It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Origin of the Species: The Greys - An Astrobiological Analysis of a Familiar ET Stereotype

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:36 PM
a reply to: Baddogma

Let me get this straight. You say this about an in-law:

I know folks who swear and believe with every fiber of their being that they've seen these "grey alien" things. I also know people who've experienced the abduction scenario... the most puzzling one I know of is a very pragmatic woman with no prior knowledge of (or interest in) the pop alien or UFO memes, who saw the cover of Communion when it first came out and had a violent fear reaction and resultant flood of memories of being taken by those things for years... masked as soldiers in her mind at first, who morphed into "greys." She's an in-law and everything... her nature, subsequent actions, etc.... points to her telling the truth... as she knows it. She will not speak of it now and wants no part of it.

And this about your parents:

I also have parents who saw disk shaped aircraft employing unknown tech in the early 1950's... my father was a colonel in the air force and a pilot and knew what we had and swore to his deathbed that the two craft he saw did not employ known technology and moved in a way contrary to known physics, but seemed manufactured... with windows, structure, etc.

And this about yourself:

I've seen a wingless, diamond thingy in the 1980's and a large cylinder hanging motionless in strong winds, at an angle, for a number of minutes in broad daylight in the 90's as well as a myriad of "lights in the sky" doing seemingly intelligent maneuvers that not only are impossible using rockets and /or jets, but would've turned any pilot to mush.

And yet you conclude

Alien? Perhaps.... but we just don't know enough to be definitive... but there are at least knowledgeable, scientific people willing to look at it...


Really? Even a first grader knows two plus two. What exactly would it take for you to figure it's real?

As far as those knowledgeable, scientific people? Science has failed. They have all been too afraid to lose their grant money, lose their academic position, or face the pressure from their peers. Let alone the fear of losing any government contracts or hopes of employment in government agencies, which includes NASA. So they have avoided the topic like a third rail.

Scientists have had seventy years now, and what have they learned? Nothing.

Your in-law knows more about the reality of aliens than Neil Degrasse Tyson does. Or Steven Hawking. It's a laughable situation.

But where were the scientists? Did a scientist ever even talk to Travis Walton? Or examine the site of his abduction, how about a soil sample from where Travis was standing when he was struck by a beam of alien energy? It was world-wide news, but scientists looked the other way.

Where were the scientists during the Cash-Landrum incident where a family received lethal doses of radiation from a UFO? Their car was severely damaged, paint burned off by radiation, why no scientific examination of the physical evidence? I guess Carl Sagan was too busy on TV telling people that UFOs were not real.

Where were the scientists during the huge wave of sightings in the Hudson Valley in New York in the early 1980s? These sightings were frequent, almost nightly at one point, and went on over a couple of years. Why didn't scientists set up equipment to gather information? Tens of thousands of witnesses to these sightings, not all unconventional, I'm sure, but why no scientific interest? None.

Science has failed to even try when it comes to UFOs. The closest you'll find is some pop psychologist who has some theory that abductions are really just sleep paralysis. Great theory, except most abductions take place to people who are not in bed, but, in fact, driving, or at work, or in broad daylight. Betty and Barney Hill were driving on the highway. Travis Walton was coming home from work with a car full of co-workers, all of which were wide awake. No explanation for how Travis Walton's sleep paralysis caused everybody else there to see him get zapped by a flying saucer. but maybe in their next book, right?

Some people on this forum are waiting for science to get to the truth about UFOs. They are in for a long wait.

Mainstream science has completely dropped the ball, and done virtually no serious investigation in all these years and decades.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 08:59 PM
I know UFOs exist. I just haven't seen the drivers/makers of the tech... that I recall, anyway.

The answers could be a tad more complex (or simpler) than life forms from other solar systems... though I'm sure other life exists, too (well, 99.999% sure). The UFO/alien phenomena could be man made, in fact.

I also know things termed spirits or ghosts exist... and have been laughed at by grey alien 'believers' for those experiences I had.

I just keep an open mind in search of logical verification before committing 100%... to any reality construct.

And the main problem with science studying these very real phenomena is the lack of ways to examine and prove it... so the honest, smart ones shrug and say "maybe" while the lesser ones chuckle and smugly write it off as crazy apes seeing things again... or lying.

But as far as the incidents you brought up... yup, and there was some evidence there... but we didn't hear much about it... so your poor assessment of most science being practiced in regards to this important subject is correct ... it's lacking... but real, good science is still the best bet at answers... if people with a truly scientific mindset practice it, that is.

edit on 1/8/2015 by Baddogma because: clarity

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:11 PM
a reply to: Scdfa

The closest you'll find is some pop psychologist who has some theory that abductions are really just sleep paralysis. Great theory, except most abductions take place to people who are not in bed, but, in fact, driving, or at work, or in broad daylight.

Yeah the Friedman retorts are a few years behind. There are lots of ways to hallucinate.

Anomalous experiences, such as so-called benign hallucinations, may occur in a person in a state of good mental and physical health, even in the apparent absence of a transient trigger factor such as fatigue, intoxication or sensory deprivation.

