PDA

View Full Version : Germanic European UFO battles in the 1560s



Tom Mazanec
2011-Sep-25, 09:54 PM
It looks like they have to be the same phenomonon...but WHAT?
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case485.htm
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm

antoniseb
2011-Sep-25, 10:15 PM
I'd be interested in seeing *any* original contemporary accounts of these events. If I had to guess about the Basel event, I'd say it was soap bubbles (which are spherical, change color, and get consumed and disappear). There is a nice description of how to make golden spheres that float on the breeze in "De Propritiibus Rerum" by Bartholomeus Anglicus in the 15th Century.

As for the other one... I really need to see a source. The image looks like it is diagramming something as opposed to illustrating something.

Selenite
2011-Sep-25, 10:20 PM
I find it strange that the famous woodcut from Nuremberg depicts smoke rising from the ground but no physical evidence of these things was ever recovered.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-26, 08:06 AM
The second one
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm
looks quite similar to certain halo phenomena that are sometimes observed
see
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/mdisp5.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/mdisp6.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/mdisp7.htm
and so on; I suspect that these woodcuts are depictions of such occurences, perhaps made at second- or third-hand but still retaining some of the relevant features.

tnjrp
2011-Sep-26, 08:59 AM
We had a bit of discussion on the "Nuremberg UFO battle" here
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/the-ufo-battle-of-nuremberg-1561-t21213.html
rather recently and after the German fellow (nic Stapledon) translated some pertinent stuff into English so I could understand it I was left with an inclination to provisionally go with the halo phenomenon hypothesis.

astromark
2011-Sep-26, 09:54 AM
Drugs.. that is the answer here. Mind altering seeing what's not there.. talking of it. Drawing images.. Drugs.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-26, 12:07 PM
We had a bit of discussion on the "Nuremberg UFO battle" here
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/the-ufo-battle-of-nuremberg-1561-t21213.html
rather recently and after the German fellow (nic Stapledon) translated some pertinent stuff into English so I could understand it I was left with an inclination to provisionally go with the halo phenomenon hypothesis.

Thanks! That discussion includes a very interesting link to some depictions of halo phenomena from that period;
see
http://www.meteoros.de/halo/halo1.htm
some of those depictions are very accurate indeed, others a little more fanciful, and some resemble the Nurenburg image quite closely. The 'black spear' effect could be a crepuscular or anticrepuscular ray, for instance.

antoniseb
2011-Sep-26, 12:44 PM
Thanks! That discussion includes a very interesting link to some depictions of halo phenomena from that period;
see
http://www.meteoros.de/halo/halo1.htm...
Thanks to you for extracting this cool link!

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 01:05 PM
If I had to guess about the Basel event, I'd say it was soap bubbles (which are spherical, change color, and get consumed and disappear).

are you serious? (honest question)
i understand that you are guessing - which is all any of us can do - but do you honestly believe a good number of medieval folks would confuse soap bubbles with

black spheres involved in a formidable aerial battle (first link from op)

and, more specifically (from same link):

one saw many large black balls which moved at high speed in the air towards the sun, then made half-turns, banging one against the others as if they were fighting a battle out a combat, a great number of them became red and igneous

whatever it was, it doesn't sound like soap bubbles to me at all.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 01:10 PM
... I was left with an inclination to provisionally go with the halo phenomenon hypothesis.

referring to the 2 quotes in my previous post (to antoniseb):
going by the description i quoted, does that really sound like a halo phenomenon to you? black halos? moving about in the sky? aren't halos around otherwise fixed (i.e. very slow-moving) objects? like the moon or the sun? they don't move around as if fighting each other, do they?

antoniseb
2011-Sep-27, 01:12 PM
are you serious? (honest question)...
Unless I see an actual contemporary description of the event, all we have is the woodcut. The woodcut shows bubbles, some of which the woodcut artist did not bother to hollow out, but the center ones are clear. If in fact there is also a description from the same time of a formidable aerial battle... then OK, but I'm not seeing it in the image. Nor am I seeing body language suggesting anything but curiosity on the part of the on-lookers.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-27, 01:22 PM
...black halos?
I suspect that the woodcut was made by someone who did not see the event, or possibly saw some of it but not all, but relied upon verbal descriptions by other witnesses. A 'black halo' may be an attempt to describe the 22° circular halo, which often accompanies other halo-related phenomena:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/circular.htm

The sharp inner edge is red tinged. Beyond, the halo fades gradually away.
The sky inside is dark because no crystals can glint there.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 01:23 PM
Unless I see an actual contemporary description of the event, all we have is the woodcut. The woodcut shows bubbles, some of which the woodcut artist did not bother to hollow out, but the center ones are clear. If in fact there is also a description from the same time of a formidable aerial battle... then OK, but I'm not seeing it in the image. Nor am I seeing body language suggesting anything but curiosity on the part of the on-lookers.

in both woodcut and text the spheres are shown and described as black. i have never seen black soap bubbles...

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 01:27 PM
I suspect that the woodcut was made by someone who did not see the event, or possibly saw some of it but not all. A 'black halo' may be an attempt to describe the 22° circular halo, which often accompanies other halo-related phenomena:
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/circular.htm

halos are neither black, nor do they move around as if involved in some kind of battle (or play?).

antoniseb
2011-Sep-27, 01:32 PM
in both woodcut and text ...

What text? I'm not seeing the original German or Latin here. All I'm seeing is something from a UFO website.
I believe the woodcut exists as shown, but I haven't seen contemporary text, or context for the Basel event.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 01:37 PM
here is a hand colored version of the woodcut, which apparently was made by the same man who also wrote the text i quoted in the local newspaper at the time:
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Aerial_conflict.jpg

his name was samuel coccius.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-27, 01:43 PM
A much less lurid and more levelheaded translation of these eyewitness accounts can be found on this page;
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/the-ufo-battle-of-nuremberg-1561-t21213.html
note for instance

After such events something like a black spear, the shaft from sunrise [east] and the head towards sundawn [west], has been seen with big thickness and length.
This sounds very much like a clear description of a crepuscular and anticrepuscular ray (the two phenomena being the same thing, really)
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayim14.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/antray3.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/antray7.htm

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-27, 01:46 PM
here is a hand colored version of the woodcut, which apparently was made by the same man who also wrote the text i quoted in the local newspaper at the time:
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiedosto:Aerial_conflict.jpg

his name was samuel coccius.
How does that add to the interpretation?
His words have already been described as suspect, and suggestions were made how to verify his interpretation of the event. All this shows is an extension of an already suspect interpretation.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-27, 02:08 PM
Okay, killing some time I found this link (http://www.baselinsider.ch/enzyklopaedie/aus-der-geschichte/aus-dem-alten-basel/ufos-ueber-basel.html) which seems to have the original "basler flugblatt" page. They have the following text that goes with the black circles:

(I will give the original and a translation of the important parts of the website)



Gegen Abend erschienen am Himmel drei Sonnen, ‹deren zwo nicht gar rund, sondern etwas länglich, einen bleichen Schein von sich geben und mit viel Farben vermischtet sind. Solcher und dergleichen Gesichter hat man dieser Zeit in allen Landen viel gesehen: Sie sind Zweifels ohne Warnungen Gottes und Vordeutungen künftiger Sachen, fordern solche doch, man sollte sie alle zusammen lesen in einem eigen Büchlein>



Towards evening there appeared three suns in the sky "two of which were not realy circular, but elongated, emitting a pale light mixed with many colours. Such and similar things have been seen in all count(r)ies in these times: they are without doubt warnings by God and predict things to come, they call for that one should collect them all in their own booklet."


