page 20): the frequency of reported cases rises before dawn, with a first peak about — 1975
6 A.M., and goes through a maximum between 8 P.M. and 10 P.M., returning to a low
level during the night. During most of the day, sighting frequency remains around the noise level. While this can be interpreted as an indication of the visibility of the phenomenon (most clear in contrast with its surroundings when the sun is not present) and a consequence of most people going inside after dark, it does indicate that a real phenomenon was present. Hallucinations or hoaxes would have no reason to follow the same pattern. Fig. 73: Frequency as a function of time of day (in hours, from 1 A.M. to midnight) This is a striking result, because it only leaves us with two possible conclusions: either tM same phenomenon known today under the label “UFO” has existed throughout history, or there is a massive, unrecognized mechanism that generates such imagery and propagates it through human society in all periods and in all cultures. Either conclusion represents new knowledge and has important consequences. 8. How “physical” is the phenomenon? The witnesses are primarily describing luminous phenomena that range from “fiery globes” and “glowing forms” to vertical pillars and “towers” that occasionally emit flashes and beams or expel other objects. However, many of the cases also mention disk-shaped or globular objects that cast no light and are capable of rapid evolution in the atmosphere, reversing course, dashing and darting, or falling in zigzag patterns. In some welldocumented cases the phenomenon gave off intense heat, destroyed vegetation or dropped metallic residue. In an era when there was no radio, no radar, no awareness of radioactivity and little ability to analyze chemical substances, we know nothing about other potential effects, but it is worthy to note that experienced astronomical observers have frequently reported tracking dark objects across the disk of the sun or the moon. All these indications converge to support the concept of an unrecognized, physical phenomenon that is relatively rare and unpredictable, but consistent in its general appearance and effects. 9. Is this relevant to the modern UFO phenomenon? As we have already pointed out, there is little difference between the general behavior characterizing the cases in the Chronology and modern sightings of unidentified flying objects, down to sharp details such as witness paralysis, contact with forms of consciousness described as alien, and even the feeling in witnesses that a new form of communication has occurred between them and the phenomenon. Before jumping to the simple conclusion that some extraterrestrial technology has been at work in both ancient and modern reports, we must pause and consider the contradictions this would raise: Why would this technology remain so constant? What would be its purpose? It cannot be discovery, can it, if some “Alien” race has had access to the Earth and to human civilization for centuries? And why would there be so many observations? We know that we have only detected one sighting report in ten or a hundred, others being lost to fires, revolutions, censorship or illiteracy, not to mention the vast areas of the globe where there was little or no communication with the outside world during the period we have studied. 10. Why has science ignored this body of data? Scientific dogma dictates that any ancient observation of unexplained aerial phenomena can always be attributed to the ignorance of the populace or to simple misinterpretation of natural effects. Acting on this unproven assumption, scientists have censored their own data and intimidated their peers to silence open debate about the phenomenon. There is a case to be made, however, for a very cautious approach. We have shown that hallucination was not a significant factor among the cases we have selected, but extreme weather and meteorite crashes do happen, as well as aurorae, globular lightning, comets and tornadoes, all fantastic phenomena that were poorly understood before modern science documented them. In particular, we asked whether meteors could play a role in the observed distribution. The major meteor showers are the Quarantids (3-4 January), the Lyrids (21-22 April), the Perseids (12-13 August), the Leonids (17-18 November) and the Geminids (13-14 December). We are in a position to test this hypothesis, since 309 of our cases have a complete date (or over 60%). Fig. 74: Frequency during the year, with 4 points per month We find that only one peak of the frequency curve in our Chronology shows an increase that could correlate with any cyclical meteoritic activity (the Perseids of August). The two other peaks are around March 17th and especially October 10 , as seen