It is now widely recognized that hallucinatory experiences are not merely the prerogative of those suffering from mental illness, or normal people in abnormal states, but that they occur spontaneously in a significant proportion of the normal population, when in good health and not undergoing particular stress or other abnormal circumstance.

The evidence for this statement has been accumulating for more than a century. Studies of benign hallucinatory experiences go back to 1886 and the early work of the Society for Psychical Research,[1][2] which suggested approximately 10% of the population had experienced at least one hallucinatory episode in the course of their life. More recent studies have validated these findings; the precise incidence found varies with the nature of the episode and the criteria of ‘hallucination’ adopted, but the basic finding is now well-supported.[3]
Apparitional experiences

A common type of anomalous experience is the apparitional experience, which may be defined as one in which a subject seems to perceive some person or thing that is not physically present. Self-selected samples tend to report a predominance of human figures, but apparitions of animals,[4] and even objects[5] are also reported. Notably, the majority of the human figures reported in such samples are not recognised by the subject, and of those who are, not all are of deceased persons; apparitions of living persons have also been reported.[6]

What I find so incredibly lacking is any input from scientific fields that deal with perception. That is strange since this is a phenomenon comprised entirely of subjective experiences. While there may not be an "overall" psychological or neurological explanation that explains the entirety of all abduction cases, there is absolutely no way rule that out either. The "they all most be crazy" retort is a 1950's argument and is meaningless now. Same with Friedman's "people aren’t sleeping" argument. The problem with that argument is that the majority of the phenomenon occurs at night while in bed while our brain chemistry is taking over. Sleep paralysis could certainly explain some cases. Then you have your regression therapy to "recover" memories. There is no such thing! Talk about pop psych and pseudo science!

Betty and Barney Hill were driving on the highway.

Yeah, but they "recalled" the events under hypnosis and only after 2 years! Probably the clearest case of false memory in all of Ufology!

Walton was coming home from work with a car full of co-workers, all of which were wide awake
No explanation for how Travis Walton's sleep paralysis caused everybody else there to see him get zapped by a flying saucer. but maybe in their next book, right?

I have never heard any theory that sleep paralysis was to blame for the Walton story and I suspect you haven't either. That's just another over sensationalized story where facts are lost in myths.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:46 PM
The usual report about grey anatomy (no pun intended) is that they have larger brains, no digestive tract, and no sexual organs. How could this not be a genetically engineered race? It seems obvious to me that the human race will undergo a genetically engineered transformation when we have the capability. a reply to: jonnywhite

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:57 PM
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Good post Zeta.

But, let me respond to this quote,

I have never heard any theory that sleep paralysis was to blame for the Walton story and I suspect you haven't either. That's just another over sensationalized story where facts are lost in myths.

When a theory says 'the likely cause of alien abduction claims is sleep paralysis', I don't see where that excludes Travis Walton from the theory. Or are you suggesting that they mean, 'sleep paralysis is the cause of alien abduction claims except for those who are really abducted by aliens, say, in front of a car full of co-workers'?

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: Scdfa

When a theory says 'the likely cause of alien abduction claims is sleep paralysis', I don't see where that excludes Travis Walton from the theory.

Well the key word is "likely". For instance pocket aces are "likely" to hold up 80% of the time heads up in texas holdem. 20% of the time is excluded.

Or are you suggesting that they mean, 'sleep paralysis is the cause of alien abduction claims except for those who are really abducted by aliens, say, in front of a car full of co-workers'?

I am suggesting a number of things. 1. SP is not a explanation for all cases. 2. I have never ever come across anyone saying the Walton case was due to SP. 3. The Walton case is problematic in a number of ways. 4. nobody actually saw Walton get abducted.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:54 AM
I gotta say that this is the best written most interesting thread I have ever read Jade.
You are amazing.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:41 AM
As promised, with the week behind me and the 225th AAS meeting having closed last night I can now fully respond to further discuss things. As I said before there's some interesting and sharp thinking going on in this thread so I want to thank everyone who took the time to read the OP and comment, debate and discuss it.

So now that I'm back I'll get started on participating.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: JadeStar


Now thats a thread.
Excellent stuff, cant wait to get stuck into it tomorrow (its 2.30 am here in Ireland)

Just one thing i noticed, this here,

Therefore the earliest printed reference I can find to this species is in the Raymond Fowler's 1978 book The Andreasson Affair about the alleged abduction of Betty Andreasson in January of 1967.

Well this guy here,
Aleister Crowley, was supposedly in telepathic communication with this alien here who was named 'LAM'. I cant remember what year this was but it was back in the early 20th century. I dont know much about the man but he wrote plenty of books.

That's interesting. I had never seen a visual representation of LAM. Not that I am really into to Aleister Crowley but I do recommend people read about Jack Parsons, the man who started NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory who was heavily and publicly into Crowley, often conducting wild rituals before rocket launches and sex magic in between them! I mention Parsons for no other reason than it underscores and shows again that science often accepts some VERY eccentric people with very 'out there' ideas within its ranks.

