[Heather]

I am becoming a believer of flat earth. But 2 questions always bother me....aliens and the firmament.  Where do aliens come from then?  There's no outer space.  Are they just from over the Ice wall?  Why would they want to experiment or anything with us? If outer space does not exist who put the firmament there and how ?  Why haven't more people studied this ?  I can't seem to ever really find these answers

[Kokorikos]

I am not a "believer" of flat Earth. I do not think that one needs to be a supporter of a flat Earth model to answer your questions, though, so I'll give it a try.

1) There is no evidence of alien life yet and definitely not of alien intelligent life that has visited us. Hypothetically speaking they could be coming either from beyond the ice wall or from within the Earth. Or we can ask them when we see one! On their motivations to interact with us I would say that curiosity would be the main driver. Or conquest!!

2) You question on the firmament cannot be answered, but the same goes for outer space. If the firmament does not exist then who put outer space there? It is a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. Note that the existence of the firmament is a separate issue to the question on the shape of the Earth.

3) Regarding the number of people that have studied this, based on the answers I've seen in other posts here, I would say that proponents of a flat Earth support that it is because most people are nurtured to the idea of a spherical Earth in childhood and never challenge this as adults.

[jack44556677]

Welcome!

I think kokorikos nailed it in their answers so I will skip over those.

I am becoming a believer of flat earth.

I strongly caution against that.  We are in this mess BECAUSE of belief in the first place (#3 on kokirikos' list)!  Seek to KNOW the shape of the world instead, and work to remove belief where it does not belong (like in knowledge and fact, especially scientific)

Why haven't more people studied this ?

I have a background in ufology.  I have studied more about "aliens" and the belief therein than most other people.  I can assure you that aliens ONLY exist in fiction, and that is their clear and obvious origin.  The gray that we know and love was first depicted in the 90's.

There is nothing wrong with asking grand questions, but you should not be surprised when answers are not forthcoming! We seriously struggle with vastly simpler/smaller/mundane/terrestrial  questions; like, what is the true shape of the entire world - for instance.

If outer space does not exist who put the firmament there and how ?

Who says it has to be a who?

The creation mythology that we were (most all) steeped in under the guise of science and education informs that nothing made everything over unfathomable amounts of time.  Just because earth has a dome (possibly) and space is fiction doesn't preclude this perspective/belief.

Many, when faced with the reality that their creation myth is just that - revert to religion.  God did it.  It is a more defensible answer, but still somehow unsatisfying.

In my view a creator is necessitated regardless of preference in creation mythology. However, bouncing like a pinball from belief to belief is no way to learn anything.  As I warned initially, belief is a trap and is to be excised from knowledge and fact whenever identified (much easier said than done).

I can't seem to ever really find these answers

Are you surprised?  The big questions are so hard (and ostensibly hopeless) that most people forget about them when they "grow up".  I think we will have to continue to search for the answers, but I am confident they are there to find!

[stack]

I have a background in ufology.  I have studied more about "aliens" and the belief therein than most other people.  I can assure you that aliens ONLY exist in fiction, and that is their clear and obvious origin.  The gray that we know and love was first depicted in the 90's.

If you're a ufologist and have studied more than most people, you would know that the first depiction of grays (or greys) far predates the 90's. Seemingly HG Wells mentions them at the turn of the last century, a Swedish novelist in the 30's, I think Rosewell in the 40's, probably most famously the Hill's "abduction" in the 60's. And who could forget the depiction in Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind in 1977:



Unlike you I do not have a background in ufology and I haven't studied more than most on the subject, but even I know common stereotypical depictions of aliens as "grays" goes way back before the 90's. Why, with your self-proclaimed extensive knowledge, would you make such an erroneous claim? It definitely gives one pause in considering many of your other claims.

[jack44556677]

@stack

Unlike you I do not have a background in ufology and I haven't studied more than most on the subject, but even I know common stereotypical depictions of aliens as "grays" goes way back before the 90's.

Well then, perhaps it is time to delve a little deeper into why and how you "know" these things.  Considering you haven't studied them, and are simply regurgitation a wiki article...

I can explain why you are wrong, and show you that the 90's are the first time the gray we know and love was popularized - but is it really worth the effort? (Seeing as you don't have any interest or preexisting knowledge on the subject)

If so, I'd be happy to educate you but I don't think you could honestly say that it would be worth my time.

[macattack]

The Greys go back at least to 1890's.  The government covering up aliens is a one million percent more likely scenario than covering up a flat earth. The Earth has been discoverable as a habitable planet for 200-400 million years with plenty of oxygen and diverse lifeforms. If you give us another 1000 years, we definitely will be able to discover those planets in our galaxy that harbor life, but not necessarily travel to them.   An extreme space telescope that could directly image planets would totally be feasible.
   

[stack]

@stack

Unlike you I do not have a background in ufology and I haven't studied more than most on the subject, but even I know common stereotypical depictions of aliens as "grays" goes way back before the 90's.

Well then, perhaps it is time to delve a little deeper into why and how you "know" these things.  Considering you haven't studied them, and are simply regurgitation a wiki article...

I can explain why you are wrong, and show you that the 90's are the first time the gray we know and love was popularized - but is it really worth the effort? (Seeing as you don't have any interest or preexisting knowledge on the subject)

If so, I'd be happy to educate you but I don't think you could honestly say that it would be worth my time.

You seemed to miss the reference to the 3rd highest grossing film of 1977 - Sure seems like Close Encounters depicted the grays - Very popular - A movie I have seen pre-90's. And I had heard about the Hill abduction case when I was a kid. I think it was an episode of In Search Of with good ole Spock. Probably the most famous abduction case out there. The description there was gray as well, though I think they had hair, but definitely the big crazy eye thing which is a common feature.

So yeah, that's my regurgitation. Or as you so often put it, "the findings of my research".

What's the extent of your research?

[jack44556677]

Ufology is an excellent subject to build and hone your skills as an independent researcher (especially interested in studying human belief).

The scourge of alien worship is very real, and heavily advertised/propagated.

I'll throw you a bone since I'm in the mood, but I fear it will be wasted on you.

http://www.sciencefictionarchives.com/en/collections/333/extra-terrestrial-orignal-costume-from-close-encounters-of-the-third-kind

[stack]

Ufology is an excellent subject to build and hone your skills as an independent researcher (especially interested in studying human belief).

I agree, it's yet another interesting arena with all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory, pseudoscience, fantastical stories, all rolled into one.

The scourge of alien worship is very real, and heavily advertised/propagated.

Though "scourge" seems to be needlessly applied, a wee bit strong, I do agree it's been heavily advertised/propagated for decades and long before the 90's. The UFO/alien belief system doesn't impact my life which I think a scourge would. Scourge I would apply more to, for example, indoctrinated organized religious belief that does impact my life through political policy and the like. Belief by others in little green or gray men with big heads and big eyes does not.

I'll throw you a bone since I'm in the mood, but I fear it will be wasted on you.

http://www.sciencefictionarchives.com/en/collections/333/extra-terrestrial-orignal-costume-from-close-encounters-of-the-third-kind

I'm unclear what the bone is? So perhaps it is wasted on me. But maybe you could be more exacting in what said bone may be. If I poke the "Screenused" filter, the little guy on the right sure seems to fit neatly into the gray (grey) stereotype:

Kind of a funny story from production:

"12. THERE WERE SOME UNORTHODOX IDEAS FOR CREATING THE ALIENS.
Spielberg wanted the aliens to be non-human beings that glided instead of walked, and he had a weird idea to pull it off: An orangutan dressed in a specially-made suit. For a screen test, the production team outfitted an orangutan in grey spandex and strapped it into roller skates. The orangutan immediately took off the skates and crawled to its owner, so a full test couldn’t be completed, and the team scrapped the idea. The majority of the small aliens in the final movie were played by local elementary school girls from Mobile in specially made grey suits and masks who were heavily backlit to create the final alien silhouette effect."
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/63198/15-things-you-may-not-know-about-close-encounters-third-kind

[jack44556677]

@stack

And look at that, it was wasted on you.

The gray that we know and love began in the 90's.

You can say that this is a "proto" grey, and there is some minor merit to that perspective - but if you think the aliens in close encounters were Grey's, then you can't trust your own eyes.

They are modeled after the barney and betty hill "aliens" who were also not grey or like the grays we know and love from the 90's.  A very small amount of research (beyond the wiki article) would be needed to confirm such things...

[stack]

@stack

And look at that, it was wasted on you.

The gray that we know and love began in the 90's.

