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

[Giddierone]

Tim Leach's videotape was lost

His tape wasn't lost, they asked him to reshoot some of it because of a bright light (maybe a shiny rock... ) that spoiled some of his footage.
[see #7]

Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't do some extra mental gymnastics and run with the sensational fact that Leach's next door neighbours in Hampstead were brutally knifed to death just nine days before John Mack was "run over by a drunk driver" in London...

[the article also gets the Ariel School event date wrong].

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Speaking with Tineke DeNooj in '96 he said: [English remarks start around 0:30]

I've changed my mind slightly I, I believe the children did see something

Not aliens, but not a made up event.

I'm not sure that Mackie really changed his mind, because he told Hind (4 days after the event):

I do believe that the children here today believe themselves that they did see something.

I guess there's a subtle difference between him believing the children believed they saw something and him believing the children did see something. He didn't think they made it up, anyway.

Of the day of the sighting itself, he said:

at lunch time a few of the children told their parents when they came to collect them. A few of the parents took a wander down there to see if they could see anything. That is when I really became concerned because if there was something there I didn't really want everybody walking down there.

So he took them seriously (that they'd seen something).

Mackie has not responded to interview requests since he spoke with Michael Heseman in '97.

He retired to Queensland here in Australia and didn't respond to my Facebook message a few years ago.

There's a total of one short paragraph in Kokota's paper about Ariel School. The problem is it's almost entirely incorrect. See sentences in bold. His citation for this information is Cynthia Hind, who we know was an unreliable narrator.

Zimbabwe

In 1994, 62 school children all reported seeing an alien craft land and extraterrestrial creatures emerge14​. Virtually every single one of the 62 children iterated the exact same story with same details and none of them had gone against his/her story. Many dismissed the 1994 incident as mass hysteria affecting the children. But when the children were found to not have much prior knowledge to UFOS or popular UFO perceptions, many other people believed that what the children witnessed could have been real. The children were asked to draw what they have encountered the day prior.

That YouTuber did at least acknowledge that the kids had access to pop culture on aliens.

But also, since publication of the above journal article I have been told by a pupil/witness that the track around the perimeter of the school cross country course - in the direction of where the children were looking - was suitable for a vehicle. So a reflecting vehicle at a distance is the hypothesis.

Thanks for all your continuing work on the puppet hypothesis. I really do think it's the best explanation we have right now. (Bearing in mind that anything seen in the sky was from the day before, so we don't need a hypothesis that explains "flying saucers" at all.)[/ex]

 

[Charlie Wiser]

Cynthia Hind also mentions a girl being interviewed by "SATV", South African TV? (UFO Afrinews 11, Feb 1994). Maybe that was for the Agenda program mentioned by Giddierone. If a neighbouring country is covering the story on TV- not many channels back then- it might indicate coverage was quite widespread (more than e.g. local radio).

Coverage in another country doesn't mean coverage was widespread. A puppet troupe in Zimbabwe doesn't watch South African TV (to address your question about why they didn't come forward to set the record straight.)

Other than the BBC interview and two reporters in the couple of weeks that followed (for South African then Zimbabwe TV), I've never seen any other on-camera interviews, and if newspaper reports exist I've never seen them. It looks like this was a brief "human interest" story (because who can resist cute kids) that didn't make the papers.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

The first time I heard about Ariel was likely this short clip on the BBC in 1994 that uses some of Nicky Carter's footage. I think this threadbare coverage (they also get the month wrong) was probably typical, rather than it gaining "significant publicity" (there's not much evidence of that).

How hilarious that the only drawing they highlight in close-up is this one, which seems rather obviously influenced by a TV spaceship:

From the Invaders TV show (1967-68):

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I get the impression that the school recreation ground would have been reasonably visible from approx. 100 metres away

It was 200 meters away. In fact I'm so confident of that, from the evidence presented, that I don't think it's helpful or accurate to use the 100m distance.

1. Google Maps shows the school boundary and the bush where the "glint in the trees" was - although I don't know who placed that pin. This map is from 2005, so 11 years later and some land features may have changed. The season is 4 months earlier (May = end-Autumn) than the sighting (September = early Spring). 100 meters away would place the UFO across the playing field and not in the bush and tall grass that we see in videos (below).

2. Guy points at the location and says it's "between the third [telephone] pole" which implies he's counting from the nearest pole (number 1) and then the sighting was either 2.5 or 3.5 poles away. I can't find Zimbabwe-specific info about pole span but 100m is "standard" in rural Uganda. (Spans are longer in flat rural terrain, shorter in built-up complex areas.)

Source: PREPARATORY SURVEY REPORT ON THE PROJECT FOR RURAL ELECTRIFICATION PHASE III IN THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, JICA, 2012 (p. 2-7).

Guy pointing to the location. Source: BBC interview, 1994, timestamped.

3. The site was on the cross-country trail (according to the adult kids, I think?). This isn't evidence for the distance of 200m but just for context: I don't know where that trail was, but by definition it's not purpose-built (like a regular athletics track) or it wouldn't be cross-country, so it was presumably further afield than the playing field area. According to RunningShorts.com primary kids run 1 to 2 km for cross-country. The yellow line here is 1000 meters exactly and would take the children past the site, whereas running around the track would not.
(BTW the Westall sighting in 1966 was also associated with the school's cross-country trail, which was just some roads and tracks through a rural area beyond school grounds.)

4. Hind corrected the "100 meters" to "200 meters" her book UFOs Over Africa, 1996:

p. 222

p. 229

Obviously the kids could not see the features clearly at that distance, regardless of Hind's determination to present their perception as accurate. It's human nature to add details to a poorly perceived sighing (and especially to our memory of the sighting upon recall) if we already think we know what we're looking at.

It seems improbable that a human-sized puppet could be seen in considerable detail, but that the puppeteers couldn't be seen and recognised as such, nor could their vehicle.

This video is on Hind's assistant Gunter Hofer's site and shows Gunter, Mackie and Hind trekking toward the site (timestamped) - some of the plants are as tall as them, and since they haven't yet reached the site, this vegetation is what would be obscuring the view:

19:09: Here's Gunter talking to a couple of the kids at what I presume is near the site, since they've stopped to discuss something and Guy is gesturing toward the right:

19:32 Here they're returning from the site back to the boundary log - it gives a good idea of the view the kids had in terms of vegetation: