It’s in the New York Post, so you know it must be true. They’ve extracted alien corpses from multiple crashed flying saucers, and they’ve been able to taxonomically classify the four different kinds of ET. Conveniently, they all look like they’d be able to be cast for the low-quality make-up capabilities of a TV series on a budget. They’re straight from Dr Who or Star Trek.
Stop laughing.
The Post did their research and found a former Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program advisor and CIA-funded researcher
and quantum physicist
to back them up. Unfortunately, their source Hal Puthoff. Puthoff is an electrical engineer (synonymous with quantum physicist, apparently) and Scientologist who is best known for the infamous Puthoff & Targ “research” on Uri Geller at the Stanford Research Institute. He has since moved on to promote remote viewing and zero point energy. He’s a notorious kook, so it’s not surprising that he’d happily vouch for those goofy aliens.
I thought that compound eyes were not as efficient as ‘camera’ eyes. I don’t know where but I heard that they’d have to be as big as ‘soccer’ balls to be as good as ours.
BTW. Have you seen this spider news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70y138y995o ?
Personally I’m put off by this BS.
The little guy with the big eyes looks like Paul from the movie Paul. And the Nordic guy reminds me of Jesus for some reason.
I’m kind of surprised Puthoff is still alive. Turns out he’s 90 this year. It was always hard to tell if he was a con-man or a true believer, but I’d say he inclined more toward the credulity of Prosper-René Blondlot than the obvious deception of Uri Geller.
The fact the “aliens” have a physique similar to humans (to the extent that they have a bulge in their crotch) leads me to believe the designers of this image have a grossly limited imagination.
I like how, in the last two pictures of the article, they deliberately cross into science fiction.
Video available on Amazon:
Third Eye Spies
So… why did they stop?
For many centuries or millennia, humans commonly reported sightings or evidence of pixies, faeries, brownies, sprightly, gnomes, trolls, and other hidden people who secretly interacted with humans. Then, in the 1940s to 1950s, those stories largely vanished abruptly, and were replaced by extremely similar stories that involved unexamined outer space aliens. The obvious conclusion is that nothing has changed, and that people love to tell such stories, even if the flavor of unexamined creatures has been updated.
At least 3 of them are from “Resident Alien”.
I don’t remember seeing the insect or the Grey in Star Trek. The Lizard could be a Gorn.
Babylon 5 had all 4 though, I believe. Although the last one was a human telepath and we all hated him.
As we compare possible faerie/alien bodies and eyes with our own, we should note that you never hear any religion saying THIS:
“And God so loved the world that He gave humans the best possible eyes, designed like octopus eyes instead of primate eyes!”
Obviously, the “evidence” from the NY Post is that God doesn’t like aliens either, any more than the humans who he designed with needless blind spots in their eyes.
The IEEE ran a symposium on this? I wonder if my late father (a member, at that time) knew about that. Anyways, another data point for the Salem Hypothesis.
Speaking of Uri Geller, apparently he’s currently claiming that Iran is using mind control devices on Trump to stop him from supporting Israel. This is being reported on Israeli television.
Larry @6: At the very least you’d anticipate that the reptilian and mantis would have mivonks that aren’t external.
Just goes to show that the skeptic movement has been an utter failure. Not because it was wrong, but because humans are too stupid to accept reality.
The faster our ignorant, superstitious species dies out, the better.
Sounds like he’s met some Klingons, too.
We’re gonna need a bigger infographic.
Wikipedia – Space opera in Scientology
When it had come out in video a friend rented Battlefield Earth. Easily one of if not the worst movie I have ever seen. I get Travolta’s involvement, but what was Forest Whitaker even thinking? At least he was in Rogue One, which I wound up liking after several tries. Cinematic Stockholm Syndrome?
Hollywood seems to group aliens (and other creatures) into two basic categories: The Good & Friendly Aliens and the Evil & Warlike Aliens.
