the Ariel School children who reported seeing something unusual saw re-entering rocket debris, he is reminding us that "UFOs", probably caused by re-entering rocket debris, were widely seen in Zimbabwe and reported on nationwide media just two days before the Ariel School events.

On September 14th 1994, bright lights in the sky were seen across Zimbabwe. Some people interpreted them as UFOs (potential alien spacecraft). They were widely reported on nationwide media.
The sightings reported from Ariel School were on September 16th 1994, just 2 days later.

Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast #760, "The 1994 Ruwa Zimbabwe Alien Encounter" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/760 wrote

...ZBC Radio reported that there had been a rash of UFO reports from all over southeastern Africa, consistent with a large meteoric fireball passing over the continent at about 9:00pm on September 14 — two nights before the Ariel School event. Few Africans knew it, but that fireball had been the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. The booster broke up into burning streaks as it moved silently across the sky, giving an impressive light show to millions of Africans. Many people answered ZBC Radio's request by calling in with all sorts of disparate UFO reports prompted by the re-entry, ranging from one shooting star to a fleet of sixteen brightly lit spaceships. Zimbabwe was gripped with its own little wave of UFO mania.

It seems perfectly reasonable that many people in Zimbabwe might have discussed the sightings in the following day or so. The Ariel School children generally came from relatively affluent urban backgrounds; their families would have had access to radio and TV, newspapers.
(They might have been more familiar with "Western" concerns and popular culture than most Zimbabweans- conjecture on my part).

Cynthia Hind, a local (Zimbabwe) UFO investigator who played a significant role in events after the Ariel School reports, documented the 14th September fireball(s) in UFO AFRINEWS February 1995, No. 11 in an article titled "UFO FLAP IN ZIMBABWE", PDF attached.

Hind later referred to the re-entering rocket hypothesis in page 36 of "UFOs: Examining the Evidence: The Proceedings of the 8th BUFORA International UFO Congress", 1995, PDF attached:

A week later, Prof Ewan Nesbitt had flown to London and conferred with the Royal Observatory at Greenwich and had been informed that a Russian satellite, launched on 26th August 1934, had ejected its nose-cone on 14lh September and this is what had been seen over Southern Africa. Apparently, they had known of this coming occurrence and expected it.

Cynthia Hind also wrote, documenting one of those strange coincidences that sometimes pop up when UFO claims are examined,

Some of the Standard Four's (10-year olds) [at Ariel School] had a discussion earlier that week in one of their general discussion classes about UFOs

Cynthia doesn't think the discussion had any bearing on later events because only one age group took part, but children talk to each other and a discussion about UFOs might have been more interesting than some other lesson content! -Something they might chat about.

Maybe the rocket re-entry and its associated UFO flap, although not the direct cause of the Ariel School reports, and the coincidental classroom discussion about UFOs had some sort of influencing effect.

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.

 

[Giddierone]

The other UFO related chatter in global news that week was the USG report debunking Roswell.

Associated press stories were all over the place from around 10-20 Sept.

In addition anyone lucky enough to have Satellite TV in Harare could have watched Star Wars on Sky Movies Gold, at 8pm on Thurs 15 Sept....

...or (a personal favorite of mine) The Giddy Game show was on ZBC the day before (15 Sept). It's a kids puzzle show whose host is a little green alien...

coincidental classroom discussion about UFOs

The Roswell report in combination with the lights seen on the 14th, could have been the catalyst for the conversation at the school which Cynthia Hind mentioned had occurred.

 

[Giddierone]

I still think puppets in the long grass—which acts as a screen for the operator—lines up well with the children's remarks that the figures they saw moved awkwardly, had "stiff necks" (the head is on a stick and can only rotate but not flex), moved in a "flowy graceful way", "moved in slow motion" and "appeared and disappeared" in a different place, had "no facial expression" and "stared" at the children. One girl said she only saw something black that looked like a stick. Other remarks were of the figures running about on top of the UFO "like they were confused." These puppets certainly look confused.
(temporary puppet booths were created using sheets and clothes lines see below).

Puppeteer in the long grass?

Remember the kids were at least 100m away, with some estimates up to 200m.
They moved in an odd way.

EDIT: added an additional video of the kind of puppet used. Zoomed in from the back of the room. Note the movement, and the difficulty in recognising the facial features...another detail noted by witnesses.

From archival shots you can see just how tall the bush was—above adult height.

There were a wide variety of puppets and costumes in use at the time. They were often grotesque caricatures of their amature makers. Some had strange eyes and long black hair "like Michael Jackson's" as one child remarked.

Others were 2m tall suits with large heads and walked like they were "bouncing on the moon" as one girl said of the aliens. These puppets were used to attract attention and draw a crowd to the show.

Ariel school drawing.

Some performed right in front of their vehicles.

Ariel school drawing

Another pop-up booth

Compare with another Ariel child's drawing

It's just a hypothesis...

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

@Giddierone is not suggesting that the Ariel School children who reported seeing something unusual saw re-entering rocket debris, he is reminding us that "UFOs", probably caused by re-entering rocket debris, were widely seen in Zimbabwe and reported on nationwide media just two days before the Ariel School events.

On September 14th 1994, bright lights in the sky were seen across Zimbabwe. Some people interpreted them as UFOs (potential alien spacecraft). They were widely reported on nationwide media.
The sightings reported from Ariel School were on September 16th 1994, just 2 days later.

Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast #760, "The 1994 Ruwa Zimbabwe Alien Encounter" https://skeptoid.com/episodes/760 wrote

...ZBC Radio reported that there had been a rash of UFO reports from all over southeastern Africa, consistent with a large meteoric fireball passing over the continent at about 9:00pm on September 14 — two nights before the Ariel School event. Few Africans knew it, but that fireball had been the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. The booster broke up into burning streaks as it moved silently across the sky, giving an impressive light show to millions of Africans. Many people answered ZBC Radio's request by calling in with all sorts of disparate UFO reports prompted by the re-entry, ranging from one shooting star to a fleet of sixteen brightly lit spaceships. Zimbabwe was gripped with its own little wave of UFO mania.

It seems perfectly reasonable that many people in Zimbabwe might have discussed the sightings in the following day or so. The Ariel School children generally came from relatively affluent urban backgrounds; their families would have had access to radio and TV, newspapers.
(They might have been more familiar with "Western" concerns and popular culture than most Zimbabweans- conjecture on my part).

Cynthia Hind, a local (Zimbabwe) UFO investigator who played a significant role in events after the Ariel School reports, documented the 14th September fireball(s) in UFO AFRINEWS February 1995, No. 11 in an article titled "UFO FLAP IN ZIMBABWE", PDF attached.

Hind later referred to the re-entering rocket hypothesis in page 36 of "UFOs: Examining the Evidence: The Proceedings of the 8th BUFORA International UFO Congress", 1995, PDF attached:

A week later, Prof Ewan Nesbitt had flown to London and conferred with the Royal Observatory at Greenwich and had been informed that a Russian satellite, launched on 26th August 1934, had ejected its nose-cone on 14lh September and this is what had been seen over Southern Africa. Apparently, they had known of this coming occurrence and expected it.

Cynthia Hind also wrote, documenting one of those strange coincidences that sometimes pop up when UFO claims are examined,

Some of the Standard Four's (10-year olds) [at Ariel School] had a discussion earlier that week in one of their general discussion classes about UFOs

Cynthia doesn't think the discussion had any bearing on later events because only one age group took part, but children talk to each other and a discussion about UFOs might have been more interesting than some other lesson content! -Something they might chat about.

Maybe the rocket re-entry and its associated UFO flap, although not the direct cause of the Ariel School reports, and the coincidental classroom discussion about UFOs had some sort of influencing effect.

What's the scenario? Puppeteers out in the bush playing a prank?

 

[Giddierone]

What's the scenario? Puppeteers out in the bush playing a prank?

I think there's several ways of thinking about it. Prank, deliberate hoax, or honest mistake and they made a loud noise that scared the kids and sent them running—which is how the sighting is reported to have ended. At the outside chance an experiment (conspiracy).

"Theatre for development" was a practice of theatre groups going into communities to put on shows as a part of "public education" about all kinds of things from best farming practices, water management, to public health. This started in the 50's but by late 80s they had a new trending presentation tool imported from France—puppets. By the mid nineties puppets were a big thing (The International Puppet Festival took place in New York Sept 6-18, 1994 and included a companies from all over the world including one from South Africa) and there were workshops training amatures all over Africa. One of the largest groups was AREPP (African Research Education Puppetry Program) they had a big footprint and trained many people in how to make an operate puppets that could be used in outdoor settings and at impromptu performances.

Basically, groups using theatrical methods walking about trying to talk to villagers and groups of people to exchange ideas in rural places was a thing.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It doesn't seem credible to me.

I think the most likely scenario was kids creating a socially shared confabulation. They mutually reinforced each other's distortions and elaborations.

If there is a connection to puppet shows, the kids were correctly recalling details from the puppet shows they'd seen here and there, but misattributed the source of that information. They incorporated these details into their story. Some kids are more likely than others to do that kind of thing without realizing it. Ditto for movies and news stories.

And some of them may have been doing it consciously to get attention and approval from adults who wanted to hear such things.

I used to make up stories all the time when I was a kid. There was nothing malicious about it. I was just being creative. As a young adult I wrote fiction... that was almost good enough to get published. What's the real difference?

 

[Giddierone]

It doesn't seem credible to me.

I think the most likely scenario was kids creating a socially shared confabulation. They mutually reinforced each other's distortions and elaborations.

If there is a connection to puppet shows, the kids were correctly recalling details from the puppet shows they'd seen here and there, but misattributed the source of that information. They incorporated these details into their story. Some kids are more likely than others to do that kind of thing without realizing it. Ditto for movies and news stories.

And some of them may have been doing it consciously to get attention and approval from adults who wanted to hear such things.

I used to make up stories all the time when I was a kid. There was nothing malicious about it. I was just being creative. As a young adult I wrote fiction... that was almost good enough to get published. What's the real difference?

I think if you watch the interviews with the kids it's clear that they are not making up a story about whatever it was they saw. They're reporting back on a real stimulus and describing it the best they can. Is there some confabulation? Sure, and this increases over time and by the time Tineke de Nooij ('96) and Michael Hesemann interviews some of the kids in '97 they have a well rehearsed (because they'd been interviewed so many times) and much more detailed description of what was seen and have incorporated the alien abduction lore into that. By then some of them are talking about being taken in their sleep, and even of alien hybrids, (all of which is detailed in John Mack's book, which must have done the rounds among the parents before and after he'd visited the school in November '94).

It seems worth mentioning that John Mack only did one-on-one (or two) interviews with 12 of the supposed 60+ witnesses. So this selection must have caused all kinds of feelings of jealousy or inferiority with those who missed out.

I'd argue there was a real physical thing that they're relating to and that we shouldn't dismiss the event as purely psychological.

What would make the puppet idea, or any other speculative theory "credible"?

 

[JMartJr]

I think if you watch the interviews with the kids it's clear that they are not making up a story about whatever it was they saw.

That may very well be the case, but I disagree that you can tell that from watching the interviews. People are pretty good at fooling each other with tall tales, and kids are people too!