You can say that this is a "proto" grey, and there is some minor merit to that perspective - but if you think the aliens in close encounters were Grey's, then you can't trust your own eyes.

They are modeled after the barney and betty hill "aliens" who were also not grey or like the grays we know and love from the 90's.  A very small amount of research (beyond the wiki article) would be needed to confirm such things...

What do the 1990's grays look like then that's significantly different from the proto-grays? From everything I see grays all seem to have the big head, big eyes more diminutive nose, mouth, and chin, spindly body, mostly shorter than humans, regardless of era/decade and not exclusive to the 90's. I'm not seeing any real glaring differences.

And yeah, Betty Hill's description is vastly different than more modern depictions of grays: "They appeared nearly human, with black hair, dark eyes, prominent noses and bluish lips. Their skin was a greyish colour."

The only big thing I remember from the 90's regarding aliens/grays was the hilarious "Alien Autopsy".



Still looks very similar, to me anyway, to my guy in CEotTK.

[jack44556677]

The 90's gray is designed to be scary.  They have nothing in common with the betty and barney "little people", whose skin was white/pale (not gray, until MANY MANY years after the fact.... Memory is a funny thing!)

The swinging 60's aliens were friendly (and sometimes robots).

The abduction mythos takes a dark turn in the 80's, for the purposes of psychological warfare.

It seems you do have some interest after all!

[stack]

The 90's gray is designed to be scary.  They have nothing in common with the betty and barney "little people", whose skin was white/pale (not gray, until MANY MANY years after the fact.... Memory is a funny thing!)

The swinging 60's aliens were friendly (and sometimes robots).

The abduction mythos takes a dark turn in the 80's, for the purposes of psychological warfare.

It seems you do have some interest after all!

I already agreed that the Betty and Barney aliens were very different. For one, they had hair. Her description that I posted ("They appeared nearly human, with black hair, dark eyes, prominent noses and bluish lips. Their skin was a greyish colour.") was allegedly written down by her after her dreams a couple of months after the "encounter", not years later. But again, skin color whatevs, everything else is different.

Can you share any depictions of 90's scary grays from your research. I can't find any.

[jack44556677]

@stack

Communion (book), Intruders (tv series), Fire in the Sky (Aliens proper do not look like the quintessential gray, but the helmets/suits they wear do! Apparently it was a twist the director added in because they found out in the middle of production that intruders had been made, and already did exactly what they were doing...)

Communion is sort of the beginning of it, and it becomes more sinister looking (more insectoid) as time progresses.

Communion (1987) :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Communion_book_cover.jpg

Intruders (1992) :

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104523/mediaviewer/rm2511026432?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_prd_47

Fire in the Sky (1993) :

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uCTs22y_1GI/UCV6cdSLKuI/AAAAAAAAB_s/ccbfIP9vC30/s1600/vlcsnap-2012-06-24-22h29m13s173.png

[stack]

@stack

Communion (book), Intruders (tv series), Fire in the Sky (Aliens proper do not look like the quintessential gray, but the helmets/suits they wear do! Apparently it was a twist the director added in because they found out in the middle of production that intruders had been made, and already did exactly what they were doing...)

Communion is sort of the beginning of it, and it becomes more sinister looking (more insectoid) as time progresses.

Communion (1987) :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Communion_book_cover.jpg

I recognized the book cover and yes a very widely popularized depiction of the Grays. But at the macro level, I still don't see a big distinction between that and 77's CEotTK depiction: Big head, big dark eyes, small nose, mouth, and chin, grayish in skin tone. Pretty stereotypically popularized Gray all around whether it be 1977 or 1987.

CEotTK depiction:


versus

Communion depiction:


Maybe you're hung up on the more sinister qualities of some of the later Grays depictions; CEotTK's somewhat benevolent versus Communion's somewhat more sinister. But you can't forget that CEotTK's grays were kind of sinister and scary in many ways. For one they terrorized the mom and they abducted her little kid. They kind of drove everyone mad if they had an encounter. So much so that some along with the Dreyfus and kid's mom drop everything and maddeningly are drawn to Devil's Tower. And where Dreyfus is so transfixed that he abandons his wife and kids and runs off with the Grays forever more. Pretty dark and twisted when you think about it.

Communion published in the late 80's (not the 90's) was a #1 on the NYT list for a bit. So a big hit. The movie however, released in late 89 (not the 90's) bombed at the box office amid crap reviews. It only made $2m at the box office. So not super popular.

