Martian

There's a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I've watched the full video (obtained by *ahem* alternative means) and I'm less convinced now than I was prior. I noticed a trend in the series of experts. The media and animatronics/puppeteering experts professed doubt and believed it to be a hoax, albeit a well done one, while the ufologists were all convinced. The flaw here is that ufologists are biased, in that this is there proclaimed field of study even though the existence of extraterrestrial beings and craft has not yet been proven and therefore predisposed to believe this sort of evidence.

Further, leaked intelligence briefings and documents are cited in the video, however no sources are cited for said documents. How did these documents get out into the public? There's not even an anonymous source cited; rather, they seem to have just appeared one day. With the proliferation of the internet, it's possible for me to type up some 'intelligence briefings' in word, 'leak' these out to the public, proclaim myself a ufologist (rather than being an actual scientific field, ufologists assume the title themselves) and begin spreading information that I know is fake with a high probability that at least part of the public will believe it to be true. If done well enough it's quite possible that I'll even fool some of these so-called experts. It's worth remembering that for every seemingly authentic document there are a thousand obvious fakes out there and therefore it must all be taken with a grain of salt.

It's very difficult to prove or disprove this entirely simply because there isn't enough evidence provided to draw any sort of conclusion. But going back to the statement I made at the beginning and considering a lot of inconsistancies and improbabilities provided here it doesn't seem likely that this isn't anything more than a well-orchestrated hoax. That this Victor character required financial reimbursement for the tape and interviews he provided simply lends credence to that conclusion, which he himself acknowledged. If the source of this information is himself acknowedging that it's not very credible, how are we as the thinking public expected to believe it?

Looking into the posts above, I see a lot of admitions that people believe it because they want to. That's fine and I'm not going to deny you that, but consider that if your primary reason for crediting this evidence is your own personal desire for it to be true rather than any solid analysis, how likely is it that it is? I may want to believe that I'm wealthy beyond imagination, but my bank statements say otherwise. Sure it's possible that I have some Swiss bank account started in my name by someone behind my back that contains unbelievable riches and I dearly want to believe it, but I'm not going to until I have hard proof of it.

ObieX, as valid a theory as any I suppose, when discussing this sort of thing. The only problem I have is that these greys are so far different from us and it makes me wonder what sort of evolutionary pressures would cause the adaptations seen. Physiologically the greys are very like us, but differ in some small but crucial ways. Their necks, as noted in the video are anchored at the center of their skulls rather than the back, they're skin shows either no pigmentation or one totally alien to ours, they seem to have trouble with our atmosphere (though interestingly enough, it doesn't seem entirely toxic to them) their eyes are much larger and very dark, which along with their supposed preference for dark rooms seems to suggest that they exist in a low light environment and their noses and ears are vestigial. Given our way as a species of adapting our environment to us rather than adapting to our environment, I can't help but wonder what would cause such radical changes. So, possible, yes. The whole thing is possible, as is the idea that they come from planet X on the edge of our own solar system. It's all possible, which is why some people will insist on beliving it to be irrefutable. The question you need to ask is not whether it's possible or not but rather how plausible it is.

And the dolphin rebuttal, because I promised I would.

On reading the site linked in the original post, it's put forth and becomes evident that the author believes these greys to share a common ancestor with dolphins. However, the author seems to go back and forth. He suggests first that it's possible that they share a cetacean ancestor and simply never returned to the sea, then goes on to point out aspects of their physiology that they share with dolphins. However it's worth remembering that many of the dolphin's adaptations came after they re-entered the sea and thus wouldn't be shared with another cetacean descendent unless that descendent also returned to the sea and branched off at a later date. Of particular note is the melon, present on dolphins and which the author claims is capable of emitting large bursts of ultrasound as a form of attack or defense (it's worth noting that I was incapable of finding independent verification of this technique). This adaptation would be nearly useless on land, simply because air doesn't carry sound nearly as effectively as water. Where a dolphin could use such an attack to stun and disorient underwater, the greys would need a much larger burst to accomplish the same effect, which would likely necessitate a larger area of the brain devoted to it and a very pronounced bulge in the anterior region of the skull. That bulge simply isn't present on any representation of these creatures I've ever seen and doesn't seem especially likely, as it's relatively ineffective and wouldn't develop in the first place. Dolphins likely developed this after developing sonar as a form of navigation, which further is likely to have occured after they returned to the sea, where light levels are much lower and visual navigation isn't very reliable.

Which provides a nice segueway into the eyes. The author of that site also notes that the grey's eyes appear similar to those of a dolphin, in that they're large and black and (apparently) have a protective cover. This is further in contradiction to the theory that greys branched off from ceteceans prior to their return to the sea, as a dolphins eyes are well-suted to the low light underwater environment in which they live. In the brightly lit world above ground, large dark eyes are much less needed and may well prove to be a detriment. The greys don't appear to have any sort of iris to control the amount of light that enters their eyes, which in bright daylight would cause them to be overstimulated and essentially blinded.

And then there's the skin. Again this is an underwater development; living underwater is much colder than above land, therefore a dolphin's skin is adapted to it. A dolphin has very little pigment in it's skin, as it's unnecessary where there's no light; we developed it to protect ourselves from the intense light of the sun. A dolphin's skin is also nonporous, which leads to them being hairless. This prevents some moisture exchange, which can cause heat loss. These adaptations give a dolphin's skin it's unique colour and texture, noted as similar to a grey's and wholly unnecessary (and again, even detrimental) on land.

Thus, in summary, the author is self-contradicting. He states in one breath that dolphins and greys likely share a common ancestor than goes on to enumerate similarites greys show to dolphins as evidence, even though the similarites were all developed after the dolphins and greys parted ways on the evolutionary tree. And aside from all that, cetacean and homo sapeins DNA is incompatible, as cetacean DNA contains a different number of chromosomes.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame