Talk:Grey alien/Archive 3
Quotes: H. G. Wells describing “grey aliens”
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the interests of complete accuracy, the History section of this article should contain Wells’ direct alien descriptive quotes for ease of reference. This is so people can immediately see for themselves how the attribution of “grey alien” to Wells’ descriptive writings (as posited by this section) might apply. After all, we must allow Wells’ writings speak for themselves in order to prevent any potential error in attribution. (Apologies, I do not yet possess the technical knowledge to appropriately insert Wells’ descriptive quotes into the main article. Is it possible an editor with more knowledge than I do that? Thank you) In Wells’ The Man of the Year Million (1894), speculating on what evolution might do to humankind over the course of one million years, Wells describes future humans as, “The coming man, then, will clearly have a larger brain and a slighter body than the present. (…) The human hand (…) will become constantly more powerful and subtle as the rest of the musculature dwindles. (…) Eyes large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful ; above them, no longer separated by rugged brow ridges, is the top of the head, a glistening, hairless dome, terete and beautiful ; no craggy nose rises to disturb by its unmeaning shadows the symmetry of that calm face, no vestigial ears project ; the mouth is a small, perfectly round aperture, toothless and gumless, jawless, unanimal, no futile emotions disturbing its roundness as it lies, like the harvest moon or the evening star, in the wide firmament of face. (…) There grows upon the impatient imagination a building, a dome of crystal, across the translucent surface of which flushes of the most glorious and pure prismatic colors pass and fade and change. In the centre of this transparent chameleon-tinted dome is a circular white marble basin filled with some clear, mobile, amber liquid, and in this plunge and float strange beings. Are they birds ? They are the descendants of man — at dinner. Watch them as they hop on their hands — a method of progression advocated already by Bjornsen — about the pure white marble floor. Great hands they have, enormous brains, soft, liquid, soulful eyes. Their whole muscular system, their legs, their abdomens are shrivelled to nothing, a dangling, degraded pendant to their minds." [1] In Wells’ The First Men in the Moon (1901), Wells describes the native Selenites variously as, “Clumsy quadruped with lowered head”, “slender pinched body and short and extremely attenuated bandy legs”, “head depressed between his shoulders”, “somewhat hunchbacked, with a high forehead and long features”, “walked like a bird”, “no nose”, “dull bulging eyes at the side—in the silhouette I had supposed they were ears”, “no ears”, “mouth, downwardly curved, like a human mouth in a face that stares ferociously”, “The neck on which the head was poised was jointed in three places, almost like the short joints in the leg of a crab”, “The joints of the limbs I could not see, because of the puttee-like straps in which they were swathed” (pp. 136-7), “soft tentacle-hand” “The skin, like everything else, looked bluish, but that was on account of the light; and it was hard and shiny, quite in the beetle-wing fashion, not soft, or moist, or hairy, as a vertebrated animal’s would be”, “Along the crest of the head was a low ridge of whitish spines running from back to front, and a much larger ridge curved on either side over the eyes” (pp. 152-3), “Selenite came and patted each of our faces with his tentacles”, “spiked round helmets and cylindrical body-cases” (p. 155)[2] In Wells’ War of the Worlds (1898), Wells describes how the invading Martians bring with them another species of Martian, the blood of which they use for food via intravenous injection (the Martians come to earth seeking animal blood, the delicacy for them being human blood). This other species of Martian is described by Wells as, “bipeds with flimsy, silicious skeletons (almost like those of the silicious sponges) and feeble musculature, standing about six feet high and having round, erect heads, and large eyes in flinty sockets.” (Sec. II)[3] 116.240.144.209 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC) References
Thank you for your reply LuckyLouie. The contention of the article is that the history of grey aliens can be traced back to H. G. Wells and 1894. However, to claim that the aliens described by H. G. Wells can be in any way construed as a progenitors or otherwise prototypical of the icon modern grey alien is to fall victim to confirmation bias - cherry picking the evidence for salient features while ignoring those that don’t fit – in other words, falling victim to Pareidolia.[1] I was merely quoting Wells to demonstrate that one could as easily describe a normal human head as a prototypical grey in that way (which would be far more accurate by the way, but still fallacious). The bottom line is, seeing prototypical grey aliens in the writings of H. G. Wells is like claiming an elephant is a table because each has four legs. It’s a nonsense. 116.240.144.209 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC) ETA: And don't you find it passing strange that in Wells’ The Man of the Year Million (1894), he is describing humans, not aliens, who walk on their hands, and otherwise have no legs or torso at all? That future human cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be a "grey alien" of any description. So why is it included as a reference? Does Wikipedia make a habit of promulgating falsehoods in this way? And if for this article, then that immediately begs the question - if this article, then for what other articles do these lax and fallacious standards apply? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC) References
Haha. Indeed yes, I had noticed that ... "This work is based on the author's experience of a five-day UFO conference...",. Come on, please, The author's experience? You're having a laugh surely. Are you seriously telling me that Wikipedia's standard is people's "experience" of something? I mean, that goes against everything we are taught about citing independent sources. In my own personal experience the whole of the grey alien article is absolute unattributed nonsense - but that's my experience and I am sure you would not want me just overwriting the article with my own personal experience. The article is unsourced - from the very first line we have "Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys,..." Who refers to them in such terms? What is the source for this information? Has Wikipedia just made that up from thin air? If you cannot cite sources for the information you provide, then we, the public, are entitled to dismiss such claims as entirely unfounded (false and misleading, utter nonsense in other words). I have already demonstrated that citing H. G. Wells' aliens as a grey alien progenitors is nonsensical. So the question remains unanswered - if for this article, what other articles does Wikipedia treat in such cavalier fashion? What is the worth of Wikipedia if it allows false and misleading information to stand as truth? 116.240.144.209 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Wells did not describe the Selenites (natives of the Moon) “as having grey skin, big heads, and large black eyes.”[1] Wells himself described them variously as: “Clumsy quadruped with lowered head”, “slender pinched body and short and extremely attenuated bandy legs”, “head depressed between his shoulders”, “somewhat hunchbacked, with a high forehead and long features”, “walked like a bird”, “no nose”, “dull bulging eyes at the side—in the silhouette I had supposed they were ears”, “no ears”, “mouth, downwardly curved, like a human mouth in a face that stares ferociously”, “The neck on which the head was poised was jointed in three places, almost like the short joints in the leg of a crab”, “The joints of the limbs I could not see, because of the puttee-like straps in which they were swathed” (pp. 136-7), “soft tentacle-hand” “The skin, like everything else, looked bluish, but that was on account of the light; and it was hard and shiny, quite in the beetle-wing fashion, not soft, or moist, or hairy, as a vertebrated animal’s would be”, “Along the crest of the head was a low ridge of whitish spines running from back to front, and a much larger ridge curved on either side over the eyes” (pp. 152-3), “Selenite came and patted each of our faces with his tentacles”, “spiked round helmets and cylindrical body-cases” (p. 155)[2] Sorry, but I have already shown you that. The article itself is replete with such falsehoods… And surely Wikipedia is not about point scoring (!), that's political, certainly not scientific - and it brings into disrepute the whole Wikipedia enterprise. False information is false information. I don't care who or what you are, you should not publish false information if you want to maintain any credibility - particularly if it is just to make a point (!) - that in itself is a staggering admission to make. I am now beginning to understand the problem with Wikipedia... a wilful ignorance of evidence in favour of personal "experience" cited for the purpose of "point" scoring. Festinger had much to say about that, Cognitive Dissonance being the psychological process underlying it... 116.240.144.209 (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC) References
References
References
Okay...what is the process here? How long does Wikipedia allow false claims to stand? Who do I need to talk to to get a resolution here?116.240.144.209 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Formalising my edit request under a registered username
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Apologies for a new section. I have been commenting under my IP address but have decided to register a username. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to merge the two, so I need to register this request under my registered username so that the discussion may continue using that name. Sorry for the inconvenience. My request is as follows: To remove the second sentence of the History section in this article because it attributes to H. G. Wells things that H. G. Wells never said. That is: Citing Haight (1958) Wikipedia states: “In the 1893 article "Man of the Year Million", science fiction author H. G. Wells envisioned the possibility of humanity transformed into a race of grey-skinned beings who were perhaps one meter tall, with big heads and large, oval-shaped pitch-black eyes.” However, in Wells’ short essay "Man of the Year Million" (1893) [1] H. G. Wells nowhere described future man as “grey-skinned”, nor did Wells discuss future man’s height. Moreover, Wells describes future man’s eyes as “large, lustrous, beautiful, soulful”. In the whole of Well’s short essay (aprox. 2245 words), that is the only time Wells mentions the eyes. Unfortunately, that description of future man’s eyes cannot in be reconciled with Wikipedia’s “oval-shaped pitch-black eyes". Wikipedia’s sentence makes false attributions to a well know and respected author and therefore the offending sentence needs to be removed. Well’s future man in no way resembles a grey alien, being essentially a head standing on arms with vestigial dangly bits between that used to be a body and legs. I propose the replacement text should then be (amalgamating the remaining first and last sentence) something like: “The precise origin of the Grey as the stereotypical extraterrestrial being is difficult to pinpoint. In his 1898 novel “The War of the Worlds”, H. G. Wells briefly describes a second Martian species, resembling Greys, that were brought from Mars by the invading Martians as a food source.” Thank you. PS: I note that there has been very little attention given to this page over time. I will therefore wait a day or so to gauge any potential interest - and if there is none, I propose to edit the changes myself. Thank you to LuckyLouie and Hob Gradling for their gracious comments and helpful suggestions in my previous incarnation as an IP address. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
Another false attribution to secondary source: Removal request.
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the first paragraph of the History section, Wikipedia attributes the final sentence: “Wells briefly describes aliens resembling Greys brought down to Earth as food for the Martians, who were the antagonist characters in his 1898 novel The War of the Worlds.”) to “Michael M. Levy; Farah Mendlesohn (22 March 2019). Aliens in Popular Culture. ABC-CLIO. pp. 135–. ISBN 978-1-4408-3833-0.” Yet on page 135 Levy and Mendlesohn (2019) nowhere state that Wells says any such thing - nor do they say it elsewhere in the book. Wikipedia’s attribution is false. Levy & Mendlesohn attributed to Wells no such thing. I can upload screenshots of pages 135, 136 & 137 (the book section on Grey aliens)if you wish verification – Handy, when Wikipedia’s Levy reference actually takes one to a Google “no preview available page”. Given the already noted falsehoods (my previous request above) and recent sentence removal in this paragraph, the conclusion that the whole paragraph is bogus is inescapable. I therefore make an appeal to whoever is editing or looking after this page to respond with advice on how best to proceed. Should I make a wider appeal to external editors? I am new here and I am really unsure of the protocols and be assured, I wish to work within them. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
|
More false attributions
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia, attributes the following statement to Levy & Mendlesohn (2019)[1] “In 1933, the Swedish novelist Gustav Sandgren, using the pen name Gabriel Linde, published a science fiction novel called Den okända faran ("The Unknown Danger"), in which he describes a race of extraterrestrials who wore clothes made of soft grey fabric and were short, with big bald heads, and large, dark, gleaming eyes. The novel, aimed at young readers, included illustrations of the imagined aliens.” This is what Levy and Mendlesohn actually had to say about the matter: "Gustav Sandgren, writing as Gabriel Linde, further refined the literary predescessors of grays in his 1933 novel Den okända faran. (The Unknown Danger) Sandgren’s aliens solidify the appearance of grays, as his description is the template upon which the popular conception of these beings rest."(p.135) That is the sum total of Levy and Mendlesohn’s contribution vis. Linde/Sandgren. (I have access to the relevant pages online and have the screenshots if you require verification) To put it bluntly, Wikipedia has again falsely attributed it’s statement. It therefore it requires a correct attribution or removal. I am beginning to suspect that if I keep going through Wikipedia’s Grey Alien page, it will continue to be bogus. Tesldact Smih (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
Citation or removal required.
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wkipedia states: “In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous.” That claim requires a source citation or removal. I suggest removal because in light of all the bogus material that has preceded this unfounded claim (see above), one suspects this claim may also be bogus. Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
Problems with the next sentence
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia states: “The alleged abductees, Betty and Barney Hill, claimed that in 1961, alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer.” First, either “The alleged abductees” or “had abducted them and” is redundant. A better construction might be: “Betty and Barney Hill claimed that in 1961 alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer.” That construction almost avoids the grammatical mistakes that the addition of “The alleged abductees” causes - but not entirely, so an even better construction might be: “New Hampshire couple, Betty and Barney Hill, alleged that on the night of September 19-20, 1961, alien beings abducted them and took them aboard their landed craft.” [1] That construction then avoids all grammatical problems and also avoids the unattributed source problem for “flying saucers’ - as it provides a reliable source and does not make (potentially) false attributions to the Hills – and critically it does not change the meaning of the original sentence in any way, in fact it adds critical information. ETA: ...Oh, and the source, Webb (1965), is one already used on Wikipedia's Betty and Barney Hill page. If there is no further interest, I will also edit the proposed improvement into the article (at the moment it remains a suggestion for improvement - the alternative to amendment of course being complete removal as unsourced). Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
Another false claim
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia states: “Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system).” Now I happen to know that Betty Hill claimed no such thing. However, proving a negative is virtually impossible – the best one can do is show it to be unlikely. First, Betty Hill did not produce her “star map” under hypnosis. She drew it sometime after the Saturday, March 21st, 1962 session. Her exact comments on the matter during the hypnosis session were: “DOCTOR: You want to try to draw the map? BETTY: I'm not good at drawing. I can't draw perspective. DOCTOR: Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, why don't you draw it, try to draw the map. Don't do it if you feel concern or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in next time, all right? BETTY: I'll try to. DOCTOR: But don't feel as if you're compelled to do it. (Sometimes a post-hypnotic suggestion can he very distressing. The doctor is guarding against this by leaving it up to Betty's volition.) BETTY: Okay.”[1] Thus, Wikipedia’s “Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" is clearly a false statement and needs to be removed or modified to reflect the fact that Betty actually drew the map in normal, waking memory. There are some other factual problems with Wikipedia’s sentence here, and I will continue to add to this section as I catch up on the research. Thank you. ETA: Before I continue, I need people to bear in mind the following with an eye to dates and time-frames (sadly, Barney passed away in 1969). According to Wikipedia’s Betty and Barney Hill page: “In 1968 Marjorie Fish (…) read Fuller's book, "Interrupted Journey." (…) Intrigued by the "star map," Fish wondered if it might be "deciphered" to determine which star system the UFO came from. (…) Fish constructed a three-dimensional model (…) using thread and beads, basing stellar distances on those published in the 1969 Gliese Star Catalogue. Studying thousands of vantage points over several years, the only one that seemed to match the Hill map was from the viewpoint of the double star system of Zeta Reticuli.” [2] (TBC) Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
Aliens in history
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As the History section of this article is being decimated by false claims which require removal, if you want historical aliens from 1895, then the article "Gynecological Gymnastics from Outer Space" (1895)[1] literally stands as the perfect exemplar. You can see grey aliens anywhere if you want or need to create a false historical narrative. I am reminded of the admonition correlation does not equal causation. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
Folklore
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There's a significant amount of material in folklore studies about abduction by aliens, as well as 'types' of aliens that have popped up in modern popular culture. I recommend identifying some of these sources and applying them to this article—it should solve many of the issues that no doubt regularly pop up here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Proposed global change: Seeking constructive reviews
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To anyone interested in the Grey Alien page, Inspired by Hob Gadling (talk) and prompted by LuckyLouie (talk) I have written a replacement Grey Alien article. That proposed replacement article may be found here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tesldact_Smih/sandbox) Naturally I would welcome any constructive comments or suggestions for improvement, and I would be pleased to work with any other editor with a genuine interest before any steps toward change might be made. Thank you in advance for your time and interest.Tesldact Smih (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you LuckyLouie, Schazjmd and JoJo Anthrax for your kind and helpful comments and suggestions. I can see how some of your points are valid. Now that I have some specific guidelines to follow, I am sure I can ensure the article follows those guidelines - it can be a little daunting for a novice – I do my best and apologise if I seem a little slow on the uptake regarding the technical issues. So while I contemplate how best to move forward with that (now the bones are in place), if I might trouble you with the actual content… Generally, I think we can all agree that we want the grey alien article to be as accurate and reliable as it can be. In its current form, my contention is that it is inaccurate - as my article demonstrates. The obvious conclusion being that grey aliens did not enter popular culture until 1987. Does anyone have any reliable evidence that grey aliens entered popular culture before that date? I am certainly willing to consider it – I am not ideologically wedded to that date, it is merely a date my own research led me to. Others, with more knowledge than I might know something I do not (entirely probable). I seek the truth, the historical facts of the matter, nothing more, nothing less. I am evidence driven - show me the reliable evidence and I am with you. Can anyone push that 1987 date back? Thank all you again for your kind comments and suggestions, I will consider how best to shape my article to conform to WP guidelines, but if I could receive some feedback on the actual content, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
|
Can anyone find grey aliens in popular culture before 1987?
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
In reply to LuckyLouie and Schazjmd (previous section) Okay, let’s conduct a little forensic analysis. Nothing in ufology (or any field of human endeavour) can be taken at face value. Just because someone claims something to be true, does not mean that it is true. The problem for researchers, particularly in ufology (and you know this to be true) IS the secondary sources. Sources within ufology are inherently unreliable. Just because people like Bader claim that ”most UFO researchers now believe the Grey is responsible for UFO abductions” does not make that claim true. The challenge for any UFO researcher is to verify Bader’s claim. Now I cannot find any UFO researcher who was claiming grey aliens before 1987, including Bud Hopkins. If you can show me anywhere that Bud Hopkins or any UFO researcher was claiming grey aliens BEFORE 1987, then you may have a point. However, that is all moot because in this case (but still a critical factor overall), the date of Bader’s publication is 1995 (interesting date huh? Santilli…) - and Bader’s term is “now believe” (meaning in 1995). I am talking about pre-1987, Bader is talking pre-1995. So Bader’s claim does not push grey aliens back before 1987. If anyone can produce a pre-1987 publication that talks about grey aliens, then you may have the beginnings of a point. Bader is interesting. He because he does make the point that there was a panoply before US ufologists somehow collectively decided to standardise their aliens (which is an utterly ridiculous claim – have you ever tried herding cats?). So we have Europe tracking along with the panoply, while the US shifts to greys. Let’s concede Bader's general point (because it is a general historical fact that the US did shift to greys before anyone else) while ignoring his ridiculous causal attribution. We then need to find a cause. Look around in 1995 and what do you see? Strieber and Lear hit town in 1987. Strieber was not claiming grey aliens, but Lear (Lazar was not yet out) certainly was. In 1989 Lazar came out on popular TV and Area 51 and “greys” went global. That’s where “greys” came from. Lazar just co-opted Strieber’s aliens and