62 children meet aliens in Zimbabwe?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Another case where the skeptics and debunkers got owned. I guess you can deny as much as you want, that is your choice...Good luck denying the fact that 62 children saw UFOs and ETs.

On the same token, good luck proving these kids actually saw what they think they saw. At best, all that can be demonstrated is that these kids are being sincere. But sincerity does not equal reality.

There is as much proof these kids saw aliens as there is for goblins or demonic possession. That may seem like a flippant dismissal of the incident, the role of mass hysteria is worth considering. Incidents of mass hysteria among school children are not uncommon in the third world and there are even examples in the West.

Zimbabwe, November 2009: A suspected case of mass hysteria has struck Nemanwa Primary School in Charumbira communal lands in Masvingo, where pupils are reportedly screaming wildly and complaining of visions of strange snake-like creatures and lions...Teachers said on average, six pupils were affected every day. Sources last week said some of the pupils would collapse, scream or tell of visions of snakes, lions, hyenas and crocodiles. SOURCE

South Africa, March 2009: A wave of mass hysteria overcame a Pretoria high school as dozens of children collapsed, screaming in unexplained convulsions and fits. The hysteria started when a Grade 9 girl collapsed at her desk at Daspoort Secondary School in Claremont on Thursday...At least one of the visions was believed to be that of the boy who committed suicide. Megan Mabye, who collapsed outside the hall..described how she had a vision of "three green four-legged men" trying to kill her as a pastor stood over her, praying. SOURCE

Bangladesh, March 2010: A mystery illness health experts are describing as a type of "mass hysteria" has struck students at four schools in Bangladesh in the past week, forcing them to close temporarily. The condition appears highly contagious, as soon as one student becomes ill, others are immediately struck with similar symptoms, usually headaches, acute pain and even fainting, officials say. "So far, 81 students at three schools and a madrassa (religious school) have been struck by the ailment..."SOURCE

Guyana, November 2009: On Thursday pandemonium broke out at the school after one female student went berserk allegedly under some supernatural influence. That hysteria quickly spread to 14 other female students resulting in most tearing off their clothing and behaving abnormal.
Some bellowed to the top of their lungs while others displayed a mad fit of giggling. SOURCE

Mexico, April 2007: MEXICO CITY: Mexican girls studying at a strict boarding school run by a South Korean nun are to undergo psychological therapy today after hundreds of them were hit by a mysterious case of "mass hysteria". The malaise struck up to 600 of the 4500 students at one point, and health officials determined they were suffering from mass hysteria. SOURCE

Also consider the McMartin Preschool Panic, where children were so convinced they had been subject to the utmost bizarre forms of abuse that people were brought to criminal trial. Consider the "Penis Panic" that struck Singapore in the 1960s and is still prevalent in some parts of Africa, wherein thousands of men are convinced their penis has been stolen by a witch. Consider the June Bug epidemic that struck a US dress factory in the 1960s; women reported flu-like symptoms after being bitten by a bug. While their symptoms were real, no bug bites nor any bug that could cause flu-like symptoms were ever found.

There are hundreds of more examples. We can see how mass hysteria affects its victims on both a physical and mental level. So what is the difference between the Ruda UFO sighting and any of these incidents of mass-panic, other than what these children claim to have seen?

It seems that the very real possibility of the events at Ruda being a case of mass hysteria are being dismissed without thought because these children are saying what some people want to hear.


[edit on 30-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Smell The Roses

You are reaching here. I think the explanations given for this event are pretty comical. Nobody wants to just give in and accept the reality. And so you know the kids were separately interviewed and all stated the same consistent story.
Refer to the original article for more info. These kids are liars?

Im reaching quite considerably yes, but not as far as alien beings in flying saucers just yet. Why must any suggestion of alternate explaination
be nessesarily calling the witness/es liar?

Ive heard the story before and it 'seems' to be genuine, note the emphasis, but I have not yet made conclusions, I am merely narrowing it down with logic,
which for me atleast, proceeds making rash conclusions based on pre-existing beleif alone.

Frakkerface

maybe it's me but this sounds quite tribal. Blonde white kids seem out of place. I don't know.

Apartheid Is over. Not all black people are 'tribal', as you imply, is wil smith 'tribal'?

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Another case where the skeptics and debunkers got owned. I guess you can deny as much as you want, that is your choice...Good luck denying the fact that 62 children saw UFOs and ETs.

DoomsdayRex

On the same token, good luck proving these kids actually saw what they think they saw. At best, all that can be demonstrated is that these kids are being sincere. But sincerity does not equal reality.