The Good & Friendly aliens are depicted as peaceful, intelligent, usually tall and slim in stature, white-complected, fair-haired and usually wearing white or tan clothing and often coded as vegan while the Evil & Warlike aliens are aggressive, usually short and stocky in stature, have dark, unkempt hair, a swarthy complexion, and usually wear dark-colored, ragged clothing. Some examples are the apes and humans of Planet of The Apes, the various characters of the Mad Max movies have the good guys and bad guys shown this way. The Time Machine (1960) is a bit different in that the Morlocks have shaggy white hair, but otherwise fit the standard trope. These depictions couldn’t possibly be based on historical–and current–US social norms could they?
Hemidactylus @17: During a watch party of Battlefield Earth, I spent the whole time scouring a pdf looking for a half-remembered line, “Look at the bright side! You may not be wallowing in luxury on Psychlo, but at least you finally got your gold.” To point out the page number and how much MORE of the book there was left beyond the movie.
That line was not in the book. v_v The movie was only half of the book IIRC.
People swallowing this UFO distraction bullshit is almost as stupid as the jebus skyfairy murderous fiction book xtian terrorist followers.
I think you see all of those types by the 3rd season of Stargate SG1. The guy second from the right is Thor. I think; I’d have to hear it talk to be sure which Asgard that is.l
What about the Grebulons?
The humanoid alien thing is, I reckon, due to the needs for actors to portray them.
The lumpy-forehead type of alien.
Back in the days of yore, textual medium was the thing, and so aliens could be alien.
Take the pulp writer EE ‘Doc’ Smith’s Lensman series, which featured:
-Velantians (Worsel)
Serpentine, winged, scaled; long flexible body; clawed limbs; powerful tail; large mobile eyes; capable of flight; overall dragon‑like.
-Rigellians (Tregonsee)
Radially symmetrical; multiple identical limbs arranged around a central axis; no front/back orientation; eyestalks; tough hide; extremely stable physiology; “starfish‑like but upright.”
-Palainians (Nadreck)
Extreme cryogenic species; multi‑limbed; multi‑jointed; pale, soft, almost gelatinous tissues adapted to near‑absolute‑zero temperatures; appearance is amorphous and shifting to warm‑adapted observers; details hard to perceive in normal temperatures.
-Arisians (Mentor’s race)
Humanoid outline only as a projection; true form is non‑corporeal or quasi‑corporeal; vast, luminous, shifting presence; no fixed anatomical description in physical terms; perceived appearance varies depending on the observer’s mind.
“Stop laughing”?!
They’re really straight from People of Earth, the underrated short-lived sitcom about alien abductees and abductors. IIRC, they had a crew with one alien of each type shown here, except the Mantis.
I love how the Nordics are literally just tall white people. Imagine they take a trip to Norway and start screaming because there’s aliens everywhere.
Reminds me of a video game from the 90s called Perfect Dark. In the game, the Nordics, who are actually small, snake-like creatures who use cloaking tech to appear Nordic, are at war with the Gray’s and have plans to take over Earth.
A singular lack of imagination. We all know that aliens have long, slimy tentacles designed to rip the clothes off silicon-enhanced females. Where are our octopus overlords?
That’s definitely the best explanation for why aliens tend to be so human-like in live-action portrayals. It doesn’t explain why they’re still often depicted that way in animation though.
Undoubtedly, it’s easier to draw something that’s very far removed from humanity than it is to make a costume of it.
My guess it’s a combination of laziness, lack of imagination, and the belief that audiences probably wouldn’t be able to empathize with a being that’s too alien in appearance.
Same thing with anthropomorphising animals in films and stories.
They’re like people with animal costumes.
The horrors!
I’ve seen birds with teeth in their beaks, legs that bend the wrong way.
Plantigrade feet on digitigrade animals. Reptiles with lips.
That sort of thing.
—
I gotta admit tentacles are far superior to a primitive few jointed lengths of bone, Gaz. :)
t’s definitely telling that most of the aliens people claim to encounter are ones that the crew of a ’50s sci fi film could produce.
The Nordics were created by con man George Adamski. And there’s no doubt that Adamski was a con man, because back in the ’30s he was one of many wannbe gurus running around Southern California.