on the above graph, and those are not periods of meteoritic activity. th 11. How can the impact on society be characterized? Much of the attention devoted by a few courageous sociologists to unidentified phenomena has focused on the modern literature of ufology. The overwhelming majority of specialized books repeat the standard story of pilot Kenneth Arnold, who saw an apparent formation of “flying saucers” in June 1947, dating the beginning of the phenomenon from this event. Never mind that Mr. Arnold never said the objects were shaped like saucers, and that his observation came after several years of sightings of unexplained lights in the sky over Europe, Asia and America. Such sociological research is correct, however, in characterizing the interaction between the witnesses, the media and the few scientists who took the trouble to study the reports. In recent years, this interaction has fueled the feeling among much of society that governments and military authorities must be covering up the truth about what seems to be a secret awareness of (and possibly secret contact with) external intelligences controlling the phenomenon. The study of ancient cases should caution us about such conclusions, attractive as they are superficially. If the phenomenon is as old as the Pharaohs, the cover-up must be very sophisticated indeed, and unlike any process of information control in history. Censorship is certainly a factor, but isn’t it more likely that it acts locally, like the Inquisition’s efforts to impose Christianity by denying the expression of alternative beliefs? 12. What is the next step? Better documentation is mandatory. Our limited efforts in this book have shown that much new information, and new knowledge, could be obtained by a well-organized group using modern communications technology. We did it with no money, in an environment of little interest to scientific organizations, official folklore researchers, or most publishers. We hope others will be inspired to use this model on a larger scale. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This compilation, and the massive dredging of old text it implied, followed by critical study of every source, would have been impossible without the collaboration of a unique team of scholars who worked with us in this research. The Magoniax Group, recruited and maintained by Chris Aubeck, has worked for seven years through the Internet to assemble and validate an enormous amount of raw sighting data. It has also exchanged information with interested researchers the world over on every related topic, from the fairy faith in Celtic countries to the review of archives of geophysical effects, cometography, modern astronomical records, as well as the tracking down of ancient Egyptian parchments. Among the contributors most active in this remarkable group are: Rod Brock, Jerome Clark and Thomas Bullard from the United States, Mikhail Gershtein from Russia, Daniel Guenther from Germany, Eduardo Russo and Giuseppe Stilo from Italy, Javier Garcia Blanco and Jesus Callejo from Spain, Peter Hassall from New Zealand, and Fabio Picasso from Argentina. We are grateful for their tireless contributions. We have also benefited from the help offered to us by many librarians, researchers, publishers and curators who were kind enough to respond to enquiries about data we were seeking to validate. Mr. Franck Marie, a tireless French researcher who has assembled a private collection of some 30,000 references on aerial phenomena and related events, many of them within our period of interest, gave us access to this valuable resource. In our initial efforts to create an index of cases reported in the general literature w e consulted the work of many private UFO researchers and writers including Desmond Leslie, Harold Wilkins, Guy Quincy, Aime Michel, Jean Sider, Godelieve van Overmeire, Michel Bougard, Christiane Piens, Ion Hobana, Lucius Farish, Gordon Creighton, Matthew Hurley, Jean-Francois Boedec, Claude Mauge, Ron Brinkley and numerous other dedicated collectors who helped us through their writing and sometimes in person, providing their own catalog data or research into specific ancient cases. The contribution by Yannis Deliyannis, a classical scholar who tracked down and translated for us many hard-to-find references, deserves a special mention. Yannis holds a postgraduate degree in archaeology from the Sorbonne and has contributed to the development of a manuscript computer database at the Bibliotheque Sainte-Genevieve. In 2001 he was involved in the creation of the Institut National d’Histoire de I ‘Art in Paris. Without such careful and critical reviewithout such careful and critical review of the original data available on this complex subject, we would have drowned in a sea of