And then it goes on:



Mit dergleichen Gesichter» beruft sich der unbekannte Autor vielleicht schon auf eine ähnliche Sichtung, die am 4. April 1561 bereits in Nürnberg gemacht wurde. Der Nürnberger Buchdrucker Hans Glaser hat uns dieses Ereignis in einem Flugblatt mit einer entsprechenden Illustration im Holzschnitt festgehalten. Für die Beobachtungen am Basler Himmel spielt dies aber keine weitere Rolle mehr, denn bereits am 27. Juli 1566 bemerkt der hiesige Theologe Samuel Koch eine seltsame Veränderung der Sonne über unserer Stadt, «als ob sie gleichsam Blut weinte». Auch in der folgenden Nacht und am nächsten Tag bleibt der Himmel in blutrote Farbe getränkt, was bei den verängstigten Baslern zu zahlreichen Spekulationen über die Bedeutung dieser Zeichen führt. Noch ganz der Vergangenheit verhaftet sieht man darin die Vorboten für Krieg und Krankheit, eine Strafe Gottes gar für das lasterhafte Leben in dieser Stadt, welches mit frommen Gebeten und regem Kirchgang gesühnt werden müsse. Am 7. August desselben Jahres verstärkt sich dieser Eindruck nochmals, da nun auch schwarze Kugeln vor dem Tagesgestirn sichtbar werden. Der verstörte Gelehrte hält seine Eindrücke ebenfalls in einem Flugblatt fest, welches der Zeichner Hans Hug Kluber mit einem Holzschnitt illustriert und vom lokalen Drucker Samuel Apiarius veröffentlicht wird.




With "similar things" the unknown author probably hints at a similar sighting, on 4 April 1561 in Nurnberg. The Nurnberg bookprinter Hans Glaser put this event into a woodcut illustration in a "local newspaper (flugblatt)." For the observations in Basel's sky this is unimportant, as already on 27 July 1566 the local (Basel) theologist Samuel Koch notices a strange change in the Sun in the sky over the city "as if it cried quasi blood". Also in the following night and the next day the sky is painted red, which leads to lots of speculation with the scared Basel people about the meaning of these signs. Still locked in the old ways they see predictions of war and sickness and a punishment of God in these signs for the sinful life led in this town, which can only be cured by prayer and church visit. On 7 August of that year this impression is strengthened a then also black globes are visible at the fimament. The distressed scholar writes down his impressions into the "local newspaper," which is published by local printer Samuel Apiarius, with a woodcut print by Hans Hug Kluber.




In seinem Büchlein «Ausserirdische über Basel» gibt uns Hans Rudolf Zeller die weiteren Worte Samuel Kochs auf diesem Flugblatt in angepasstem Deutsch wieder:



«… Weiter sind auf den 7. August bei Sonnenaufgang und ein wenig vorher viele schwarze Kugeln in der Luft gesehen worden, welche vor der Sonne mit grosser Schnelle und Geschwindigkeit gefahren [sind]. [Sie sind] auch aufeinander zugeflogen wie solche, die gegeneinander Krieg führen. Einige von ihnen sind rot und feurig geworden und schliesslich verzerrt und erloschen. [Ich weiss nicht], ob dafür nun natürliche Ursachen herangezogen werden können, etwa wegen der Nebel und Dünste, die besonders wegen dem feuchten Winter und Sommer entstanden [sind], oder wegen grosser Hitze, die nach langem Regen und Kälte entstanden [ist]. Auch wenn man das nicht immer so auslegen kann, so könnte die Deutung aber doch verglichen werden mit Kometen, wie jetzt gerade einer erscheint, und Finsternissen, die natürlich auftreten. Aber das muss nicht immer so sein. …».




In his booklet "aliens over Basel" Hans Rudofl Zeller gives the words of Samuel Koch written in the flugblatt:

"furthermore, on 7 August at sunrise and a little before, many black globes were seen in the sky, which moves with great speed in front of the sun. They flew toward eachother as such that are at war with eachother. Some of them turned red and fiery and finally blurred and died out. [I don't know] if natural causes can be assumed, like the fog and dampness, that appear because of the wet winter and summer, or because of the strong heat, that appeared after a long period of rain and cold. Even when one cannot always explaing it like that, the meaning could be compared to those of comets (of which one is appearing now) and darknesses, that happen naturally. However, that must not always be ..."