And while we’re on the topic of crankism here’s a post from r/tartaria. This joker has come to the conclusion that there was no African slave trade, because there was a Tartarian Empire. Ridiculous conspiracy theories are fun until they result in stuff like this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Tartaria/comments/1u9e1ux/the_slave_trade_is_a_lie/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartarian_Empire
Maybe the aliens are humanoid due to convergent evolution? Dolphins and sharks have a very similar body shape despite not being closely related species.
Those aliens show a distinct lack of imagination. The Grays were in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Why does the Reptilian have the body of the proverbial Greek God? The Nordic looks like a blond Ken doll.
Yeah yeah yeah… but are they open to new experiences? Curious? Adventurous? Doing anything this Saturday?
It’s also amazing how many alien planets look like a gravel quarry west of London or the Vasquez Rock Formation in California.
is it just me or does the mantis look mor elike Kermit the frog? Not enough legs / arms.
Also reminds me of that episode of the Xindi arc in ST Enterprise where the captain was compelled to look after the insectoid from of that , uh, group
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DytOyG5pTD0 Hatchery – just under 5 mins long.
@32. Tethys : Yeah, convergent evolution strikes me as both a cop- out explanation here -but also somewhat plausible given similar requiremnets for tool-building and body plans eg fish, ichthyosaurs, dolphins & worms, legless lizards, caecilians,eels, etc.. Dunno.
Given our planet’s history and biodiversity; how many times has the humanoid human-shaped form evolved tho’ and versus orther forms eg the eveything turns into a crab one and stuff?
The clsoer you get toexactly a human form the unlikelier it seesm to me but I don’t know. Aliens that are identical to us or that but just have funny foreheads and pointy ears seem pretty dubious in terms of probability to me.
^ Ones we can hybridise with? Eg Spock, Belanna, Delenn? Come on! Pull the other one!
One more Xindi clip here – Xindi Insectoids – Aquatics – Avians : Index Addendum – ten minutes but covers more than just insectoids, altho’ it covers them first.
Not exactly aliens altho’ who knows they could be and tangential here but when it comes to different looking creatures I quite like the ones in the old Abe’s Oddworld computer / video game here – full long playthrough -(3 hours 17 mins & 56 seconds long), the Paramites (5 mins 19 secs) plus the Scrabs – 5 mins 42 secs.
John Morales @ 23
You have researched EE Doc Smith!
Kudos.
In my youth, I read wossname, the one who wrote ‘Slan’ and ‘The War Against The Rull’. He briefly joined Hubbard, but realised he was a kook.
While Tom Baker was a great Doctor, some of his episodes had poor scripts. And the alien suits were crap.
Dr Who had a budget??? Well I never… (Pertwee and Sladen fan here!)
Seriously, this is a complaint about what exactly? Bad AI slop, I will give you. Maybe someone doing a bad drawing? But, while I was never a believer in this utter gibberish, I have vaguely followed UFO stuff for most of my life, and I am pretty sure that the only one of those I don’t remember hearing about literally decades ago was the insectoid. The “It looks human, but is taller, and super pale.”, one is, yep, something described by abductees. The “grey” is so prevalent in the lore that they get reused in almost every sci-fi dealing with “UFO/abduction” stuff all the time, including Star Gate SG1, in which they where cast as the ancient race who pretended to be the gods of Asgard (or rather, sort of did, for the sake of some displaced humans on other planets who already believed in those gods). And the reptiles are so common that they bled out of UFO conspiracy and straight into government conspiracies.
This is like complaining that someone writing fantasy has a complete lack of imagination because they decided to use elves, dwarves, dragons and pixies, and if they really wanted to be created they should invent new mythological creatures instead!
Remember seeing a cute little scene in Babylon 5. Guy in a courtroom telling a judge that he has evidence that the defendant’s ancestors abducted his great grandfather. Cut to the defendant, who is a grey, holding up a crop circle diagram.
Judge: “Can we get a translator in here?”
I thought that compound eyes were not as efficient as ‘camera’ eyes. I don’t know where but I heard that they’d have to be as big as ‘soccer’ balls to be as good as ours.
As I understand it (IANAE), compound eyes only work for much smaller land-creatures like insects and spiders, who need to see things very close to them; something mammalian-style eyes can’t do at that scale.
