• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Alien's eyeballs

Free episodes:

You decided form the start that it was your duty to inform and educate.

No, I thought it would be helpful to point out that the posts reflected a strong human-centric bias. You thought it was your duty to make sarcastic comments about my remark.

If you got that impression from the 'construct' remark, then fine. But I have explained that.

You've backed away from it. No explanation was necessary.

I Or maybe you just like to assume that most people arent up to speed on "Extraterrestrial Possibilities 101", and its up to you to educate the masses.

Hmm. I think that, yes, I do assume most people are not up to speed on the possibilities.

I feel no compulsion to educate the masses, but I might interject in a thread every now and then.

This is a paranormal message board after all, and the aforementioned course is a first year subject.

I don't get your point here.
 
in the absence of fact, i make a deduction based on the data at hand.
in this case i too would put my money on them being eyes.

until such stage as the data suggested otherwise.
 
in the absence of fact, i make a deduction based on the data at hand.
in this case i too would put my money on them being eyes.

until such stage as the data suggested otherwise.

And you would never present it as the only possibility, nor would you base your deduction on dubious data or get defensive when your assumptions are tested. Because you are wise and thoughtful.
 
I've heard some claim that the black eyes are artificial lenses with more normal eyes underneath.

I'll throw in with the lot that says that they're either eyes, or have eyes underneath them. I think they're lenses of some kind.
 
I'll throw in with the lot that says that they're either eyes, or have eyes underneath them. I think they're lenses of some kind.

And thank you for acknowledging the uncertainty of the characterization, and the obvious fact that we don't know for sure what they are.

Of course we are choosing to look beyond the most glaring assumption, that being that aliens exist at all.
 
Must not bite.... Must not bite....

lucky i just had lunch.

I understand, it must be very difficult.

But the plain truth is you made a thoughtless statement without care or concern for reality, then sarcastically indicted me for questioning your bias.

You had several good intelligent choices and expertly avoided all of them.

Lucky indeed.
 
I understand, it must be very difficult.

But the plain truth is you made a thoughtless statement without care or concern for reality, then sarcastically indicted me for questioning your bias.

You had several good intelligent choices and expertly avoided all of them.

Lucky indeed.

I truly am stunned at your inability to read and comprehend the written word.
 
If they've been doing the space travel thing long enough to have evolved adaptations to it, I think it much more likely that their technology would have adapted to protect them from the dangers of space. So I assume that the form of their eyes would be a product of evolution in the conditions of their home world and with the biological resources available, not a response to space travel.
But I do like the covering idea.

On the other hand, assuming there is actually a species that has the appearance reported, how do we know that those are in fact eyes?
I think they probably would be, since vision's a useful sense to evolve and there's no indication of anything else that could be eyes, but we should remember that just because there are two of them and they're on what appears to be a head, doesn't necessarily mean that eyes is what they are.
 
On the other hand, assuming there is actually a species that has the appearance reported, how do we know that those are in fact eyes?
I think they probably would be, since vision's a useful sense to evolve and there's no indication of anything else that could be eyes, but we should remember that just because there are two of them and they're on what appears to be a head, doesn't necessarily mean that eyes is what they are.

Well that is obviously what weve been talking about. If youve read every post in this thread (I wouldnt blame you if you hadnt) you would have known that.
 
Ive explained that quote you [expletive removed] moron.

You didn't explain it.

You backed away from it. But not far enough. Not yet.

You are hovering around a realization that you are not comfortable with, and it's making you angry. I have been in that boat many times, and I know how you feel.
 
People can disagree with me if the like, i dont really care. look they seem to be humanoid just like us, and i am analyseing what i am about to say based on the descriptions of what has been seen.

1 human description... head, body, eyes, legs with toes, hands, fingers.
2small greys.. have been siad to have large head big eyes sometimes give the impression of being black in colour tiny body with short little fingers.
3 Tall greys.... long and slender, flat faced, small nose sometimes descriptions of smaller type greys fitting this description have been seen also
4.child like greys... more like a young child more human like than the description of the grey
5 and 6.... the blondes and reptiles this are a little confuseing so i rather not discuss them i guess i leave it up to you to decide if they have eyes are not

Look to me it simply all the fancy writing on subjects,and not getting at the heart,and substance of the issue is the problem. Look picture yourself and a grey side by side now visualise as best you can your appearance!!! and the greys appearance "what do you see? it is that simple !!! have you got your answer?

Look they are eyes? dogs cats all animals and creatures have them. What the question should be is? Do they see something completely different when looking at something just take a normal tree as an example how would it look, looking throught the eyes of a "grey". I what to describe it better, but my english rather limited at this stage. I hope this ok example.

Individuals will say to me now? how can you say they are eyes. Since the greys dont seem to be human at all.Well i cant be sure!! But i bet my suggestion is correct.
 
Look to me it simply all the fancy writing on subjects,and not getting at the heart,and substance of the issue is the problem. Look picture yourself and a grey side by side now visualise as best you can your appearance!!! and the greys appearance "what do you see? it is that simple !!! have you got your answer?

Gareth will speak for himself, but the question for me is not whether the purported creatures have organs that look like eyes or whether they are eyes. The question is whether we should assume they are eyes simply because they look like our eyes.

Or ever use the phrase "the only possibility" in these discussions.

Or belittle anyone for questioning a core assumption.

Or call people names.

Thus far, Grays are merely rumor, and the possibility of popular culture induced contamination has not been ruled out.

For the time being, let's be direct about our assumptions and never use the phrase "the only possibility."

Let's not dissect the Gray's anatomy, let's first figure out if they are real or not.
 
Back
Top