Talk:Grey alien

Dr Novella's neurological explanation

I found the mention of Dr. Steven Novella's 2001 article interesting, and just for the sake of information, I wanted to take a chance to point out that there are other researchers who share the same view. For instance, in 1997 I reached the same conclusions in an article about the grey alien as an archetipe of the intelligent being that was published nationally and received some attention and praise. In particular, I received a reply in which I was informed about the works of two other researchers who reached similar conclusions. I suppose I could retrieve their names (which I do not recall at the moment) and some bibliographical information, if needed. Hroswith 18:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

picture

why did we get rid of the picture?--Sonicobbsessed 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

okay, now lets talk about something else, I dont think the current picture in this article sutibly represents a grey, it eyes are to small, it's fat and not thin, it has too much muscular streghth detail, instead of looking week in muscular detail. im shure someone can find or make a picture that better resembles a grey from how long this picture has been used, i think that this is importaint and should be fixes asap.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Greys are evreywhere what should we do

Greys are evreywhere, their closer then we human beings think. The Greys according to Betty Hill alien abduction experience orginate from the zeta star consulation. Greys have bases on earth everywhere, there is one in new mexico in the town Ducle which has a huge amount of cow multlation due to active greys presence in this area. Now ask yourself what are the greys intentions? I will tell you what there intentions are. They want to rule us, They need us, there survival depends on us! They crossbread humans and Greys in order to make us a one race for future for the rule of both of our planets. They do this in order not to create conflict and so they can clame rights for our planet due to the fact some of them are half humans and this planet believes in rights for every human being. So in legal sence if the half breed Greys all decide to come to live on earth then both them and pure Greys would have the rights to live on this planet. This is something we cant ingnore, the fact is we have to be prepared in order they try to take our planet from us. (note anyone who agrees with me that we need to be prepared to defend this planet from Grey's if they decide to conqour us please sighn below this comment.) --Marbus2 5 11:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When the Zetas fill the skies, will our leaders tell us why? EctoplasmOnToast 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

aaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought they were peaceful!!!! What is they are so advanced that they can fuse greys and humans together?? That would make me feel weird!! Being half grey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuuga-sama (talk • contribs) 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have to try to get advanced even more and get lasers and stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuuga-sama (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The greys want to crossbreed humans and greys so they may have emotion and have souls. Just a guess though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyuuga-sama (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify all this? I don't mean to be offensive, but... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.207.234 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep ya filthy hands away from ma herd! YA HEAR?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.191.48 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to all of the research ive done, including the seacret u.s. files people put on the net, the greys are allies to humans along with other aliens such as the nordics that we are also allied to. there main objective of the crossbreading is that there race is dying out and they are trying to make a race better than the grays and humans to continue there socioty and ours and that them and the other good aliens such as the nordics are trying to keep humans and theamselves safe from the reptillians, who are the most advance species and see humans as an inferior race because we are not as advanced or intelligent as those aliens, and the raptillians have inslaved some greys and made them do some bad things. some also say that there coming to earth because thier homeworld is dying out and loseing vegitation and, something like a different kind of global warming,there population is also dying out and some of theam are less advanced and as heathy as others from generations of cloneing and clones cloning theamselfes, but other grays do reproduce like there intended to do, like humans do. and like star wars, aliens also live on different planets than there species' homeworld.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

article title

This article should probably be titled Grey (alien) or Gray (alien) since the normal style is to have the title be singular. Right? — brighterorange (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "(Alien) tog is redundant as there is no need to disambiguate. Ths is already done by a dedicated page: Grey - perfectblue 16:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not redundant, because Grey is already a different article. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Grey's

82.23.191.76greys do exist - have seen them close to hand82.23.191.76 —Preceding comment was added at 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I once say George Bush turn into a lizard, but I might have been high at the time..... or maybe I was high when I saw him not being a lizard? perfectblue 20:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins of name

I think this article should have information on when/how the name Grey began to be used in preference to describing an alien as grey. I've no idea, that's what I came here for. 81.174.226.229 (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would require a third party source detailing this. Without such a source it would be conjecture and would be deleted under polcy. - perfectblue (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(IP was me) I know. It was a request for information, not speculation. I'm sure there must be a book on paranormal stuff that mentions it.172.143.143.239 21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Erased commercial link

I erased the link to a book someone added to try to increase their profits, with a misleading title. The link says Ancient Grey Alien Accounts, but then links to a site selling a book called Anatomy of the Human Grey Body. I believe that is misleading, and obviously just an ad someone added. There are thousands of books out there one could buy about the subject. The link before it I left, since that is to a free book, although I didn't bother to download it, so I don't know if it has any information relevant to a legitimate encyclopedic article. Dream Focus (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The conquers.png

Image:The conquers.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

other possiblites?

if they do exist isnt it possible they could just be genetically deffected humans that have secret society under water or sumthing like that just saying if they do exist they could just be taking our genetic material so their childern could walk in our society or they could be aleins that were living on mars thousands of years ago and they are now living under water which would explain the experiance of being abducted and being told how the planet is in trouble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.61.118 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet

I wonder, is there any source for the "light-diet" thing? It seems to make even less sense than the rest, a photosynthetic alien would not have a whole lot of evolutionary pressure to even walk, let alone become intelligent. --Darkmusashi (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Communion book cover.jpg

The image Image:Communion book cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Startopia

It might be good to inlclude something about the use of the "Greys" in the video game Startopia under "Influence in Popular Culture"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startopia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejari (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey Types

There are two types of Greys that I know of. The first type is the small 3 - 4 feet tall Greys with abnormally large heads and huge almond eyes; these are the worker beings...part biological, part machine. Then there's the true Grey beings who are the 7 foot tall ones...they are the real species of Grey, who control the workers. The true Greys still have larger heads and larger eyes than humans, but not nearly as large as the worker beings head and eyes.-- 90.201.205.179 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

These are already mentioned in the article. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I know but I like to feel part of the group by saying something. x] --90.201.205.164 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You could also find that a good way to fit in around here is to be bold and edit the article. :P Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Grey

I'm new and learning how to use so please correct me if I make an error. I wanted to comment on the picture of the Grey (Gray), as reading the comments, someone asked about it. I can say the picture shows little resemblance to the actual creature, cyborg, or robot. The arms are straight with no bulging Popeye muscles. There are only four fingers, long with three joints each. There is no discernable mouth, ears or nose. There are no discernable joints, i.e., shoulders, knees, elbows, ankles. They have no resemblance to the human skeletal structure. Very few if any abductees have ever seen one walk, as they normally float. They can instantly go invisible. The head shape in the picture is very close, but the eyes are too small. Close up, the texture of the skin appears to be pliable plastic, or some sort of synthetic material. They appear frail and weak, but have a lot of strength in the arms. There are different classes of greys; these are the most commonly seen. Using a beehive as an example; these greys are the workers doing the mundane repetitive tasks This is a general description. I can/will supply greater detail if asked, especially related to their interaction with humans. Knowing in advance my comments will be taken lightly, if at all, I remain.

Morrison1993 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not something we can add to an encyclopedia; what's needed are reliable sources, such as photographs of greys, or interviews that members of the group have done with newspapers, magazines, or other reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

whose relationship with who?

Second sentence: by virtue of whose close relationship with who are Greys seen as non-existent? --Allen (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Their close relationship with ufology and other ideas widely considered pseudoscientific.Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the wording confusing. How about, "The study of Greys is considered pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists, and they are generally dismissed as non-existent." --Allen (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the old wording better, but clearer wording would be nice. Any other ideas?Abyssal leviathin (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about The study of such things is considered pseudoscientific by mainstream scientists; Greys are generally dismissed as non-existent by virtue of their close relationship with these phenomena. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, it's still hard to figure out what "these phenomena" refers to (I assume it refers to other pseudoscientific phenomena). But here's another question: how do we know that that's why people don't think Greys exist? And besides, should we really say they are "generally" dismissed as non-existent? According to this poll, 25% of Americans believe aliens have visited Earth. --Allen (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR

The statement that the last reported Grey sighting was "Present Day" seems like Original Research to me. I mean, how do we know if a Grey alien sighting has been reported today? All Grown Up Whovian 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, you know what it means. Grey sightings still continue. I don't think many readers are going to take the phrase "present day" that literally! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be leaving anything open to interpretation. Only the facts belong here! All Grown Up Whovian 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "present day" is a figure of speech. Let it rest. I'm readding it to the article. If you come up with a better argument for it's removal, do post it. But unless you do, please don't remove it again. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Its Original Research, pure and simple. Its not worth breaking wikipedias policy for a silly two word statement that adds nothing to the article! All Grown Up Whovian 10:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's common knowledge, not original research. Its presence adds significant information to the article, namely that Grey sightings were not confined to the past, but continue to be reported. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But, how does anyone know exactly when the last reported sighting was? OR includes guesses and speculation. And thats exactly what that two word statement is. Also, the infobox looks a whole lot better without it. It looks likes it has all the facts ;) All Grown Up Whovian 11:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when the single most recent sighting occured; "present day" is a figure of speech its not supposed to be exact! Abyssal leviathin (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But wikipedia IS supposed to be exact! Hence the OR policy. All Grown Up Whovian 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

honestly does anyone care that much about what Dr. Jacobs thinks

The edits of the past few days by Dark Tea have changed this article from a balanced overview of a multi-faceted cultural phenomenon into... might as well be the Dr. Jacobs fan page. Of course this is a kooky subject, so it will inevitably have a kooky article... but it looks bad to have it dominated by a single kook. And the more details that get added, the kookier he sounds. He knows so much about aliens he must have been living with them. The Jane Goodall of the Greys. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Jacobs is the only authority I could find about the subject, being that he is the only one with a Ph.D. in Ufology. It would hurt the quality of the article if it included citations from non-experts. His hypotheses seem well-thought and rational.----^DarkTea© 21:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Jacobs has neither lived with the Greys nor has he ever been abducted.----^DarkTea© 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to swallow my incredulity over the words "he is the only one with a Ph.D. in Ufology" and skip straight to: can we at least rewrite this for tone/quality? The oft repeated pharse "Professor of History Dr. Jacobs, with a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from the University of Wisconsin about Ufology" is somewhat farsical. we may as well rename this article "Dr Jacobs theories about Grays" as this page now treats that as undisputed fact. Palendrom (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a new article about David Michael Jacobs, so I took out the needless repetition of his credentials.-----^DarkTea© 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think much of what has been added can stay, but having a ton of tiny new sections for every comment Jacobs ever made about Greys damages the article's structure significantly. I think the Jacobs statements can be worked into other sections. Abyssal (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of his hypotheses that he made based on his research were not previously covered in any topic heading. The hypotheses regarding the frequency of Grey abuctions I worked into the section on abductions.-----^DarkTea© 03:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So he's the only "authority" in the academic field of speculating on the societal structure and interplanetary foreign policy of a group of creatures whose existence is doubtful. If we want the article to include such speculations, he's an indispensible source. But consider the other possibility: that conjecturing on the inner thoughts and motives of a probably-imaginary species is so ridiculous that all the other potential "authorities" are smart enough to stay away, and Wikipedia should be too.

