Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Ancient UFOs Detailed

Yesterday we looked at a debunking of the Ancient Aliens series on History Channel. Today we’ll swing the other way, and check out an interesting paper on sightings of UFOs in ancient times: “Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity” (PDF), a 2007 paper by NASA scientist Richard Stothers, who sadly passed away last year:

This collection of what might be termed ancient UFO reports has been culled from a much larger number of reports of aerial objects, most of whose identifications with known phenomena are either certain or at least highly probable. Embedded in the mass of relatively explicable ancient reports, however, is a small set of unexplained (or at least not wholly explained) reports from presumably credible witnesses. If these reports are examined statistically, essential features of what I will, for argument’s sake, call the ancient UFO phenomenon can be extracted…

…In at least one instance, the presence of “occupants” covered in shiny white clothing is reported. Encounters range from distant views to possibly actual contact; the preferred place and time of observation seem to be rural areas in the daytime. Physical evidence is generally lacking.

Greek and Roman scientific thinkers, who were never at a loss for theories, usually regarded these types of aerial phenomena as stars, clouds, atmospheric fires, light reflections or moving material bodies. Since most of the original theories hark back to Aristotle and his predecessors, with none being later than Posidonius, they generally predate the reports collected here, none of which is earlier
than 218 BC. It is accordingly impossible to know whether the later observers (mostly practical Romans) interpreted the phenomena literally as they described them or were simply using the best descriptive language they were capable of, while holding back on theoretical speculation. But any viable theory must reckon with the extraordinary persistence and consistency of the phenomena discussed here over many centuries. Whether one prefers to think in terms of universal recurrent visions from the collective unconscious, misperceptions of ordinary objects, unusual atmospheric effects, unknown physical phenomena or extraterrestrial visitations, what we
today would call UFOs possess an intrinsic interest that has transcended the passage of time and the increase of human knowledge.

If the topic interests you, some further reading can be found in Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects From Antiquity To Modern Times, by Jacques Vallee and Chris Aubeck (available from Amazon US and Amazon UK).

Editor
  1. ancient ufos detailed?
    A few notes. Stothers’ article (I’ve read it) shows that most such aerial observations in the ancient world are misidentifications or normal phenomena. There are *few* anomalies, and only one with “occupants”. That instance is compared to the Father Gill/Papua New Guinea case which has its own issues. See:

    http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/gillagain/

    Gill himself did not include any idea in his notes that the “occupants” were alien. He thought they were human and that the craft was some sort of new American innovation. The UFO community took the story and the rest is history.

    As far as the descriptions of Stothers and others (“Wonders in the Sky”), I’ve shown in my lengthy review of that book that the “anomalous” features of such sightings have been photographed today in terms of, for example, cloud phenomena. It’s not hard to see how the pictures at the links below could be mistaken for “flying shields” for example – that’s what they look like, but are not solid objects.

    http://michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions/2011/04/appreciative-but-not-amazed-by-wonders-in-the-sky/

    Lastly, the Dore picture you have in your post is certainly not a UFO or craft, as Diego Cuoghi has demonstrated many times over. Your readers should know he’s an art historian who has put a great deal of time into debunking the “UFOs in art” myth. See:

    http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_eng.htm

    For my money, we should be looking at really good evidence for wingless craft, like the Costa Rican photo (still the best in my mind), not contrived material like “ancient UFOs”.

    Mike Heiser
    http://www.drmsh.com
    http://www.uforeligions.com
    http://www.paleobabble.com

    1. For my money I have seen very
      For my money I have seen very convincing video evidence on TV:

      Paranormal State at Gilliand Ranch – Part 1
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8y3z0_paranormal-state-gillilands-ranch-p_shortfilms

      Paranormal State at Gilliand Ranch – Part 2
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8y5ht_paranormal-state-gilliands-ranch-pa_shortfilms

      Paranormal State at Gilliand Ranch – Part32
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8y6e3_paranormal-state-gilliands-ranch-pa_shortfilms

    2. Dore picture
      Sure, the Dore picture is a symbol, either produced exclusively by the mind of the artist… OR it was channeled by it, as true Art IMO is merely tapping into the currents of creativity.

      Maybe the same happens with the UFO mystery. Kenneth Arnold observes 9 Chevron-like objects, but because of a reporter’s ‘accident’ –and members of TDG should realize by now there are NO accidents– the objects are labeled as flying saucers, and next thing you know that’s the more reported shape in all the sightings.

      I’m merely trying to point out how the elephant in the UFOlogy room continues to be human consciousness. And that’s where artistic forms comes handy too 😉

      1. What we see in the skies over
        What we see in the skies over the Gilliand ranch (video link above) are not ambiguous as you describe. There have been NASA types staying there who cannot attribute them to know man engineered objects yet they are obviously intelligently controlled.

          1. I liken your comment that
            I liken your comment that “artistry” comes into play as meaning that the ambiguity of the artistic imagination is always a factor. However, there are sightings at places such as the Gilliand Ranch where everybody sees the same thing – very bright lights in the sky moving at fantastic G-force deadly speed and adjusting brightness on the fly as well. The people involved in sightings like this do not tend to embroider imaginatively. There is no need to do so. What they are seeing is simple and amazing, and they all agree on the fundamental visuals.

          2. from the Esty-Carnivale-Dept.
            Who are ‘we’ to stop ‘you’ from needing/wanting/doing those events at the Gilliand Ranch?

            good show

          3. I am running into more and
            I am running into more and more people who have just sort of thrown up their hands about the grim political situation on the planet and who now think our only savior will be the intercession of an advanced race to take over the ship’s wheel so to speak. That is a capitulation that most people shied away from in years past, but now I see more and more who have given up and are praying for more rational “outside” forces to restrain us. The ufo’s being seen in some places though are pretty obviously high tech – perhaps high tech enough to stop up an exchange of nuclear missiles say and avert the ultimate disaster if they so chose. It used to be that people strained to see UFO’s but some of the sightings nowadays are very obviously from a high tech intelligence. Of course, it could just be some of our own advanced black op stuff in which case the governing intelligence just might be more of the same poison souled humans that are playing hell with the planet at the moment, or they could be ruthless fascist ET’s. There is no guarantee of anything, but one thing you can say is that we have incontrovertible evidence of extremely high tech craft zipping around up there, and they appear to be making overtures to us. That is a bit encouraging

          4. Ambiguity

            I liken your comment that “artistry” comes into play as meaning that the ambiguity of the artistic imagination is always a factor

            Well, I don’t know if ambiguity best describes the creative process, but I do think the creative process is not 100% controlled by the conscious mind –at least it shouldn’t be, if you really want to make a great work of art.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal