Talk:List of reptilian humanoids

Archived discussions.

• Talk:Reptilian humanoid/Delete
• Talk:Reptilian humanoid/Archive
• /Archive 1

Please post new discussions at bottom of page.

"The black-headed people"

The "Black-headed people" were considered slaves in the Sumerian caste hierarchy. Odd, I thought "the black-headed people" is simply what the Sumerians called themselves. If this is part of Sitchin's "hypothesis", it should be clearly denoted as such; the present phrasing makes it seem like historical fact which happens to relate to the whole "shapechanging lizards control the White House" school of thought.

Possibility "Lizardmen" Exist?

I've always wondered whether a species of intelligent dinosaurs, probably descendents from a highly intelligent raptor species, still live deep under the Earth's crust somewhere. Perhaps 64 million years ago when the meteor came and wiped out most of the dinosaurs, these ultra-intelligent raptors hid under the ground ever since and come out occasionally during ancient times and sometimes now. I don't think it is very possible but there really is no proof. If they do exist they may live deep in caves we have not discovered. What do you think? Zachorious 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

i think they were mostly wiped out in wars with the Mole People some time ago, during the early middle ages if i'm not mistaken. —Charles P._(Mirv) 04:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They were not actully wiped out, just driven aboveground.Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--I think that sounds like the plot of a video game... Oh WAIT, it was!

I'm not so sure. I think I married one of them.

The fact is, reptilians can't be disproven, as they can shape-shift! Foday 05:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem with all conspiracy theories isn't it, by their very nature you can't prove them or disprove them. --MrDenton 18:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Zachorious: do you mean that there is no proof that they don't exist? There is also no proof that Santa doesnt't exist...--Damifb 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DEATH TO ALL REPTOIDS AND ALL OF THEIR LOYAL FOLLOWERS!!!

Cryptids

In the second paragraph is the phrase "similarly to other cryptids"... a cryptid is an animal that has not been proven to exist but is believed to exist because of myth or legend (such as the Coelacanth before the 1990s...).

Do these reptiles really fit in this category? 193.129.65.37 05:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are cryptids. These creatures are not believed in by everyone. Why not reptilians? Foday 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Credo Mutwa and the chitahuri

Far from being a general belief... so far as I am aware and can establish, the only Zulu person who has ever promoted the notion of "chitahuri" is Mutwa himself. Humansdorpie 14:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful and informative article!

It does not state that reptilians exist, so I don't see what any sceptics have to complain about. There are plenty of articles on similar subjects such as greys that are not causing controversy. Obviously there are some people who believe in these beings. I am a sceptic myself, but I feel the same way about religious subjects, which have more popular support, but no more real evidence than "psuedoscientific" topics. Foday 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored a political reference to reptilians

It is exactly that: a political reference to reptilians. It is not using the word reptile as an insult; it uses the word reptilian, which is worth noting in this article. Foday 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Reptilian" is the adjective form of "reptile," and from the context of the quote it's clear that it was meant in that sense: having the characteristics of a reptile, specifically, being cold, unfeeling, and "slimy." It has no more bearing on "reptilian humanoids" than a quote about "gray winter days" would belong on a page about little gray aliens. Should be removed. Kordeth 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you would say the same thing about the evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet quote if it wasn't so explicit in its language. One could argue that the word reptilian simply means reptile-like in almost any context. The difference you are referring to is more like calling someone a grey alien and simply meaning they are an alien that is grey in color. Referring to polititans as reptilian in either sense of the word is significant in light of the conspiracy theories that claim a large number of polititians are reptilians. Foday 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then reword it to indicate that the conspiracy theorists who believe in reptilian humanoids have seized on the quote as "evidence." You have to consider intent and context, and from the context of the quote it's quite clear that "reptilian bastards" is being used in the sense of "very unpleasant men who exhibit cold, unfeeling qualities and ruthless self-advancement" rather than "members of a shapeshifting extraterrestrial race who are the secret masters of the world, and also they were born out of wedlock." Note that the word "alien" appears nowhere in the quote, nor does any other phrase indicating reference to this conspiracy. If I were to say "the IRS are a bunch of vampires," I think any reasonable person would realize that I mean the IRS has "vampiric" characteristics of parasitism and the theft of something vital to other people's lives, not that the audit department is full of pine boxes filled with Transylvanian earth and "NO GARLIC" signs. Kordeth 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the sentence: While there is no evidence that Bushnell used the term "reptilian" to mean anything other than "reptile-like", this quote is significant in light of the conspiracy theories regarding reptilians in government. Foday 03:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is it isn't significant. There is no evidence that it was used in a related context, and even if it were that would not make the quote noteable. The first quote is obviously related to actual reptiles (not aliens), and is not noteable in the actual reptiles article. The second quote is no more noteable in this article. I am deleting it.

Add "They Live" as media reference?

I'll admit to not being a "believer" in the Reptilian conspiracy, but I have a friend who is and fills me in on it. I'm surprised that the movie "V" is mentioned but the enjoyably campy "They Live" is not mentioned; it seems to actually dramatize (albeit in a simple way) our contemporary society as controlled by hidden beings (who are more skeleton-esque than lizard-esque) in a way that seems to get some of the big details right -- human/alien cooperation, mind control, etc.

