Are the Greys an ancient civilization?

This might be an interesting theory, but that's all it is, a theory..a story. There is not evidence (fosilized or otherwise) of "greys" evolving on earth, or even existing on this world, or any other for that matter.

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
I can't say I've come across this theory, but it seems logical, as far as theories go - big eyes / nocturnal etc.

No... Its like Gazrok said...

Originally posted by Gazrok
Large, dark, double-lidded eyes to deal with bright starlight...

Large eyes would deal with bright light and small eyes for low levels of light.

Oh so Now its the Greys who are co-existing with us, What ever happened to the Reptillians


I don't think their from here , why? becuase we would have found artifacts from them or at least pennies nickels or w/e currency they used, simple artifacts like that.

Regarding the Greys being android beings of the Anunnaki, Jason Martell explains a little with some pictorial evidence at:-

xfacts.com...

And Sitchin explains it further in some of his books, The Cosmic Code being one example. The story he refers to to cite as POSSIBLE evidence of android beings being created is the Akkadian tale of "Inanna's Descent to the Lower World" (page 85 of the hardback copy of the book). Rather than suggesting the lower world as being some underworld domain, Sitchin suggests that it was simply looking at the earth and the lower half of it, possibly being somewhere in the southern part of Africa (I won't go into more of his reasons for suggestiing this, go read the book at the library for that!).

Inanna had gone to demand that Nergal, an older brother of Dumuzi, sleep with her following Dumuzi's death, so that she could have a son by him. This upset her sister, Ereshkigal, who was the spouse of Nergal. When Inanna reached Ereshkigal's place, Ereshkigal ordered that Inanna be subjected to the "eyes of death", that killed her and the corpse was hung on a stake. Before she had gone, Inanna had asked her chamberlain to get help if she did not return in 3 days. When she did not return he went and sought help and could only find it from Enki (also known as EA in Sumerian mythology). He created two artifical beings who were able to withstand the "Eyes of Death" and sent them on a descue mission. He gave one the Food of Life and the other the Water of Life. And to quote Sitchin's translation of the tale

"Upon the corpse, hung from the stake
they directed the Pulser and the Emitter.
Upon the flesh that had been smitten,
sixty times the Food of Life,
sixty times the Water of Life,
they sprinkled upon it;
And Inanna arose".



There are others such as Bob Frissell who speak of the Greys as being a race that used to live on Mars and attempted to create an artifical Merkaba there which unleashed no end of problems. It has been a while since I read his stuff so I don't recall any specifics ;-)

Originally posted by sensfan
This might be an interesting theory, but that's all it is, a theory..a story. There is not evidence (fosilized or otherwise) of "greys" evolving on earth, or even existing on this world, or any other for that matter.

There is evidence of there existence and that was not the point I was trying to make. If you haven't already accepted the testimony of millions of people and thousands of pictures as fact then that is your choice.


Now for the rest of us who have been lucky enough to drive under a ship the size of a football field we are left trying to find out its origin. This "theory" as you have said is much more plausable than any other out there at the moment.

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321There is evidence of there existence and that was not the point I was trying to make. If you haven't already accepted the testimony of millions of people and thousands of pictures as fact then that is your choice.

I don't think you could find millions of people who have seen "greys"... and there has never een a single convincing photo or other shred of evidence. It wouldn't be hard to prove if there had been good evidence -- all it would take is one appearance at a very public event.

Originally posted by Byrd
(...)
It wouldn't be hard to prove if there had been good evidence -- all it would take is one appearance at a very public event.

Well actually, it seems that all the "good" evidence we have ever seen has always been ridiculed, debunked (rightly or not), hidden or simply dismissed as a good hoax.

Btw, I don't think that those aliens are willing to appear in any very public event, they would have done it already IMO...

And to get back to the topic itself, it is likely a very old civilization, but in my views surely not earthly. Some stories put them originating in Zeta Reticuli star system, and it is "plausible": sun-like star, very likely planets around it, and 1 billion years older than our sun... That, if any life has evolved there, would make them a hell lot older than us, with all the implications on science, technology... that it bears.

Oy vey. Sitchin's translations have gotten more psychotic...