Intruders (1992) :

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104523/mediaviewer/rm2511026432?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_prd_47

Never heard of it. And there were only 2 episodes so pretty much a bomb, no one saw it. So I wouldn't put it in the category of popularizing 90's Grays as you claim.

Fire in the Sky (1993) :

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uCTs22y_1GI/UCV6cdSLKuI/AAAAAAAAB_s/ccbfIP9vC30/s1600/vlcsnap-2012-06-24-22h29m13s173.png

At first look I had never heard of the movie. But when I read the plot synopsis I definitely remember the story from somewhere in my past. The movie released in 1993 made some money, about $4m (on a budget of $15m, box office return of $19m). Not a big hit by any means, but more people saw it than the previous ones above. Based upon Travis Walton's book (The abductee) " The Walton Experience" published in 1978 (Not the 90's) a year after CEofTK was released. The only real reference I could find of a depiction of his Grays is, "Walton claimed that he awoke in a hospital-like room, being observed by three short, bald creatures." Kinda sounds like the short, bald creatures in CEofTK.

Lastly, picking on CEofTK (1977) again, it was a colossal hit (Production budget of $20m, Box office return of a whopping $340m!) eclipsing all three references you bring up from your research by a massive margin even though you claimed, "The gray that we know and love was first depicted in the 90's." So no, very popularized Grays were around in our culture long before the 90's as proof from even just CEofTK alone. I don't know why you're hung up on this 90's thing, but it doesn't hold water. Especially considering, with the possible exception of the Communion book, that the your findings from your "I have studied more about "aliens" and the belief therein than most other people." claim along with the 90's only bit is really, really weak research evidence. If you have really studied more than most, you wouldn't have made the strange 90's claim and would at least have better evidence to back up your weird 90's claim.

As a consequence I question what you consider studied more than most and the resulting depth and breadth, or lack thereof, of your "research findings" you so often bring up in your ever present soliloquies regarding any and all subject matter.

[jack44556677]

@stack

It is sad to see you miss the point so egregiously.

The "aliens" in close encounters are in no way grays.  They are modeled after the betty and barney hill "aliens" and they have beautiful/deep eyes for that reason. 

http://sfa.admin.srv.e-makers.fr/images/uploads/objectitemPicture/419/picture/532a_845x485p.jpg

Independent research is not for everyone.

P.S. lucas and speilberg are shameless revisionists.  you have been hoodwinked.

[stack]

@stack

It is sad to see you miss the point so egregiously.

The "aliens" in close encounters are in no way grays.  They are modeled after the betty and barney hill "aliens" and they have beautiful/deep eyes for that reason. 

http://sfa.admin.srv.e-makers.fr/images/uploads/objectitemPicture/419/picture/532a_845x485p.jpg

Independent research is not for everyone.

P.S. lucas and speilberg are shameless revisionists.  you have been hoodwinked.

I think you have entirely missed the point from the get go. You come out with the “I’ve studied more than most” gambit on the subject. Like you are some sort of an authority we are simply supposed to believe. A notion you seem to rail against in every other thread you make. Then coupled with some sort of strange determination, based upon your seemingly self proclaimed expertise and copious independent research, that Grays (Greys) as we know them today didn’t come to be until the 1990’s? Weird, because why such a claim? What would that even have to do with anything?

In any case, I take exception to both of your claims; Your self-assigned supposed expertise on the matter and your strange narrow claim as to when Grays, as we know them, entered into popular culture. Aside from all that, I am in no way arguing in the validity of any Gray encounters documented. I just take issue with your claims.

- First off, your deeper than most study, independent research” as you call it, into this seems to be extremely shallow. As for you 90’s only claim, you cite a non-screen used CEotTK (1977) costume with happy eyse - I think you lean toward this notion of 90’s Grays are depicted as more sinister and scary - And completely overlook the screen used costume, not so happy eyed and miss all of the scary elements in the 1977 film.
- You cite a book, though very popular, Communion, came out in the late 80’s, (Not the 90’s) followed by a movie no one saw. And after you laid this on me, "Considering you haven't studied them, and are simply regurgitation a wiki article…”, your sole citation is a wikimedia image of the book cover. Apparently your intensive independent research looks very similar to mine. Why your's is better is a mystery.
- Then you cite a TV show, canceled after 2 episodes as evidence that literally no one saw.
- And you cite the Walton case, originally a book from 1978 (Not the 90’s) and a movie version 1993. I’d say the Walton case was pretty scary and perhaps sinister.

