Wednesday, July 20, 2016

A New Investigation of the 1994 Ariel School Case

It's not very often that you allegedly have 62 witnesses to a supposed UFO landing. As described in UFO Evidence,

On 14th September, 1994, a UFO streaked across the sky over Southern Africa. Two days later, something landed in a schoolyard in Ruwa, Zimbabwe, with three or four things beside it, according to journalist Cynthia Hind. This was witnessed by 62 schoolchildren, who had little or no exposure to TV or popular press accounts of UFOs. Cynthia Hind interviewed them the day after the encounter and made them draw pictures of what they had seen.

The case has since gone on to become something of a classic. The Harvard psychiatrist and UFO abductionist Dr. John Mack (1929-2004) came to Zimbabwe two months after the incident, and spent two days at the school interviewing the children, and the school staff. Interestingly, according to Headmaster Colin Mackie, while there were about 250 children playing outside at the time, only 62 claim to have seen it. However, not all 62 children were interviewed by Hind or Mack.

The object that streaked across sky the sky of southern Africa two days earlier has since been identified: it was the re-entry of the rocket that launched the Cosmos 2290 satellite. And it generated a great deal of UFO excitement. Cynthia Hind, who was editor of the journal UFO Afrinews, wrote fourteen pages about sightings from that incident.

One of the childrens' drawings of what they supposedly saw.
Relatively little critical analysis has been given to this case - until recently. The French skeptic Gilles Fernandez, who has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology, writes the French-language Blog, Sceptiques vs. les Soucoupes Volantes (Skeptics vs. the Flying Saucers). On June 26, 2016 he published the results of his latest investigation of this case. Crediting skeptic "Nab Lator" and unnamed participants of other forums, this is the culmination of work begun in 2010 ( "thanks to Nab Lator who did 95 % of the work on the sources, ufologiques resources (articles, videos, web archives) key passages, and much more"). Nab Lator did an earlier analysis of the case in 2011 on the forum Reality Uncovered, making many important observations that Fernandez builds upon. (Nab Lator was also the one who successfully de-blurred the placard next to the body of the supposed "alien" in the Roswell Slides.) Viewing one of John Mack's interviews with a child, Lator writes,
The boy is coaxed to imagine a rationale, then transpose it into the real world in the next question. A manipulation that is hidden by the editing of short sequences in the video. John Mack is caught red-handed encouraging the child to confabulate, integrate imagination into reality. JM knew that there was no verbal communication, so why did he suggested so heavily a different type of communication? What else than telepathy could it have been? The children did not make up the telepathic message, JM did. It became a "compelling" element of the story, fully validated by the famous Harvard psychiatrist.
Fernandez' article is in French, but Google provides a readable translation of it. He writes, "it is particularly interesting (and telling) to see how the protection and ecology of the planet "appears" in the testimonies of the children when Mack questioned, while this theme was not present in the narratives collected by Cynthia Hind." This strongly suggests that Mack was "leading" the children to create narratives matching Mack's own beliefs and concerns.

Cynthia Hind, and Dr. John Mack

Fernandez also notes that
Interviewing children has been the subject of numerous scientific papers and experiments, adaptations and creations of interview standard protocols, in psychology or criminology, to well avoid or minimize biases that occur when such interviews (or questionnaires) "pollute" the evidence. Cynthia Hind's interview methodology with children is very far from these standards.... Cynthia Hind and an adult (Headmaster?) debrief and discuss "other planets", "space travel", etc. while children are in the room and hear everything ...
He notes that the children were not being interviewed individually, but instead all together:
The child must be interviewed individually (again following proper procedure). Now, in the video-recorded excerpts above, it is striking to see that children are interviewed in a "line" from four to six. Sometimes other children are in the background and listen to another child being questioned. The adults talk to each other or "debrief" while the children are still very close and present ... Also, children hear what others say (including adults), and therefore are likely to influence each other. Even worse, a child who has seen very little or nothing, sees his classmates details and that this is something that greatly interests adults (verbal and non-verbal rewards). This could encourage them to participate in the "game" ...