The fact the “aliens” have a physique similar to humans (to the extent that they have a bulge in their crotch) leads me to believe the designers of this image have a grossly limited imagination.
More to the point, most of the people whose dreams, visions, hallucinations and/or made-up stories inform, and are informed by, all the designed images, have very limited imaginations. And no competent con-artist is gonna lecture his marks about widening their horizons.
PS: I just saw “Disclosure Day,” and it was typical Spielberg: well-made, well-acted, good action and dialogue; and the same old story as “ET” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind;” totally based on fantasy and wishful thinking. We’ve got the old trope of aliens as enlightened, almost angelic superior beings who’d easily persuade all of us to stop waging high-tech war against each other (and who seemed VERY forgiving toward all the ACTS OF WAR we’d been committing against them since about 1947); plus the other old trope of these superior aliens having the power/technology to probe and control human minds. Spielberg is a damn good moviemaker, but when it comes to alien-visitation stories, he’s just plan run out of ideas.
The Nordic looks like a blond Ken doll.
I’m thinking the science-fiction/alien-visitor version of an elf from “Lord of the Rings” — aristocratic, high-born, superior, cultured, enlightened, but also maybe a little arrogant.
Elric of Tau-Ceti?
[meta]
Eh? What is it they supposedly arrogate?
(You’re using ‘arrogant’ to mean ‘feeling superior’, but you already specified they are superior!)
Raging Bee
Soooo, Legolas? If the aliens look like Orlando Bloom I expect many humans would be thrilled to be abducted.
John
.
Elves in Tolkien are superior to humans as far as lifespan and being a bit like demi-gods. Arrogance is not superiority, it’s the opposite of humility.
I’m using the word “arrogant” here both because the blond “alien” in the above picture looks kind of arrogant, and Tolkien’s elves were also at least a little arrogant, especially toward dwarves (bit of a class-struggle angle there between elite aristocratic elves and materialistic gold-digging proletarian dwarves). The word means ACTING superior, not just feeling superior.
Um, that is exactly what I noted! Clearly it is not superiority, it’s merely misused as such.
Sorta. It literally means the act of arrogating. Someone who arrogates is perforce arrogant.
I referred to semantic content, not to some moral posture that is opposite to humility.
No. Look it up.
Go to bed, John. Whether or not the official definition of “arrogant” includes feeling superior, people aren’t called “arrogant” unless they ACT on such feelings.
Um, you are missing the point.
Again:
See? You state outright that they are superior, but the fact that they act what they are is your problem: alleged arrogance.
Now, a non-superior person acting superior would indeed fit, but you literally said they were superior!
Basically, your claim boils down to the proposition that if one is superior, one should not act according to one’s nature, lest that be arrogant.
(The superior should hide their nature, eh?)
[PS it’s 1320 my local as I write this; note further your is rather arrogant by your own criteria, not just mistaken]
En-cy-clo-pæ-di-a
Having superior knowledge/skills/talent doesn’t necessarily mean one is arrogant about it. Arrogance is a behavior, and frankly I’ve never heard the term arrogate used by normal humans. How ironic that it’s currently being used to arrogantly demonstrate one’s superiority.
John MacEnroe was both a superior tennis player, and an arrogant man-child. Nobody likes arrogance, but people do admire superior sportsmanship.
I’m directly addressing the claim put to me, Tethys:
You are not actually disputing my claim, you are expressing an opinion as though you were.
If anything, you are endorsing it. Harrison Bergeron was not a torment nexus locus.
(You like ligatures, eh? Kinky!)
You guys realise that the definition of whatever word is ENTIRELY beside the actual point of this conversation here, right?
Já, þe actual subject is aliens. The Nordic variety looks like Legolas, or perhaps Balðr.
Actually, it’s the silly depiction of alleged visiting aliens, Tethys.
No need to be imprecise.
About that specific depiction, I quote: “the blond “alien” in the above picture looks kind of arrogant”.
Mind you, that was the same person who also claimed “The word means ACTING superior, not just feeling superior.”. Consistency is a bit much for some people, no?