Indeed. I do note however the first example you give of 'mass hysteria' involve commonly recognisable, 'everyday experienced' animals,
62 children all hallucinating the same unknown things, seems stretchy. Can mass hysteria/hallucination be shown to spread to others
witnessing that kind of thing? E.G through fear.

If one person in a crowded subway starts screaming 'gun' and pointing and running, will nearby witness be effected by that persons
fear into beleiving instantly that somebody meaning harm has a gun? And everyone runs? mass panic?

Not sure how that might work with other examples where somebody claims to see something that defys reality.
Instant beleif theres a snake, if sombody yells 'snake', seems more likely than instant beleif if somebody yells 'four legged purple demons'.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Nobody said anything about this being "proof" either, that's your straw man which you knock down.

Then maybe I misinterpreted this post, please help clear up my misunderstanding and give me your interpretation:

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
This case is a PERFECT example of how real ETs are...
isn't it great to see such concrete evidence coming forward.

If you want me to change the my denial of "proof" to denial of "concrete evidence" would that make a such a big difference to you? If so, then I agree to do so. Witness testimony alone may be considered evidence in court, but even there it's not considered "concrete", and in the scientific community witness testimony is even less valuable than in court.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
What? How did anyone get owned? Be specific. First, I doubt the kids are telling the truth. But even if they were, how does that prove it's ET and not something like this:

Err... because the supposed aliens got out and showed themselves?

Again, IF it happened which is a big IF, how do we know it's not a person wearing a suit and a helmet, or a costume for that matter?

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The fact that the occupant looked like a bipedal humanoid looks way more human than alien to me, chances are life evolving on another planet has only the tiniest of chances of looking even remotely like we do.

How about you admit you're just speculating? There's no "chances are", you made that up. Physics and biology would place definite limits on morphology, weird looking tentacle creatures with eyes on sticks are not likely to be flying flying saucers just because you want to imagine it.

I do tend to agree with you that morphology might provide certain limitations on what type of alien being might pilot a craft. However, to my knowledge it's the people that think they know what these limits are who are speculating. I think my view that we may not be able to predict exactly what form alien beings might take is actually less speculative than speculating they would have to evolve a certain way.

To use your example, if the tentacles can grab tools and construct things, why wouldn't tentacles be a viable alternative to opposable thumbs? Especially if they had 8 of them! I've worked on some construction projects where I wished I had a few extra hands!

I know it's a logical fallacy to appeal to authority, so I'm not asking you to take the word of David Aguilar from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics at face value, however it is not a logical fallacy to use his statement to illustrate the point that I didn't make it up:

www.youtube.com...
6:10

"David Aguilar has written a number of books for National Geographic on what's going on out there in the solar system, and what other life forms may look like"

0:11

Pat shows a slide of a humanoid looking creature, not totally unlike what the schoolchildren drew.
Pat: "Is that something that could evolve on another planet?"
David Aguilar: "Of course things are going to evolve differently on another planet. And there's no reason that we would have humanoids. The chance of finding humanoids that look like us, that look like you see in star Trek, are so unbelievably small.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Indeed. I do note however the first example you give of 'mass hysteria' involve commonly recognisable, 'everyday experienced' animals,
62 children all hallucinating the same unknown things, seems stretchy. Can mass hysteria/hallucination be shown to spread to others
witnessing that kind of thing? E.G through fear.

Why do you think it is a stretch? Mass hysteria can affect hundreds and thousands of people, all experiencing the same symptoms or hallucinations.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Not sure how that might work with other examples where somebody claims to see something that defys reality. Instant beleif theres a snake, if sombody yells 'snake', seems more likely than instant beleif if somebody yells 'four legged purple demons'.

Yes, because you have grown up in a culture where a belief in purple four-legged demons are not part of your every day life. There are no such things as insects that spread flu-like symptoms, but several dozen women were convinced they had been bitten by one and exhibited the symptoms. There are no such thing as penis-thieving witches, but thousands of men from Southeast Asia to Africa believe such has happened to them; people have died due that particular brand of hysteria. Though such things may not exist, they are very real to the victims of these hysterias. Reality and what a person believes to be real are two separate things, though often confused.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
There is as much proof these kids saw aliens as there is for goblins or demonic possession.