termed them “greys.” Santilli in 1995 merely cemented that into popular culture. As for Betty and Barney Hill, if anyone can show where either Betty or Barney Hill was claiming grey aliens before 1987 (Barney died in 1969) then they may have a point. Until 1987, grey aliens were just one among a panoply. There may have been grey aliens, but they were certainly not in popular culture before 1987 …unless anyone can demonstrate otherwise. A couple of pertinent facts to try and get ahead of the curve: First, Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticulii interpretation of Betty’s “Star map” was not published until 1974 (Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue of ASTRONOMY Magazine ) – and that was the first Betty heard about Fish’s interpretation. Fish actually did interview Betty in 1968 (or ’69… ugh my memory), but that was just to get information about the map. But after 1974 neither Fish nor Hill were claiming ZR was the source for “grey” aliens - merely the source for the Hill’s aliens – Betty was pleased that Fish had located her aliens and often thereafter referred to her aliens as “Zeta Reticulans” (never as grey aliens). The question then is: Who first claimed Zeta Reticulii was the source for “grey” aliens? Yes, you guessed it …our old mate Bob Lazar (beginning in 1987 via Lear at first, then in person after 1989) – coinciding with Strieber’s release of Communion also in 1987 and Movie in 1989. Communion came first btw… Second, Betty and Barney’s description of the aliens. They can be concatenated from the original source (the 1964 tape recordings) They are extremely interesting in light of this conversation. If you read carefully, you can see where grey aliens come from. But you can also see that information has been cherry picked from the vast bulk of the descriptions which do not characterise grey aliens at all. Now you may indeed ask why that information might have been cherry picked - because that is a very, very, good question… (and people like Bader and Dunning are at the heart of the answer...) Betty and Barney Hill descriptions of their aliens, in their own words (Feb-May 1964), as quoted in Fuller (1966). [1] Note: Wherever you see a “;” it means a separate mention (and that there is text in between, sometimes a word or two, sometimes asentence or two, sometimes a paragraph...). 1. DURING THE HYPNOSIS SESSIONS BARNEY "I saw a group of men, and they were standing in the highway; The men were dressed alike; they were wearing uniforms; They were all in dark clothing; some type of shiny black uniform; I thought I saw a cluster of six men. Because three of them came to me, and three did not. there is the military pilot, and he is looking at me; He was dressed differently; And I thought of the Navy and the submarine, and I thought the men that moved back were just dressed in blue denims. But this other man was dressed in a black shiny coat, with a cap on the one that kept looking back at me with those eyes. He gave me the impression (…) that he was a very capable person, and there can be no nonsense here. We have business to attend to. One person looks friendly to me. He's friendly-looking. And he's looking at me . . . over his right shoulder. And he's smiling. [His face] was round. (Pauses for a moment, then:) l think of - l think of a red-headed Irishman. And the evil face on the - (He starts to say "leader.") He looks like a German Nazi. He had a black scarf around his neck, dangling over his left shoulder; His eyes were slanted; But not like a Chinese; [awestruck] His eyes. I've never seen eyes like that before; this one with the black, black shiny jacket. [Barney sketches the leader] "They're men! All with dark jackets. Always the eyes are there. The eyes are telling me, "Don't be afraid."; I thought of a Navy pea jacket, just before I closed my eyes; I didn't think of the man in the sky in the machine that I saw. I just saw these eyes, and I closed mine. (His voice becomes rather awed each time he mentions the eyes). I had seen figures looking down at me, in what I thought was a smile; It was more of a twinkling or a recognizing an eye as being a part of the smile; I just can't recall any mouth. I thought it was the man I saw looking down at me, and I was looking back at him. And I thought it was him. And he told me that I should be calm and that I should not be afraid. And that no harm would come to me. And that I would be left alone to go on my way. And that I would forget everything, and I would never remember it again." BETTY "I was afraid when I saw the men in the road; there were these men standing in the highway; I couldn't get a good look at them; [Barney] stopped the car, and these men started to come up to the car. They separated. They came in two groups; DOCTOR They look like ordinary American men? BETTY No. They're different somehow; I think they were all dressed alike, but I couldn't see" 2. POST HYPNOSIS AND SOME TAPE PLAYBACK SESSIONS BARNEY "The men had rather odd-shaped heads, with a large cranium, diminishing in size as it got toward the chin. And the eyes continued around to the sides of their heads, so that it appeared that they could see several degrees beyond the lateral extent of our vision. This was startling to me. And something that I remembered, after listening to the tapes, is the mouth itself. I could not describe the mouth before, and I drew the picture without including the mouth. But it was much like when you draw one horizontal line with a short perpendicular line on each end. This horizontal line would represent the lips without the muscle that we have. And it would part slightly as they made this mumumumming sound. The texture of the skin, as I remember it from this quick glance, was grayish, almost metallic looking. I didn't notice any hair-or headgear for that matter. Also, I didn't notice any proboscis, there just seemed to be two slits that represented the nostrils. "Betty and I went to hear a lecture one time by Dr. Carleton S. Coon (…) this group of Indians, who lived in an extremely cold atmosphere high in the mountains where there was little oxygen, bore a considerably close resemblance to what I'm trying to describe. (…) They had Oriental sort of eyes, but the eye socket gave an appearance of being much larger than what it was, because nature had developed a roll of fat around the eye and also around the mouth. So it looked as if the mouth had almost no opening and as if they had practically no nose. They were quite similar, in a general way, to the men I'm trying to describe (262). BETTY "In a sense, they looked like mongoloids, because I was comparing them with a case I had been working with, a specific mongoloid child this sort of round face and broad forehead, along with a certain type of coarseness. The surface of their skin seemed to be a bluish gray, but probably whiter than that. Their eyes moved, and they had pupils. Somehow, I had the feeling they were more like cats' eyes. And I couldn't remember any buttons or zippers-but then I really didn't want to remember. (…) And I had this impression that the leader seemed to look differently from the others, but again I might have been distorting on this. Their bodies seemed to be a little out of proportion, with a bigger chest cavity, broader chest." (266) 3. May 30, nearly two months after the playbacks of the tapes began BETTY "their skin and mine were different; In color; The leader and the examiner were more alike; They looked taller than the crew members; and their skin was of a different color; I keep thinking that the crew members are Oriental, Asiatic. Only they were not as - they're short; the leader and the examiner are taller. They're about as tall as I am; The crew members were shorter; I'd say they were not-uh-five feet. I think the leader is about as tall as I am. (272-274) 4. BETTY’S DREAM "I note their physical appearance. Most of the men are my height, although I cannot remember the height of the heels on my shoes. None is as tall as Barney, so I would judge them to be 5 ' to 5' 4". Their chests arc larger than ours; their noses were larger (longer) than the average size although I have seen people with noses like theirs - like Jimmy Durante's. Their complexions were of a gray tone; like a gray paint with a black base; their lips were of a bluish tint. Hair and eyes were very dark, possibly black. The men were all dressed alike, presumably in uniform, of a light navy blue color with a gray shade in it. They wore trousers and short jackets, that gave the appearance of zippered sports jackets, but I am not aware of zippers or buttons for closing. Shoes were a low, slip-on style, resembling a boot. I cannot remember any jewellery, or insignia. They were all wearing military caps, similar to Air Force, but not so broad on the top. They were very human in their appearance, not frightening. They seemed to be very relaxed, friendly in a professional way (business-like). There was no haste, no waste of time.” (298-289) ETA ...and don't forget, we are talking about when grey aliens entered popular culture, not sectional interest groups. Oh, and LuckyLouie , I apologise. I was not ignoring your comments about secondary sources. It is just someone has to do the research to verify those secondary sources so that you can then rely on them for encyclopaedic purposes. I am a researcher and I am contending that the secondary sources you seem to be relying on are themselves unreliable. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
