Did Aleister Crowley Paint a Grey in 1900?

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Definitly one of the inter-dimensionals that are of the same genetic background as our favorite fleshbots; the Greys.

These beings are benign and do not abduct people, I know a positive entity who is famous in religion as the adversary that strong ascociates with these beings, he also has some reptoids under him.

Not all Greys and Reptoids are evil mind you

Just don't.



Anyway, there's no telling what it could be coming from Crowley. He was so embroiled in the occult and drug use it could have come from a number of sources. I personally think he was full of $#!7 about the majority of his claims.

he was definitely doing whatever the man/woman was that did Alice in Wonderland recently. Big 5 head.


www.seanborggoesla.com...
images.hitfix.com...

It obviously resembles a grey,any comment otherwise is unreasonable.

Google the starchild skull model and you will see an exact match to this shape.

Doesnt look like a grey,YEA RIGHT---GET REAL.

TRY TO STATE THE OBVIOUS ONCE IN A WHILE,EVERYTHING ISNT A CONSPIRACY.

I have some serious reservations about Mr. Crowley's claims and ideas. Having said that, it still seems possible that one or more extraterrestrials could have played along with his supernatural 'workings' and appeared. Yes, the picture of 'Lam' does look like the large-headed, small-bodied conception of a super-evolved 'man of the future' that was common at that time (1918). However, if you look carefully at the drawing, you will see that the lower part of the forehead has two two large, slightly bulging areas. These are shaped very much like the huge eyes of a 'grey'. The tiny eyes that Crowley indicates might not be the eyes, proper, at all. I suspect that this could be a drawing of a 'grey' with his eyelids nearly shut, mostly covering his large, bulging eyes. The mere slits exposed at the bottom are apparently what Crowley took for the entirety of the eyes. If this interpretation is correct, this is not likely to be a portrait of a 'man of the future', that Crowley pulled up from his memory. Such a stereotyped image did not include huge eyes that extend around to the sides of the head.

I think the obvious explanation is that there are no aliens, they're just the same old demons that have been around since the beginning. They have been called faeries, nymphs, dwarves etc. Crowley was doing black magic and he conjures up what looks like grey long before anyone called it a grey. The UFO flying saucer mania starts about 1947 and then they take on the identity of aliens.

Folklore contains many legends of contact with "little people." For much of the medieval period, those suspected of contacting demons or The Devil were castigated as witches, and punished brutally, often being burnt at the stake. Typically, these unfortunates would be subjected to torture and a confession of some sort would be wrung out of them. There are marked similarities between some of these witchcraft confessions and contemporary reports of contact with aliens through the abduction experience. The sexual aspect of the encounters is strongly to the fore in both cases. Witchcraft accounts abound in tales of women having forbidden unions with demons or even The Devil; likewise, abduction narratives often feature similar themes.

www.ufoencounters.co.uk...

If you read up on him a bit Crowley seemed to be absolutely crazy in some respects, and seriously intelligent in others. I think several things, some of which we'll never realise, caused problems in his life, but he definitely wasn't stupid or thick. I'd guess he was misunderstood for a huge part. As for if it was a Grey, maybe. Either that or some entity he discovered through his Magick, which he's well known for being one of the best in his time at. People will often dismiss him as being totally mad if they have an agenda or are being ignorant of certain things, but he wasn't.

Maybe partly mad because of his situation, but show me a totally sane person and I'll show you a flying pig.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Crowley was doing black magic and he conjures up what looks like grey long before anyone called it a grey.

I think he experimented a lot. To say he just did black magic shows that you've not researched him properly. He tried to get in touch with the Holy Guardian Angel, and was at times obsessed with it as far as I remember, that's clearly not black magic, so that whole idea is out of the window.

From his wiki page :

Even though the Holy Guardian Angel is, in a sense, the “higher self”, it is often experienced as a separate being, independent from the adept. In the system of Thelema, the single most important goal is to consciously connect with one’s Holy Guardian Angel, a process termed “Knowledge and Conversation.” By doing so, the magician becomes fully aware of his own True Will.

For Crowley, this event was the single most important goal of any adept:

"It should never be forgotten for a single moment that the central and essential work of the Magician is the attainment of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once he has achieved this he must of course be left entirely in the hands of that Angel, who can be invariably and inevitably relied upon to lead him to the further great step—crossing of the Abyss and the attainment of the grade of Master of the Temple."

like he stated. that is multidimensional extrateretrial humanoid, i dont think its a grey, because they look differently

Where OH where do you get these ideas?

Crowley did not "conjure" (exoercise) Lam! Lam is not a "product" of Magick, Lam was a natural occuring lifeform. It is very likely he was a "Sirian Grey". Most of the "stories" about Lam originate with a small faction within the O.T.O. and never had any truth to it at all.

This can be evidenced by Crowley's own diaries, and other writtings. Course, none of you have read enough of his works to even form any kind of realistic opinion, or conclusion about the man, but, as with most Humans, you don't let a little thing like ignorance slow you down.

Here is a little something for you to chew on; from Crowley's 1947 diary.

June 23, 1947 Saw John for Lunch. Chess. Lam at 4:00pm. His disguise, a Top Hat! 8:00 Left with Lam heading east ...