But whether the initial stimulus was some kids seeing something and misinterpreting it, or some kids making up a story that "went viral" in their circle of friends/acquaintances at the school, either way I think you are absolutely right about the effects of confabulation, rehearsal and competing for approval and attention in growing the story over time.

 

[Giddierone]

the interviews

Gunter Hofer, Cynthia Hind's assistant at the time has some of the first interviews on tape filmed on 20 Sept, the day after Tim Leach had also spoken to some of the children. I noted that a new upload of these has recently gone up on YouTube on a different channel, which is missing about a minute and the remarks by two of the boys. I asked the channel owner why and they said there was a copyright claim.

Source: https://youtu.be/eBqKJHSrYZg?si=uyjf281hjodIuwik

 

[Giddierone]

. People are pretty good at fooling each other with tall tales, and kids are people too!

The problem with that is that if this kind of common tendency to egg each other on and fool themselves was the cause of all the fuss at Ariel then, it being such a normal human condition, we would have seen numerous other examples over the last 30 years. There's been no other comparable mass "sighting". I don't think the various mass hysteria/mass psychogenic illness cases like the several cases of school girls fainting or feeling paralyzed is quite comparable.

 

[John J.]

I think if you watch the interviews with the kids it's clear that they are not making up a story about whatever it was they saw. They're reporting back on a real stimulus and describing it the best they can.

There might have been "something out there" that initiated subsequent events, but around half of the children present saw nothing unusual at all. If there were large puppet figures (or anything else unusual) to be seen over several minutes, it's hard to understand why many of the children didn't notice.

Some of the children described seeing (in some detail) flying-saucer type UFOs, but I don't think this is because they're describing an actual stimulus as accurately as they could. I feel it's unlikely that they saw anything that might reasonably have been mistaken for unusual flying craft (which reportedly were seen to land and then take off again) at the time and locations claimed.
If the reports of strange flying craft are unlikely to be adequately explained by an exterior stimulus, even allowing for misidentification or unintended exaggeration, then the same might apply to the occupants of those craft.

That said, the resemblance of some of the puppet features in examples posted by @Giddierone to "alien" features described by some of the Ariel School children is striking.

 

[Giddierone]

around half of the children present saw nothing unusual at all. If th

There are mixed reports about this. One witness told me there were more kids who saw "something" they just didn't get interviewed or asked to draw/write a report. Mostly because they were the younger ones. But then another witness, Salma, said in an interview a few years ago that "half of the playground had no experience at all." So maybe half, rather than less than a third of the 250 kids saw something.

 

[JMartJr]

But then another witness, Salma, said in an interview a few years ago that "half of the playground had no experience at all." So maybe half, rather than less than a third of the 250 kids saw something.

That seems a long enough gap in time for the claim to be far too likely to have morphed in memory over time.

 

[jackfrostvc]

I still dont get how no teachers seem to have been present in the yard.
Sure there may have been a staff meeting if I remember correctly?
But not one teacher overseeing the kids in the yard?

 

[MapperGuy]

At this point in time all we can safely say is that something that attracted the childrens attention happened that day, but what that something was is beyond recovery and clarification. So in a sense there is nothing definite to debunk.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Didnt one of the kids in a documentary say it was him that started the whole thing by pointing to a shiny rock or something.

Feasable?

 

[John J.]

Re. the number of children, In UFO Afrinews no. 11, February 1995 (PDF attached, post #205) Cynthia Hind wrote (pg. 20)

...out of the 250 children in the school, more than 60 were now witnesses to an extraordinary event.

-Perhaps more accurately >60 children claimed when asked (probably in classroom settings the following week) to have seen something extraordinary.

I still dont get how no teachers seem to have been present in the yard.
Sure there may have been a staff meeting if I remember correctly?
But not one teacher overseeing the kids in the yard?

Cynthia Hind, source as above page 19 says

The teachers were all in the staff-room for the weekly teachers meeting and the only other adult on the school premises was Mrs Alyson Kirkman, a physiotherapist, who was voluntarily running the Tuckshop.

It might not seem good practice, but I don't think any of the school staff ever contradicted this.
I was at school in the UK in the 1980s; there were (infrequent) times when recreation areas were unsupervised though I'd guess there was legislation/ local guidelines stating this shouldn't happen. -I remember these times because a couple ended in brawls, requiring a belated intervention from teachers dragged away from wherever they'd been smoking the dining room, staff room or wherever.

 

[Giddierone]

I still dont get how no teachers seem to have been present in the yard.
Sure there may have been a staff meeting if I remember correctly?
But not one teacher overseeing the kids in the yard?

In addition to what @John J. said, the grade 7 kids were the playground supervision—prefects. And there was an adult in the tuck shop but she stayed there and didn't have a line of sight to whatever the kids saw.

 

[Giddierone]

That seems a long enough gap in time for the claim to be far too likely to have morphed in memory over time.

Here's something from closer to the time (late Nov '94). The headmaster telling speaking with John Mack saying more than the ~60 could have seen it and that they didn't get the grade 1s and 2s (6 and 7 year olds) involved, (presumably he means in the many TV interviews that occured in the weeks that followed).

Clipped from Ariel Phenomenon (2023)

 

[Ann K]

Perhaps more accurately >60 children claimed when asked (probably in classroom settings the following week) to have seen something extraordinary.

Perhaps more accurately, 180 (?) children did not?

 

[Giddierone]

Perhaps more accurately, 180 (?) children did not?