Originally posted by Nairod
(badly hashed up version of Inanna in the underworld tale == presumably by Sitchin)
"Upon the corpse, hung from the stake
they directed the Pulser and the Emitter.
Upon the flesh that had been smitten,
sixty times the Food of Life,
sixty times the Water of Life,
they sprinkled upon it;
And Inanna arose".

Oh man... that's just SO Bad. He deliberately mistranslates the whole thing. The kurgarra and galatur servants are magical beings and they are not "pulser" and "emitter.":
www.mindspring.com...
and
inanna.virtualave.net...
And another translation of just the text... no commentary:
www.halexandria.org...


I can hardly wait for Sitchin's next mangling of translations from the cuneiform. I suspect that next he'll declare that the goddess Inanna has chosen him for her husband or that he's desceneded from Gilgamesh.

i think the grays come from the depths of the ocean thats where they live. and they evolved way before us and moved to the ocean

I have a much easier time seeing what little evidence we have concerning UFOs and their operators as pointing towards them originating here on this planet than I do believing they come from somewhere light years away or from another dimension.
It may be merely my opinion, but I have some issues with the notion that aliens are so readily believed to be otherworldly.
The frequency and variety of visits alone seems to be at odds with reasonable observational techniques a sensible scientist would expect from intelligent observers studying mankind from any distance.
You can make assumptions that they are capable of faster than light travel or dimensional travel... but where is any evidence of that?
Is there any evidence of an alien craft's propulsion system being studied and what the results are?
The only propulsion evidence I have ever seen reported concerns them operating at speeds well below even a fraction of light speed.
Do we have tracking evidence to validate UFOs ever operating outside our atmosphere or near-earth orbit?
We definitely have anecdotal evidence pointing out that we have been noticing UFO's since far back in human history.
Why?
What stake do they have in us or our world that they are putting forth such long term and frequent effort to study us?
Why would an intelligence from a remote origin seem so much more interested in us once we evidenced a nuclear destructive capablity?
Wouldn't it seem the simplest explanation would probably be the most likely... that they had a keen interest in our world's fate because they share it?
From a biological standpoint... considering what we understand about evolution, what are the odds that intelligent life that originated elsewhere could even operate comfortably in our atmosphere and gravity?
Visual encounters repeatedly report that they aren't using any noticable portable breathing devices in our atmosphere.
Claiming that it may not be something we understand or see would once again be "assuming" based on no good evidence when the simplest explanation should suffice.
They breathe our air, at least that is what the majority of encounter reports bear witness to.
Also, where did the idea that large eyes are the result of existing in bright light and small eyes for seeing in the dark?
The ONLY time nocturnal creatures on this planet have small eyes is when they have degenerated because another sense is used instead... as in the case of bats using sonar.
Nocturnal denizens that operate by sight have quite large and sensitive eyes.
Considering that most physical descriptions of the classic "grey" alien report them having extremely large eyes and very small or non-existant ears/nose... it would be an extremely safe conclusion that they are equipped to operate primarily by sight in a low-light environment.
The reported lack of pigmentation and body hair also makes a good argument that they exist someplace without UV exposure and where the temperature remains comparatively mild and constant.
Once again, a subterranian explanation would seem to be the simplest and easiest answer to believe.

Somewhere else I made mention of "Okham's Razor", the conclusion that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one... seems to be mostly ignored when it comes to discussions concerning things of this nature.

Oh, one more thing... concerning the lack of evidence in the fossil record.
Can someone locate some statistics on what percentage of the earth's fossil record has thus far been uncovered and studied, let alone what percentage pertaining to a subterranian fossil record?
Humans cover this planet like a plague, and yet we have very little fossil record from prior to the last ice age... is this not true?
There is no good evidence, that I am aware of, to make me think that "greys" would need to exist in any great numbers to be a successful species. So I would expect the fossil record concerning them to be pretty small and hard to locate.

Those answers may say an awful lot about why no fossil record has come to light thus far.


--Orv




[edit on 19-10-2004 by Orv]

[edit on 19-10-2004 by Orv]

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
I have heard from several source that the Grey aliens many people claim to see are possibly from earth.

That's very very unlikely. For one thing, there is no proof that they exist.

