It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Aliens - the look?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Why is that so many people say that aliens are about 4-5 feet tall, grey in colour and have big black eyes?




posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
hollywood perhaps? i frankly have no clue what an alien would look like..i strongly cant even comprehend it..which makes the whole thing even wierder to me.... :S



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
It is the most common description by those who claim to have seen them personally.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
hence being the most commonly percieved image when the thought alien comes into your mind.....as it is the most commonly displayed...if that makes sense....basically its the stereo typical image and is therefore the most commony associated one.


peace



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
The typical iconic image of "Aliens" is simply the primal archetype that humans have been responding to since time began.

Large, slanted (but not asiatic) eyes.

"Green" as a clothing color, even though the persons are gray.

Magic powers, that can turn evil.

A desire to kidnap isolated travelers, and sire children with our women.

Oops! I was describing elves, not aliens. Oh well, same difference. See, the belief is the same, only our stereotypes have changed. We don't believe in strangers coming out of the forest. So now, we claim they come from the sky.

As Fox Mulder's poster proclaims. "You want to believe."



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
dr_strangecraft,

I agree with you and the others in that reports and icons get passed around. Many times these images are substituted for something we cannot understand, or just did not see all that well.

But do you really feel that is all there is too the whole subject of UFOs/Alien Life? When you consider the age of the Universe is it not possible that the true origin of these primal images has a physical source?


A.T
(-)



[edit on 7/19/05 by Alexander Tau]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Its all because of Star Wars band.





posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
well, for me, that is a separate question entirely. I was thinking in terms of perceptions, rather than ultimate truths.

You should know that I believe it is a mistake to try and "reach conclusions" when it comes to fringe phenomena. When folks reach conclusions, they begin excluding data which doesn't fit their model.

An example is the JFK assasination. When you listen to anyone rant on that topic, it is best to start with their conclusions, since that tells you what they plan to leave out. For instance, if they are fixated on a CIA connection, then they'll be leaving out the evidence that the "Oswald" that de-defected from Russia in 1961 does not physically match the Marine who left the US for Moscow two years prior. On the other hand, if they are into the Mafia angle, they will exclude evidence that the FBI debriefed "Oswald" upon his return, and even granted him a security clearance to work on photos taken by the U2 spyplane over Cuba!

I feel that a similar attitude applies to "aliens."

While not having a huge emotional investment either way, the evidence I am familiar with points to the idea that there is has been no meaningful contact with physical beings from beyond our solar system.

I have revisited the famous equations (so often quoted on ATS) computed by Sagan and Drake in the 1960's. Since their original work, we have learned from the Hubble telescope that planets with sustainable hydrocarbon environments are much rarer than Sagan originally guessed. And by a hundred orders of magnitude. Meaning that, in a 6 billion year old universe, the odds of even 1 civilization arising that uses radio communications is remote. And we are that one civilization.

Not that its impossible. Just unlikely. Extremely. As in you'd do better playing power ball lotto, than to await alien contact.

On a deeper level, I have personally invested a great deal of time sifting through UFO reports; I have logged hundreds of observation hours personally, and have seen at least a dozen UFOs in my time. But I have never seen evidence of extra-terrestrial craft. Indeed, the reports I have read and experienced point to ATMOSPHERIC craft with no deep-space capabilities whatsoever. The things you see in the sky, MAY be from another dimension; but I am satisfied they are NOT from alpha centauri, which is just around the corner in galactic terms.

Now, I am not saying that there is nothing behind "alien" reports. Just that they are not biological entities from a different solar system.

You might consider that I'm nuts (or joking), but I think the older accounts of "elves" are probably more factually accurate than the emotionally-charged accounts of space abductions that are currently so popular. They are definite entities all right, and they can even project a physical presence temporarily. But they are not from planet X.

They want you to think they are space-men, in order to keep you from asking the REAL questions that would come to mind when you consider that some group of entities has been abducting humans for the past 10,000 years without ever revealing themselves or their ultimate goals.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
It is the most common description by those who claim to have seen them personally.


That's exactly right.


The small, hairless, Greys with dark, slanted eyes are the most commonly reported aliens by abductees/contactees.




posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Because that's how they look!

I'm sorry, but it's true. Maybe not all aliens look that way, but "Greys" do. Your question is the same as asking, "How come people always describe bunnies as being fluffy with floppy ears?" Well, that's the way they look!



Everyone that's ever seen a bunny will agree.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by CloudlessKnight]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
That's exactly what I was gonna say! Darn. Beat me to it.
Anyhow, it's a very iconic image. Look at it this way:

1. It is a living creature (supposedly) and we humans, in our intellect, are the most 'alive' creatures out there. Thus the humanlike figure.

2. They are, of course, not human so they must look different, even if they talk and breath and see the same. Thus the large eyes and grey skin and whatnot.

That's just my basic idea. I'm finding it rather hard to explain my thoughts today...

You could also look at it this way:

Their heads are bulbous, thus visually showing vast intelligence. Their eyes are huge and seem to be all pupil, thus symbolizing the fact that they can see everything. Their skin is grey, visually showing paleness and thus a weak state. And their intention is seemingly to change us in some way.
If you look at it like that, it would seem that Aliens are a metaphor for humanity as a whole. We are smart. We see all the injustice and the sickening truth. It makes us sick to know who we are. And, like us, aliens try to change that, try to make the world a place better suited to them, just as we try to do. They never come down in whole fleets, never talk to world leaders or anything. So, like us, aliens try to change the world in small ways.