Those who saw something were looking at whatever it was from a distance (at least 100m) and form a narrow field of view. Hence the kids jostling for position. The fact that a lot of them (maybe the majority) didn't see anything at all doesn't mean there was nothing to see.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think if you watch the interviews with the kids it's clear that they are not making up a story about whatever it was they saw. They're reporting back on a real stimulus and describing it the best they can. Is there some confabulation? Sure, and this increases over time and by the time Tineke de Nooij ('96) and Michael Hesemann interviews some of the kids in '97 they have a well rehearsed (because they'd been interviewed so many times) and much more detailed description of what was seen and have incorporated the alien abduction lore into that. By then some of them are talking about being taken in their sleep, and even of alien hybrids, (all of which is detailed in John Mack's book, which must have done the rounds among the parents before and after he'd visited the school in November '94).

It seems worth mentioning that John Mack only did one-on-one (or two) interviews with 12 of the supposed 60+ witnesses. So this selection must have caused all kinds of feelings of jealousy or inferiority with those who missed out.

I'd argue there was a real physical thing that they're relating to and that we shouldn't dismiss the event as purely psychological.

What would make the puppet idea, or any other speculative theory "credible"?

Here's why I find the puppet show idea really weak/not credible.

1. No reason to think there was a group of puppeteers out there. Seems unlikely to boot.

A. No records of a troupe in that area.


B. What are the odds of that happening out in that random area?

Just stating that there were puppet shows in the country of Zimbabwe is a lot different than one being in that random area. It's a small portion of a big country.


C. What the heck would they be doing out there? There's no reason to believe there would be an audience. Just putting on show for empty air? Publicity parade would be in highest density areas. Rehearsing? Why there?


2. The idea superficially fits some of the testimony, but not other eye-witness testimony. Many discussions of highly variable testimony previously in this thread.




Why I think your arguments against the idea of socially shared confabulation are weak. Just seems to be stereotyped responses against psychological explanations.

I think if you watch the interviews with the kids it's clear that they are not making up a story about whatever it was they saw. They're reporting back on a real stimulus and describing it the best they can.

Just an assertion meant to counter interpretations like confabulation, peer influence, or fantasy-based elaboration. Children can be sincere and emotionally engaged without being factually accurate. Memory psychology shows that confidence and narrative detail do not guarantee truth.

I'd argue there was a real physical thing that they're relating to and that we shouldn't dismiss the event as purely psychological.

1. Seems to be an argument that a real stimulus was more likely than no real stimulus at all.

A. False dichotomy. It could be another real occurrence happened.


2. By framing the alternative - a story made up from nothing - as "purely psychological," it suggests that dismissing the event entirely is reductive or unfair, subtly appealing to authority bias or ethical norms about respecting children's testimony. It just seems like a well worn eristic trick to devalue the science of psychology, while over-valuing "common sense."

That a real physical occurrence is necessary for a vivid and sincere narrative to be constructed is not supported.


Sadly, the Satanic Panic of the late 80's and 90's illustrates the dangers of leading interviews, suggestion, and social contagion, showing that even confident, detailed, and emotionally compelling child testimony can be entirely false.

Some samples from just one court case - the McMartin Preschool case - which were reported in main stream media and passionately believed and relentlessly defended by true believers:

Children claimed there were secret tunnels beneath the school where abuse and ritual activities took place.
Physical evidence showed that no tunnels existed, yet children consistently described them in interviews.

Spoiler: Filled In Caverns

The school was demolished and there was nothing there when it was torn down to bare dirt. Videos of the workers at the site saying there was nothing there were shown on local TV news. The explanation from the True Believers: The caverns were there, but the Satanic Cabal had surreptitiously filled them in. Even though the school site was in an ordinary neighborhood and the caverns were described as extensive, not just a root cellar. It would have taken dump trucks full of dirt. But nobody noticed.

The rejoinder from the True Believers: That shows you how well organized and effective the Cabal really is! Now do you believe, Mr. Smartypants Skeptic?

Former site of pre-school. Where Strand Cleaners stands now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.887...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

Satanic rituals and ceremonies
Allegations included midnight ceremonies involving witches, masks, and ritualistic acts.
Children described chanting, sacrifices, and elaborate occult paraphernalia. Investigators found no corroborating evidence.


Flying or levitating children
Some children said they or others were lifted into the air by magical or supernatural means during rituals.
No physical evidence supported this; reports appear to be imaginative elaboration.


Animal abuse
Reports included killing or harming animals in ritualistic ways.
No evidence of animal abuse was ever found on school grounds or in the surrounding area.



Of course something real did happen: A combination of children's suggestible and reconstructive memories, repeated and leading interviews, social reinforcement, and imaginative elaboration, resulting in vivid but entirely false accounts.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I'm arguing that no tangible object is necessary. An entirely fabricated narrative is wholly adequate.

But it's also entirely credible that a tangible object was involved.

Your own idea that specular reflections of the Sun off the flat windows of a vehicle on one of the nearby roads is entirely credible.

This could be a species of "sky shock." In this case, vehicles on the road would be a common occurrence, but something at that moment made some kids concentrate all their attention on it and it looked weird to them. Could have been a bus with flat side windows for example. Or a Jeep/Land Rover/old VW bug with a flat windshield. The Sun hit it just right at the time of year/time of day.

They got spooked. Then the story started growing. Familiar stuff in the UFO literature/history.

This kind of thing would be a case of looking for horses versus the puppet show zebra. Something much more likely.

(Although in an African country maybe this metaphor isn't as apt as it would be in North America.)

 

[Giddierone]

Replies in bold

Here's why I find the puppet show idea really weak/not credible.

