Memphis woman spots hybrid baby in department store

reply to post by zaiger


Hey human hybrid baby might need human food. Didn't think of that did you Mr. Smarty Pants Smartington!

So aliens look like tall Asian guys. Wow, who knew? Unless he was a hybrid too. THE CONSPIRACY THICKENS!

I have to agree with mblahnikluver, as well her applaud her effort to apply logic and real world objectiveness to this story. I see nothing in this report that would lead me (or anyone IMHO) to think that what was seen was an alien baby, or anything alien related. This is a bad aspect of ufology, when we have people shocked by seeing mundane, but not common things. People automatically attribute it to "alien" or paranormal. Now while I am NOT advocating ignoring these reports it is best to document them and move on until something of substance can be found, and ALWAYS NEVER make a claim that something is "alien" unless you have facts to back it up.

Thanks for sharing with us however OP.

Yeah, tall Asian men are not so uncommon as what people think, i have seen and been told. I have a friend who works in Taiwan who brought a friend back on holiday. I am 6'2 and this dude had me with a few inches. Amazing what we think, & how see others around the world in our little minds. All of us around this globe have a lot to learn.

Then again, Asia has more than 50% of the worlds population alone. The more people, the bigger the "variety"...common sense.

[edit on 9/23/2009 by qonone]

Originally posted by juggalo77
reply to post by acmpnsfal

 

true true but dont you think we stereotype aliens??? i.e we go looking for little green/gray men when it could look so close to us that it could be somthing as significant as the eyes that tell us apart???? just a thought

Here's Michael Shermer's answer to that question, and I think he's got a point:



If there really are grays, and they really look that much like us, I'd be more willing to believe that they are time travelers from the future (like our distant descendants), and NOT aliens.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


what does it matter where they come from they are alien to us weather their from another dimension the future whatever it is it is alien to the human species.1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
2. a foreigner.
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by juggalo77]

Maybe it was just a realllllllly ugly baby :\

Originally posted by juggalo77
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

what does it matter where they come from they are alien to us weather their from another dimension the future whatever it is it is alien to the human species.1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
2. a foreigner.
3. a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

It makes a big difference actually. I think most people using the word "alien" in the "aliens and UFOs" section on ATS are using definition #4 there. And in that case, the creatures, if they have DNA, probably won't share any DNA with us if they are from another solar system (life on Mars could share DNA with us if there was or is any there but it's probably only tiny bacteria like creatures if any exists there). And if they are from another solar system, chances are they will look NOTHING like us.

If the grays are time travelers from the future, and our descendants, they will share some DNA with us and look something like us, BECAUSE they are our descendants.

To me there's a huge difference between those scenarios.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Michael Shermer might be right. Only two of the millions of species of this planet are actually evolved to become bipeds. Us and chimps (and all their variations). Why should it be different in the universe? Maybe it is but we have to rely on what analogies we are witnessing in our planet. In fact if we take these analogies seriously if there are inhabited planets with intelligent life most chances are it might be insectoid in nature because the insectoid life forms population exceeds by far any other kind of life form in our planet. Though there might be some other factors in to play we don't know about regarding what types of intelligent kinds of life forms are in abundance out there.

One thing that concerns me about news like these, about babies with blue eyes, tall men etc. It seems if enough percent of people will start taking such unsubstantiated claims seriously, this might be evidence that we are again slipping slowly in to a new dark age, where this time the alien-human hybrids are going to replace the old witch hunts. Imagine a world without internet and scarce resources to come by, an alien threat scenario card played right and soon you have hordes of people chasing imaginary enemies. Maybe someone is prepping us before he decides to throw the switch and total chaos and insanity will ensue. Although I think that chances of such a scenario unfolding are slim but I am puzzled by the increasing levels of paranoia we are witnessing in the news lately, combine this with the possibility that at our times the numbers of individuals experiencing mental illnesses, and that is due to the frantic rhythms of our modern lives, might be higher than any other time in our history and you have the right ingredients for a total disaster.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by spacebot]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I would have to disagree with Michael Shermer for one simple reason. Yes we are bipedal primates and yes we are the only bipedal primates but does that really matter?