First, the Grey Alien article has no idea when grey aliens entered popular culture. My contention is that 1987, Strieber and Lear marked the beginning of the grey alien’s rise into popular culture. Before that date, yes, you may find descriptions or depictions of beings resembling, grey aliens but they were just one among the panoply of reported or depicted aliens. That is, they were not singled out as special, over and above any other alien morphology – as demonstrably did occur post-1987. Now, to falsify that claim, all that needs to be done is to find somewhere before 1987 where someone mentions “grey aliens”. If, as you seem to be claiming, grey aliens were in popular culture before 1987, then that should be an easy task for you or anyone else to accomplish. Can anyone find grey aliens in popular culture before 1987? So far, no. While you ignore my points above, it is interesting you point to the 1961 Hills case again – this time the movie. I gather then you concede my point about the Hill’s descriptions of their aliens - and following from that, anyone picking grey aliens out of those descriptions would not only be guilty of cherry-picking the evidence, but also of wilfully misleading people? That goes to the heart of the reliability of your sources. If they are willing to do that, then how can we consider them to be reliable? As for the movie, we don’t need any studio notes about production design because we know Barney Hill drew an alien in waking memory and that alien is colourfully depicted on the front cover of Fuller’s (1966) Interrupted Journey [see here]. The film then took that image, coupled it with the dark uniform and the Hill’s description of skin colour and viola, the film alien emerges. However, is your suggestion that TV alien was any more or less popular than the aliens depicted in any of the other film or TV productions of the time, or that preceded it (or even followed)? I don’t think you can successfully uphold that claim. In fact, in the face of the panoply of aliens in popular culture that surrounded the Hill’s alien in that specific TV production, to uphold your claim, you would need to provide concrete evidence to support it. Do you have any? Otherwise, we are entitled to dismiss your claim as unfounded. Finally, are you contending that Wikipedia should maintains false information on its web pages (for a moment longer than it is discovered) merely because “secondary sources” repeat that false information? Surely that is not your position? It cannot be Wikipedia policy to tolerate false information can it? And I do not pretend to be a Wikipedia editor, that is all your expertise. I am new here, I can supply the accurate information, and as you seem to be experienced editors, perhaps we can work collaboratively – between my research skills and your encyclopaedic skills, we should be able to knock an article together in no time.Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Schazjmd, the grey alien page in Wikipedia is promulgating misinformation – fake news in other words. I am merely demonstrating how and why that is the case and proposing a way to overcome those difficulties. If you are unwilling to take advantage of my research expertise to improve the Grey Alien article, then perhaps you are in the wrong place. This is a talk page discussing the grey alien article and what might be wrong with it and what might be done to improve it. If you are unwilling to participate in that exercise in good faith, instead to attempt to block meaningful discussion by hiding behind technicalities, then perhaps your time might be better spent on other projects? As for “Verifiability, not truth” …well, that kinda says it all really – one does not even have to read beyond the title to understand the fallacy in that approach. But let's not quibble, can you point to anything that I am claiming that is not verifiable (according to WP policy)? I have provided extensive reliable secondary sources… just because you personally do not believe them, does not make them any less reliable – they are demonstrably reliable. Alternatively, I am continuing to demonstrate how the sources you are relying on are unreliable… surely you cannot continue to ignore that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesldact Smih (talk • contribs)
Dunning plead guilty and was convicted of felony wire fraud. Dunning is a self-admitted and convicted fraudster. What more evidence of unreliability do you require? …and you want me to make an appeal to WP about the matter? Are you somehow incapable or otherwise incapacitated for some reason? I am a little concerned that you are not focussed on the task before you LuckyLouie - particularly when I find myself having to explain the difference between the use of Dunning and Lazar to you… It cannot be denied that Lazar has made the claims about Area 51, grey aliens and Zeta Reticulii that he has done, his claims are a matter of public knowledge. The truth of Lazar’s claims does not matter here because it is the fact that Lazar made those claims that is being reported - nothing else. That is a simple, verifiable fact. You however seem to want to rely on Dunning’s opinions. Dunning plead guilty to fraud. Dunning was convicted of fraud. Dunning’s opinions are potentially fraudulent. Please tell me you can see the difference there… ...and what is it to you anyway? Why are you fixated on defending a convicted felon? What is your interest in this matter..? ETA: And if Dunning is so reliable, then you will be able to easily replace him with another source - and if not - then he is on his own and automatically fails WP as reliable source. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at the proposed article by editor Tesldact Smih and I would not be able to vote to support replacing the current Grey alien article with it. The current article has been in the process of development for 18 years with contributions from hundreds of editors (guesstimate). But the current article does have a problem deciding what its focus is. The intro suggests Grey aliens (large head and eyes, slender body) exist in real-life UFO cases, but then the article almost immediately goes into fictional popular culture examples. I would support the Pop culture section being moved to the bottom of the article so that the skeptical material in other sections is moved up closer to respond to the into. I would support removing the two paragraphs promoting ufologist Jimmy Guieu. They seem to be implying that in 1988 he coined the term "the greys" by way of "the little greys." If that is what is being claimed, then flat out say so and any interested editors can research and challenge it if it is not first use. If the current article is supposed to refer to a particular physical type of Grey alien (large head and eyes, slender body), well, did you know that there is an image available on Commons? It is currently being used on many other language versions of the Grey alien article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alienigena.jpg. Maybe it should be added to the English article and that could resolve a lot of this. Click on some of the foreign-language articles to see how it is being used. 5Q5|✉ 15:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
ETA: Apologies 5Q5, I am mistaken, it is not a Sectiod. I had somewhere somehow associated that image with the X-COM game and it was obviously a mistaken association. However, and talking about reliable sources, the image itself (that you linked to) does not depict the typical grey alien as depicted in or appreciated by popular culture - it is merely a single editor's individualistic and somewhat dark artistic concept. If you want to avoid accusations of bias, you should display not only the dark side, but the light as well. But as a knowledgeable WP editor, you would already know those things about reliable sources and bias, yes? I certainly do not wish to see elements of hypocrisy darken the conversation. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Tesldact Smih, do you have a specific edit (and reliable source that supports it) that you want to suggest? Schazjmd (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
...and yes Schazjmd, I do have a large number of reliably sourced edits that I can suggest. However, time is pressing so I will get back to you on that. Thanks. Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Tesldact Smih This is becoming an exercise in WP:BLUDGEON. Could you please make a positive response (or two, or twenty) to Schazjmd's excellent question:
Well excuse me JoJo Anthrax, you asked me to propose an edit and I have. What more do you want? I also asked for your comments in relation to that edit. If you do not wish to engage in constructive editing in good faith, then I am sorry, but that is hardly my fault. Tesldact Smih (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
5Q5 Are you arguing against the inclusion of a description of grey aliens in the article? Do you want the current section describing grey aliens deleted? Ammended? Precisely what is your edit proposal in that regard? Can you clarify please? Personally, I would not delete the section, but would amend it to reflect that, despite your previous comments pointing to specific examples of grey aliens above, there really is no settled popular image of what a grey alien really looks like? But then, do you have any reliable sources that discuss the contention that there really is no popular concept of what a grey alien looks like? And what has the existence or non-existence of grey aliens got to do with anything? We are discussing what popular culture apprehends grey aliens to be – and when the modern concept of a grey alien began to rise into popular consciousness. I am also not sure how your comments/proposal(?) relates to the edits I proposed – which you seem to have ignored again. I would be grateful if you could please comment directly on my proposed edits. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