IUnfortunately the scientific plausibility factor for goblins or demonic possession is not rather high, eh? What is it with the lame pseudoskepticism these days. At least Phil Klass would be able to evoke some laughter with convoluted explanations. Following your train of thought it might also be Santa. Are you saying Goblins or Santa and advanced extraterrestrial life are all of equal probability? Please do tell, because if you answer yes you would rate quite high on the crackpot scale as far as I am concerned.

That may seem like a flippant dismissal of the incident, the role of mass hysteria is worth considering. Incidents of mass hysteria among school children are not uncommon in the third world and there are even examples in the West.

Do I need to explain to you why this is fallacious reasoning?

Originally posted by jclmavg
Are you saying Goblins or Santa and advanced extraterrestrial life are all of equal probability?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Though not in the way you think. You have either misunderstood the point or are purposefully trying to twist it; I cannot help but to think it is the latter.

In the case of Ruda, in comparing it to incidents of mass hysteria, there is as much evidence the children saw aliens as there is that people in mass hysteria events saw goblins, demons or anatomy-stealing witches. The evidence is the claims of the witnesses and nothing more, no matter how sincere.

But please, if you disagree, tell us why they are different.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Do I need to explain to you why this is fallacious reasoning?

Please do, because it appears you are dismissing the idea without thought.

As an interesting side not, some of the African students who witnessed the event did not consider it an alien but a tokoloshe, a malevolent dwarf or goblin spirit. Why should we accept the testimony of the students who saw aliens at face-value, but dismiss the testimony of those who saw something else? Why should Ruda be considered evidence of a real event and similar incidents regarding demons or goblins or flu-spreading insects be dismissed as mass-hysteria?

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Man I can't wait till the day we have full disclosure by some government. How will that be debunked?

The funny thing is that most of the skeptics and debunks consider news like FOX and CNN garbage, yet I would bet these same people would finally believe if these same sources posted that ETs were real. It is a funny thing to say the least. I mean come on, this is bordering on denial now.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jclmavg
Nobody said anything about this being "proof" either, that's your straw man which you knock down.

Then maybe I misinterpreted this post, please help clear up my misunderstanding and give me your interpretation:

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
This case is a PERFECT example of how real ETs are...
isn't it great to see such concrete evidence coming forward.

Since when is the opinion of a single contributor indicative of how the case is treated and represented by ufology in general? Are there any UFOlogists who put the case forward as "proof"? No?

Witness testimony alone may be considered evidence in court, but even there it's not considered "concrete", and in the scientific community witness testimony is even less valuable than in court.

Grave misunderstandings about science. What do you find in scientific research papers? Precisely. You find witness accounts of scientists who researched such an such, and drew this or that conclusion. Most published papers do in fact not even contain proper research and are quite likely to be wrong. So much for that! Science is not an activity by robotic entities, which operate flawlessly and without error. Yes, science is done by humans! It involves people writing up what they saw, what a surprise.

Again, IF it happened which is a big IF, how do we know it's not a person wearing a suit and a helmet, or a costume for that matter?

One could be argumentative and use this objection even if they landed on the white house lawn. You ask the question merely because your presuppositions prevent you from considering what is there. You work from your own theoretical framework (humanoid aliens are an impossibility -> therefore guy in a suit) but do not question your underlying assumptions.

I'd rather believe the students were hallucinating than to consider the possibility a very advanced experimental craft shows up in Zimbabwe close to a school which is flown by a human midget in a suit. Sorry.

I do tend to agree with you that morphology might provide certain limitations on what type of alien being might pilot a craft. However, to my knowledge it's the people that think they know what these limits are who are speculating. I think my view that we may not be able to predict exactly what form alien beings might take is actually less speculative than speculating they would have to evolve a certain way.

You did not argue that "we may not be able to predict exactly what form alien beings would take", you argued that humanoid morphology was so improbable for advanced alien visitors it can be used to mark cases such as this one as false. Yet there is no data, except our own planet, to make such a determination and deem this or that improbable.

On the other hand, I think quite a good case can be made why nature would favor a humanoid morphology on earth-like planets if advanced life evolved there. So I'll have to disagree with you that the "it could look like anything" point of view is less speculative than the argument that form to some degree would be dictated by physics, biology and the environment. You argument is just a different way of saying there are no boundaries, which might fly with the Star Wars crowd. It does not convince me.

To use your example, if the tentacles can grab tools and construct things, why wouldn't tentacles be a viable alternative to opposable thumbs? Especially if they had 8 of them! I've worked on some construction projects where I wished I had a few extra hands!