In order to determine whether or not it is a possibility you would first have to understand as to the conditions that bipedalism arises.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/541a1ef43533.jpg[/atsimg]

Take for example the tyrannosaurs or the raptors (among many others). They are bipedal reptiles. In fact looking back at history you will find tons and tons of bipedal species many of which where in the earlier stages of evolution. How did dinosaurs develop a bipedal structure? How did we develop our bipedal structure?

You can't even say that being a biped is a rare occurrence because we are far from the first species to walk on two legs. Why couldn't an alien species be a bipedal reptile or even another variation outside of our taxonomic ranks? Perhaps they aren't reptiles or mammals but another phylum altogether or maybe even a combination of two?

In fact I might just expand this idea and make a thread.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by DaMod]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


yeh thats to you but not the definition of the noun alien,if a foreigner goes into your country illegally he shares the same dna as you but hes still an illegal ALIEN.

Really it all depends on what theory you subscribe to whether ET life would be similar (ie; bi-pedal) or different than us. I personally think that evolution would be no different anywhere else and that bipeds are the most suitable form for a species to advance.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Here's Michael Shermer's answer to that question, and I think he's got a point:

The vast majority of species that have evolved on this planet are plants or single cell bacteria...

Therefore (using Shermer's totally illogical logic), chances are if we ever meet aliens, they will not have any arms or legs or heads.

This guy is really funny. I wonder if he even thinks before he talks or if he really believes what he is saying.

Also, it is entirely a presumption on his part that a "gray alien" would be a "primate", because it looks a little like some primates. I mean, koala bears look a bit like apes and they are marsupials. There is no way you can determine a taxonomic classification for an unknown species just going on the basis of a drawing or description given by an observer.
And, of course if they come from another planet, we woudn't expect them to fit into our documented earth evolved taxonomy.

Speaking of marsupials, aren't kangaroos bipedal also? Maybe that means that alien grays are marsupials (again using Shermer's logic).



[edit on 23-9-2009 by bluestreak53]

since this thread has evolved into a discussion on the probable aspects we can expect from an ET species, I'd like to include a few I've found are important in my studies...

1) Bi-Pedal motion. - Being able to balance on 2 legs is an advantage that has been shown to influence brain size.

2) Binocular vision - This aspect is evolved in pack hunters, and in my personal theorizing on the development of intelligence in a species, I tend to speculate that the communications skills learned in pack hunting are important in developing intelligence. not to mention binocular vision allows the perception of depth. I'm not excluding intelligence from species that use sonar like vision, I'm just saying that Binocular vision in general might be expected...

3) Opposable Thumbs. - I'll expand this to include species with many appendages that are equivalent to digits, like the octopus. An opposable thumb allows a species to grasp and manipulate objects.

When I actually wrote that article, I think there were like 7 or 8 factors I included, but it's been years now and those are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head at the moment.

At any rate, my point is that many of the traits we humans have developed are merely our species way of expressing that we've solved for a certain obstacle in nature...

Take the human visual cortex, some species have eyes that are just basic lenses, but our eyes can cross reference information within the brain to calculate depth. That's a better solution, than say, a fly's eye network, and the sign of a further evolved species.

I would expect an advanced intelligent non-human species to exhibit many of the same traits seen in humans, and perhaps others we have not yet evolved (or better solutions than we currently have, like a better visual cortex, able to absorb/process more data...)

-WFA

Originally posted by jkrog08
Really it all depends on what theory you subscribe to whether ET life would be similar (ie; bi-pedal) or different than us. I personally think that evolution would be no different anywhere else and that bipeds are the most suitable form for a species to advance.

Absolutely, and not only that, but any ET species that might visit us is going to be bipedal - show me a non biped that can pilot any sort of vehicle

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


I agree very much with the ponts you raised.

While I was considering the same point, I decided that interplanetary species would probably be terrestrial rather than aquatic. The reason for that is that it is a lot easier to develop metal forging in a gaseous environment containing oxygen, rather than a liquid environment (such as water), where oxygen is dissolved in solution.

This doesn't mean it is impossible for an aquatic species to develop metal forging, as they probably would need a gaseous atmosphere above containing oxygen, but can you imagine how hard it would be for a "sea monkey" to invent metal fire?

Why has it not been brought up that babies are born with a blue film over their eyes?