If your research is solid then that's what matters in the end. See Nikolai Tesla and for a current living example, MIT's renegade scientist, Joe Davis.

edit on 9-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:44 AM

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: JadeStar
Oh! wow! You really did a long thread on this stuff.

I have yet to read it. I only got about 5 posts down and realized its going to be more. I mean I may read it all at some point, but to many links and vids and dont really have the time now.

But really I wanted to say. Dam. Your really did go all out on this stuff. Coolest thread I seen in a long while.

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I wanted to 'drill down' to really work up a profile of this alleged alien species and I could have touched on other aspects but it would have been even longer and I thought that I could go into further detail if questioned later.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 09:10 AM

originally posted by: Maverick7
Though well laid out, you are missing some important aspects.

1. There is a big difference between a sentient race and a sentient space-faring race.

Very true. If you recall I started under the assumption that all the stories about the Greys were more or less true which admittedly is a light year sized leap of faith. But I did it so that I had a starting point with which to conduct my analysis. It would have been all too easy to poke holes in the various stories from a skeptical viewpoint (as I did with the Reptilian stories which emerged in the 1980s).

I thought it was more refreshing as a skeptic to take the opposite view and look at it as a believer might before launching into a critical analysis.

I do think I made a fairly decent case for a species like them becoming a space-faring species.

Their environment on their planet would either be on an almost entirely water covered world with few land masses -or- an "eyeball Earth" with a small band of habitability.

Either of those would likely force an intelligent species into exploring space as they'd quickly realize shortly after launching their first world observing satellites that they were dealing with a very limited amount living space which quite possibly could be under environmental threat either from a rising ocean or an encroaching desert.

2. The 'Drake Equation' - i.e. the probability that sentient life can communicate with us in the MW Galaxy needs a quite a few more terms, IF you were to try to apply it to more than just communication from a distance and use it to postulate the likelihood of sentient races becoming space-faring.

Agreed. But perhaps not necessarily so.

Remember we developed radio communications (roughly) within 2 decades of being able to launch things into space so perhaps the factor "fc" would still serve as a surrogate for a 'space age' level civilization.

After all, if a species developed advanced electronics its probably not outside the realm of possibility that they might also have unlocked the atom either before (as we did) or shortly after.

But you're right, it would be a little more complicated than just having electronic technology.

3. I'd suggest you also read 'Rare Earth' by Ward and Brownlee. Though there is some debate, it gives you an idea of how rare it would be to find conditions very like those here on Earth and how those conditions might be very important for a sentient race to have.

I have read it. Twice.

The thing is, you have to consider the time period that book was initially written in: 2003

In this rapidly developing field of astrobiology, 12 years is like a lifetime. We've learned a lot more about planetary formation since 2003.

One of the biggest arguments Peter Ward makes in Rare Earth is that we needed a moon to stabilize the Earth for life to develop and then he postulates that because the moon formed through collision that such events might be very rare.

In fact we now know that:

1) Such events are not probably rare in the early years of planetary formation. Sophisticated planet formation models often produce such collisions and we've begun observing places where they may be occurring. Just this week at AAS the Gemini Planet Imager team showed images of the dust disk around a nearby young star with planets and the density of it is such that large collisions probably have and might still be ongoing within it.

2) A large moon is NOT necessary to have a planet to sustain life.

See also:

The Odds of Life on a Moonless Earth - Astrobiology Magazine, August 4, 2011

Life on Alien Planets May Not Require a Large Moon After All - Universe Today, November 28, 2011

And most recently:

Alien Planets May Not Need Big Moons to Support Life, February 3, 2014

You can also listen to a story on NPR about the research here.


posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:09 AM

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Wolfenz

Wolfenz, you ask about the earliest date of an encounter with the greys, I know of a case that dates back to the 1920s. That's the earliest I am familiar with. Contrary to popular belief which starts with the Hill incident.


more in Detail of their Featured Description about the Grey s from the Barney and Betty Hill incident

Stanton T. Friedman Really to Notice ... When Betty Hills Famed Star Map of Zeta Reticuli

Had Him Convinced... of their existence ...

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:24 AM
(continued from previous reply)

originally posted by: Maverick7
4. One of the most underestimated factors preventing one sentient race from visiting another is the TIME factor. We might find a sentient race, but by the time we sent a message back and forth a couple times and then headed off to go visit, they might be, in fact it's likely they'd be long dead by the time we got there. To put it another way, to have a coinciding time-line that intersects our ability to be space-faring with theirs such that we or they could visit is going to be very, very, very small.

I would argue that there would be no need for the messaging you postulate would have to take place before a species might embark on a trip.

As I showed in the OP, as Seth Shostak pointed out, if we built a sufficiently large telescope we could observe planets around nearby stars, say out to 100 light years for things the size of a 14.5 foot Honda Accord on its surface.

Given the stellar density in our part of the Milky Way galaxy, a 100 light year sphere contains about 14,000 star systems and around 2,900 habitable planets.

And what about something the size of the Great Pyramids?

The 455 foot wide Great Pyramid of Giza would be detectable as a probably artificial construct out to a distance of around 400 light years.