1. No reason to think there was a group of puppeteers out there. Seems unlikely to boot.
'Theatre for Development' programs were common in that region and at that time and they have a long history going back to the 1950s. This paper by Ross Kidd, gives a sense of how roving theatre groups would go into communities to consult with them often with no prior announcement. https://www.academia.edu/103343689/...reconstruction_Diary_of_a_Zimbabwean_workshop
By the 1990s there were similar community outreach efforts but by then they were using the trending new communication tool of puppetry. One of the pioneers of that trend was Gary Friedman who'd worked with Jim Henson. In the late 1980s he created AREPP and they toured rural areas including rual Zimbabwe in 1993 with a public health puppet show called Puppets Against Aids. They also ran puppetry workshops for local groups in rural areas where they would teach them how to make and use simple puppets.

A. No records of a troupe in that area.
So far this is correct. Record keeping for a groups like AREPP (African Research and Educational Puppetry Program were notoriously bad). It's unlikely they even have a record of the people they trained or even met with during the '90s.

B. What are the odds of that happening out in that random area?
Perhaps not as long as you might expect.
Just stating that there were puppets shows in the country of Zimbabwe is a lot different than one being in that random area. It's a small portion of a big country.
They specifically worked in rural areas. The theatre groups mentioned in Kidd's paper were based in Harare and went around in teams to local rural areas. They mention traveling from Harare to Murehwa in a day, which is further away and more rural that Ruwa is to Harare.


C. What the heck would they be doing out there?
There's a track. Perhaps they wanted to perform/talk with the kids so approached them, but inadvertently caused a panic, ending their engagement.
There's no reason to believe there would be an audience. Just putting on show for empty air? Publicity parade would be in highest density areas. Rehearsing? Why there?
A large group of children is a potential audience.


2. The idea superficially fits some of the testimony, but not other eye-witness testimony.
Please provide some examples—do they invalidate the superficial fit I'm suggesting? If so why? Charlie Wiser has transcribed all the known testimony and it's on her website here: https://threedollarkit.weebly.com/ariel-school.html
Many discussions of highly variable testimony previously in this thread.
Highly variable testimony appears to fit the highly variable puppetry used. From 2m tall puppet costumes, puppets that were adult size, puppet masks, to hand puppets. All of which were used.



Why I think your arguments against the idea of socially shared confabulation are weak. Just seems to be stereotyped responses against psychological explanations.
I don't really understand this. Please explain what "stereotyped responses against psychological explanations" means.

Just an assertion meant to counter interpretations like confabulation, peer influence, or fantasy-based elaboration.
I think there was lots of confabulation, but after their witnessing a real and unusual thing which they interpreted as alien beings moving in a way that defies physics. I.e. "walking in slow motion", walking like they were on the moon, appearing and disappearing, staring "at all of us" appearing to be very skinny, "like a stick".

Children can be sincere and emotionally engaged without being factually accurate. Memory psychology shows that confidence and narrative detail do not guarantee truth.

Agreed. This is why Mack's later interviews are so problematic.




1. Seems to be an argument that a real stimulus was more likely than no real stimulus at all.
Yes it is this.
A. False dichotomy. It could be another real occurrence happened.
So, name something real that corresponds with the testimony.

2. By framing the alternative - a story made up from nothing - as "purely psychological," it suggests that dismissing the event entirely is reductive or unfair, subtly appealing to authority bias or ethical norms about respecting children's testimony. It just seems like a well worn eristic trick to devalue the science of psychology, while over-valuing "common sense."
Again, not sure what you're saying here. However, Brian Dunning's Skeptoid article, [https://skeptoid.com/episodes/760] which was the only skeptical take on the incident for years includes the line "We'll never really have any good idea of what did or didn't happen on that day, if anything happened at all." This just appears to be veering dangerously close to the denialism that skeptics about supposed anomalous events get charged with. To me it's obvious something happened which deserves a bit more though to unravel than offering a shrug.

That a real physical occurrence is necessary for a vivid and sincere narrative to be constructed is not supported.


Sadly, the Satanic Panic of the late 80's and 90's illustrates the dangers of leading interviews, suggestion, and social contagion, showing that even confident, detailed, and emotionally compelling child testimony can be entirely false.

Some samples from just one court case - the McMartin Preschool case - which were reported in main stream media and passionately believed and relentlessly defended by true believers:

Children claimed there were secret tunnels beneath the school where abuse and ritual activities took place.
Extensive excavation revealed no tunnels existed, yet children consistently described them in interviews.


Satanic rituals and ceremonies
Allegations included midnight ceremonies involving witches, masks, and ritualistic acts.
Children described chanting, sacrifices, and elaborate occult paraphernalia. Investigators found no corroborating evidence.


Flying or levitating children
Some children said they or others were lifted into the air by magical or supernatural means during rituals.
No physical evidence supported this; reports appear to be imaginative elaboration.


Animal abuse
Reports included killing or harming animals in ritualistic ways.
No evidence of animal abuse was ever found on school grounds or in the surrounding area.



Of course something real did happen: A combination of children's suggestible and reconstructive memories, repeated and leading interviews, social reinforcement, and imaginative elaboration, resulting in vivid but entirely false accounts.
I wish I could be as certain as you sound in this summary! "Entirely false accounts" is an incredible statement!

 

[Giddierone]

Could have been a bus with flat side windows for example. Or a Jeep/Land Rover/old VW bug with a flat windshield. The Sun hit it just right at the time of year/time of day.

For a moment I thought maybe something like this Casspir might have driven by—it looks a bit like some of the kids UFO drawings, but I think they were only used in South Africa.

 

[John J.]

Those who saw something were looking at whatever it was from a distance (at least 100m) and form a narrow field of view. Hence the kids jostling for position. The fact that a lot of them (maybe the majority) didn't see anything at all doesn't mean there was nothing to see.