Okay, this was a quick and dirty translation of what was written about this event.

antoniseb
2011-Sep-27, 03:01 PM
...Okay, this was a quick and dirty translation of what was written about this event.
Thanks Tusenfem! OK I withdraw the soap-bubbles hypothesis, and go with sun-dogs for the "three Suns" part, and will assume the observer only infrequently gets a clear view of the Sun rising, and tried to describe it as an explanation for the rest. The woodcut clearly is no accurate reflection of what was seen.

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-27, 03:26 PM
If sun-dogs were almost never seen in the first place, then why couldn't other normal things be misinterpreted with those lighting/atmospheric conditions, or even have some kind of psychological affect on those viewing?

If the globes were in front of the sun, then determining what they are would be hard. Why not birds?

Cougar
2011-Sep-27, 04:49 PM
Drugs.. that is the answer here. Mind altering seeing what's not there.. talking of it. Drawing images.. Drugs.

I tend to agree. Something in the water.

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-27, 05:09 PM
Drugs.. that is the answer here. Mind altering seeing what's not there.. talking of it. Drawing images.. Drugs.
For some reason that post keeps me thinking of Mr. Monk goes to Mexico (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0650604/).
It was drugs senor Monk. It's always the drugs.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-27, 10:54 PM
Thanks Tusenfem! OK I withdraw the soap-bubbles hypothesis, and go with sun-dogs for the "three Suns" part, and will assume the observer only infrequently gets a clear view of the Sun rising, and tried to describe it as an explanation for the rest.

the 3 sun bit was not related to the basel sighting in question. it is irrelevant for this thread.

only the last quote in tusenfem's post is related to the basel sighting. german is my mother-tongue but i can't really make out the original text underneath the woodcut in the link tusenfem posted because the resolution is too low. i have no reason to assume, tho, that the transfer into a more modern german (that is the text tusenfem translated) does not match the original. it is a german article after all.

anyways, the text clearly describes fast-moving black spheres in the sky, which rules out soap bubbles and halos.

i have no idea what they saw. i am just amazed how the "skeptics" on this and other fora jump to the most far-fetched "explanations" as long as they are otherwise considered "mundane".


The woodcut clearly is no accurate reflection of what was seen.
how did you arrive at that conclusion? the woodcut and the text underneath match. and it matches what was posted at http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case485.htm

the woodcut does not match the other irrelevant quotes in tusenfem's post but they were not related to the basel sighting.

tnjrp
2011-Sep-28, 05:24 AM
I suspect that the woodcut was made by someone who did not see the event, or possibly saw some of it but not all, but relied upon verbal descriptions by other witnesses.In fact this is exactly my understanding - the woodcut was made a posteriori and I don't think there's any evidence that Glazer was an eyewitness.

Also, the German weather in 1561 was higly conductive of halo formation and AFAIK there is no other reports of this "battle" apart from Nuremberg Gazette, which increases the chances that it was only visible from a fairly small area. Some of the more spectacularly odd details can be attributed to the effects of staring at the phenomenon (cf. apparently moving black dots), memory corruption and exaggeration after the fact etc.

Ergot poisoning has been sometimes suggested by the way of explanation and indeed if the good people of Nuremberg had been tripping wholesale then somebody staring at the sun might've sparked off a sort of self-feeding mass psychosis. But it is somewhat unlikely that they would've not recognized the symptoms as ergot wasn't exactly new to the area as I understand.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-28, 07:15 AM
the 3 sun bit was not related to the basel sighting in question. it is irrelevant for this thread.