uncorrelated and often poorly documented rumors about a variety of phenomena, many of which turned out to be explainable as natural atmospheric or physical effects. Finally, this book owes much to the encouragements of Professor David Hufford and to the advice of Dr. Jeff Kripal, chairman of the department of Religious Studies at Rice University, who provided valuable contacts with other researchers. Michael Murphy, a t the Esalen Institute, allowed us to test some of our ideas before knowledgeable and stimulating audiences, and publisher Mitch Horowitz turned the concept of this book into a reality. Much remains to be done. We believe we express the consensus of this group of researchers when we say that the study of ancient unexplained aerial observations has only begun. We invite scholars and interested amateurs from all countries and cultures - and especially from the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia, to join this continuing effort. An important further note from Jacques Vallee Although my name comes first on the cover of this book, the reader should know that Chris Aubeck did the pioneering work in researching, critiquing and documenting material that had been neglected or treated with considerable inaccuracy in the literature. When we discovered we shared a passion for such ancient reports we began working together, merging our sources and catalogues and enlisting our personal networks in support of the research. In the process Chris made me aware of many previously unknown instances of aerial phenomena, but more importantly he taught me to look at them in new ways. Wonders in the Sky is the product of many, sometimes heated debates and compromises about the relevance of each case. In this creative interaction, which continues today, I have learned to value the high standards of authenticity and accuracy Chris has brought to the field, and I am proud to contribute in making them more widely understood for a new generation of paranormal researchers. LIST of ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Abduction of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). Engraving by Gustave Pore: The Bible (1865). Fig. 2 Abduction of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:1-3). Engraving by Matthaeus Merian, Iconum Biblicarum, Francfort 1627. Fig. 3 Sighting in Hadria (interpretation by J. Vallee). Fig. 4 Flying Apsara from the Mogao Caves, China. Fig. 5 Clovis guided by a pillar of light (interpretation by J. Vallee). Fig. 6 Annals of Ireland. Edited by John O’Donnovan. Dublin: Irish Archaeological and Celtic Society, I860. (Front page). Fig. 7 Miniature. Radziwill Chronicle, 15th century. [Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg] Fig. 8 Crosses in the sky. Lycosthenes, Prodigiorum ac ostentorum Chronicon. Basel: Henrici Petri (1557), p. 494. Fig. 9 Arabian “rocket”. Lycosthenes, op. cit., p. 494. Fig. 10 Girolamo Cardano, portrait, 16th century: unknown artistFig. 11 Ignatius of Loyola saved by an angel: unknown artistFig. 12 Michelangelo, portrait, 19th century reproduction. [Univ. of Texas Libraries, Austin]. Fig. 13 Boaistuau, Pierre. Histoires prodigieuses, Paris, 1560. Fig. 14 Cellini, portrait. Fig. 15 Ein Erschrecklich vnd VVunderbarlich zeychen…, Niirnberg: Joachim Heller, 1554. [GNM Niirnberg. HB 781/12041 Fig. 16 Objects seen at Nuremberg. Erscheinung am Himmel iiber Niirnberg am 14. April 1561. [Zurich Zentralbibliothek PAS II 12:601 Fig. 17 Objects seen at Basel. Coccius (Koch), Samuel. VVunderbare aber Warhaffte Gesicht…, Basel: Samuel Apiarius. 1558. [Zurich Zentralbibliothek Ms. F. 18|. Fig. 18 Agrippa d’Aubigne, portrait: unknown artist. [Bibliotheque Nationale de France]. Fig. 19 Discours au vray des terribles et espouvantables signes…Troyes: Odard Aulmont, 1608. IBM Troves, cl.12.99051. Fig. 20 Beschreibung der am 3.4.5. vnd 6. Julii dises 1612. Jars erschienen vnd grausamen erschrocklichen Wunderzeichen am Himmel. Basel: Johann Schroter (1612). [Herzog August Bibliothek, HAB 38.25 Aug. 2°, fol. 799.1 Fig. 21 Anne Bodenham’s magic. Bower, James, The Tryal…, London: Horton, 1653. Fig. 22 Wonders in England: The five strange wonders, in the north and west of England, etc. London: W.Thomas (1659). (Front page). Fig. 23 Stralsund phenomenon. Francisci, Erasmus. Der wunderreiche Ueberzug unserer Nider-Welt/Order Erd-umgebende. Niirnberg (1680), p. 624. Fig. 24 Francisci, Erasmus, op. cit. (Front page). Fig. 25 Mittelfischach phenomenon. Abriss des Erschrecklichen wunderzeichens, so sich den 15. Novembr. 1667 beim dorff Mittelfischach…, [s.1.1 (1667). [Goethe Universitatsbibliothek Frankfurt-am-Main, coll. Gustav Freytag, Einblattdr. G.Fr.lll. Fig. 26 Regensburg phenomenon. Wunderzeichen, Zu Regensburg gesehen am 18.Augusti
Source: Case: W527