Given the stellar density in our part of the Milky Way galaxy, a 400 light year sphere contains about 1 million star systems and around 185,000 habitable planets.

And how about the 13,171 mile long Great Wall of China?

It would be detectable as a potential artificial construct about 2,500 light years away. BTW this is around the same distance as the furthest planets detected by NASA's Kepler mission.

Given the stellar density in our part of the Milky Way galaxy, a 2,500 light year sphere

Given the stellar density in our part of the Milky Way galaxy, a 2,500 light year sphere contains about 227 million star systems and around 45 million habitable planets.

A species 38 light years away with a sufficiently large telescope on the level the Seth Shostak mentioned just now have begun taking images of the first Honda Accords (since they went to market in 1976).

A species 100 light years away with a sufficiently large telescope (I'll call it the Shostak Telescope) would just now be seeing the widespread growth of electrical lighting of cities and the would see our first large airplanes in the next 10-15 years.

A species 2,500 light years away with a "Shostak Telescope" would have observed the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza 1,300 years ago. If intelligent life which constructs such telescopes is only 1 in a million of habitable planets then there could have been as many as 45 which saw the Great Pyramids constructed.

Of course this would assume a that such civilizations existed 1,300 years ago in our neck of the woods. A huge assumption as you mentioned.

Formula used to calculate the volume of stars and habitable planets within a sphere of space:

Using a 0.120 stars per cubic parsec density number for our part of the Milky Way...

Where TS = Total star systems, LP = Light Years to Parsecs (Parsec = Light Year / 3.26 because there are 3.26 light years per 1 Parsec)
And where π = the constant pi

Number = density * volume
TS = 0.120 stars/cubic parsec * 4/3 π (LP)^3

And where HP = Habitable Planets using the 20% average Kepler derived figure

HP = TS / 0.20

You're right in that in order for any two civilizations to become aware of each other they will have to exist in roughly the same cosmological time frame. If a civilization existed and died out 2 million years ago around a star 2,500 light years away they would never have known about us since it would have been before we existed and we would never know about them unless they left behind large constructions which would still be visible on the surface of a planet or large moon.

There's a great article about looking for such dead civilizations here.

Distant ruins

Scientists used to scan the skies for messages from alien civilisations. Now they go looking for their ruins.

We use the word ‘archaeology’ to describe this effort, because looking into deep space takes us deep into the past. The photons that strike our telescopes’ detectors take time to reach us: the light of Alpha Centauri, the nearest stellar system, is 4.3 years old when it arrives. It travels at 300,000 kilometres per second but has to cross 40 trillion kilometres to get here. Dig gradually into the soil and you push through layers accreted by wind, rain, construction, and flood. Dig deep into the sky, beyond local stars such as Alpha Centauri, and you push the clock back with the same inexorability. Epsilon Eridani, another nearby star, is seen as it was over 10 years ago. Light from the fascinating Gliese 667C, a red dwarf with three planets in its habitable zone, takes 22 years to make the journey.

Another excerpt:

Our searches might even turn up a galactic gravestone, a monument meant to record the wonders of a dying civilisation for posterity. Luc Arnold from the Aix Marseilles Université has suggested that distant civilisations might use planet-sized objects as deliberate celestial signs, knowing that their signature could be readily detected by alien astronomers. Such objects might be the final act of a civilisation in its death throes, left behind as a legacy to surviving cultures. The astronomer Charles Lineweaver has pointed out that most of our galaxy’s terrestrial-class worlds are two billion years older than Earth. How many civilisations have flourished and died out in that time?

Of course the search for the remnants of these civilisations need not stop with unusual light signatures. In addition to energy, an ancient spacefaring culture would need large amounts of raw material to build its structures. Working with Martin Elvis of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the astronomer Duncan Forgan has investigated the possibility that the debris discs around other stars could show signs of large-scale asteroid mining. Rock and ice debris is concentrated in our own solar system at various distances, from the main-belt asteroids between Mars and Jupiter to the Kuiper Belt and the still more distant Oort Cloud. And we now have unambiguous evidence of similar discs of debris around stars such as Vega, Fomalhaut and Beta Pictoris.

As for getting here: Relativistic effects of time dilation would make the trip seem much shorter to the crew. At 1g constant acceleration a 2,500 light year long trip would only seem to take 15 Earth Years to the crew of the space craft!

V = c tanh (g T / c )

g = 9.80665 m/s^2
c = speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s
T = "proper time", the time measured in the spaceship
tanh = hyperbolic tangent

At 1g constant acceleration for the first 17 days, this is pretty much the same as adding 9.8 m/s to their speed every second. But once they got up to 5% of light speed, the formula above. After one year of acceleration, they would be at 77.48% of light speed. After 15.84 years, you will be just a hair under light speed; what we call "14 nines". In the next year, you would almost add one more 9. After that, there really isn't much purpose of adding any more speed.

edit on 9-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:57 AM

originally posted by: Maverick7
Though well laid out, you are missing some important aspects.
5. It's very unlikely that any space-faring civilizations will do their exploration in full-sized vehicles. It's just not economically feasible (given what we know, sure, about availability of materials and fuel and societies).

