I think the record needs setting straight regarding the dress sense of the archetypal imagery that has formed the basis for the modern mythos of 'the
The problem probably lies in the earliest photographic images of the idols that fueled the subconcious projection of these archetypes, these were
generally of poor quality and in black and white in Von Danikenesque publications of the 60's, the result being the blurrily percieved nightmarish bug
eyed naked monochromes.
The best source for these early conjectures was Vinca culture, 7,000 years old, you've all seen this one;
but lets have a look at a whole lot more, noting that they wear refined costume, which extends above the shoulders to cover the head, the features of
which are in fact those of a helmet.
These get called 'masks', though they aren't because you can't see through them, they're representations of helmets
Another issue is the genderless nature of 'the grays', this also is a misconception, some of the archetypal idols are female, and good mothers...
The lack of quality and diverse photographic reproductions in forming this modern mythos has therefore lead to the shambolic monochromes, uniform in
gender, nakedness and size, this is unfortunate as abductees have missed out on the subconcious projection of well dressed aliens in cool helmets with
female atendees and nurturing mother types along with cute little alien rascals...
Hopefully i can redress the balance a little and enhance the abduction experiance for some...
Here's a question people like might like to consider, if people were representing their 'Gods' some 7000 years ago with these idols, it would seem
likely they would have represented them in their best finery, however these idols are clearly wearing tight fitting, entire body covering, suits, with
a cool geometric design...is that what people wore then?
Has anyone ever seen an attempt to illustrate these one piece body covering costumes, with the correct design, knee and arm pads, inbuilt helemet
etc...???...if not why not.
edit on 7-1-2013 by Kantzveldt because: (no reason given)