Again, with your “studied more than most” you must have come across this paper from 1995 out of the Sociology Dept on Popular Culture at Chapman University titled, "The UFO Contact Movement from the 1950's to the Present”.
https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=sociology_articles

You claim, "The "aliens" in close encounters are in no way Grays.  They are modeled after the betty and barney hill "aliens" and they have beautiful/deep eyes for that reason.”

You claim, "The 90's gray is designed to be scary.  They have nothing in common with the betty and barney "little people", whose skin was white/pale (not gray, until MANY MANY years after the fact.... Memory is a funny thing!)”. “MANY MANY years”? Try 3. And seemingly a lot in common with modern Grays.

In the paper, it cites a hypnosis session with Barney Hill 3 years after the alleged encounter, 1964:

“[They] had rather odd-shaped heads, with a large cranium, diminishing in size as it got towards the chin. And the eyes continued around to the sides of the head, so it appeared that they could see several degrees beyond the lateral extent of our vision.. .The texture of the skin...was grayish, almost metallic looking...I didn't notice any hair...[and] there just seemed to be two slits that represented nostrils (Fuller, 260).

Sounds like a definite Gray description to me. Not to mention the sinister and scary descriptions of the experiments performed. Again, that was from 1961-1964, not the 90’s. And is probably one of the more famous “abduction” cases.

And the paper goes on to contradict you and support my claim regarding the depictions in the Walton and CEotTK examples (1978 & 1977, respectively:

“Most recently, American UFO researchers have focused on but one creature dubbed the "Grey". The Grey closely resembles the creatures encountered by Travis Walton- short in stature, with white or gray skin, a large head with huge cat-like eyes, a slit mouth and small nostrils, and thin, clawed limbs. It would be impossible to overestimate the prominence of the Grey stereotype in UFO circles. Its image is plastered across the cover of most every UFO magazine and book. It has appeared in movies such as Close Encounters and countless television UFO documentaries. In recent years the Grey has made an even stronger appearance in American popular culture. A1991 episode of the Fox situation comedy Married With Children featured Grey-type creatures stealing A1 Bundy's socks. A1992 beer commercial featured the beings cavorting about a field drinking brews."

So yeah, I find your claims dubious at best. And perhaps independent research is not for you as your notion of who has “studied more than most” seems to be an exceedingly low bar for evidence and actual research.

[jack44556677]

@stack

Part of the result of years of research is that I am much better informed than you are.  You can pout about it, or try to learn something.

I've already wasted too much time on you.

You cannot objectively evaluate any claim if your preexisting bias is that it MUST be wrong.

This is a good example, though I doubt you will learn anything from it.

Your foregone conclusion (bias) is that I am wrong (about everything) and that I don't do thorough research.

I've fully demonstrated to you that the close encounters aliens are not grays at all - you learned nothing. 

[stack]

@stack

Part of the result of years of research is that I am much better informed than you are.  You can pout about it, or try to learn something.

Interesting that you believe you are default more informed than someone else.

I've already wasted too much time on you.

You cannot objectively evaluate any claim if your preexisting bias is that it MUST be wrong.

I didn't. I didn't have a bias. I thought about what you wrote and wondered if it was true or not. In pondering and looking into it, I started to find some discrepancies. And equally, you cannot objectively make any claim if your preexisting bias is that it MUST be right. As you have done.

This is a good example, though I doubt you will learn anything from it.

Why do you presume that you are in the role of a "teacher" from which some one can learn? Just because you claim to be some sort of expert?

Your foregone conclusion (bias) is that I am wrong (about everything) and that I don't do thorough research.

Not a foregone conclusion. I just question your constant barrage of "through your independent research findings things work like this..." without ever really backing anything up. Always complaining about how no one knows how the Scientific Method works and espousing your love for science and how "belief" has no place and then turn right around and make claims that are supposed to be regarded very highly based upon you just making them.

I've fully demonstrated to you that the close encounters aliens are not grays at all - you learned nothing.

And I fully demonstrated that folks who probably have perhaps studied more than you on the subject contradict your claims. (See paper above)

[Tumeni]

Part of the result of years of research is that I am much better informed than you are. 

What research did you do? Where? When? What record is there of this research?