That's interesting. I'd always interpreted the fact that the majority of children didn't report seeing anything unusual as being the majority of children not being aware of anything unusual going on- that, even from the standpoint most children present at the time of the claimed sightings, the mid-morning break progressed as usual (e.g. with various groups of children scattered about playing/ talking together, some enjoying snacks from the tuck shop).

I can't demonstrate this. Perhaps we should try and find out what the children who didn't see anything actually said at the time, though this might be difficult (and later recollections might be influenced by coverage the incident has received over the years).
One problem might be, the accounts of children who saw nothing unusual might not have been documented in the same way that the headmaster, Cynthia Hind, John Mack and others documented the accounts of "witnesses" (apparently approx. 60 with highly diverse accounts and descriptions; IIRC Mack concentrated on about 12-15 (?) individual accounts, perhaps those he considered most promising).

Maybe this illustrates the importance of recording accounts from people present during UFO sightings who don't see anything unusual. We know many people present during the reported 1917 "Miracle of the Sun" in Fátima, Portugal (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun) saw nothing unusual even though (at that place and time, and considering prior Church interest in something occuring at Fatima on 13 October) there must have been substantial pressure on attendees not to contradict a narrative of miracles.
In Farmington, New Mexico in 1950, a local newspaper reported that hundreds of UFOs, supposedly up to 500 at a time, had been seen over three days by over 1,000 people- but no explanation how that 1,000 was arrived at (the local newspaperman who broke the story also wrote that 3 (!) people 'phoned the newspaper); not one photo taken; no attempt to inform State or Federal authorities or out-of-town media; no explanation why the UFOs weren't seen by the majority of the population (my thoughts on Farmington here, post #66 "Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer" thread). But the claims of a small number of witnesses (not 1,000) are held to be accurate accounts of what was seen by some UFO enthusiasts, despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of life carrying on as per usual over those three days (and no-one bothering to pick up a camera, or 'phoning out-of-town authorities).

Just thinking about the tuck shop, staffed during the break by a volunteer, Mrs Kirkman. It must be a fair guess it was only open during breaks.
Perhaps children wanting to buy something would rush there as soon as a break commenced, but maybe a few might go there a little later, to avoid wasting their breaktime queueing or to purchase something to eat later. Yet during the break, if any children visited the tuckshop, none of them tell Mrs Kirkman that something strange is going on -only at the end of the break.

 

[John J.]

From post #224, ("+Quote" not working for me for this bit of text); normal text from @Z.W. Wolf, bold text @Giddierone:

C. What the heck would they be doing out there?
There's a track. Perhaps they wanted to perform/talk with the kids so approached them, but inadvertently caused a panic, ending their engagement.
There's no reason to believe there would be an audience. Just putting on show for empty air? Publicity parade would be in highest density areas. Rehearsing? Why there?
A large group of children is a potential audience.

Ariel School was a private primary school for the children of relatively affluent Zimbabweans.
I'm not sure it's the kind of venue that AREPP (one of the educational puppet groups) would visit? -That is, children probably least in need.
Even if it was, an unscheduled visit during the children's breaktime, without contacting any adults at the school, seems decidedly odd (as does carrying puppets over scrubland to get to the recreation area, to which they have not been invited, instead of using the main driveway to the school and announcing their presence to staff).

And, getting to within 100 metres or so of some of the children, you see they are panicking (what does that look like?- a couple of the youngest children were reported to have started crying in response to what older children were telling them, not because of what they saw IIRC), so as educators you do the responsible thing- you don't lower the puppets and approach, smiling, to reassure and explain; you run away and don't tell anyone.
And even though you went to the trouble of carting puppets over scrubland to get to Ariel School, and then beat a hasty departure, which you might reasonably remember, you don't tell anyone when the Ariel School UFO story gets reported. Ever.

Many schools make use of outside resources, theatrical groups etc. etc., and I know nothing about education in Zimbabwe in 1994.
But I would be surprised if many schools- especially private schools- would be very welcoming of groups of adults, whatever their intention or the importance of their message, turning up without an invitation -and without announcing their presence to staff- to do a bit of freelance education, content unbeknownst to the school staff, to kids during breaktime.

 

[Giddierone]

@John J. These are all good points in #227

Yes, wealthy kids probably didn't need to be lectured to about public health, but perhaps they weren't the intended audience, but were seen and approached opportunistically.

This diagram is from the Kidd paper mentioned above. Although this is a different program and a few years earlier it shows that primary schools were seen as places to approach.

One common description is that the figures made a deliberate "presentation" to the kids. Probably, not something that passing soldiers or gardeners would do. And there's the unreal physicality described as "not human".

"They were just kind of looking at all of us" and "Stiff necks" is a pretty unusual and specific description.

It's frustrating that the people I spoke to at AREPP wouldn't talk to me again after I mentioned Ariel (not that this implies a connection!) - just that people see it as a kooky story.

Perhaps we should try and find out what the children who didn't see anything actually said at the time,

This is what I'm working on!

Yet during the break, if any children visited the tuckshop, none of them tell Mrs Kirkman that something strange is going on -only at the end of the break.

IIRC someone did go and tell her but she didn't want to leave the shop unattended.

Related to your post above @John J.
EDIT: when Michael Hesemann visited in '97 he asked the kids to stand where they were during the sighting. They're pointing to the other side of what was at the time rough ground, it's quite a distance and if whatever was there was between the trees then you'd only be able to see it from a narrow angle. So lots of kids would have missed it.

 

[John J.]

For a moment I thought maybe something like this Casspir might have driven by—it looks a bit like some of the kids UFO drawings, but I think they were only used in South Africa.

Casspirs are used by several nations including the United States (I'd guess mainly to develop US MRAP -mine-resistant ambush protected- vehicles).
The Zimbabwe National Army's main approximate equivalent is the cruder Crocodile APC, inherited from the Rhodesian army.
Much less visible glass than a Casspir.