Still desperate to pick a fight over nothing, John? Looking arrogant might be a form of action, though obviously a minor and harmless one. There’s really no more “inconsistency” here than in normal word usage.
Also, I originally said “maybe a little arrogant,” because that “alien” looked like certain people who were known to be a bit arrogant.
Tethys: I’ve RARELY heard anyone use the word “arrogate.” Once it was in a science-fiction novella in the ’70s, which referred to a certain aggressive imperialistic starfaring species as “The Arrogating Ones” (who get wiped out by some uppity species who didn’t want to be conquered). And maybe two or three other times I’ve heard people accuse others of “arrogating to themselves” some power or privilege they weren’t entitled to. So yeah, it’s rare — because it’s not really the best way to say that sort of thing.
At least we agree that taking aliens seriously is silly. I don’t feel the need to be precise about imaginary things.
Raging Bee:
I never was either desperate or picking a fight, so no.
(That is one of the weakest possible rhetorical tricks right there: ‘Still’ implies some continuation, so you try to presume I am somehow desperate or picking fights. Other way around, I reckon)
It’s a cartoon. A still image. In a neutral pose!
But that is the crux, ain’t it? The omphalos. The core of it.
When you say ‘X is arrogant’, you really mean ‘I perceive X as arrogant’.
The topic is not an imaginary thing!
I can prove it: “Conveniently, they all look like they’d be able to be cast for the low-quality make-up capabilities of a TV series on a budget. They’re straight from Dr Who or Star Trek.”
See? That’s the topic. Not imaginary.
Star Trek aliens and Dr. Who aliens and LOTR are fictional. Quit being such a cranky-pants Cabrón.
Apparently the Daleks didn’t abduct enough people to make this list.
I do like your engagement, Tethys.
I know. And you knew I know.
Thus: “Conveniently, they all look like they’d be able to be cast for the low-quality make-up capabilities of a TV series on a budget. They’re straight from Dr Who or Star Trek.”
See my #23 for less anthropomorphised aliens that long predate this current silliness.
The imperative mood, eh? Seems a bit arrogant to me.
I am not that goatish, btw. No cloven hooves. Not even a g.o.a.t.
Did you know ‘panic’ comes from the great god Pan?
I am Apollonian, not Dionysian.
They did not canonically, either. Nor did they feature in the featured NYP article.
Also, they also fit into the lumpy-head category, just in mobile life-support vehicles.
I am aware that panic is derived from Pan. However, he is a satyr, not a god. Greek mythology is full of fantastical creatures, though I was surprised to learn that cave goats were real.
Goatish. Quite literally, a Cabrón.
Also, the Piper at the gates of Dawn, as per The Wind in the Willows.
Numinous as all fuck.
Anyway, since you called me a male goat, I riffed playfully.
(Two other allusions there, FWTW, with associated subtext. I can pack well)
@ John
You may be one of the few commenters here that understands Spanish slang. Since you insist on head-butting everyone over their ideas about imaginary creatures, I find the term apt.
See also, Capricorn and possibly caballo/caballero for words with the same root. (I didn’t check).
[Hm. Cloudflare is flaring]
‘Caballero’ literally means horseman. (caballo)
Connotation is of a noble, so by transitiveness a nobleman.
I am not butting (heh, very caprine of ya) about ideas about imaginary creatures.
Nothing new, right? Just the silliness du jour.
Historically, what were once angels, demons, spirits, or fae become “aliens among us,” but the dynamic stays the same; that is, anomalous visitors, half‑seen, morally mixed, carrying messages or threats, interpreted through whatever worldview the era has on hand. Never to be pinned-down.
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring-heeled_Jack
Of course caballero refers to “cowboys”, but the cab/cap root comes from Greek afaict. Latin for horse is equis but the etymology of caballo comes from a Latin word that means old horse.
Hippo is Greek = horse
Hest is Old Norse = horse
Oddly enough the E rune in Elder Fuþark is named Elwaz = horse. Looks like a M.
No idea how the Germans got pferd, which is surprisingly difficult to pronounce correctly.
You have to hwinny the initial consonant.
Utterly inapposite. The opposite, actually.
