Friday, November 16, 2007

Yabba Dabble Doo: How Aleister Crowley Introduced the Iconic Gray Alien

So, if these entities we know as the grays are not from another planet, or perhaps not even aliens after all, then what? The theories and speculations are legion. It has been postulated that primates may have not been the only of earth's species to evolve into intelligent creatures, that the grays may be the end result of the evolvement of dolphins, turtles, whales, insects, or dinosaurs-and that these evolved forms may be either terrestrially or non-terrestrially oriented.


Lots of good stuff here.

(Thanks again, Steve!)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Personally, I don't think the figure in Crowley's drawing looks anything like the one on the cover of "Communion." IMHO....

Mac said...

The massive bald head and diminished facial features stand out. The difference is the eyes, which of course are much more dramatic in the "Communion" painting.

Anonymous said...

Well, the interesting thing is that the being on the cover of "Communion" actually DOESN'T have a massive head (though it is bald, that's true). In fact, one major contrast between the two heads is the fact that the Communion head is mostly FACE (with a very modest "cranial cap") while the Crowley head is mostly huge, bulging cranium framing a very TINY face. Come on, Mac, take a really close look at the two and think about it. (I shall return with more differences.)

mr. intense said...

Interesting, though, as illustrated at the link, that the two faces seem to share the same overall shape when the two images are superimposed.

Anonymous said...

They do have the same overall shape, a V below with a rounded top, but there the resemblance ends. The proportions of every feature are totally different. In fact, I would argue that Crowley's drawing is neither responsible for the appearance of the grays nor reflects his own direct experience of these of similar entities.

richelle said...

Thanks for posting a link to my article. To those who say the faces and features are not similar, please read the article. I point out some subtle features that may indicate there are at least some hints of the to-be-future gray in Crowley's sketch. I don't assert the creatures are the same--simply that they are tied aesthetically, and that LAM is the first modern representation of the transformative gray. And just curious, anon, an argument that LAM was not representational of Crowley's direct experience goes right up against the official story. Supposedly, it was drawn as a portrait, from a real model. Just wondering what about it gives you the impression that it is otherwise?

Bsti said...

Especially if you know your Crowleyana, and this experience in particular. It's almost as if Anon is tempted to reject such a notion for personal reasons.

Bsti said...

oh, and a couple of other points to consider in this context: Dee's documentations of the Enochian "angels", and Dr. Michael Persinger's electromagnetic experiments that induce very similar experiences, including visions of Greys. It just may very well be the Archetype that supplants That For Which We Have No Visual Context. Perhaps we humans are incapable of "seeing" the phenomenon within our limited visual spectrum, and the Grey is the default vision.