I don't agree, as the part about the three suns was published in Im Basler Almanach (Band 1) von Eugen A. Meier finden wir für den 27. März des Jahres 1563 folgenden Eintrag:.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 07:44 AM
I don't agree, as the part about the three suns was published in Im Basler Almanach (Band 1) von Eugen A. Meier finden wir für den 27. März des Jahres 1563 folgenden Eintrag:.

as you quote the 3-sun story was from march 27, 1563.
the basel event in question in this thread, as depicted in the woodcut and the text, happened on august 7, 1566, more than 3 years later.
the only relation between the 2 events is that they are mentioned in the same article in your quote.

they are otherwise not related and hence the 1563 event is irrelevant for this thread.

astromark
2011-Sep-28, 11:02 AM
Back there I said DRUGS.. and I agree that its not a good way of explaining something.. just to say drugs...

but back in the dark ages drugs were not understood well and strange potions were common enough..
Looking at this cut out as a ART work changes your opinion of what it might be..

I would not imagine a sunset would look like that.. Nor would a cloud formation.. What was it.. I do not know.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-28, 11:10 AM
as you quote the 3-sun story was from march 27, 1563.
the basel event in question in this thread, as depicted in the woodcut and the text, happened on august 7, 1566, more than 3 years later.
the only relation between the 2 events is that they are mentioned in the same article in your quote.

they are otherwise not related and hence the 1563 event is irrelevant for this thread.

correct, there are 3 years in between, my bad.
however, irrelevant, I don't think so, as the OP has 2 images, that you wish to concentrate on only one, is your choice

tusenfem
2011-Sep-28, 11:11 AM
Back there I said DRUGS.. and I agree that its not a good way of explaining something.. just to say drugs...

but back in the dark ages drugs were not understood well and strange potions were common enough..
Looking at this cut out as a ART work changes your opinion of what it might be..

I would not imagine a sunset would look like that.. Nor would a cloud formation.. What was it.. I do not know.

Guess you are fond of drugs, from your comments.
How does that combine with the actual narrative that was give, and blood red skies can have various natural causes.

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-28, 11:40 AM
i have no idea what they saw. i am just amazed how the "skeptics" on this and other fora jump to the most far-fetched "explanations" as long as they are otherwise considered "mundane".
How can a far-fetched idea be mundane?
If you think some of these ideas are far fetched, can you please tell us what they are, and why you think they are far-fetched? While doing that, can you give use some ideas that aren't far-fetched yet have some correlation to our understanding of explained phenomenon?

The only ones that I see were a stretch have already been retracted after a calm conversation (like the soap bubbles).

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 01:06 PM
How can a far-fetched idea be mundane?
it was demonstrated in this thread.

obviously, "far-fetched" depends on the context. in this case the context is the basel woodcut and the accompanying text, which describes fast-moving and black spherical objects. in this context soap bubbles are far-fetched. and so are halos. both, while mundane, don't match the description at all and that's why they are far-fetched.

is that really not obvious?

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-28, 01:20 PM
is that really not obvious?
Nope, not obvious to me. We are trying to equate the description with known phenomenon. Besides, who is to say that the original carving and text wasn't far-fetched?


... in this context soap bubbles are far-fetched...
And later discounted as I said in my post. Or did you ignore that part.

I don't mind that you have your own opinion of what is far-fetched, but I am irked that you ignored the rest of the post and questions. We've given input, and it seems that all you are doing is discounting the input without giving your own.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 01:47 PM
here's the issue i am trying to address:

i have often observed (on this and other boards) that skeptics, when presented with a case (of a possible psychic phenomenon or ufo (i.e. et) sighting) assume a position of inherent rejection (i.e. it can not be an authentic psychic or ufo phenomenon - whatever the reasons for that position may be). this often leads to a kind of intellectual laziness, which is in essence a group phenomenon. it often occurs when a group of skeptics "consider" a case with all kinds of (pretty much) fixed assumptions, which are to varying degrees group-enforced. based on those assumptions mundane ideas are considered (which makes sense) but those ideas are often not submitted to the same (appropriate) skepticism.

case in point: soap bubbles. some may have stopped for a moment and consider the idea maybe somewhat far-fetched but nobody spoke up. why? because on the underlying assumptions that it must be a mundane phenomenon, soap bubbles sound mundane enough, let's leave it at that. why complicate the discussion?

i am not trying to point the finger at the person who came up with the idea. no praise, no blame. we all make mistakes.

i am criticizing the process.

i have observed this kind of laziness quite often, which i consider a problem in case that at the end of such a "discussion" the case is considered "debunked", when all what was really done was tossing some more or less wild (but mundane sounding) ideas around.

obviously, i am not saying that is always the case, but it happens too often.