Without knowing anything about the energy budget of advanced alien civilizations this would seem to be a bold pronouncement without data.

While I do not think interstellar travel will ever be as trivial as it is sometimes made out to be in sci-fi I do not think anything would preclude full sized vehicles.

6. It's very unlikely that any space-faring civilizations will want to send MANNED vehicles to visit us 'in person'. Note we are starting to explore and we use small craft and will soon transition to nano-sized craft.

I totally agree with this. I've argued on this forum that perhaps the aliens we seek could actually be here but not as full size sci-fi inspired beings from another planet but as "smart dust" or nano machines. I've often said that an alien nanobot could be crawling across the top of the screen people on ATS are reading without them ever being aware this tiny alien machine were in their room.

I don't know if you are aware of this but I'm working on a proposal to search for such nano scale machines in a very limited (but experimentally useful) way. NanoSETI.
It would be almost but not completely impossible to detect an alien nano machine unless the density of them on Earth is sufficiently high but why not look? If we do not look then the chance of finding them is zero (0).

7. Visiting in person takes a lot of time. It would be much quicker and more efficient to build a virtual holographic encyclopedia of the galaxy and visit from the comfort of our own room, and you could hop around the galaxy instantaneously. You'd gather data using probes.

I think you're right in one sense wrong in another.

It surely would be easier to construct massive, solar system scale telescopes and use stars gravitational lenses for highly detailed imaging of distant worlds however, a sufficiently curious species might be willing to embark on a trip in person if the place they were observing looked too interesting to monitor at the limits of optics.

A probe travelling at 1g constant acceleration from a star 2,500 light years away would take a little over 2,500 Earth Years to reach us. The aliens would thereby be waiting 2,500 years for the probe to get to Earth and then 2,500 years for the first transmissions from its arrival to reach the alien world. (assuming no Faster than Light communication)

Total time of mission from launch to notice of safe arrival: 5,000 Earth Years

However if there were a crew on a ship making the same trip, due to the time dilation effects of relativistic travel the crew would only experience 15 years of time passing so the advantage to travel here in person might make more sense than sending a probe.

5,000 years vs 15 years... hmmm....

8. Visiting in person has a potential hazard of transmitting exo-biological agents which could be harmful. Much better to visit virtually.

I agree. Contamination is a huge risk and would be for both them and us.... Unless:

a) They have virtual foolproof bio-isolation measures / space suits / vehicle decontamination.

b) They are not biological. just as we may someday become "post human" perhaps they have shed their biological bodies for cyborg ones.

c) They are based on left-handed DNA. In which case no viruses, bacteria, etc which they'd carry could interact with us since we and all life on Earth is based on right-handed DNA:

d) They are based on something other than DNA entirely. Perhaps some sort of crystalline based life form? As such they would not interact with our biology at all.

9. Before a sentient, space faring race can go exploring, they have to duplicate their own world (as Stephen Hawking explains) because there is a very real threat of periodic extinctions. You don't want to 'come home' and find your planet sterilized by a gamma-ray burster.

The alternative of Stephen Hawking saying that is that such a species would be duplicating their own world BY going exploring to populate another habitable one they detected and examined closely remotely like we ourselves are planning to do in the next few decades. BTW: I'd be leery of listening to Hawking on anything other than his area of expertise: Physics. On issues of astrobiology he is not very well versed. Unfortunately when he talks about such things the media prints them as if they are well reasoned but they are really just opinions. Hawking is not an astrobiologist.

10. Not every sentient race CAN communicate with another race. For example a hive mind might be just too different.

Agreed it might not be able to communicate with us. However a hive mind probably -could- communicate with our technological equivalent: The Bitcoin Network or another network of supercomputers.

11. Fermi Paradox. Given the age of the galaxy, it should already be linked up and populated by sentient, space faring races.

I would argue that there is very little support for the Fermi Paradox because we've only really just begun to search. All the Fermi Paradox argues against is a super high density of alien civilizations. It does not and can not rule out the existence of any alien species. There are some very good arguments against its validity. For one it assumes mass colonization.


edit on 9-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:08 AM

originally posted by: Maverick7
12. Valuable Real Estate Hypothesis. If there were sentient space-faring beings visiting our Solar System, they wouldn't hide and we'd see blatant evidence of them on those planets and moons that could be terraformed or upon which bases could be built. (I.e. Moon, Mars, Europa). We don't see any evidence of that right now.

I would argue that they would not need to hide for them to be missed. Nor would they necessarily feel the need to build visible bases.

Even in our own plans to build bases on the Moon or Mars we are considering building them underground or burying them to protect them from hard radiation.

Space is vast and there could very well be an alien base somewhere buried in our solar system but because we've only begun to explore it, we've so far missed it.

It is part of why Arizona State University professor and astronomer Paul Davies wants to crowdsource a project to look for alien artifacts on the Moon.

