Are alien faces an inborn facial recognition template?

The skeptics have come up with a new idea of why alien faces look the way they look:

The Descriptions of alien faces historically reported by UFO abductees are almost boringly uniform. Long before “close encounters” became a catchword in the ufologist’s vocabulary, self-proclaimed UFO abductees described their abductors as bulbous-headed humanoids equipped with oversized, wraparound eyes, vertical double-slit nostrils and gray skin. Is there another explanation for this uniformity of features besides the most obvious — that it is a description of an actual alien race?


---- Transforming a Mother’s Face into a UFO Alien Face ----


Unprocessed young female face.



A mother’s face as it might be seen by a newborn.



The mother’s face immediately after birth.



Another typical alien face drawn by one of Malmstrom’s abductee clients.

skeptic.com...

Is this a plausible theory?


**im wondering where the hell the white part of the womans eyes went during the morphing proces

[edit on 21-10-2005 by plop]

Are you kidding me?

Look at the photos, they are clearly of different people, or if the same person, they are clearly of different facial expressions, in fact I don't think it's even possible to have your eyebrows like that.

The only plausible theory here is, those skeptics are utter dumbarses.

I think they are all the same woman. But the morphing doesnt quite result in an alien with large almond shaped eyes. Funny theory though

I believe you have a good point here Plop, I mean that a baby's eyesight is very poor
and I know that they tend to go off instinct in the first few months, so it's possible
that this 'template' remains in the sub-conscious and occasionally leaks out in dreams
and visions.
I know that a baby tends to focus on it's mother's eyes to gather information.
I do think you're right... or aliens are coming across the void and showing up and
dragging people out of their bed and hoping that no one will find out!

Originally posted by Manincloak

Look at the photos, they are clearly of different people, or if the same person, they are clearly of different facial expressions

No. it is the same person. The website explains how the images were manipulated. I'm sure we can replicate it with Photoshop. Either way arguing that it is a different person is irrelevant.

Is this a plausible theory?

Yes it is. The author, Frederick V. Malmstrom, has listed all his references from where he has made this theory.


Excellent find plop

Originally posted by Umbrax
No. it is the same person. The website explains how the images were manipulated.

Well that just says it all doesn't it?
This theory will never be proven....

Well, I definitly don't fear my mother, but I do fear Grey Aliens...

And the mother doesn't have a bulblous head...now does it?

Wow they picked the perfect "mom face". Look at that persons eyes ! Whaaaaaaa !

Then how can the tiny, thin bodies of "Grey" aliens, usually seen by abductees, be explained? Moms are usually pretty hefty after birth!!!

Maybe Skeptic magazine has just added more weight to the theory that humans as we know them in our history, are part Alien or were created from an Alien template to serve their species - hence the likeness. We're at a time now where we are talking about cloning and even creating our own clones for organ harvesting - why wouldn't Aliens that have been around atleast as long as our earliest history records not do something similiar if they are indeed a cloned species? Humans are either a disease on the living Earth or a comodity to a much more advanced civilisation. The whole "God/Bible" thing makes a great cover story and it still works today. Even thou you can easily trace the historical edits of the Bible and how it's changed to serve as a control device, it's still regarded by too many as being 'Fact', even with less proof than what we DO have of the existance of an Alien presence that HAS been involved in the growth of our species since we worked out how to paint on cave walls.

The Alien on the cover of the book 'Communiun' freaks the hell out of me while also looking very familiar, no other Alien face really bothers me besides that one and it always has - then i read the book when i was older and realised why that face may be familiar! Who knows, i do know i don't see anything Alien about my Mother and never have.

What a boring world professional skeptics live in!

Something like this isn't going to convince me that it's all in people's imagination. You can't make some half baked attempt at debunking one area of ufology and just ignore the rest.

So when people see aliens they're actually repressed images of their mothers at birth? So what is it when 100 people see something flying over a city? What is it when to anyone with the unbiased facts there's obviously been a coverup of a certain event?

Next

Frankly, they need to be more skeptical.

If this was the case, we'd have drawings of these "aliens" filling childrens' art and would have them drawn everywhere in primitive art.

So basically what the skeptics are saying is that we are born nearsighted and can't make out distinct facial features as babies? That doesn't quite stack up. Abductees talk of Grays having really huge black eyes, not small slit eyes. And as far as I know, babies are more attuned to facial details since they are basically mimics. There'd be no blurring unless the baby had an eye problem.

I think it's a rather good theory, and I would actually suggest that it may be the cause, but I believe that Grey aliens exist, and that they are neutral leaning towards good, buyt that is my personal belief, but anyways, I look at things from all the angles, and this is a pretty good theory.

It is theconsequence of simple evolution that a humanoid looks like the way it looks.

Could you imagine a fish or an insect flying a UFO? No. Physically it has to go through an evolution, building houses, fighting wars, etc. A hopeless creature will be defeated by a better one, and only the best will survive. It's simple.

It is theconsequence of simple evolution that a humanoid looks like the way it looks.

Could you imagine a fish or an insect flying a UFO? No. Physically it has to go through an evolution, building houses, fighting wars, etc. A hopeless creature will be defeated by a better one, and only the best will survive. It's simple.

A few things here.

Do you mean humanoid, as in its because of evolution, that we look the way we do, which your correct it is, or do you mean its because of evolution that aliens are/would be humanoid, because if thats what your saying, thats not entirely correct, an alien species does/would not have to be humanoid, as long as it has the basics, a kind of sight, complex intellligencs/sentients, tool manipulation and moderate locomotive abilitie (I.E Not being slow as a snail), it may well be that the first intelligent alien species we meet will have four tentacles and move around by bouncing.
To add to that, an insectile or piscic like species could exist, and be more technologically advanced than us.

On to the second thing.

True, a species does have to go through evolution, everything alive does.
And true a sentient or at the least moderately sentient species will either build domiciles, or use natural protective areas (I.E Caves), but that does not mean they will have to have wars, while I dont doubt that 99% of all sentient species will have fighting and most likely wars, it does not mean they have to, or that it is part of any kind of natural evolutionarie processes.