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 01:59 PM
I don't mind that you have your own opinion of what is far-fetched, but I am irked that you ignored the rest of the post and questions. We've given input, and it seems that all you are doing is discounting the input without giving your own.

i thought i answered all your questions, except my idea as to what it may be. all i can say is: i have not come up with a mundane explanation.



who is to say that the original carving and text wasn't far-fetched?
that is of course a real issue. in general, the further back in time we go the less reliable the sources are.
in case of the basel incident we have a woodcut and a text, which match and are from the same date and probably from the same person. i don't see a reason to simply discard this source as fantasy or forgery or something like that. those explanations remain a real possibility, however.

Strange
2011-Sep-28, 02:08 PM
I have often observed (on this and other boards) that skeptics, when presented with a case (of a possible psychic phenomenon or UFO (i.e. ET) sighting) assume a position of inherent rejection (i.e. it can not be an authentic psychic or UFO phenomenon - whatever the reasons for that position may be).

I don't see that. I see people trying to make sense of something in terms of phenomena that are known to exist. If all such possibilities can be definitively ruled out after taking into account distortions due to distance in time, unreliable witnesses, cultural conventions such as describing things in terms of religious symbols or weapons of the period (the "spear" might have been described as a "rocket" by a modern witness and I don't suppose the sun really had a "happy face"), Chinese whispers before the story was recorded, etc. then you can ascribe the label "unidentified" (UFO) to the event.

You would have to go miles beyond this in terms of positive evidence before you could conclude it was ET; i.e. it is nowhere near enough to say "we don't know what it was so it must be aliens". That is just gullibility. And (just to annoy you :)) one might just as reasonably say "we don't know what it was so it must be flying unicorns".

R.A.F.
2011-Sep-28, 02:14 PM
all i can say is: i have not come up with a mundane explanation.

How hard are you looking?


...and probably from the same person. i don't see a reason to simply discard this source as fantasy...

You don't? Really? One person presents this "story", and you're willing to simply accept it as true?

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 02:21 PM
I don't see that.
i don't really know how to relate to that statement. i see it all the time!


You would have to go miles beyond this in terms of positive evidence before you could conclude it was ET; i.e. it is nowhere near enough to say "we don't know what it was so it must be aliens". That is just gullibility.

do you really think i needed that lecture for the umpteenth time?

i was no suggesting that the only possible explanation is extraterrestrial. given the evidence (or lack thereof) that would be absurd. having to repeat that because of your (and others) more or less veiled innuendos annoys me. it should be obvious (and it is to me)!

i was criticizing the process. and i also explained why i consider it a problem: in case the conclusion "debunked" is reached, when honestly all that can be said is: "dunno".
that you don't see that happen, i find truly amazing!

antoniseb
2011-Sep-28, 02:21 PM
i thought i answered all your questions, except my idea as to what it may be. all i can say is: i have not come up with a mundane explanation....

We can move this thread to the Conspiracy Theories section. Clearly you are advocating that this should be regarded as a UFO incident, which takes the thread out of the mainstream. Do you (PaulLogan) want to go further with this? Or do I simply close the thread?

PaulLogan
2011-Sep-28, 02:26 PM
We can move this thread to the Conspiracy Theories section. Clearly you are advocating that this should be regarded as a UFO incident, which takes the thread out of the mainstream.
no. i am not. i made that clear in my last post, which i assume crossed with yours.


Do you (PaulLogan) want to go further with this?
not in ct as i don't see a ct here.


Or do I simply close the thread?
why is that the only remaining option?

Strange
2011-Sep-28, 02:40 PM
I was criticizing the process. And I also explained why I consider it a problem: in case the conclusion "debunked" is reached, when honestly all that can be said is: "dunno".