Bigfoot is a crucial part of the ecosystem, if he exists. So lets all keep Bigfoot alive for future generations to enjoy unless he doesn't exist. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only one other person has a Ph.D. in Ufology. This makes them an authority about UFOs. I doubt that they have not made hypothesis based on evidence for the motivations of the Greys.----^DarkTea© 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guideline WP:Undue weight pretty much covers this. The article isn't a dumping ground for every damn thing Jacobs pulls out of his ass. Jefffire (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jacobs point of view was not given undue weight in the article. To my knowledge, there only exist two people with a Ph.D. in Ufology and Jacobs is one of them. These two people have the most credentials relevant to this subject. They are the most reliable source. Maybe the other Ph.D. disagrees with Jacobs, but having the article represent the view point of at least half of the top two experts, by having Jacobs in the article, does not qualify for being undue weight.----^DarkTea© 02:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your statement about "every damn thing Jacobs pulls out of his ass", you should know that Jacobs does not make hypotheses without basing them on his research. Dr. Jacobs originally believed that the Greys had benevalent intentions, but his interviews with abductees over the years strongly suggested the contrary. In fact, he has said that he would like the Greys to not be real, but the consistancy of the abduction reports forces him to believe in the more likely conclusion. He has worked for many years on the subject through interviews with abductees who recall their experience under hypnotic regression. Through the mountain of evidence he has collected through this method, he has noted patterns in the abduction experience, the Grey's stated intentions and the Grey anatomy. These patterns are documented in his books. They are hypotheses which reflect the data and should not be dismissed as baseless opinions.----^DarkTea© 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BS. If I went and got a diploma milled on some daft subject that everyone else avoided, that wouldn't mean that we could fill the whole article on it with my opinions. Jacobs opinion is neither mainstream, nor is it even notable, and you would be well advised to actually read up on Wikipedia's guidelines regarding such views WP:FRINGE. If you think otherwise, kindly file a RfC on the subject so the whole community can tell you you're wrong, rather than continuing to waste the time of other editors with this nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says, "However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or in non-scientific contexts" We know that Dr. Jacobs has appeared in lots of media events..."Since 1972, he has appeared on hundreds of radio and television shows including Larry King Live, shows on the Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, the national broadcast networks, the Fox News Channel, CNN, CNBC, the BBC, National Public Radio and Science Friday. His talk show appearances include Montel Williams, Joan Rivers, The Other Side, and many others. He has been on The Art Bell radio show many times. He has been on numerous news magazine shows like Current Affair, Hard Copy, and so forth."-----^DarkTea© 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've stated policy and guideline clearly enough, I feel no need to repeat myself. Jefffire (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This explains some of the stuff seen in AOL IM's service. This man has a Ph. D., surely he will be able to fix our dispute trough some hibrid users, and magic. 24.138.250.52 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Physical appearance section too long

A large portion of this article is a citation where David Michael Jacobs gives a long-winded account of the Grey alien appearance. Given his vague superficial account of their appearance, there is no reason that it needs to span four large paragraphs. Here is a condensed version I have written which I recommend we add to replace it:

"In Dr. Jacobs' account, the Greys have a uniform appearance characterized by a slender hairless featureless diminutive body which lack sex organs, flawless grey plastic-like skin, no sexual dimorphism, a large brain, a flat face which lacks browridges, absent nasal projection with slit-shaped nostrils, a lipless slit-shaped mouth, large almond-shaped uniformly black eyes and proportionately long arms."----^DarkTea© 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not merely a condensed version; it loses a lot of significant information. Since no justification has been given for the removal of content, nor can I forsee any sensible justification being forwarded, I oppose the measure. Of course, improving the wording with no loss of information would be appreciated.Abyssal (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source, or even a particularily prominant proponent. Giving him even this length of space is undue weight. Jefffire (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is demonstrably untrue. Jacobs is the only person in the world teaching a regular course on UFOs at a major university. He is the author of some of the most influential books on the subject. His numerous media appearances have been previously documented on this talk page. He was instrumental in bringing the 1992 MIT alien abduction conference into fruition, the most significant gathering in the history of the study of the phenomenon.

Also, much of the material sourced to him is not his opinion per se, but rather an article he wrote giving a general survey of descriptions made by abductees and observations of other researchers, meaning that the source doesn't doesn't even give the weight to him at all! It was general coverage of the subject, not his personal speculation. When evaluating "weight" in an article, there is a big difference between those. Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He does not appear to be a reliable source given that he exclusively relies on the accounts of abductees who are not reliable sources themselves. Furthermore, he makes the mistake of hypnotyzing his subjects beforehand which only confounds the truth of their accounts if there was any to begin with.----^DarkTea© 21:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not The Truth^TM. No one is claiming Jacobs is right about alien abductions, just that as a prominent figure representing a widely held opinion on the subject, his opinion is to be documented in the article. The article clearly spells out the fact that the mainstream scientific position is that Greys are not real, and that the paranormal perspectives are considered pseudoscience. But since this article is on an inherently pseudoscientific subject, the pseudoscientific perspective is critical to providing any information on the subject at all. The article would be a lame duck without it. Abyssal (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tasteless black picture

This picture at the bottom of the article just looks like a black square. It adds no information about the Greys to this article. I think it should be removed.----^DarkTea© 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)