Cowboys were basically labourers, whereas ‘caballeros’ were the mounted, propertied societal stratum.
The upper class. The chivalric/noble class; those who fight on horseback and carry the associated prestige. The term is ‘vaquero’: cow-boy, from ‘vaca’.
Then by C19 it became basically an honorific and courtesy term, much like ‘don’.
Cowboys is the English term which is exactly equivalent to Spanish caballeros. They don’t ride cows.
(sigh)
You could look it up, you know.
Again: ‘Vaquero’ means “cow-boy” (from vaca, meaning cow).
These were the actual laborers herding cattle.
‘Caballero’ means “horseman” (from caballo, meaning horse).
Those were the nobility.
Knights, not peasants.
Crucial distinction!
Spain has a entire bull-fighting tradition, but American cowboys tend more to rodeo’s, rope tricks, and bull riding. I prefer the latter to publicly slaughtering animals for entertainment. How very Roman.
It’s America. We don’t have knights OR peasants.
Calvary is not a Spanish innovation. The Huns and Scythians far predate Spain. Spain does have some gorgeous breeds of horses. It’s the Arabian blood.
(sigh)
Again: indicates a self-perceived autodidact.
That assertion is not even wrong. You are guessing.
Cowboys does not mean ‘horse-rider’, it means ‘cow-herder’.
The word for cowboy in Spanish is ‘vaquero’. I already told you that.
Seems to me you are trying to impress, but the effect is precisely the opposite.
You clearly have no clue, and this is yet another instance of that phenomenon.
In short, that sort of attempted arrogance, I regretfully inform you, Tethys, I find rather cringe.
(And also, nothing to do with goats)
I stepped out around 60 comments ago and return unsurprised at what has become of the thread.
@ hemidactylus
I too am unsurprised. Nano-nitpicking?
I’ve no idea why John thinks I’m trying to impress him.
I thought we were having a conversation, he thinks it’s a contest?
You’re confused?
Me, I thought I was pointing out that “Of course caballero refers to “cowboys”” is ignorant and wrong.
Didn’t work as appeasement for your attempted insult.
Your obstinate disputation of that simple fact is what continued the discussion.
Here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caballero
I even know how the digression begain: you called me a male goat and then appended (“See also, Capricorn and possibly caballo/caballero for words with the same root. (I didn’t check).”)
See? Caballo, vaca, cabra. All different beasties.
(caballero, vaquero, cabrero is the regular form, if you are still confused)
@79 Tethys. It’s time devouring. It’s ALWAYS time devouring. It’s prolonging the conversation, or even just the flow of words for as long as possible using whatever pretext works. I predict, and I’m not often wrong about this, that if in reply to the vampire next time you just mash your hand on the keyboard, you will get a reply. No worries on a dead thread that no one else is trying to contribute to any more by the way, I just suggest the experiment. And if I’m right, and you want to continue, then you can save all the effort of thought, word order, grammar, and so on to do so. Tada!
Calling me a male goat is not the most thoughtful thing ever.
Arrogating knowledge of words one does not possess is not exactly erudition.
I gotta love how the onus is on me to ignore comments directed at or to me, but I am supposedly the devourer of time. Tango, it takes two!
(Count the comments for yourself, if you disbelieve me)
You often predict that, and are not often wrong? What a weird hobby.
@indianajones
I couldn’t sleep, so I had time to comment between cleaning and packing tasks. John usually enjoys etymology, but I mentioned Spain and he’s now being obtuse.
@John
Your failure to understand that Capricorn, caballo, and the derived term caballero all share the same Greek root which refers to beasties of the hoofed kind is not my problem.
You imagine that I was throwing shade, and I ignored your attempts at barbs.
I also know the word vaquero, but it’s not relevant to the point I made about the cognates/etymology of words for
Horses and horse riders.
English is not a Romance language. Like most Germanic languages, it compounds nouns rather than modifying them with an -ero/era suffix.
OK
No worries Tethys. Just letting you know that when Pavlov rings the bell, the dog will predictably drool.
indianajones, you just proved it by your drooling.
(Heh; you really don’t see how your claims are projection)