I really don't see a problem with the process: discuss possibilities; discount those that don't work. In the end you either identify it as something mundane or (and here I agree with you) "unknown" but perhaps with a caveat such as "the possibility of it being A, B or C cannot be ruled out". (I'm not sure what "debunked" means in this case: the question was simply "what the heck was this all about" - what's to "debunk"?)

ETA: Obviously it would be fantastically exciting to come up with some evidence for a third option (e.g. extraterrestrials) but that hasn't happened yet...

NEOWatcher
2011-Sep-28, 05:08 PM
i was criticizing the process. and i also explained why i consider it a problem: in case the conclusion "debunked" is reached, when honestly all that can be said is: "dunno".
Did we all come to a conclusion?
What's wrong with saying "dunno, but could be..."?

Without using a process that compares something to known phenomenon, how can you logically attempt to come to an understanding? What process (or modification to it) do you suggest?

So far, all we have heard is your complaints about the process.

antoniseb
2011-Sep-28, 06:50 PM
I really don't see a problem with the process: discuss possibilities; discount those that don't work. In the end you either identify it as something mundane or (and here I agree with you) "unknown" but perhaps with a caveat such as "the possibility of it being A, B or C cannot be ruled out". (I'm not sure what "debunked" means in this case: the question was simply "what the heck was this all about" - what's to "debunk"?)...

Alright, I agree.

Terran
2011-Sep-28, 06:55 PM
I wonder, if our descendants will take our contemporary mockumentaries also so serious. As far as I understand the source is one (!) 16th century newspaper. That's no proof what so ever that there even was anything besides a newspaper editor who had to make a living by selling interesting stories to people and who didn't know of modern journalistic standards.

eburacum45
2011-Sep-28, 07:06 PM
The detail in the woodcut of the Nurenburg event that really shouts 'halo phenomena' to me is the strange 'horns' that appear behind the Sun; see
http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case486.htm

To me they look like 'tangent arcs', drawn by someone who was either illustrating someone else's description, or who misremembered the exact details of their own sighting.
Here is a tangent arc
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/column.htm

note that when combined with the 22° halo, this phenomenon looks like a double set of downcurving arcs or horns. Alternately the uppermost pair of horns in that woodcut may have been intended to depict a circumzenithal arc,
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/cza.htm
which does curve upwards rather than downwards, but resembles 'horns' somewhat more closely than the 22° halo.

Here is another woodcut from Nurenburg, in March 1561
http://www.meteoros.de/halo/h_1561b.htm
This one probably depicts another halo phenomenon, a sun dog,
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/dogim7.htm
or possibly a sun pillar
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/pillar.htm

astromark
2011-Sep-29, 10:17 AM
When I first laid eyes on those cut out images I thought clouds. I re introduce this as very bad art...

I can not be the only person that has seen clouds that looked like cotton balls.

At the time of sunset the colours would be red and pink and many shades of grey and white..

Prey tell what else this could be... ? Its just bad art. History is full of it.

tusenfem
2011-Sep-29, 10:32 AM
Prey tell what else this could be... ? Its just bad art. History is full of it.

Maybe bad art (tastes differ) however there is a narrative that goes with the pictures.

tnjrp
2011-Sep-29, 10:57 AM
Yep. A translation whereof is to be found here (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/the-ufo-battle-of-nuremberg-1561-t21213.html#p865596), if one is not inclined to read old German.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Oct-01, 08:52 AM
I'd be interested in seeing *any* original contemporary accounts of these events. If I had to guess about the Basel event, I'd say it was soap bubbles (which are spherical, change color, and get consumed and disappear). There is a nice description of how to make golden spheres that float on the breeze in "De Propritiibus Rerum" by Bartholomeus Anglicus in the 15th Century.
Source (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LinkSeltsame_Gestalt_so_in_disem_MDLXVI_Jar.j pg), contemporary broadsheet.