“Fringe”? Look at the public polling and tell me it’s fringe. Look at the articles and media and books and film that is generated around the topic… The very idea of “fringe” is ridiculous. Even the WP “fringe” article seems to point that out: “ The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.” That looks awfully like the criteria that applies to all topics. Perhaps people may have become confused? Just because something is controversial, does not mean it is “fringe”. “Fringe” is a subjective value judgement, whereas “controversial” is an objective assessment. I hope somebody around here can see the difference. So let's drop "fringe" for the obvious red herring it is please. You also misunderstand what I am doing here. I do not require “recognition for my ideas”, I could not care less about that, what I am doing is first trying to ensure the Grey alien article is as historically and scientifically accurate and reliable as it can be and second, trying to gain a clear understanding of how WP actually operates in the wild. I have no particular agenda or barrow to push – I am simply concerned with the interests of scientific and historical accuracy. Moreover, I don’t understand your objection to the 1987 idea. Certainly you have presented no evidence against it and there is much evidence for it. Your obstructionist approach (is there a "WP:" for that?) is taking up valuable time that could be spent actually editing the article. So how about we compromise and do something like this: The premise becomes that Pre-1987 - as you seem to contend - UFO folklorists and UFO skeptics believe grey aliens came into popular culture at an indeterminate time and that they do not seem to know when “grey” aliens were first mentioned publicly (nor ufologically) and that they do not know how to describe grey aliens (i.e., as you have argued above, that there is actually no consistent popular iconic image for grey aliens), but they do have examples that they suppose form some sort of historical precedent (perhaps beginning here in 1895 for an excellent example[19]), then flesh that out with other references and examples - the ones you provide above would be an excellent selection, but realistically, there are literally thousands of "grey alien" exemplars across history you could choose from in your endeavour. Then, when the timeline arrives at 1987 we say that ufologists believe (and popular culture apprehends) that grey aliens entered popular culture in 1987, then flesh that out along the lines that I have presented in my article. It’s like having the Flat Earth Society write the preamble to an article about planetary geology, but I grit my teeth and am willing to compromise in the interests of actually getting something done here. What do you think of that compromise approach? It seems to satisfy the UFO folklorists and skeptics because their ideas are presented up front, and it also satisfies the interests of science and history in that the 1987 date is still included in the historical timeline. What do you think? Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Proposal to change false statement
[edit]Topic banned from editing about UFOs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following statement in the WP Grey alien article is false: “Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system).” Betty Hill produced her star map from normal, waking memory. That is, “DOCTOR: You want to try to draw the map? / BETTY: I'm not good at drawing. I can't draw perspective. / DOCTOR: Well, if you remember some of this after you leave me, why don't you draw it, try to draw the map. Don't do it if you feel concern or anxious about it. But if you do, bring it in next time, all right? / BETTY: I'll try to. / DOCTOR: But don't feel as if you're compelled to do it. (Sometimes a post-hypnotic suggestion can he very distressing. The doctor is guarding against this by leaving it up to Betty's volition.) / BETTY: Okay.” (p.220) …and… “Under hypnosis, Betty Hill described a map she was shown "by the leader aboard the ship." Later, she sketched it. She said she was told that the heavy lines marked regular trade routes, and the broken lines recorded various space expeditions.” (p.146.4)[1] However, correcting that false statement alone becomes difficult because of the following considerations which highlight other inaccuracies within the paragraph. According to Wikipedia: “In 1968 Marjorie Fish (…) read Fuller's book, "Interrupted Journey." (…) Intrigued by the "star map," Fish wondered if it might be "deciphered" to determine which star system the UFO came from. (…) Fish constructed a three-dimensional model (…) using thread and beads, basing stellar distances on those published in the 1969 Gliese Star Catalogue. Studying thousands of vantage points over several years, the only one that seemed to match the Hill map was from the viewpoint of the double star system of Zeta Reticuli.”[2] Marjorie Fish’s Zeta Reticuli interpretation of Betty Hill’s star map was published by Terence Dickinson in the December 1974 issue of Astronomy Magazine. That was essentially the first Betty Hill heard about Zeta Reticuli. Fuller noted that from 1965, Betty Hill was actually convinced that her alleged aliens came from the constellation of Pegasus - after the New York Times published a map of the constellation of Pegasus with the claim that the Russians detected radio signals coming from there. Mrs Hill then added the names of the stars in Pegasus, as noted by the NYT, onto her star map. (p.146.4-146.5) Meaning that between 1965 and 1974, Betty Hill cannot have referred to her aliens as “Zeta Reticulans." Can we therefore say that prior to 1974, Mrs Hill referred to her alleged aliens as "Pegsusians"? That would be assuming too much right? However, that seems to be the logic used by Sagan to claim Mrs Hill referred to her aliens as "Zeta Reticulans". One would have to agree, that is not a sound basis for such an attibution. Therefore the whole paragraph requires reworking. I have run out of time now, but will think of something appropriate to replace it with ASAP. In the meantime, perhaps other editors might make some suggestions? Thank you. ETA: Actually, I just noticed. Every sentence in that paragraph prior to the final is not sourced. So Sagan may not have claimed anything about “Zeta Reticulans”. Other (unnamed) sources, then. However, I also note Sagan refers to “short, grey aliens”, yet the Hill’s never described their aliens in any such manner – as the Hill’s descriptions of their aliens (found near the head of the previous section) testify. So Sagan’s statement is also quite inaccurate. Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC) References
Forgive me 5Q5, but something you just said is puzzling me. How can one be “just passing through” a Grey alien article? Do you mean to say you clicked on the random article link and it gave you “Grey alien” – and then, having no interest, you decided to visit the article’s talk page and once there immediately involve yourself in the discussion to argue against me, as if you did have an interest? I don’t quite understand how that process works, particularly when your very first comment on the topic included the claim “Hard to imagine skeptic Philip J. Klass wouldn't have researched this topic and wrote about it in one of his newsletters or books.” Now someone with no interest would have no idea who Klass was let alone that he had published newsletters and books - you even take the time to link to Klass’ WP page, which means, as Klass was never mentioned, alluded to or linked to in any way in the actual discussion, you had prior knowledge. Indeed, you actually find it “hard to imagine” Klass would not have written about the topic. Unprompted by any discussion, it seems then you knew Klass well enough, before commenting, to purport to know his mind when commenting - and the implication of that is that you consider yourself knowledgeable about Klass- who was of course an arch UFO debunker. Can you please then tell me how your professed expert knowledge of Klass (as to profess to know someone's mind is to imply an expert knowledge) squares with the disinterested sentiment and the implied ignorance of the topic you express here? Might not a reasonable person assume that in fact you are not as disinterested in or as ignorant of the topic as you seem to imply? However, I do not like to make assumptions, I like to hear from the source before deciding anything, so can you therefore please clarify your position in that regard for me – for example, are you of the same mindset as Klass when approaching this topic? After all, given the context (particularly noting that, as you state, you agree with those who accuse me of having an agenda), then that is a reasonable clarification for me to seek from you isn’t it? Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
|
Interesting hypothesis
[edit]Hi, I have found something intriguing.
Imagine for a moment that Flores Man did *not* in fact die out 12,600 years ago and some of these proto-humans made it off the island presumably on a raft. They were certainly capable based on fossil evidence of advanced technology comparable to Homo erectus and possibly up to Neanderthal level.