Other than pre-1980 Rhodesian police vehicles (I don't think Zimbabwe Republic Police use them) and some painted white for UN operations in Somalia 1993-1995, I've only seen photos of them in green, earth or camo paint.

Edited to add, I've just realised "1993-1995"... still think it's an unlikely candidate though; not slab-sided and little in the way of glass. Just a big army truck.

Another addition: South African Casspirs feature quite a bit in the Science Fiction movie District 9,

Casspirs were extensively used by the human characters to enter into the alien settlement zone in the 2009 movie District 9.

Wikipedia, Casspir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casspir

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Casspir...

Another case of thinking zebras rather than horses.

Why think about such an exotic vehicle, when a bus, Jeep/Land Rover, VW bug, truck - etc. - is much more likely?

Or what about...

 

[John J.]

I guess we agree a shiny road vehicle is more likely to have been a "triggering" stimulus than an ETI spacecraft, if there was a triggering stimulus or some common (as in shared) focussing point for the kid's attentions (and imaginations), and that a more common shiny vehicle is more likely to be present than a less common one.
It's probably not possible to identify a culprit, if there was one, even if we find a specific vehicle (or perhaps local vehicles of a specific livery) that match the colours reported by some of the witnesses- which, IIRC, were inconsistent.

 

[jackfrostvc]

@Giddierone

If one of these puppet groups were responsible.
Why setup in a field near the school and seemingly not let anyone in the school know of the performance?

 

[Giddierone]

@Giddierone

If one of these puppet groups were responsible.
Why setup in a field near the school and seemingly not let anyone in the school know of the performance?

I don't know the exact reason, If we knew that it wouldn't be the mystery that it is, but such behaviour is not unprecedented (see my posts above).

The kids describe seeing people/ figures that approached them. I think at least this aspect of their testimony describes what really happened. Theatre/puppet troupes would approach children in public spaces. The school grounds were not bounded and to an outsider it may not have been obvious when/where a line was crossed.

This seems to have caused some embarrassment for the school.

Obtaining records of local activities at the time is somewhat challenging.

a shiny road vehicle is more likely to have been a "triggering" stimulus

Yes, we do have to not let the "we saw a shiny oval thing" get away from us. Or other aspects of the testimony that don't fit the hypothesis at all. Such as seeing things in the air (mostly this occurs in later testimony) or of being almost within arms reach of a strange creature (Salma, Emma). The puppet idea mainly focuses on what the figures could have been and I think the "shiny" thing was a vehicle or perhaps even a puppet booth reflecting the bright sunlight which moved making the glare go away.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Here's a scenario... for entertainment purposes only.

The kids observed a high-luminance visual stimulus... a specular reflection of sunlight from the surface of a vehicle parked on the road. It's just visible through the trees, and all that's visible is the glare. The kids stare at it.

Intense light can produce photopic glare and retinal afterimages, which persist and may appear to move or hover as the observer shifts gaze. Who hasn't "chased" afterimages?

Normally the visual system engages in top-down processing, integrating prior knowledge and expectations to construct a coherent percept. If the stimulus lacks clear form or detail, expectations can resolve the ambiguous image into a clear but bizarre visual percept.

Once an ambiguous reflection was interpreted as an unusual craft, schema-driven perception could lead to the inference of "occupants" associated with that object.

Spoiler: Schema

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)
Schema-driven perception refers to the process by which prior knowledge, expectations, and learned patterns influence how sensory information is interpreted.

A schema is an organized mental framework representing general knowledge about objects, events, or situations. When sensory input is incomplete, ambiguous, or degraded, the brain uses these schemas to "fill in the gaps," creating a coherent perceptual experience.

The perceptual ambiguity, combined with source-monitoring errors and confabulation, could produce the vivid but inaccurate recollections reported. Confabulation in this context does not imply deceit but refers to the unintentional filling of perceptual or mnemonic gaps with semantically familiar imagery drawn from pre-existing cultural and media schemas. Cartoons, puppet shows, whatever.

Spoiler: Source Monitoring Error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error

The process of determining where a remembered piece of information came from. Was it personally experienced, imagined, heard from someone else, or seen in media? A source-monitoring error happens when that attribution is incorrect.

A witness might remember seeing something in real life that they actually saw on television, or believe they personally witnessed an event that was only described to them. In children, these errors are more frequent because their ability to distinguish between internally generated images and external experiences is still developing.

Subsequent discussion among these kids may have amplified consistency through memory conformity and social contagion effects. Processes shown to enhance confidence in collectively generated but inaccurate details. Each group came up with their own narrative.

Spoiler: Memory Conformity, Social Contagion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_conformity
One person's recollection of an event becomes influenced by another person's memory or discussion of that event. Can happen when witnesses talk to one another after seeing an event; the discussion can cause individuals to adopt details they did not originally recall.

Key mechanisms include normative influence (wanting to agree with others) and informational influence (assuming someone else knows better) as well as errors in source-monitoring.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contagion
How information, beliefs, or details about an event spread through social interaction, often leading people to adopt or share memories they did not originally have.

When people discuss an event with others who present additional or altered details, those new details can become incorporated into the first person's memory, through conversational remembering and collective influence.

The effect is stronger when the person discussing with others is seen as credible or confident, and when the original memory is weak or uncertain.

The result can be a shared but distorted narrative that becomes entrenched in a group, even though the original experiences differed.

This is all consistent with well-established findings in eyewitness psychology: ambiguous sensory input, high emotional salience, and group discussion produces shared but distorted narratives without deliberate fabrication.