June 24 Lam-basting over American West coast, Mt. Rainer. Was spotted by small plane, listened to its radio messages. This guy was really scared, tried to describe is but couldn't when tower requested further info. He called us a flying bedpan!!! He said, 'looks like bedpans skipping over the surface of water, flying bedpans!' Lam and I had a good laugh.

June25. Lan nearly collides our ship with another. Fell asleep at wheel. I hate those Nazis! Don't they know the war is over? It's dangerous flying over the North Pole! Chess. 6:30 dinner in Paris, Lam disguised as a lady of the evening. Looks cute. Bright Red is his color, blond wig Righard David Eliman here. Long talk re G.D., smash Mathers, Yeats &c. Richard 'likes' Lam?

July 9 1947 Heard from Lam, drunk again; he collided with another ship over Roswell, New Mexico a few days ago. it crashed, all presumed dead. Lam thought it was funny, no remorse. Made jokes because e though they were Nazis but it turned out they're from Regulus, who are obvious egotist because they greater swollen heads than his! I'm told its a racial thing.

From these statements, and others it would appear that Crowley thought of Lam, not as a "supernatural"/Spiritual creature, but rather something more like a Human, of course from some other world.

Peace and Understanding

reply to post by AnthraAndromda


And if you had done even a little research regarding those journal entries you would have found that they are a parody produced by McMurtry's branch of the AA. So, before you go criticizing other people about doing research maybe you should do a little of your own.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

And if you had done even a little research regarding those journal entries you would have found that they are a parody produced by McMurtry's branch of the AA. So, before you go criticizing other people about doing research maybe you should do a little of your own.

And you learned that where?! Also, I wasn't aware the Grady was involved with The Order of The Star, as he was only involved with the OTO when we met back in the 70's. Or, perhaps you are "Cornelius", maybe "H. Beta"?

Basically, IF you are going to make such a statement, please back it up with something real, not some (probably) misquote from some "Minerval".

93!

reply to post by AnthraAndromda


The original source for those "journal" entries is Cornelius' site. It is located under the Parodies & Laughter section. While the parody is based off of Crowley's actual 1947 diary, much has been added since Crowley's actual diary from 1947 is only three pages long. Among those things that were added include turning Crowley's daily I-Ching readings into puns, all mention of the Gnomon, and all mention of LAM. Here is the introduction to the Parodies & Laughter section, which includes a few paragraphs specifically talking about Aleister Crowley's 1947 Diaries.

Laughter & Parodies - Introduction

Yes he did, i read a seperate article on it. The Picture looked rather disturbing to me.

I think crowley's work represents a large effort to wake people up to global affairs, rather then simply community affairs.

One great way of going about that is to wake people up to universal affairs, crowleys work was around the time aliens were becoming a theme in media and sci fi. It's reasonable that he might draw some aliens of his own, since aliens would likely be more intelligent to travel from other planets, a large brain would be a prerequisite, and has been a common theme on aliens for some time.

crowley's mansion

Boleskine house

was bought by Jimmy Page of Led Zepellin. The tool shed
where Jimmy dabbled

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by AnthraAndromda

 

The original source for those "journal" entries is Cornelius' site. It is located under the Parodies & Laughter section. While the parody is based off of Crowley's actual 1947 diary, much has been added since Crowley's actual diary from 1947 is only three pages long. Among those things that were added include turning Crowley's daily I-Ching readings into puns, all mention of the Gnomon, and all mention of LAM. Here is the introduction to the Parodies & Laughter section, which includes a few paragraphs specifically talking about Aleister Crowley's 1947 Diaries.

Laughter & Parodies - Introduction

Okay, I'll play ... for now.

You are an avid reader? A member of the OTO? (which Lodge?) Member of A.'. A.'.? What grade (sign will do). Which lineage?

Did you notice the actual text of the (fake) diary? Did you see the "copyright" at the end? (hint: not legal)

To the best of my knowledge, Grady was never the head of a Lineage of the A.'. A.'. He was the outer head of the OTO. As far as I am aware, and this came from Grady himself; he could not initiate persons into the A.'. A.'. And, it would appear that this "little band" of adepts still can't initiate. Legal lineage of the A.'. A.'. doubtful.

While I would give Cornelius the benefit of doubt, you I will not...at least until you identify yourself properly.

Seems there are some well researched posters on this thread, so i am surprised there are no relevant Crowley quotes that may shed some light on the true identity of the drawn creature.
Here is one i use as my sig,
Today we call them angels, demons, tomorrow we will call them something else!
.Aliester Crowley

Originally posted by lestweforget
Seems there are some well researched posters on this thread, so i am surprised there are no relevant Crowley quotes that may shed some light on the true identity of the drawn creature.
Here is one i use as my sig,
Today we call them angels, demons, tomorrow we will call them something else!
.Aliester Crowley

Personaly I'm not so much "well researched" as I am "well read", as far as Crowley goes. You need to know/remember that Crowley was a rather prolific writer when it comes to Esoteric sciences. And, while I have read virtually every word he ever wrote (at least to the best of my knowledge), it does become to single out any relevant quote.

That said, if I remember correctly, Crowley originally said the painting was a self portrait, again if I remember correctly that was in his autobiography (Confessions of A.C.). Could be wrong, it was more than 30 years ago when I first read it, and, it has'nt been a priority for re-reading.