Some of them might have made it to a nearby island or other land mass and when the climate began to shift, moved underground. We know that this happened in the last Ice Age and even before. Over time they might have adapted to low light and oxygen becoming speciated and unable to return to the surface except for brief periods, adapting fully over the next 20,000 years with large eyes, grey skin devoid of pigmentation and developing advanced technology along the way. This could account for many anecdotal reports of "Little People" in historical text and other strange anomalies.
If they sent out an exploratory craft based on primitive rockets using liquid fuels then it could account for the reports in 1897, as well as later incidents. This might be speculative science fiction but its sufficiently interesting to justify some more research. (note, duplicate as seems to be relevant to Roswell and Aurora TX incidents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Picture Book on The Evolution of People's Descriptions of Aliens
[edit]This would be an important addition to the article if we can find the book. Around 1985-90, I discovered a book (via an article I read about it, I think) primarily containing drawings based on people's descriptions of aliens they claimed to have seen. The descriptions were shown in order of the year they were "seen" and showed that in the early days, pre-1950, there was a wide variety of types of aliens, but over time, as alien sightings became more widely shared in the media, the descriptions gradually averaged closer and closer to the "grays," to the point that they were what most people claimed to have seen. I'm still Googling this every so often, but if more people searched I bet we could find it quickly. Thanks! :-) Genepoz (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Direct plagiarism
[edit]The History section of this article has been directly plagiarised from...
References
- ^ Astronomy Magazine (2021) The Zeta Reticuli (or Ridiculi) Incident. Astronomy Magazine. Retrieved from https://astronomy.com/bonus/zeta, 25 April 2021.
- ^ Iman Ital (undated) THE BOOK OF CHILAM BALAM OF THE RIVER CITY. Lulu.com. ISBN: 1329755219, 9781329755215. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books/about/THE_BOOK_OF_CHILAM_BALAM_OF_THE_RIVER_CI.html?id=VPpCCwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y, 05 Mar 2021.
Beginning from page 56 on...
116.240.144.209 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- After a cursory investigation, it appears quite clearly that Iman Ital plagiarized the Wikipedia article instead. Sentences that were added over the course of several months (and later removed) in the article appear wholesale in the book (example on WT:CP. MLauba (Talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you MLauba. It seems the CHILAM BALAM book was published in 2015 (looking at Lulu.com), while the Wikipedia section was being updated before that time, so it is Ital who is the plagiarist. Apologies for not delving deeper to get to an original (dated) source. A lesson I should have learned by now, but it does trip me up every so often when I forget to take that one extra research step - to locate the original source! 116.240.144.209 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
ANI discussion
[edit]See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tesldact Smih: Battleground behavior, aspersions, personal attacks, and more. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Guy. I was about to have explain to 5Q5, why I have again run out of time to concentrate on the proposed edits, but you have saved me the trouble. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Tesldact Smih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from editing about UFOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I note also that the pseudoscience-promoting sandbox mentioned in the WP:ANI report has been deleted per WP:U5. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- ...and I manually archived the endless walls of text on this talk page (they are in the archives if anyone wants to see them). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
In popular culture section
[edit]I added one source (Sagan calls the Hill incident one of the most popular, so the source was already there for it) to replace a cn tag. I'll check out the rest of it tomorrow, assuming I get the chance, so we can try to get that hat back note off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've given the section a good once over. If no-one has any objections, I intend to remove the hat note. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome back MP, and thanks for helping clean up this unfortunate mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's been my pleasure, and I'm happy to be back, and seeing some familiar signatures still working hard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- It looks much better now. Thanks for putting in the time and energy to improve it! XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's been my pleasure, and I'm happy to be back, and seeing some familiar signatures still working hard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ran across this in my travels: Bader, Chris. 1995."The UFO Contact Movement from the 1950's to the Present". Studies in Popular Culture, 17(2): 73-90. Some solid sociological perspective on the grey alien archetype, especially in the conclusion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Article needs an additional photo to better represent Grey aliens
[edit]The "Grey" alien on the Communion book cover is actually pictured yellow or tan. The article could use an additional photo to generally represent the concept of a Grey alien. I added a photo template request at the top of this talk page (it's only for talk pages). Unfortunately, there aren't many good choices in the Commons Grey alien images gallery: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gray_aliens. I thought this Grey E.T. was okay, but then I noticed the alien is green, probably green clay. Just wanted to toss this issue out there if any editor wants to nominate one of the available non-sinister-looking images. Otherwise, we wait for a new upload someday. 5Q5|✉ 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I might could whip up some original artwork. I'll see what I can come up with and post back here if it's worth uploading. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- MPants: Original artwork would be awesome - I'm sure it will come out great! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I could come up with in an hour. I'm fairly certain I could do a better job in Blender, but that will take some time to finish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As presented here in an early stage, a little too dark and sinister looking in my opinion. Found something on the Romanian version of the Grey alien article, they have an image that was debunked as a hoax here. It is a cropped photo of a prop from the 1992 CBS miniseries Intruders. I'll tell you what would be good, replace the infobox image in the Intruders article with its video poster, which has a Grey on it, then add that poster to the Grey alien article as an example of TV coverage of the topic. I haven't uploaded images to Commons in years so I'm a little rusty, but it's an idea. 5Q5|✉ 13:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It'd have to be pretty small, to justify the fair use exception on Intruders. I'm not sure we can justify fair use here, though. I'm gonna try to model a grey in Blender, which will take a few days to a week or two, but which I'm pretty sure will produce much better results, and can be lit in a variety of ways (pen & ink drawings tend to look better when they're darker, or at least mine do). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Intruders was based on a book and alleged true events, just like Communion. The Grey alien article mentions Strieber's book and the subsequent movie and includes a small photo, so as long as there is a line in the article about the Grey alien events in Intruders, which there isn't right now, and a caption describing the Grey alien in the poster, maybe fair use wouldn't be a problem. I don't know, seems odd Strieber's work gets an okay on fair use to the exclusion of others. Take as much time as you need to develop an image. I personally like this simple one if the guy was cropped out. Not sure if that's allowed though. 5Q5|✉ 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally like this simple one if the guy was cropped out.
