A group of protestors march in front of the General Accounting Office (GAO) to raise awarness about an examination being conducted by the GAO for documents about a weather balloon crash at Roswell, New Mexico in March 1947.

This week, we're talking about ALIENS!

But what does that even mean? What kind of "aliens"? Real ones? Fake ones? Imaginary ones? Illegal ones?

We're talking E.T. 

We're talking beings from places beyond the terrestrial zone

We're talking about UFOs, UAPs, Space Invaders, Xenomorphs, and such otherworldly creatures of the beyond!

Does that have something to do with anarchy? 

Well... does it?

I think it does. I think that narratives about real aliens, fake aliens, and imaginary aliens can fulfill all sorts of needs: spiritual, governmental, commercial, communal. And that doesn't even touch on all the things anarchists have said about aliens, which is super relevant when those aliens are anarchists themselves!

So what are you waiting for, you stinking pieces of thinking meat?! Leave your thoughts below and beam the fuck up!

Comments

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/14/2025 - 08:03

"We're talking beings from places beyond the terrestrial zone"

Why? That leaves out beings from a parallel universe or "the future"... there's a growing consensus that the "aliens" might be just that. An external agency, that would explain a lot of things and bring a groundbreaking new angle to history.

anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/14/2025 - 08:05

i'm reading sue burke, who writes about sentient, um, intelligent, um, cross-species communicating plants and robots in a way that is pretty interesting. 

both plants and robots have an ethics system that most readers here would be comfortable with, which seems simplistic and not alien at all. but apparently the reasoning behind the robot one is at least partly because they were initially programmed by humans. so the robots are following humans' stated rules, rather than following humans' example. i thought that was funny/provocative.

it also reminds me of the efforts that are going towards recognizing beings in our current world as entities with legal rights and human groups suing in defense of them. which is a weird place for an anarchist to ponder...

Tim Declercq (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 18:46

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

I listened to a few minutes of that and it was claiming that the Pentagon released videos showing objects defying the laws of physics, referring to some videos released a few years ago, so I'll walk through analyzing one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrTsrhVce4

At timestamp 0:13 the camera first locks on to the target, so we have all the needed information on screen:

- plane_altitude: 25000 feet or 7.6 km (bottom-right of the screen)
- plane_speed: 253 knots or 469 km/h (bottom-left)
- target_distance: 4.4 nautical miles or 8.15 km (middle-right)
- vertical_angle: -26° (middle-left, camera angle relative to horizon)
- horizontal_angle: 44° left (top-middle, camera angle relative to front of plane)
- fov: 1.5°^2 (top-left "NAR", see https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/A_Forward_Looking_… )

The video ends 20 seconds later at timestamp 0:33, at which point the values which significantly changed are:

- target_distance: 3.4 nautical miles or 6.3 km
- vertical_angle: -35°
- horizontal_angle: 58° left

Now from this we can calculate everything we need:

- Altitude of the object.
Calculated as plane_altitude - target_distance * sin(vertical_angle) = 4 km at the start to 3.99 km at the end.

- Speed of the object.
First we need another variable, the horizontal distance to the target:
target_horizontal_distance = target_distance * cos(vertical_angle) = 7.3 km at the start to 5.16 km at the end.
Then we can calculate the x,y coordinates of the object relative to the plane.
x = target_horizontal_distance * cos(horizontal_angle), y = target_horizontal_distance * sin(horizontal_angle), which gets us (5.3 km, 5.1 km) at the start to (2.73 km, 4.38 km) at the end.
During these 20 seconds the plane itself is moving from (0,0) to (2.6 km, 0) so the object ends up moving from (5.3, 5.1) to (5.33, 4.38) or a total distance of 0.72 km giving a speed of 129 km/h.
And note that this is an overestimate of the object speed, as the plane isn't moving in a straight line but slightly turning left, which would reduce the calculation for the object's speed if accounted for.

- Size of the object.
The camera fov is 1.5° by 1.5° and at closest approach the object is about 12 pixels out of 950 pixels, or about 0.02° at a distance of 6.3 km, so its size = 6.3 * sin(0.02°) = 2 meter.

So all in all we have an object of a size of about 2 meter, at an altitude of about 4 km, moving at a speed of about 130 km/h. Not only is the *well* within the laws of physics, it's perfectly consistent with it simply being a bird. People, this isn't difficult, all you need is literally right there on screen.

Tim Declercq (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 19:35

In reply to by Tim Declercq (not verified)

To add, this is what I meant by my first comment that it is just not credible that the Pentagon would put these videos out there genuinely being flabbergasted and thinking it could somehow show strange craft defying the laws of physics. The variables (target_distance, horizontal_angle, vertical_angle) define at each point in time the position of the target relative to the plane (to be precise they form a spherical coordinate system, the full math is a bit more involved with transformation matrices and stuff, nothing that shouldn't be easy-peasy to any professional in this though) and it's trivial to check that there's nothing even close to defying the laws of physics going on here, what is actually shown in the video is perfectly mundane. If one analyst at the Pentagon somehow fails to analyze this then one could wonder how he even got the job, but if supposedly *all* analysts at the Pentagon fail at this then it's simply not credible. They're just pumping out bullshit to scare people into giving them more money, or trying to divert attention from whatever they don't want people paying attention to.