These collective sessions have therefore enabled children to hear each other and even to copy each other, caught in a game where they see adults and a nice lady interested in the narratives. We must therefore deliver in our turn, not be excluded or unwelcome in this "game" that took place. This potential participation or having participated give a certain homogeneity to the stories and therefore reported details ...
Also, Cynthia Hind conducting the interview is constantly interrupting the children and not allowing the free narrative. We must also wonder if the fact that the interviews as drawings sessions were held in the school, this did not lead them precisely, encouraged or "biased" them to make what would be compilations of stories ... kinds of school events, where, for example, the child thinks he must absolutely answer questions, produce a drawing, the adult (or authority here) will be waiting for answers and therefore it happens.
Then, as if the problems in the interrogation technique were not bad enough, Fernandez notes
Finally, and this is rarely mentioned or noticed, there was also a session where the children were invited [by Hind] to draw on the board this time around-and not just on paper. Again, this does not back it literally "to send the child to the table"  ? And it is still in my opinion a methodological error: the child is placed as in a school exercise status, "forcing him to produce" adult authority and waiting for something (and "authority" that the reward verbally or non-verbally) ... John Mack also, two months later, again invited children to draw ...
 I wrote earlier about Emily Trim, who was one of the witnesses to the incident in 1994. She spoke to the International UFO Congress in February, and gave an extremely emotional account of her experience:
Emily Trim
She spoke on "E.T. Contacts and the Ariel School Incident." Her talk was highly emotional. She was crying as she spoke of encountering ETs floating above the ground. She said that she fell to her knees before one such being, whose face kept changing between that of an alien, and that of a lion. She has also had a conversation with a magic butterfly. The audience liked Ms. Trim's talk so much that they gave her a standing ovation.
Fernandez notes that Ms. Trim was only in Third Grade at the time of the incident. Thus she was among the youngest in the school at that time, and she is never quoted by Cynthia Hind or John Mack.


  1. sadly, children will have attention for giving the "right" answers to the adults that question them on a topic. They want to please the adult, and also enjoy the attention. Children lie quite a lot (I know from teaching preschool for over 20 years). It's sad that Emily Trim could possibly believe her story, simply because over the years she has had a lot of attention for her story, the more magical and in keeping with the hopes of UFO believers the more attention. She may not be lying, just simply the more she believes, the more she gets attention and is important. I'm glad this case got a new review. It was also assuming far too much that children did not have much knowledge of UFOs, which are such a part of modern mythology that I imagine most of them would know what a UFO and alien looked like. At least a basic knowledge.

    1. Wow...u actually think that 62 children concocted a story like this, and not one person has come foward to say it diddnt happen. A piolet saw it. Nevermind thousands of military personel all over the world. They held a press conference with astronauts, cops, admirals, etc. There yas been video, radar, and multiple witness account for the gimble video along with the iran incident. Wake up and how dare u say they made it up. Kids arent capable of that kind of methodical lying. They were iinterviewed and grilled for days. Dont get ufo nuts mixed up with real ufology

  2. Greetings,

    First, thank you a lot for the summarize and translation of the "essential" parts of "my" article.

    Anonymous wrote "It was also assuming far too much that children did not have much knowledge of UFOs".

    Yes, but it is "wrong" and I read it in several articles in the UFO-media, probably to "reinforce" the case (?).
    Cynthia Hind herself, admited in UFOAFRINEWS the children and mainly the "white" were not UFO-Culture-free:

    Emily B. (then the "other Emily, not Emily T.) stated in the Cynthia Hind interview session videotaped "Everybody was saying they were UFOs."

    On a side note, and reinforcing the lead of a psychosociological contamination or the drawings as a game/ school exercice, it is imho important to notice that Oriana F. draw the entity or the stereotypical "long hair and big eyes entity" in her drawing but she stated "Unlike other kids I did not get to see aliens. The kid who saw them went beyond the boundaries of the playground which i was afraid to do because of the school rules."

    Best Regards,


  3. This all reminds me of the McMartin preschool case only without people going to jail and having their lives needlessly destroyed

    1. I think this is the best comment yet about the Ariell School incident.

  4. Classroom discussion the day after the Ariel school UFO sighting…

    TEACHER: Yesterday we witnessed something extraordinary. We saw a UFO! Can anyone explain what we saw? Anyone, raise your hand?
    Yes Johnny, what do you think it was?

    JOHNNY: Without a doubt it was an extraterrestrial craft from outer space. Extraterrestrial are millions of years ahead of us in technology and that's a fact!

    TEACHER: Very good, Johnny, anyone else?

    NICKY: Pick me, pick me...

    TEACHER: Nicky? You have two hands up, only one will do…

    NICKY: Definitely aliens! And they're planning an INVASION!

    TEACHER: Excellent point Nicky. Let's hear from the girls now..., Emily you have your hand up…

    EMILY: No, that's not right! They're NOT hostile! They are peaceful magical butterflies coming to Earth to guide us in the evolution of our consciousness!

    TEACHER: Very good Emily. I’m impressed.

    (Emily flips her hair and shoots Nicky a smug look.)

    TEACHER: Ok, anyone else? Yes, Bobby…

    BOBBY: Sir…extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. I have not seen any evidence that suggests what we saw was “magical butterflies”.
    There was a re-entry of the Cosmos 2290 satellite in the area at the time we witness the UFO. I believe that’s what we saw. Occam's razor suggests that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be the one chosen. In this case, a satellite re-entry makes sense to me…

    (awkward silence)

    TEACHER: Bobby, what kind of nonsense is that? Are you trying to be the class clown? Report to detention after school and write on the blackboard
    10 times "UFOs are Magical Butterflies”!

    BOBBY: (under his breath) What the #*$%!???

    TEACHER: I heard that! Make that 50 times!