I suggest you ask yourself why large land dwelling animals, those that could potentially evolve into intelligent beings, do not have as much limbs as say a squid with tentacles. And tentacles being good to manipulate objects? Perhaps to some degree, but there's a limit to that manipulation there staring right back at ya.

Pat: "Is that something that could evolve on another planet?"
David Aguilar: "Of course things are going to evolve differently on another planet. And there's no reason that we would have humanoids. The chance of finding humanoids that look like us, that look like you see in star Trek, are so unbelievably small.

Same flawed reasoning, I don't think he said anything that makes sense, Read the paper by Robert Bieri, published in Nature years ago, titled Humanoids on other planets. None of the objections - or should I say proclamations - by Aguilar make sense in light of that paper.

reply to post by Smell The Roses


I have never seen such profound insights. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm reeling.

Originally posted by jclmavg
Since when is the opinion of a single contributor indicative of how the case is treated and represented by ufology in general? Are there any UFOlogists who put the case forward as "proof"? No?

I wasn't responding to UFOlogy in general, I was responding to the contributor who posted before me.

And I never said alien humanoid life was impossible, just unlikely. Just as you point you that one poster doesn't represent all of UFOlogy, the one paper you cite doesn't represent the best scientific speculation of the entire scientific community, and as you pointed out, it's all speculative.

And yes I'd rather believe the children were involved in a mass hallucination than a guy in a space suit too, so we agree on that point, I was merely trying to illustrate why the incident is so far from concrete proof.

Originally posted by Smell The Roses
Man I can't wait till the day we have full disclosure by some government. How will that be debunked?

I see disclosure of things that happened decades ago.

Then another decade goes by, with more disclosure of things that happened decades ago.

Then another decade goes by, with more disclosure of things that happened decades ago.

Then....

Do you see a pattern forming here? It seems to be perhaps a 50 year delay or so in the USA for highly sensitive information which can be released. Declassification time is shorter for less sensitive information, and the cycle seems to be shorter in other Western countries.

But I don't anticipate any disclosure from any government about this particular case, do you? Not because they won't tell us, but because they don't know any more than we do about the Zimbabwe sighting, as far as I can tell.

Why do you think it is a stretch? Mass hysteria can affect hundreds and thousands of people, all experiencing the same symptoms or hallucinations.

Because I cannot recall any case ever madepublic, where hundreds, much less thousands of people Hallucinated the same thing, where the 'thing' was something unknown.

Yes, because you have grown up in a culture where a belief in purple four-legged demons are not part of your every day life.

There are no such things as insects that spread flu-like symptoms, but several dozen women were convinced they had been bitten by
one and exhibited the symptoms.

There are!
malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever and viral encephalitis. Mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in poor countries with
warm humid climates such as Africa.

www.wrongdiagnosis.com...

There are no such thing as penis-thieving witches, but thousands of men from Southeast Asia to Africa
believe such has happened to them; people have died due that particular brand of hysteria. Though such things may not exist, they are very
real to the victims of these hysterias. Reality and what a person believes to be real are two separate things, though often confused.

Ok, but what Im asking is how one person infects another with the same hysteria? Whats your supposition in relation to that with these kids?
If im among a few hundered people and someone looks to thesky pointing and says 'a big red cube', and I and others dont all see it, are we immune from mass hysteria, mass hallucination, or is it more likely those that did see it are more prone to suggestion?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Because I cannot recall any case ever made public, where hundreds, much less thousands of people Hallucinated the same thing, where the 'thing' was something unknown.

I think we may be operating under different definitions here. What do you mean, "unknown"?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
There are!

You are completely and totally right. Mea Culpa I misspoke. Insofar as the Junebug Epidemic was concerned, there was no bug biting the women and causing the illness. The insect did not exist, but they were convinced it was.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Ok, but what Im asking is how one person infects another with the same hysteria? Whats your supposition in relation to that with these kids?
If im among a few hundered people and someone looks to thesky pointing and says 'a big red cube', and I and others dont all see it, are we immune from mass hysteria, mass hallucination, or is it more likely those that did see it are more prone to suggestion?

I am not sure what mechanisms cause the spread of mass hysteria. However, it is known to spread via line-of-sight. Seeing someone in the throws of mass-hysteria makes you more susceptible. That could have evolved as a defense mechanism. (if your friend starts panicking because they think there is a lion in the grass, it is better to panic with them and be wrong than not panic and be wrong). It is plausible most of the students didn't see anything, but witnessed a friend in a panic then panicked themselves, then later believed they saw something.