SEE Alien Artifacts on the Moon? Forbes Magazine, July 23, 2014

13. We don't really know the 'path' of advanced development. Perhaps we're making a mistake and advanced 'beings' do not develop like we see on TV into a Kardashev Type II or III race, but instead 'pop' up into another dimension, making contact with mere three-dimensional beings rather pointless (just like we wouldn't want to contact comic book characters, drawn in 2-D using a printer). So though advanced sentient beings might exist, our paths may not cross due to their evolution into 'something else'.

I have no argument against this. We don't know. Its a major question we hope to answer though.

14. Sparse distribution. If there are, perhaps too few sentient space-faring races, it makes contact very, very unlikely just as a world we might visit that had one microbe per continent would appear to be completely lifeless. It's just too sparse to find each other.

Again, I have no argument here. It's very possible that the density of intelligent space-faring species is very sparse in our Galaxy.

15. Super quarantine forces. There may be other forces, like the Heliosphere, a concentration of charged particles that makes it hard to penetrate into any one solar system. We already have distance, time, radiation, near vacuum, extreme cold as forces of 'quarantine'. There may be others we don't know about.

Nothing about the Heliosphere is in penetrable and no amount of charged particle or radiation would be unshieldable to a sufficiently advanced technology.

The distance, time, radiation, extreme cold and vacuum of space have already been overcome by human interstellar spaceflight engineering proposals. Some of which go back to the 1970s. It's hard to imagine species millions or billions of years older having not done the same and put such proposals into practice at some point.

So while it may still not be impossible for sentient, space faring civilizations to arise and exist in a time frame near to our arising, find us, come in person and exist on our time span (i.e. not be like super fast living, or super slow living creatures) it looks like the odds are against it.

I like your rebuttal it was very well reasoned and well thought out. Kudos
It all just shows how little we know about what is really out there. There is a universe of possibilities and we're only beginning to get access to tools sensitive enough to finally answer some of the questions about these possibilities so stay tuned. The next decade or two will be very interesting.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM

originally posted by: Charizard
Was a nice read, you definitely put a lot of work into this post.

A few notes:

You attribute the grey's small, skinny bodies to evolving on a planet with higher gravity than the Earth, but wouldn't it be the opposite? If they evolved on a planet with much higher gravity, would you not expect them to have much more robust, thicker, stockier bodies and trunk-like limbs (thinking like elephants, rhinos, etc) to support themselves in the increased gravity?

Yes, that is correct. However, I postulated that perhaps they DID evolve that way but "thinned out" due to space travel. In our own experiments on the ISS we've noticed a reduction in bone mass and other characteristics due to long duration space flight. Now imagine a species that was once squat from evolving in higher than Earth gravity but has been evolving in near zero-g....

Also I did not mention it but I thought of "The Greys" having something like a carbon nanofiber/nanotube type skeletal system. There's nothing biologically prohibitive of something like that evolving particularly on a carbon rich, higher gravity world. Perhaps Earth bones would be selected out in favor of this nano-carbon based bone on such a world?

It would be truly alien after all.

I would think, assuming the species is real and as described with the twig-like arms/legs and neck supporting an oversized head, that their brittle-looking bodies would snap like a twig in a heavy gravity enviroment.

Agreed on some representations of them. Others however show them with a chunkier neck so perhaps that would more be the case. Again this assumes they are real at all. An assumption I do not personally believe but am open to if there were good evidence in support of it.

Then again, I suppose their bone structure (or whatever such supporting structure they evolved) could be something much more dense and durable than what animals on this planet have.

Absolutely. I imagined a carbon-carbon type bone or vertebrate or even skin covered exoskeleton. I should have been more clear on that I guess.

There's also the possibility that they're artificial life forms. Still, I would think their bodies resemble something that would have evolved on a planet with lower gravity or a less-dense atomsphere?

Well.... this is the human-ish looking robot which is aboard the International Space Station right now:

Notice that it is missing legs?

Another thing you pointed out is that the small nostrils may indicate evolution on a planet with much stronger winds. Wouldn't this be a problem for a species with such large eyes? I can imagine a lot of eye irritation and damage for such large peepers from windborn sediment and debris.

Yes. But they presumably would have eye lids or some type of hard, almost plexiglass like membrane for protection.

The "eyeball Earth" is certainly interesting, but I have to wonder if a species could really evolve to the point the greys are supposedly at on such a world. I know we are but one humble example here on Earth, but just look at the way we fight over and abuse the resources we have. I realize a super Earth is, by definition, much larger than our own Earth, but I can't imagine life being easy when you're confined to a small central ring of habitability around the equatorial region of a planet, no matter how large that world may be. One would think resources and especially realestate would quickly dry up if such a world were inhabited by an intelligent species.

Perhaps the lack of resources would drive them into space with far greater vigor than it has us? Perhaps the highly competitive nature of their ecosystem pretty much forces them to go offworld as a soon as it is feasible. Without know its societal structure its hard to know how it would allocate resources but I can tell you if back in the 1960s the US had allocated the resources that went into the Vietnam and Iraq wars to space travel we'd probably have probes half way to the nearest stars by now.

Its all a matter of priorities and without know such about the distant past history of "The Greys" it would be hard to know whether they'd chose a path of self destruction or one of exploration and exploitation of planetary resources. Assuming they were real and got here it would probably be the latter.