Tim Declercq (not verified) Fri, 01/17/2025 - 23:23

In reply to by Tim Declercq (not verified)

So apparently (judging by googling an article about it) people thought that this object must be moving at high speed because it looks like it's zooming fast over the ocean. This is just parallax though, and is actually unrelated to the speed of the object, it's simply an effect of 1) the camera moving at high speed and 2) the camera constantly rotating to keep focusing on the object. It's quite easy to see this effect for yourself:

Look in front of you and consider an object in the background somewhat to your left (we'll call this the "left mark") and an object somewhat to your right (we'll call this the "right mark"). I currently have a computer screen in front of me so I'll take the left edge of the screen to be the left mark and the right edge of the screen to be the right mark. Now put your finger in front of your face, like about 20 cm or something, and close one eye and look at your finger. Move your head left until your finger lines up with the right mark. Now move your head right until your finger lines up with the left mark. Now do it again but fast. Notice how it looks like your finger is zooming very fast relative to the background, even though your finger hasn't moved at all, the effect is just because of the camera (your head) moving very fast while keeping to focus on your finger.

Tim Declercq (not verified) Sat, 01/18/2025 - 00:51

In reply to by Tim Declercq (not verified)

Ok I actually think I figured out what the deal with those videos is, after looking up the originals here: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?page=1 My hypothesis is that these are training videos, like exam questions for their analysts. My reasoning for this is based on the names they gave to the files, like this:

1) GOFAST

This is the video I analyzed above of something that is, quite distinctly, not going fast at all (about 130 km/h by my calculation). But if you weren't careful about thinking about the camera's movement and just looking at the parallax you'd easily be misled that it's actually going fast. So it seems like a tricky exam question, where they give you this video calling it "GOFAST" but to get the solution you actually have to ignore the video title as well as the parallax effect and just calculate the speed based on the numbers on screen, to see that this thing isn't actually going fast at all.

2) GIMBAL, on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TumprpOwHY

This video purportedly shows a craft sharply rotating in mid-air. The trick here is to realize that this rotation happens right when the camera's horizontal angle passes 0° (top-middle of the screen). The camera is mounted on a gimbal which means the camera needs to rotate quite significantly when passing through the 0° angle (technically the camera always has to rotate but just by a tiny bit which is corrected for by a derotation system, it's when it passes the 0° that it needs to rotate by quite a lot). That is, the object isn't rotating, it's the gimbal mounting of the camera that is rotating - it's a phenomenon called gimbal lock. What this video is showing is artifacts of the gimbal mounting, and the video is called...GIMBAL. Again sounds like a training/exam video.

3) FLIR, on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLZgnmRDs4

Supposedly that one shows a craft suddenly accelerating fast at the end. In reality this thing isn't accelerating at all, it's been moving to the left relative to the plane all along, it's just that the camera has been rotating to keep it in the center of the screen (again see the horizontal camera angle at the top-middle of the screen) and at the end the camera simply loses the lock and so the object moves left out of view.

Given that the first video was named GOFAST even though the object isn't moving fast at all, and the second video was named GIMBAL while the solution was indeed a gimbal mounting artifact, this seems like training/exam videos to me. So I suppose they figured they'd throw some tricky exam videos out to the public and scaring them about "ufo's invading their airspace" so they'd get more money or something like that.

Stephen Hawkanarch (not verified) Tue, 01/14/2025 - 18:17

The probability of,,,,any other lifeform visi,,ting Earth,,,,,is extremely low,,,ten to the,,,power of one with,,,,five thou,,,sand zeros behind,,,it. That is tthe,,,number of stars,,,in the known uni,,verse, and then there,,is the probabilty,,,that they,,have planets with,,,conditions suitable,,,for D,,,N,, A
to sur,,,vive,,,,then the distance,,,to travel,,,,in a vehicle,,,,attaining the speed,,,,of light,,,,for thousands of,,,,years,,,,,People get,,irritable,,,just travelling on the subway,,,,after,,,thirty,,,minutes,,,, ,,,,,beep,,,neep,,,,,

Tim Declercq (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 16:52

As for the sense in which this is politically relevant, I think it tends to be used by the government to either divert attention from things or to drum up support for military spending. For example a couple years ago the Pentagon released a few videos of stuff like birds or balloons claiming them to be "unidentified aerial phenomena" (videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrTsrhVce4) with media organizations claiming it showed things "breaking the known laws of physics." This is all rather easily shown false (for example for the linked video all the necessary information - plane speed, plane altitude, camera fov, camera orientation, etc - required to show this is literally on screen) making it very unbelievable that the Pentagon which employs professional analysts wouldn't know this. So I think it's mostly just the government diverting attention from things and drumming up support for military spending.

i-want-to-believe (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 18:24

text I wrote back in 2006 about an experience:

When I was younger I thought I saw a UFO. To this very day, or whenever you are perhaps reading this, I or anyone else will probably never know exactly what we saw that night, other than the obvious. Here, I will give you a brief rundown of the events surrounding that specific situation.

I don’t remember the exact year, but I would say that we were in early high school, possibly 8th or 9th grade. It is now 2006, making the course of events described take place somewhere between 1997-2000.

It was a dark night, two of my friends and I gathered outside, sitting on the back patio, relaxing with a stoking campfire. Not far into our fireside chat, we all started to hear a low humming noise coming from the southeast. We looked up and saw a circle of white lights, flying low to the ground with a head beam pointed diagonally towards the ground, as if it was searching for something.

It flew right over us and all I can remember is not being able to comprehend what I just saw. Could it have actually been an UFO? Or, was it some secret government research project being tested over *location redacted*? Or, could it have been someone else or something else? Who knows?

Good questions. My two friends and I will stick to our story until we die, no joke. We know what we saw that night, we just don’t know what “it” was...

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 20:34

Did the mods really delete the comment that was questioning the value of spending time on this topic while cities burn? WTF?

anonymous (not verified) Thu, 01/16/2025 - 21:50

In reply to by anonymous (not verified)

This is the first time here there's a TOTW or even an article about "aliens". But feel free to start a TOTW about cities burning and especially the political response to it.

Can't defend the comment removal tho.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
w
d
b
m
X
Q
u
C
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.