Don't think I'm crazy or anything. That sounds really weird, I know. And, like I said, I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into writing today.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Anybody got a real picture of these Greys? Id love to see one , not a phoney latex paintshop pro version of them. I used to think mankind had brains , but somehow i think they live in a fantasy world.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Yes, dr_strangecraft, history shows, the public has had its beliefs and occult knowledge changed/altered for many years.



[edit on 19-7-2005 by ThePunisher]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Large heads for their highly evolved and oversized brains. Elongated limbs with especially long fingers. Large almond shaped eyes because their visual sensory organs would also be highly evolved. Hairless bodies and heads. No mouths because they communicate with brainwaves. No ears in our sense but their auditory organs are merely small membranes. Gray in color since their world is very dark because their sun is failing so they've grown pale.

Short in height because height is basically unnecessary. There are numerous kinds reported however. There are Nordics, Reptilian-the bad guys or what our smaller two-legged dinosaurs might have evolved into, there are insectoid ones which supposedly resemble mantises. And there are numerous other kinds but apparently the "grays" as they are known are the most scientific and inquisitive. And they are reportedly meddlers who like to abduct and experiment on humans. So we get the classic alien with the big head and big black almond shaped eyes tilted at 60 degrees.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
for some reason i still dont believe in the typical ''greys'' alien model...i think that its a way too biased image that many have began associating the ET's as.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
well from abduction stories they say they see big headed creatures with big black eyes and there short little things



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
If you read through the ufo sightings from the Magonia database (www.ufoinfo.com...) on UFOINFO site, you will find that a lot of the beings that emerged from ufo's appeared to be dwarf-like or hobbit-like. This database goes back to the late 1800's and the reports are from all over the world.

These reports are very interesting.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I used to think mankind had brains , but somehow i think they live in a fantasy world.


They do, they actually think they are alone in the universe



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
dr_strangecraft,



well, for me, that is a separate question entirely. I was thinking in terms of perceptions, rather than ultimate truths.


I understood that which is why I asked you what I did.




You should know that I believe it is a mistake to try and "reach conclusions" when it comes to fringe phenomena. When folks reach conclusions, they begin excluding data which doesn't fit their model.


That can happen, but if like yourself you are aware of the possibility then it can be avoided. And that process is not completely wrong, if I know for certain that A,B & C are correct and part of the answer, then when D comes along you have something to judge with. The interesting thing about truth is that it tends to fit with other truths. So if you are on the right track then the answers you find make sense in context without any amazing 'exceptions'.

I do think it is necessary to reach conclusions because there are always more layers of mystery waiting. If you do not come to a firm understanding of the outer layers how can you ever hope to reach deeper. Of course many people do not care about this sort of intellectual quest but it is very much a part of me.




An example is the JFK assasination. When you listen to anyone rant on that topic, it is best to start with their conclusions, since that tells you what they plan to leave out.


I agree that many people think this way, but it is just lazy more than anything else. If you study properly you look at all the evidence and make judgements along the way. For example I am quite well-versed in the JFK murder. I do not ignore the possibility of an 'Oswald switch' I have simply judged the idea incorrect. The evidence is flimsy and based on a lot of perceptions that could just be simple mistakes.

What does seem possible is that in a couple of cases someone used Oswald's name and identity.

When Oswald returned from the USSR he did not get a security clearance, and he did not work on U2 photos. He worked at a place which did a minor amount of classified work, none of which he was ever involved in. So with a minor amount of study this seems like a screaming warning of something sneaky, but upon real study it is revealed as nothing of importance.

I do not believe we know the full truth about Oswald and what happened that day back in November. But like UFOs there is a great mass of 'evidence' which must be discarded if one is to reach any sort of valid judgement.



I have revisited the famous equations (so often quoted on ATS) computed by Sagan and Drake in the 1960's. Since their original work, we have learned from the Hubble telescope that planets with sustainable hydrocarbon environments are much rarer than Sagan originally guessed. And by a hundred orders of magnitude


To that I would say first, we only know the slightest fraction about our own Galaxy, and we only know about 1 form of life. So if your only interest is in 'human life similar to ourselves' then ok but there are many other possibilities. And second, there are other aspects of the equations that rely on massive guessing. We have one sample, on example, Earth and humans, and in a Universe of 100 Billion+ Galaxies, one sample is nothing really.

These equations are impressive in concept, and a important step along the route to understanding the Universe. With perhaps what might turn out to be the smallest contribtution to what we know the Hubble has been used to estimate 125 Billion Galaxies. Add a few more sensor types to the mix and that number starts to multiply.

Many people like to point to the small side of the scale, but if you play with the numbers a bit you can also find the other end. I have plugged various numbers into it and gotten some massive results. To inject a little 'common wisdom' I would imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but when one end is 1 and the other is Millions, the middle is a pretty large number.




But I have never seen evidence of extra-terrestrial craft. Indeed, the reports I have read and experienced point to ATMOSPHERIC craft with no deep-space capabilities whatsoever.


OK I would have to hear some of your reasoning on this point. I do not see, even a little, what could be the basis for that thought but I am interested to hear what you have to say. What you have experienced personally is of course going to figure in and I am sorry to say I do not know more of your personal story.

And on the same note you ended on: I have always factored a fair percentage of abduction stories as being our perceptions of 'leaving this life'. Not saying that people are not Taken, but just that some events are based on things other than Alien Science.



A.T
(-)



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienAntFarm
Hairless bodies and heads.

Gray in color since their world is very dark because their sun is failing so they've grown pale.


I like most of that explanation, but you never explained the hairless bit. Their sun is failing, so it must be getting colder. Wouldn't they need hair or something? And how does that account for the grey skin?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join