The Nuremberg Celestial Phenomenon
Later explainedSummary
A single illustrated broadsheet, printed at Nuremberg in April 1561 and signed by Hans Glaser, a letter-painter of that city, describes an event at daybreak on 14 April. Two blood-red semi-circular arcs appeared in the middle of the sun, with globes, blood-red crosses and rod-like strips arranged about it. They "fought vehemently with each other for over an hour", then fell to earth as if burning and wasted away in smoke. A long black spear-shaped object followed.
Read as a report of aerial combat, this is spectacular. Read as what it is, a commercial religious broadside in a well-known genre, it most plausibly describes an ice-crystal halo display around the morning sun, rendered in the omen vocabulary of its day. Glaser himself wrote that God alone knew what the signs meant.
What is documented
The object itself. One broadsheet, printed at Nuremberg in April 1561 and signed "By Hanns Glaser, letter-painter of Nurnberg". The original is held by the Zentralbibliothek Zürich and has been digitised on its e-manuscripta platform.
The time it gives. "At daybreak, between 4 and 5 a.m.", in the translation the Public Domain Review reproduces.
What it describes. Two blood-red semi-circular arcs "in the middle of the sun". Balls "in the sun, above and below and on both sides", and others "as a torus about the sun". Blood-red crosses "in between these globes", and blood-red strips between them, likened to stems of reed-grass. The prepositions are the evidence the halo reading rests on: these are positions relative to the sun, not objects crossing open sky.
The fighting, in context. "These all started to fight among themselves", and "fought vehemently with each other for over an hour". Then they fell to earth "as if they all burned" and "wasted away on the earth with immense smoke". A long thick black spear-like object followed, shaft pointing east and point west.
What the sheet is for. It is a prodigy broadside, a commercial genre of sign-and-omen print whose purpose is moral exhortation. The text urges repentance, and Glaser writes: "Whatever such signs mean, God alone knows." No machine, no craft, no visitor is proposed anywhere in it.
Who Glaser was. The sheet signs him "letter-painter of Nurnberg", the trade that coloured and sold printed sheets. The Registry did not obtain a biography of him from a source it could read.
The sheet does not claim he saw it. It says "many men and women" saw the event. It does not say Glaser did. The writer Ulrich Magin has noted that the woodcut does not show Nuremberg Castle, the city’s defining landmark.
There is no second source. No council minute, chronicle entry, diary or competing broadsheet from another press describing the same morning appears in any source the Registry retrieved. As far as the Registry can establish, the number of independent contemporary sources for this event is one, and it is a print made to be sold.
How it entered modern circulation. Carl Jung reprinted it in 1958 in Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. It now circulates widely as a "UFO battle" over Nuremberg.
Leading explanations
A solar halo display (widely accepted, not formally published for this sheet). That the arcs, globes, crosses and strips are elements of an ice-crystal halo display around the morning sun, rendered in the omen vocabulary of the day. The Public Domain Review judges a natural meteorological phenomenon, possibly sundogs or parhelia, the more likely reading. Jason Colavito writes that the arcs are "indicative of sundogs", and Futura-Sciences suggests a solar halo with parhelia. What the text itself supports is the geometry: it places its arcs in the middle of the sun and its globes in and about it. The Registry records this as widely accepted rather than established for a specific reason: no peer-reviewed atmospheric-optics analysis of this particular broadsheet could be located. Scholarly work of exactly that kind exists for other halo broadsheets, of 1546, 1551 and 1630, but not for this one.
Religious print, not observation (an argument from the sheet itself). That the sheet belongs to a genre whose purpose was moral exhortation, so its imagery is symbolic rather than descriptive. Its text calls readers to repentance and says that God alone knows what the signs mean.
A modern myth (Jung, 1958; interpretation). Jung reprinted the sheet in Flying Saucers. On Jason Colavito’s account, he raised it only to argue that UFOs are a myth born of the unconscious. The Registry could not open Jung’s text.
An aerial battle between craft (rejected). The reading the sheet is popularly known by. It requires taking one clause out of a religious broadside while ignoring the prepositions around it, the genre it belongs to, and its author’s own statement that God alone knew what the signs meant.
What the popular version gets wrong
"The broadsheet records an aerial battle between craft." It records signs in and around the sun, in a print whose stated purpose is to call readers to repentance and which names God, not machines, as the agent. The fighting is one clause in a text that also reports blood-red crosses and a black spear, which is standard omen vocabulary.
"Hans Glaser was an eyewitness." The sheet says many men and women saw the event; it does not say he did. He signed himself a letter-painter, a maker of sheets for sale, and, as Magin notes, his woodcut leaves out the castle that dominates the city.
"Objects crashed and were recovered outside the city." The text says they fell as if burning and wasted away in smoke. No recovery, no debris, no material, and no second contemporary source.
Current status
Later explained. The documentary object is secure: one illustrated broadsheet, printed at Nuremberg in April 1561, now in Zürich and digitised. What it records is a different question from what it is. It is a religious broadside whose stated purpose is to call readers to repentance, and it cannot be treated as an observational report. The natural phenomenon behind it is most plausibly a solar halo display, the reading offered by the Public Domain Review, Futura-Sciences and Jason Colavito. The text supports that reading, because it places its arcs, globes, crosses and strips in and about the sun rather than across open sky. One gap remains: that identification rests on popular and web-level sources rather than on a published atmospheric-optics analysis of this particular woodcut, though such analyses exist for comparable halo broadsheets. A peer-reviewed halo-optics treatment of the Glaser sheet would move the explanation from widely accepted to established. An independent contemporary Nuremberg source describing the same morning would, for the first time, make the event itself a documented fact rather than the print being one.
Sources
- Glaser, H. (1561). Broadsheet describing a celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg on 14 April 1561. Printed Nuremberg, April 1561. Held by the Zentralbibliothek Zürich and digitised on e-manuscripta. The translation quoted here is the one reproduced by the Public Domain Review.
- Public Domain Review. "Celestial Phenomenon Over Nuremberg, April 14th, 1561." Read in full. Source of the translation quoted, of the holding institution, and of the suggestion that the display was possibly sundogs or parhelia.
- Colavito, J. (2012). "The UFO Battle over Nuremburg." Blog post, 12 December 2012. Read. Source of Jung’s 1958 reprint of the sheet and of Colavito’s own reading of the arcs as sundogs.
- Pagès, A. (2026). "Ovnis au XVIe siècle ? L’étrange spectacle observé au-dessus de Nuremberg par les habitants en 1561." Futura-Sciences, 26 July 2026. Read. Source of Ulrich Magin’s observation about the castle and of the suggestion of a solar halo with parhelia.
- Jung, C. G. (1958). Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. Could not be opened; its use of the sheet is recorded through Colavito.
- Neuhäuser, D. L. (2024). "Decoding narratives on halo phenomena: an approach to Tycho Brahe’s Vision of Urania in De nova stella (1573)." Philosophical Readings, XVI.1, pp. 24 to 37. Read in full. It performs exactly the halo analysis this sheet lacks, for broadsheets of 1546, 1551 and 1630, and is cited here to show that the method exists and has not been applied to the 1561 print.
Last reviewed: November 2026. Records are provisional. Where the evidence changes, the entry changes. Found an error? Tell us.