Ariel School, 1994: sixty children and one difficult morning
At a school near Harare, dozens of children reported a craft and figures during morning break. They were interviewed within days, on camera, by adults with very different intentions. The interviews are the case and the problem.
The reports came from pupils at Ariel School near Ruwa, Zimbabwe, on 16 September 1994.
On the morning of 16 September 1994, pupils at Ariel School near Ruwa in Zimbabwe reported seeing an object land in scrubland at the edge of the school grounds during morning break, and one or more figures near it. Around sixty children were involved, aged roughly six to twelve.
It is the most compelling case of its kind and the one most damaged by how it was investigated.
What is documented
The reports were made on the day. Children drew what they had seen. The headmistress was informed and the accounts were taken seriously locally.
Within days a local investigator, and shortly after him the Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, interviewed the children on camera. Those recordings exist and are the primary evidence.
What was claimed
A landed craft and figures, and — in several accounts — a message received without speech, concerning harm to the environment.
The interviewing problem
This is where the case comes apart, and it is not a small objection.
Watch the recordings and the questioning is frequently leading. Children are asked whether the figures had large eyes, whether they received a message, whether it was about the environment. Some of the most-quoted content — the ecological warning in particular — appears in the answers after it has appeared in the questions.
Children are highly suggestible witnesses and this is among the best-established findings in developmental psychology. It does not mean they lied. It means an interview conducted this way cannot be used to establish what they originally experienced.
What has happened since
Several of the witnesses, now in middle age, have restated their accounts. That is often presented as corroboration and it is weaker than it looks: an adult recalling an event they have described repeatedly for thirty years is recalling their own account, not the event.
What would carry weight is any of the original drawings, with a documented date, and any contemporaneous written statement taken before the film crews arrived.
Join the discussion
Still open on this one:
- 01
Do the original drawings survive, with dates?
They are the only evidence in the case that predates adult interviewing, and therefore the only part not contaminated by it.
Be the first to comment
Sources
Open them and check for yourself. Where a record is public, it is linked.
Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens
John E. Mack, Charles Scribner’s Sons · 1 Jan 1994 · no public copy located
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry
J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery · 1 Jan 1972 · no public copy located
Related
Psychic Phenomena
The Nine: who — or what — were they?
On New Year’s Eve 1952, in a laboratory in Maine, a voice announced itself as one of nine. Over the next forty years it reached a credentialled scientist, a celebrity psychic, a bestselling book and the creator of Star Trek. This is what is documented, and what is not.
Psychic Phenomena
New Year’s Eve 1952: the first session with the Nine
The founding event of the whole Nine phenomenon happened in a Maine farmhouse on 31 December 1952. Here is what the record supports about that evening, and how much of the familiar account was written down much later.
Psychic Phenomena
D. G. Vinod: the man at the beginning of the Nine
Every version of the Nine story starts with Dr D. G. Vinod in a trance in Maine. He is also the person that story then almost entirely forgets. Why the first channel is the biggest hole in the record.
Psychic Phenomena
Andrija Puharich: the doctor who kept turning up
A qualified physician, an inventor with real patents, an army medical officer — and the constant in forty years of the strangest story in American parapsychology. Puharich is the reason the Nine keep touching institutions.
0 comments