I don't think anyone is immune to mass hysteria, but women tend to be more susceptible than men (has anyone investigated the sex make-up of the Ruda witnesses?). And children are far more open to suggestion than adults, though all humans have trouble distinguishing fiction from reality time to time.


[edit on 30-3-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

I think we may be operating under different definitions here. What do you mean, "unknown"?

Fair enough. How many ufo sightings, much less those with landings and aliens are reported from Zimbabwe each year, as opposed to
somewhere else? I think this might scrape in as a definition of 'unknown' to the witnesses? Though I acknowledge they have tv.

You are completely and totally right. Mea Culpa I misspoke. Insofar as the Junebug Epidemic was concerned, there was no bug biting the women and causing the illness. The insect did not exist, but they were convinced it was.

If you start feeling 'bites' sensations, itching and scratching excessively then despite an absence of bite marks, its not unreasonable in my opinion to suspect insects,
however small in the clothing might be responsible. With infestations of mits or headlice for example, if we see someone scratching excessivly,
we might tend to feel itchy and scratch ourselves, is this hysteria? Likewise if someone starts slapping at mosquitos you cant see (at night) you might imagine
any sensation on your skin is a mosquito, is this hysteria?

I am not sure what mechanisms cause the spread of mass hysteria. However, it is known to spread via line-of-sight. Seeing someone in the throws of mass-hysteria makes you more susceptible. That could have evolved as a defense mechanism. (if your friend starts panicking because they think there is a lion in the grass, it is better to panic with them and be wrong than not panic and be wrong). It is plausible most of the students didn't see anything, but witnessed a friend in a panic then panicked themselves, then later believed they saw something.

Yet, if they were questioned separately and drew their images separately How does one know what the other is describing during the panic?
How do they draw the same thing? Perhaps they were asked about it in a group situation first, before any investigator became involved?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Fair enough. How many ufo sightings, much less those with landings and aliens are reported from Zimbabwe each year, as opposed to
somewhere else? I think this might scrape in as a definition of 'unknown' to the witnesses? Though I acknowledge they have tv.

No idea. However many there are, there was enough exposure to the idea of UFOs and aliens for the kids to describe what they saw as such.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Likewise if someone starts slapping at mosquitos you cant see (at night) you might imagine any sensation on your skin is a mosquito, is this hysteria?

Remember, these women weren't just feeling an insect biting them but falling ill as well.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Yet, if they were questioned separately and drew their images separately How does one know what the other is describing during the panic?

They weren't questioned separately by investigators at first. It took some time (though I have no idea how long, I can't find that information) for Cynthia Hind to interview them, and then even longer for John Mack to interview them. There was plenty of time for the children conflate their stories. And if you watch the videos, the kids don't all describe the same thing; the generalities are there but there are varying details.

Note: I just noticed I've been spelling Ruwa as Ruda.

In this video, The researcher seems to asking rather Leading questions, and the child agreeing.

www.youtube.com...

What’s important to note here, if in fact this story holds true.

A. They are telling the truth (amazing, this is a message of concern)
B. They are lying, AMAZING.. 62 Children would have had to pass a message or all gather and discuss how they all equaly agree “Humanity is destroying itself” smart kids. Even smarter kids if they all collectively, or one individual who some how influenced all the other kids, created this story to get this message of warning? Out. “Humanity is destroying itself” 62 kids huh… in a school where you can’t lye… damn this is amazing either way.


We all need to take part in saving the world


[edit on 30-3-2010 by sv_gravity 800]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall


Frakkerface

maybe it's me but this sounds quite tribal. Blonde white kids seem out of place. I don't know.

Apartheid Is over. Not all black people are 'tribal', as you imply, is wil smith 'tribal'?

Come on, that's lame. Don't try to pull the racist card on me. Your Will Smith comment is out of order and you know that's not what I was implying. Not all black people are tribal but a high proportion of african tribes are black.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
In this video, The researcher seems to asking rather Leading questions, and the child agreeing.

www.youtube.com...

Thanks for posting that link...maybe the questions were a little bit leading but not as bad as I expected after reading your comment. It would be nice if we could see all the interviews in full, and if he asked similar questions to each interviewee.

Did you notice the discrepancy where one child said the eyes came to a point on the inside and another child said the eyes came to a point on the outside?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Did you notice the discrepancy where one child said the eyes came to a point on the inside and another child said the eyes came to a point on the outside?

Yes and some children said the creature had hair as well. Like I said, the generalities are there but there are discrepancies in the details, sometimes major ones.