They evolved around the time of the dinosaurs and hid in caves to survive.

There aren't that many caves, and they would have to come out sometime to get food. Plus, in all the caves we've seen, there's been no trace of any "Greys" or the like. There's no "ancestral forms" and before the age of the dinosaurs there were no warmblooded lifeforms. There's nothing at all that a Grey could have evolved from.

Eventually they became nocturnal and evolved the large eyes. Their technology is so mch more advanced that they are able to stay hidden from us.

And there's no trace of their previous technology. There's just... no trace.

There's no proof they are a race, that they exist, that they are a civilization. In fact, they don't appear in UFO literature before the Betty and Barney Hill incident. If they'd been around and were real, we'd have seen them in other historic era sightings.

I agree with byrd, there isn't any evidence supporting the possiblity of them developing on earth. None. As I understand it, the fossile record is fairly complete, not species wise, but as it relates to the lifetime of this planet. Even though there isnt any specific reference to greys before the hill's incident, there are alot of cave paintings from prehistoric humans that have striking resemblence. Which means that even though they almost definately didn't develope on earth, they or someone similar, has been visiting for quite a while.

One interesting thing that came to mind, perhaps I should start this as a new thread, but it regards grey culture. From what I've read, they seem to be absolutly devoid of it. If true, in my opinion, would support the theory that they were engineered in order to do the bidding of a greater race. Or perhaps its so subtle or complicated or both that we couldn't possible fathom it.

Show some evidence that they come from someplace beyond earth.
I'm not attempting to be contrary... I'm earnest about this.

There lies the true root of the problem... there is little evidence that they even exist, let alone where they originate from.
So in the face of this lack of evidence one must use the few things that seem to be constant in eyewitness and then use a little common sense to point at the most likely answers.
View it from a forensics standpoint using the best evidence available.

Please, I'd be happy for someone to come up with some serious evidence, even anecdotal, that can't be more easily pointed towards a terrestrial origin.

As for the argument about any lack of fossil evidence...
How Complete is the Fossil Record?

We truthfully know extremely little about the actual fossil record of the ball of rock we live on... any claim otherwise is simply not the truth.
It's a fact that is common knowlege among those in the field.
I think the last estimate I saw was something like 2% that we have uncovered and we don't even understand much of what we have.


--Orv

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Well actually, it seems that all the "good" evidence we have ever seen has always been ridiculed, debunked (rightly or not), hidden or simply dismissed as a good hoax.

If it had been "good" evidence, it couldn't have been debunked. Even the most controversial material, IF IT'S REAL, will stand up to the most savage critics. Case in point (archaeological evidence) is the Monte Verde site where artifacts have been found that indicate humans were in the New World more than 20,000 years ago instead of the 12,000 years that's claimed by the Clovis point group. This has been the subject of much heated debate, but the evidence does stand up to critics, and is becoming more accepted.

And I'm talking about the nasty-hard critics, who are worse on the evidence than the skeptic societies are on UFO evidence.

You can say that "grey civilization is billions of years old"... and that's about as proveable as "there is a colony of blue hexapods living on the planet Sedna and their civilization is 2 billion years old." Saying doesn't prove. You have to have good evidence.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by SpookyVince
Well actually, it seems that all the "good" evidence we have ever seen has always been ridiculed, debunked (rightly or not), hidden or simply dismissed as a good hoax.

If it had been "good" evidence, it couldn't have been debunked. Even the most controversial material, IF IT'S REAL, will stand up to the most savage critics. Case in point (archaeological evidence) is the Monte Verde site where artifacts have been found that indicate humans were in the New World more than 20,000 years ago instead of the 12,000 years that's claimed by the Clovis point group. This has been the subject of much heated debate, but the evidence does stand up to critics, and is becoming more accepted.

And I'm talking about the nasty-hard critics, who are worse on the evidence than the skeptic societies are on UFO evidence.

You can say that "grey civilization is billions of years old"... and that's about as proveable as "there is a colony of blue hexapods living on the planet Sedna and their civilization is 2 billion years old." Saying doesn't prove. You have to have good evidence.

Aye... heartily agreed.
You look at the best evidence at hand and then draw the most likely conclusion based on that evidence.



--Orv