I aimed for some detail and a scene with my first attempt, but I could probably whip up something more illustrative in even less time than I did that. In fact, I should have thought to do something more illustrative to begin with, but it's been a while since I've edited, and I'm still getting back into the hang of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)- MP, your artwork is almost ‘’too good’’, slick and magazine style. It’s definitely a “scene” with some drama and personality built into it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate that, especially because it looks like shit to me, and I almost didn't upload it. But I'm working on a more illustrative version tonight (that will, ironically, take even less time than the one I posted here). I think that one will make everyone happiest, and be the best for the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- MP, your artwork is almost ‘’too good’’, slick and magazine style. It’s definitely a “scene” with some drama and personality built into it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Intruders was based on a book and alleged true events, just like Communion. The Grey alien article mentions Strieber's book and the subsequent movie and includes a small photo, so as long as there is a line in the article about the Grey alien events in Intruders, which there isn't right now, and a caption describing the Grey alien in the poster, maybe fair use wouldn't be a problem. I don't know, seems odd Strieber's work gets an okay on fair use to the exclusion of others. Take as much time as you need to develop an image. I personally like this simple one if the guy was cropped out. Not sure if that's allowed though. 5Q5|✉ 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It'd have to be pretty small, to justify the fair use exception on Intruders. I'm not sure we can justify fair use here, though. I'm gonna try to model a grey in Blender, which will take a few days to a week or two, but which I'm pretty sure will produce much better results, and can be lit in a variety of ways (pen & ink drawings tend to look better when they're darker, or at least mine do). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As presented here in an early stage, a little too dark and sinister looking in my opinion. Found something on the Romanian version of the Grey alien article, they have an image that was debunked as a hoax here. It is a cropped photo of a prop from the 1992 CBS miniseries Intruders. I'll tell you what would be good, replace the infobox image in the Intruders article with its video poster, which has a Grey on it, then add that poster to the Grey alien article as an example of TV coverage of the topic. I haven't uploaded images to Commons in years so I'm a little rusty, but it's an idea. 5Q5|✉ 13:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
How about this one? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's fabulous - it certainly illustrates all the canonical features, although it does lack Paul's raised middle finger. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, the standard galactic gesture for "Take your snarbledorf and shove it up your glompstaf!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a test I reset it smaller at 100 pixels instead of 200. It would be easier to see details on small screens if lightened, but otherwise looks good and is in the range of grey color, as opposed to the yellow and aqua aliens currently representing Greys in the article. Thanks for your artistry skills. Please remove my template when published. 5Q5|✉ 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is there agreement among sources that grey aliens lack genitals? Kidding. It looks good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- If they don't, there's going to be a lot of disappointed people the next time they come up with a hilariously dumb idea. P.S. I lightened it a bit, so be sure to force a refresh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I advise not doing a google search on "grey alien genitals". I think I am on somebody's list now. The TRUTH is out there! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I just got hold of Aliens in Popular Culture (Levy/Mendlesohn book ref'd in article), and they explicitly state no visible genitalia. Schazjmd (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I advise not doing a google search on "grey alien genitals". I think I am on somebody's list now. The TRUTH is out there! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- If they don't, there's going to be a lot of disappointed people the next time they come up with a hilariously dumb idea. P.S. I lightened it a bit, so be sure to force a refresh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is there agreement among sources that grey aliens lack genitals? Kidding. It looks good. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a test I reset it smaller at 100 pixels instead of 200. It would be easier to see details on small screens if lightened, but otherwise looks good and is in the range of grey color, as opposed to the yellow and aqua aliens currently representing Greys in the article. Thanks for your artistry skills. Please remove my template when published. 5Q5|✉ 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @5Q5: I read your request to remove the template literally seconds before I added the image, and still managed to forget. Fucking hell, man, I need to stop this "getting older" crap. It's fine, you can laugh at me. I earned it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Infobox image size
[edit]I reduced the infobox image size in the template by 15% to 0.85 per MOS:UPRIGHT. It was a bit distracting in full thumb size because of its height. It's supposed to be a small-bodied being anyway. However, having done this, I notice the reduced image only happens for signed-in users. Not signed in and for unregistered users, it is still appearing full thumb size, 220 pixels. The Template:Infobox mythical creature says do not use both the settings for "image size" (thumb) and "image-upright" (0.85), which seems to differ from what the MOS says. If you do add thumb, a box appears then around the image. Anyone experienced with this? Is the template instruction wrong? Add thumb? 5Q5|✉ 14:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Try filling in "image size=150 px" or whatever size looks best. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- If this doesn't work, I'll reduce the size. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. I set it to 150px and it tests okay signed in and not, displaying the same size. I thought about doing that originally but the MOS prefers the scaling factor as first choice in case a user has their base width setting something other than the standard thumb 220px. The problem seems to be with the Mythical creature template itself. Anyway, fixed. If anyone gives feedback in the future that 150 is too small then it can be increased a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions. 5Q5|✉ 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it's perfect now. I was okay with the size previously because it's an upright image. But now, I can see the actual data in the infobox on my 1080 monitor, which I think is pretty much the standard monitor size these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- PS. In my research on this, I found out there is a non-infobox template called Template:Tall image that has a side scroll bar for extra tall images. 5Q5|✉ 16:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think that if the image frame cut off before his crotch, people might be afraid to scroll down.
- Which, in turn, makes my mischievous side want to make a version of this with a really big tallywhacker and occasionally swap images here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- PS. In my research on this, I found out there is a non-infobox template called Template:Tall image that has a side scroll bar for extra tall images. 5Q5|✉ 16:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it's perfect now. I was okay with the size previously because it's an upright image. But now, I can see the actual data in the infobox on my 1080 monitor, which I think is pretty much the standard monitor size these days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. I set it to 150px and it tests okay signed in and not, displaying the same size. I thought about doing that originally but the MOS prefers the scaling factor as first choice in case a user has their base width setting something other than the standard thumb 220px. The problem seems to be with the Mythical creature template itself. Anyway, fixed. If anyone gives feedback in the future that 150 is too small then it can be increased a bit more. Thanks for your suggestions. 5Q5|✉ 15:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- If this doesn't work, I'll reduce the size. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Greys are real
[edit]The grey aliens are almost the only extraterrestrial being spotted at alien encounters on earth. They maybe our gods. Maybe the created the homo sapiens using dna. Maybe we are some sort of hybrid species of humans. (Based on my alien encounter) . Kanishka Mondal from India 2409:4060:1F:478E:780D:B197:AA8D:6875 (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing. If these any of these "maybes" are supported by independent, reliable secondary sources (click and read WP:RS for details), then go ahead and add the information directly to the article. If no such support is available, it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Why are you removing my discussions LuckyLuoi
[edit]Why are deleting my discussions, have I done something wrong. What is my mistake? 2409:4060:2E88:B889:B627:4056:B0D6:B285 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- By the look of it, because you are using the talk page in contravention of WP:NOTFORUM, to discuss the subject, not improvements to the article. You would probably be better off finding a forum page or blog to discuss these issues. Britmax (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Meda novel does not reference aliens but future humans
[edit]"The origins of the Grey alien may go back to the late 19th century. In 1891, the novel Meda: A Tale of the Future was published by Kenneth Folingsby, in which the narrator encountered small, grey-skinned aliens with balloon-shaped heads" In this novel the main character has a dream about time-traveling to the distant future of Earth. The creatures he meets there are the humans of this time. They are not aliens. In fact the hypothesis commonly found in abduction lore that the Greys are time-traveling humans from the distant future is not mentioned in this article at all. This idea helps to explain the similarities in physical structure between humans and Greys, which, as many sceptics have argued, is highly unlikely to be the result of parallel evolution. Kevinhhmcgee (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)