Hundreds of public-domain-pictures to bee uploaded to commons

please see: http://images.google.it/images?q=www.reptilianagenda.com&hl=it&btnG=Cerca+immagini

You'll find hundreds of good pictures which are old enough to be public domain. Some are art: Blakes painting / The quetzalcoatl also is a nice example: quetzi Or have a look here: martin and an reptoid?

Foreigner 09:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reptilian humanoids in fiction

I'm going to move all the 'see also' links that relate to works of fiction to Reptilian humanoids in fiction. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Retitle article "Reptilian humanoids (cryptozoology)"?

As that seems to be the main thrust of the article and there is a page for reptilian humanoids in fiction. Please comment. Foday 09:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Secret History of Procopius says that a pious hermit fled from an audience with Justinian, because the hermit saw that a demon sat upon the throne. This corroborates the shapeshifting reptilian theory.

- Appius Claudius Priscus

Weasel Words Tag

The weasel words tag has been removed, however, this article still contains weasel words: eg. "Several ancient peoples all over the world have described reptilian beings..." and "An early instance in literature..." and "Even in modern times, some claim to have encountered reptilian humanoids". There are probably other places where weasel words are used in this entry. In most instances, the specific information is available in the article, it just needs someone to rewrite these statements with the specific information referenced. GAThrawn22 22:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's nobody here but us. Jump right in. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglo American Company

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Anglo American Company discovered physical evidence of 60,000 year old mines? It seems quite unbelievable. If humans were digging mines back then they'd probably barely reach twenty feet deep. I did a quick search and every hit leads to a UFO/conspiracy theory site refering to Reptoids. If no citation can be provided, the sentence should be removed.

4.236.111.80 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Boiler Bro Joe

I can't speak for the mines mentioned in this entry, but I can confirm that humans were digging mines 60,000 plus years ago, though not on the scale that we are today. I've only personally visited later mines used to quarry things like flint, but they are quite impressive and quite deep.

perfectblue 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue: please provide references for this.--Damifb 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me state again I'VE PERSONALLY VISITED.... This is a talk page, not the main article, I'm not submitting something as WP:V, just making a statement as to my own experiences. I saw some examples of later mines (not 60,000 year old ones) while I was on a holiday in Britain, but there are some much bigger and much earlier ones around. Here's a picture of a Flint Mine in Pleigne, [[1]] Switzerland that's about 8,000 years old.

perfectblue 08:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The figure of 60,000 is unlikely, even for flint mining. Please see the article on The Neolithic Revolution for more precise dating of when Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) are presumed to have begun working stone and therefore by extension, presumably mining flint for napping. Like perfectblue, I have personally visited some very old flint working sites. I wouldn't go so far as to refer to flint working as "mining" per se, but I could see the word being used in limited context. My own work was in New York State ranging from Clovis culture and on up through the Iroquois confederacy. If you accept Clovis as being as old as 11,000 years ago and The Neolthic Revolution as 25,000 years ago, that's still pretty dern old, don't ya think? In addition, there is the Tlapacoya site in central Mexico that shows the working of Obsidian as far back as 21,000 years before the present. It really depends on your definition of mine. People as far back as 60,000 years ago were certainly working mineral deposits for pigments and making stone tools. if that's what the person citing the ancient mines meant by mining, they wouldn't be technically wrong, just not clear enough for other readers to understand what they meant.Lisapollison 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please!

"He contends that most of our world's leaders, from George W. Bush to members of the British royal family, are in fact seven-foot tall, blood-drinking reptilians".

Fellows, do we have to include every story someone has ever come up with? --Damifb 20:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you're talking about David Icke? Icke is a loon, but he's a very notable loon. Which is what counts here. He cam third in a British poll on mad celebrities [[2]] , which is saying quite a lot since Britain is known for its love of mad celebrities, but not for its belief in UFO conspiracies.

Icke has over 20 books out, so he easily passes the notability criteria.

perfectblue 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK... thanks for the answer. But I would like to see the "loony" thing more explicited.--Damifb 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1) That would be POV 2) He's talking about giant human-lizard creatures. What more do you need?

perfectblue 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a decent Wikipedia article on David Icke for those wondering about him. He shows up as a talking head on many History channel shows on conspiracies. The article has recently been edited well and covers him pretty fairly. As noted above, he may be a loon, but he is a loon who speaks intelligently on many subjects and whose unified conspiracy theory is quite appealing to those who find such things satisfying. In my opinion, he is at the forefront of the movement to accept such beliefs as new religious dogma.Lisapollison 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Somtimes the truth is intermixed with false information

Wikipedia is meant to give all sides of the information at hand; not just some. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IAM (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Changed Picture

On the info box I changed the picture for a because it looks better than the recent one. I hope you guys aren't upset.Ender_Wiiggin 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we?

Just for, well comedy really, can we add a picture of the lizardman??

Pretty please. He's a cool guy and is as close as anyone is going to get of getting a picture of some reptile/humanoid... As he's actually real.