Advanced technology would likely require significant landmass to be developed (gotta have dry places to build electronics and machinery after all, and places to mine and process minerals and all of that). I just have trouble believing that a species evolving on an "eyeball planet" would be able to progress to the point of space colonization (which would probably be needed) without blowing themselves into oblivion. But hey, maybe they were always much smarter and more cooperative than us!

Well one thing such planets could have in abundance in theory would be higher amounts of everything since they are larger. So perhaps more precious metals like titanium, more radioactives like thorium, uranium etc. In other words perhaps they would actually be at a slightly greater advantage to explore space given more easily available resources to get started but also a recognition that the accessibility of them in the more inhospitable parts of them on their planet would require short duration space travel (since travel across the surface to reach them might be impossible).

Its a fascinating line of thinking. If we evolved on a world like that we'd almost have no choice other than space travel just to get to other parts of the world to set up automated resource extractors and the like.

If a species is already traveling in space just to reach other parts of its own world, would it perhaps not be a stretch to imagine they would be more apt to explore nearby ones first in their own solar system and then around distant stars, perhaps like our Sun?

One more thing that popped into my head while reading: You mention somewhere in the beginning that interstellar travel is very difficult and as such that makes it unlikely that any species that DID visit us would be doing so with enough frequency to account for the numerous UFO sightings throughout the years. That's assuming a lot of things, such as:

-said species hasn't evolved to the point of being able to use worm hole travel, warp drive or some other "faster than light" type of travel


Because even with warp drives they would still have to deal with the problem of how to allocate energy and resources. Warp drives will still have an energy cost. And perhaps they would have a HUGE energy cost compared to sub-light relativistic travel. We have no way of knowing right now as we are only beginning to explore paths to a viable warp drive:


posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:41 AM

originally posted by: Charizard
-Said species doesn't have "interstellar arcs", "city ships", "mother ships" or whatever you want to call them. Massive ships that serve as a mobile world, traveling the stars, hosting generations of offspring. Intergalactic nomads, if you will.

These massive ships would be HIGHLY detectable.

So the question then would become: Where are they? Why have we not seen them?

-Said species hasn't established a way point or other-such base-of-operations much closer to Earth so that they may stay within "day trip" distance for observation. Alien moon bases, undersea UFO bases and all of that.

Again, same question. Though this one is more plausible because we know more about the surface of the moon than some areas in the depths of our oceans. That's a remarkable thing to say in 2015 but the crushing pressures at the bottom of the deepest parts of oceans ensure they are still fairly unexplored. However such crushing pressures would be nothing to a Kardashev Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 species. So perhaps that is a path of exploration. It would make sense to place a base in a place we could not easily get to if it was simply to monitor us from a distance similar to what we do when we monitor apes in a jungle.

Excellent points you've made though. Well done.
edit on 9-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:02 PM

originally posted by: game over man
I really like what you put together here Jade Star S+F. I was going to ask you in another thread what exoplanets are closest to Earth that we can pick from for any visiting Intelligent Life? How many more nearby stars have not been confirmed to have planets?

Good questions:

Well here is a current list of the best planets we know exist, ranked by distance. As you can see Tau Ceti e is closest to us at 12 light years away:

A trip to Tau Ceti e at 1g acceleration (assuming we could achieve it) would appear to us to take almost 14 years. But to the crew it would only seem to take 5 years due to time dilation effects.

I should mention that searches for planets around the nearest stars have been such that they were not really sensitive to Earth sized planets in the habitable or "goldilocks" zone of stars. Most nearby stars have been and are being searched for larger planets (a function of telescope optics and the radial velocity technique). Other searches involve looking for transits but to do this properly for smaller, rocky planets like Earth or even some of the SuperEarths requires a dedicated space telescope mission.

Luckily NASA is on the case and just had its TESS mission will launch in 2017 specifically to look for alien SuperEarths and a launch contract was recently awarded to Space-X to launch it.

If "The Greys" were real and their homeworld existed around a nearby star there's a chance this mission will locate it for further analysis with the James Webb Space Telescope (which will launch in 2018) and massive ground telescopes in Hawaii and Chile which will start observing in the early 2020s.

So we're about to find a bunch of nearby planets. Of course even with TESS we might miss plenty of habitable planets nearby because in order for TESS to find a planet that planet will have to pass between us and the star it orbits (this is called a transit) a few times.

Some planets would be missed because we aren't viewing them edge on but perhaps looking down/up at the planetary system from above/below. Other missions will directly image these and other planets TESS misses with the goal of eventually mapping a SuperEarth in a habitable zone:

Do we know what the days and years are like on these exo-planets?

Years yes. Most techniques used to reveal exoplanets also reveal the length of their year in the process.

Days? Only in a few cases. We just began to be able to do this: Length of Exoplanet Day Measured for First Time - VLT measures the spin of Beta Pictoris b - European Southern Observatory, April 30, 2014

edit on 9-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:10 PM
Great thread attempting to break down the actual "Grey", where as I usually find the usual guesses, that they could be their own species, evolved from a simpler creature, to being human time travelers who screwed around with nature too much, or somehow being artificial in their origins serving a specific purpose, where as their makers were us or something else.