As for the other one... I really need to see a source. The image looks like it is diagramming something as opposed to illustrating something.
Source (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Himmelserscheinung_%C3%BCber_N%C3%BCrnberg_vo m_14._April_1561.jpg), a contemporary broadsheet printed on 14 April 1561 (10 days after the phenomenon), plus the Hans Glaser woodcut from 1566.

antoniseb
2011-Oct-01, 02:30 PM
... a contemporary broadsheet printed on 14 April 1561 (10 days after the phenomenon), plus the Hans Glaser woodcut from 1566.

Thanks!

Luckmeister
2011-Oct-03, 04:05 AM
I wonder, if our descendants will take our contemporary mockumentaries also so serious. As far as I understand the source is one (!) 16th century newspaper. That's no proof what so ever that there even was anything besides a newspaper editor who had to make a living by selling interesting stories to people and who didn't know of modern journalistic standards.

Yep. I'm imagining ET visitation researchers 500 years from now finding a crumbling old copy of one of our supermarket tabloids showing a photo of the president shaking hands with an alien. In a future forum I can see them arguing and debating the authenticity of the evidence. I picture one arguing, "But this is from what appears to be a serious publication that had a stated circulation of XX,000 copies that month so we have to give it credibility. They actually had the photo on the cover and research has shown the man in the photo was the president at the time."

Credibility must be earned, not assumed, whether it's from today or 500 years ago, which is much more difficult to research.

Swift
2011-Oct-03, 01:57 PM
Yep. I'm imagining ET visitation researchers 500 years from now finding a crumbling old copy of one of our supermarket tabloids showing a photo of the president shaking hands with an alien. In a future forum I can see them arguing and debating the authenticity of the evidence. I picture one arguing, "But this is from what appears to be a serious publication that had a stated circulation of XX,000 copies that month so we have to give it credibility. They actually had the photo on the cover and research has shown the man in the photo was the president at the time."

Credibility must be earned, not assumed, whether it's from today or 500 years ago, which is much more difficult to research.
:clap: :lol:

Here is the proof (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rAiL3KlW8f8/RrGcIgdPPuI/AAAAAAAAAOM/SpoqefL6N9E/s400/alien-backs-bush-for-president.JPG)

Noclevername
2011-Oct-03, 02:17 PM
Here is the proof (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rAiL3KlW8f8/RrGcIgdPPuI/AAAAAAAAAOM/SpoqefL6N9E/s400/alien-backs-bush-for-president.JPG)

That explains a lot.

astromark
2011-Oct-03, 08:41 PM
Yep. I'm imagining ET visitation researchers 500 years from now finding a crumbling old copy of one of our supermarket tabloids showing a photo of the president shaking hands with an alien. In a future forum I can see them arguing and debating the authenticity of the evidence. I picture one arguing, "But this is from what appears to be a serious publication that had a stated circulation of XX,000 copies that month so we have to give it credibility. They actually had the photo on the cover and research has shown the man in the photo was the president at the time."

Credibility must be earned, not assumed, whether it's from today or 500 years ago, which is much more difficult to research.

If there's one single point to be learned from all of this its this... 'That if people can get it wrong, they will.'

Time and time again we see across these forums that understanding of intent is NOT a given.

The opposite is the fact. What was spoken of. What was seen. and those awful drawings ( stencils )published..

Sunrise through smoke, pollution, volcanic ash.. what was really seen ? Strange orbs light and dark.

Sun dogs or atmospheric ice.. BUT,. WE know what it was not. Why does it seem so hard to say...?

and why Oh why does there always seem to be such a large group so willing to believe rubbish. ?

Van Rijn
2011-Oct-03, 10:54 PM
Credibility must be earned, not assumed, whether it's from today or 500 years ago, which is much more difficult to research.

I've had similar thoughts in reference to a science fiction story idea - future people looking back at our fiction and developing "ancient astronaut," and lost technology/lost ability stories. Some sample topics:

The hunt for evidence of Vorlons, and other species that have gone beyond the rim.

Borg and Cybermen: Are they references to the same aliens?

Lost technology: Did Cochrane really invent an FTL drive?