  5. Perhaps the teacher thought Occam's razor was some sort of Zimbabwean shaving device.

  6. Don't bother us with facts , our minds are made up. Do you really think children cannot simply observe and report?

  7. The witnesses are no longer children. They are adults.
    What is your opinion on these adults giving this same account today? Probably have to go down the "as they had convinced their own minds so much as children that they now, as adults, still believe in it when all along it was just fake" route? That would be a pretty weak argument. In conclusion, your article is bollocks!

    1. Well said! Today they are not children but grown adults who have nothing to gain with a fake story.

    2. Well said! Today this childrens are adults they have nothing to gain in telling a fake story.I don't need a guy with a phd to tell me this childrens (now adults) wore seeking for some atention.

  8. Perhaps Pastor Rick (who might have a vested interest in believing in things of which there is no evidence) and Hugo should read one of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus' books on the way in which memories are formed. As an adult, I have frequently found that my childhood memories are not accurate, in those instances where an objective fact-check is available. Of course, where there is no such check, I retain my original memory from childhood. This seems to be a pretty classic case of 'team memory'.

  9. Skeptics are nasty they can turn anything into a kind of manipulation. So it would be interesting to once again hear the children's account.

  10. And skeptics, also point to events that NEVER OCCURRED to justify their position; they lie outright or pass along dubious information from other sources that never occurred the way they try to argue

  11. Wow...this report from a sceptic & debunker surprises me...NOT , sceptics will find anything to debunk a truly bizarre event just as much as believers will always believe an event was a long time ago, so even easier to debunk, the fact remains 62 children have stuck to their stories even as adults, don't you find that odd? And as children it's very difficult to lie convincingly...and when it's 62 of them well that's pretty conclusive, yeah you could argue the teachers or John Mack may have asked misleading questions but jeez it's 62 of them? C'mon guys

  12. In psychology, once the interview has no more information to extract, it is common practice in a forensic investigation to ask the interviewee leading questions based on prior experience of the investigator. Nothing mysterious here. And I agree that it is the testimony of the adults that is telling. Why persist and face certain ridicule? There is no reward for doing so.

  13. Just to be fair, I watched the documentary showing Dr. Mack interviewing the children. Never did I see that they were being interviewed "in front of the other children." I did not see the adults discussing things in front of the children. I did not see Mack leading the children's response. I DID see him use carefully phrased questions so as NOT to lead the response.

    This is another sad example of a "skeptic" whose goal is to simply ATTEMPT to make themselves look intelligent. Very poor critical thought at work. Fail.

    1. You are right, the author of this article is psychologically trying to make that incident looks as fake. Thousands of people works for CIA to hide the facts to ensure other country people not getting the anti gravity technology of aliens, so that America will earn money by selling oils for US dollars..

      (Sorry for my language)

    2. This close encounter was a real deal, what others believe means nothing.

  14. Skeptics just cannot believe sane children can answer simple questions.

  15. Hello here,

    Recent and last one regarding the case, but^^... in French.



  16. it doesnt explain though the fact that the children have been interviewed again as adults and they insist on their story.

  17. If you can`t attack the data, attack the witnesses, very sad indeed.

  18. It is my strong belief that this was a true event, and DR. Mack did not put words in the Students mouths or minds, he was very careful. Today the students have not changed their story, as this is truly a Touch Stone event in modern history. This event is true, it is truth, ignore it at your own peril. I believe these children were chosen, and in ignorance the powers that be, around the world, fear it and have chosen to ignore it. I, for one, have not.

  19. UFOs tend not to leave one speck of dust of evidence behind, which is frustrating. However, between 1954 & 1988, seventy one have landed and crushed vegetation. 17 countries, 5 continents. Hoaxers one assumes, would have to be multilingual, and inter-generational. Every single UFO weighs thirty tons. So Australian hoaxers telling Russian hoaxers, 20 years later, hey they weigh 30 tons. Get a lorry, that weighs almost exactly 30 tons, and often leaves no tracks, or hoaxers that can afford a helicopter. Possible but unlikely. An hallucination, mass hysteria, weather balloon, Venus, all weight 30 tons ? No, they do not. 1967, United Kingdom, two school boys, school boys are sci fi nuts or practical jokers, the worst kind of UFO witness. However they say UFO landed in a field. Investigators check the levels, thirty tons. How do school boys hoax 30 tons ? Lower middle class school boys have a rich uncle with a helicopter or something ? Really ? Listen up skeptics, might not be check mate, but by God it's a lot of checks in a row, got you on the run.


Keep your comments relevant, and keep them civil! That means no personal attacks will be allowed, by anyone, on anyone. Commenters are welcome to disagree with me, or with other comments, but state your arguments using logic, and with a civil tone. Comments in violation of these rules will be deleted, and offenders banned.

Comments should be in English, although quotes from foreign-language sources are fine as long as they're relevant, and you explain them. Anonymous postings are not permitted. If you don't want to use your real name, then make up a name for yourself, and use it consistently.