Spoiler: False Memories

https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitness-testimony-and-memory-biases?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Eyewitnesses are subject to many kinds of memory errors when recalling events. Memories are not perfect recordings but are reconstructive: they can be distorted by misinformation (when false or misleading details are introduced after the event), by schema-driven recall. Schemas shape what we remember.

When witnesses discuss the event this leads to memory conformity. Children and older adults tend to be particularly vulnerable to these distortions.

False memories, remembering events that never happened, can be experimentally created and convincingly reported.

Eyewitness testimony remains compelling in court, but its accuracy is often much lower than jurors or investigators assume.

This is familiar stuff in UFO history.




Mystery Drones.

Afterall, haven't we recently seen the extraordinary and unexpected mass delusions involving adults perceiving ordinary aircraft/astronomical bodies as mystery drones and the strong emotional reactions to such?


We also have to add in the influence of the adults with an agenda. The Satanic Panic of the late 80's and early 90's has shown how dangerous that can be. People were sent to prison on the strength of "recovered memories" and elaborate (but bizarre) narratives conjured up from coached confabulation.

 

[Giddierone]

The kids observed a high-luminance visual stimulus... a specular reflection of sunlight from the surface of a vehicle parked on the road. It's just visible through the trees, and all that's visible is the glare.

I agree with this. I'm constantly on the lookout for such things and while walking the dog this morning captured a similar hovering shiny oval thing (a window taken at 10am) Taking a few steps either way made the glare almost disappear. [This appeared much brighter to the eye than it does to my iphone].

which reminds me of one of their drawings.

Still, I don't think their claim to have seen humanoid figures can be accounted for by your other ideas. I think there were real figures there.

 

[John J.]

Still, I don't think their claim to have seen humanoid figures can be accounted for by your other ideas. I think there were real figures there.

Or they made them up.

We know there was nationwide media coverage of aerial fireballs, and of the subsequent UFO flap, just 2 days before.
We also know that, by coincidence, some of the schoolchildren had an in-class discussion "earlier in the week" (3 or 4 days before?).
UFOs might have featured a lot in the thoughts/ imaginations of some of the children at that time.

The incident happened over several minutes during a break, during which no adults were present.

Maybe a child/ small clique of children were involved in imaginative play or even actively tried to tease/ frighten others, perhaps by pointing out some visible feature (though I'm not convinced anything particularly unusual or rare needed to have been seen) and saying something like
"Look! A flying saucer!" and it escalates from there. More children join in, some perhaps consciously "playing along", others thinking they can see something unusual. They reinforce each other's fanciful perceptions.
A couple of the youngest children (who, it seems, don't see anything themselves, but who fear tokoloshes from their folklore) become distressed and start crying.
This isn't a good look for the older children, who will have to explain why the smaller kids are upset at the end of break. Easiest (if not most admirable) solution, there really were unusual beings to be seen. Some perhaps believe (or half-believe) it.

 

[Giddierone]

Or they made them up.

I just don't believe that. Did the kids in later interviews invent details? Absolutely, as there must have been sense of not being part of the group and a fear of not having anything to say to their numerous interviewers. But, the first reports of seeing figures I think stands up as well as any eyewitness testimony can. Also, as mentioned above this kind of thing would be commonplace if all it took to was a bit of childish imaginative play. This would happen in every town, there'd be one a week!
A clip of Tim Leach's interviews (the first on Camera) intercut with Hind's from the following day for reference:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-57749238

 

[JMartJr]

Also, as mentioned above this kind of thing would be commonplace if all it took to was a bit of childish imaginative play. This would happen in every town, there'd be one a week!

Are instances of kids making imaginative claims not commonplace? Perhaps what is unusual here is not that kids got carried away pretending stuff, but that adults took them seriously and encouraged them to believe it was real.

And THAT might be down to the prior discussion and interest in UFOs meaning that kids got caught up in imaginative UFO stuff in which some number of adults are ready to believe, instead of pretending to see fairies,bogeymen, or dinosaurs or any of the other stuff that swarms through the imaginations of children and which adults were more likely, in that time and place, to dismiss.

They pretended to see/imagined they saw UFO aliens, and the UFO believers came running and rewarded the best stories with lots of attention. In other times and places kids imagined creepy clowns, and adults ready to be scared of stuff came running, or witches, or Satanic caverns under a daycare center, and folks willing to believe in those things came running. (At least long-haired hippy UFO aliens in polka-dot long-johns are pretty benign!)

 

[Giddierone]

long-haired hippy UFO aliens in polka-dot long-johns

This description from the Guardian 21 Aug, 1995 was news to me. I don't think I've seen a drawing with Cher standing next to a gravestone, or the words "Bermuda Triangle". Totally contradicts the narrative that the kids lived in some kind of backwater away from all pop culture.

 

[NorCal Dave]

This description from the Guardian 21 Aug, 1995 was news to me. I don't think I've seen a drawing with Cher standing next to a gravestone, or the words "Bermuda Triangle". Totally contradicts the narrative that the kids lived in some kind of backwater away from all pop culture.

View attachment 85873

So, is the underlined part with Cher and the trolley how the reporter or writer is characterizing the drawings? Or is this how Hind described the drawings.

These drawings could be seen as "Cher" in front of a gravestone:

Being a Yank, I'm not sure what a "Hostess trolley" is, but there are a number of things that look like they are on wheels:

I'll confess I was a bit confounded by the "delegation in Bermuda Triangle "shorts, at least looking at the collections of original drawings on Charlie's website.

Seems like it would be odd for Hind to be referring to the drawings in such a flippant manner, as she more or less commissioned them and saw them as evidence for alien visitation. If it's the writer/reporter describing the drawings this way, is it a clue as to how they saw the whole thing?