Personally, I'd find it somewhat more comforting that the grey belonged to their own tree, where as they went through similar walks of life that we are going to go through. And that way their existence won't seem so mind boggling compared to other things or would be possibilities.

There is one thing I'm wondering about in their physiology, and its how they would be able to come down to our planet and move about with quick reflexes. Where its commonly believed that they are much weaker then the standard human due to adapting through generations of being exposed to the zero gravity of space, but if that were the case, they would be crushed or hinder by our environment and would be better off staying in their vehicles.

Another interesting possibility I've been thinking about is their technology, and how it could be connected to neural commands or thoughts for example. The more science understands our make up and the designs in nature become understood, the more it kind of seems like live is a bio-chemical automation, while advanced technology would seem more like it could possibly be inter connected with life or it organic motor functions. Although this could bring about problems with the natural order of things, where it believed that the Grey(or Future Humans) could of went to far with such an idea, and attempted to forget the fatality of mortal flesh, where as it brought about the Grey current appearance or doomed fate for that matter in a quantum believe of sorts.

Where all the different fields of science mastered and united, ranging from nanotechnology to genetic manipulation could of been once believed to improve the existence of life and making it more comfortable. Sad thing is, is that Nature could only put up with such a thing for so long till something gives, where the genes don't get no exercise and is some how suffocating. And that such a thing is why they come here for genetic material to possibly maintain their existence or survival, or so the believe.

Again personally, i'd find it more comforting if they originated in our reality and have their own origins, where as the appearance of the Grey is rather natural instead of racial genetic experiment that went wrong to due a slothy nature such as humans or weak psychological form of life that would give life up easily. And that they are a matured, balanced biological and technological species.

Other then that, I'm kind of more interested in other form of life, something that even the darkest mythologies could only ponder for aeons.
edit on 9-1-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:25 PM
First of all: Very Good Job! Awesome Thread, which is very informative and presented in a way, that it's a pleasure to read throughout.

Thanks also for all the interesting links.

What i really enjoy is, that this thread shows, how one actually can do some proper scientific research on a rather speculative topic.

Before going further I'd like to answer a common criticism on ATS and in the Aliens and UFO's forum specifically, that mainstream science and scientists (which usually means competent people who hold degrees in various disciplines) are close-minded and unwilling to think outside of conventional wisdom or unable to think outside the box.

That's actually one of the biggest kockout arguments many people use to discredit "science" and "scientists" in one sentence. Especially if the subject of interest is the research about UFOs and/or EBEs.

I've informed myself on this whole UFO subject for like 10 years now, i guess. IMO there are some good UFO researchers out there but they are just a few. The majority tends to discuss assumptions, that are also made of assumptions.

Sidenote: For me as german it's sometimes confusing, when people talk about "evidence". In english the word evidence can stand for "proof" aswell as for a "hint" or an "indication". In german language you only have like one word for each meaning. So, if some documentary, for example, is entitled with "Evidence for Alien Visitors On Earth" (or whatever) i always ask myself: "Ok, nice info but where is the promised evidence now?!"

Anyway. What i was about to say is, that i, for myself, do believe, that there's some areal phenomenon going on and maybe has been for 100s of years already. Meanwhile i also tend to believe, that at least some of those things people see in the skies are extraterrestrial in their nature, of some sort. I even tend to believe, that there's some ET intelligence behind this.

BUT...this is my personal believe, not a fact!

Scientific researches on this topic are crucial because we have to study this phenomenon and the ones who may be behind it on a larger scale.

Sadly enough it's sometimes funny watching some UFO conference on YT and the first thing you hear is like: "I see so many open minded people in here today..." The truth is, that most people are far away from beeing open minded there. They believe in either the one or the other story without even questioning them and at the same time discredit "scientists" as beeing

close-minded and unwilling to think outside of conventional wisdom or unable to think outside the box.

For me the term "open minded" doesn't mean, that i either believe in UFOs or not. It rather means, that you don't close yourself for new ideas/theories in general. And of course this includes scientific studies aswell!

And this is exactly what this great thread here does. It is open minded and looks at a difficult subject in a scientific way.

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:38 PM

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JadeStar

Those who believe in grey aliens visiting Earth, no doubt will be heartened to know that nothing would seem to rule out such a species existing and perhaps even behaving as it allegedly does.

Other than the fact that their huge heads would need to be filled with helium if those pencil necks are to support them.

It would depend on the density of their skull structure.

Note also the seeming lack of musculature...

Long duration space travel leads to lack of muscle. Its a fact and a challenge for us humans. One can image that a once very muscular species might evolve towards that in the microgravity environment of space unless gravity were somehow simulated through rotation or other means.

the classic "grey" seems more like fungus than mammal.

Great observation. I never thought of that.

On the other hand, your post is extremely well researched, well balanced and informative. You should consider re-working it slightly and submitting it to Analog magazine as a "speculative science" piece. I'm certain they would publish it!

Thank you. You really think Analog would be interested?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in