Talk:Reptilian humanoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reptilian humanoid article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Please post new discussions at bottom of page.

Contents

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

The subject of reptilian humanoids remains in the realm of fiction precisely because it is something for which there is neither proff nor evidence of any sort. People who believe in the "conspiracy theories" about the stories, and hold them to be true, are relying in either their own imagination, or on a source that is based on imagination alone. Hence, it is merely fiction. There is no need to disprove fiction once we know that is what it is.75.192.127.227 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
Reptiles are dry, not slimy. Buy a field guide or go to a petting zoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.247.73 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Shouldn't this entire article be labelled under 'fiction'? Blob4000 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that would only be so if this entry covered reptilian humanoids in entertainment-fiction (TV shows , etc). Fiction doesn't cover topics that are presented as being real or believed/claimed to be real, even if they aren't actually real. For example, a UFO hoax is counted as being fact because the hoax is a real hoax, not because the UFO in the hoax is real. - perfectblue 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
That's when HUMANS are presumed to have began working stone. We're talking about the Reptoids here. How do you know when THEY started mining? KWaal 01:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.201.181 (talk)

[edit] 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".

I find it little biased that ICKE is talking about CLINTONS and OBAMA to be reptiles. Hilary and Obama both are running for presidency and both are DEMOCRATS. I actually heard BUSH and POWEL were reptiles. Also there no source or footnote for this statement. To be fair it should include one democrat and one republican. ((( SNOW ))) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.41.69.213 (talk) 19:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

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 came 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)

[edit] Sometimes 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).

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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.

Go for it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pick a Picture and live with it fer heaven's sake

The constant change, revert, change and revert that goes on with the picture used in theinfo box is becoming maddening. Many of us who watch this article do so to protect it from vanadlasim. Since none of the pictures wars editors every bother to note in their edits that they are changing the phot..AGAIN, I see on my watchlist that someone has edited this article and I come over here to look for vandalism. Please, please - describe your edit and reason for it in the Edit summary first and foremost. Then, please come to some consensus as to which fictional reptilliam you want in the infobox to avoid revert wars. Thanks for listening. Your friendly non-reptilian Vandal-watcher Lisapollison 23:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to change the pic in the template to the left of the page back to original, as I beleive that the original better reflects the nature of the article. The majority of it is about conspiracies and mytholigical creatures, not fiction and video games. --Differentgravy 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the current picture sux. It was changed back to a more appropriate picture and then reverted again. What gives? The reptillian humanoid is way better than the fake jar jar binks there nowLiPollis 07:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ape-like creature

Added a {{cn}} to "depicted" as I don't believe it. If there's a picture, (or several as "often depicting" would imply) put it in the article. Otherwise this is just backdoor racism. Gosh, and in a conspiracy theory too... whoever would have thought... Please bear in mind that a picture must be accurately described and of the same antiquity and provenance as the line suggests. On the off chance that it is not depicted but described that the author means, let's have tablet numbers and appropriate links please. Having only read the Sumerian and Babylonian theological texts in translation, I can't say for certain that this is untrue, but I don't recall it at all. 172.141.152.148 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Jasher?

I own a copy of the Book of Jasher and I don't recall anything about serpent people, If there is can someone tell me what chapter/verse? Arnie Gov 05:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I changed picture

I changed it back because it looks better :) Adam the Stampede 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe we should have a vote of some sort to decide which picture should be in the infobox, I have nocited that the picture has been changed between 4 or 5 different images (:OP kinda funny how it just changes one day haha, what do yall say? (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I VOTE for the picture Adam the Stampede used before the last revert. it's more like the creature described. the current character from a game that's pictured looks like jar jar binks' redneck cousin. Whatever we use should conform to the descriptions in the article so as to illustrate the text, right? it should not merely be one editors fave character from Final FantasyLiPollis 10:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I rather keep the current final fantasy picture, it has a much better appearance for a infobox picture and it relates well to the article (you dont need a fighter suit to be a reptilian hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But the problem is, it doesn't match the appearance of the reptialian humanoids described. The suit is not the issue, it's the morphology of the creature. The Jar Jar binks looking creature doesn't even come close to the descriptions given. the old picture was a better representation of what these people who believe in them say they look like.LiPollis 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever works best with the article then (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Noooooo not back to that pic again it looks bad my reptile one was better;) Adam the Stampede 09:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So, are we all happy with the 3 toed one now subtitled A reptilian humanoid as depicted in Mortal Kombat?? I think it better represents the descriptions in the article. If you aren't happy, please help us find another one but be sure to read the article and see what these folks are describing. It's a fairly consistant description of a humanoid figure. The other illustration of the dino guy is also close. I'm perfectly willing to look at links to other illustrations anyone might suggest to see if we can come up with one that makes everyone happy. LiPollis 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not. Jar Jar Binks is back. ;-) LiPollis 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Before putting an image in the openingi nfobox, take a look at the source tags. In almost every case, especially if the tag is Copyright, images from movies, video games, or any kind of popular media are not allowed outside articles or sections dealing directly with that game, character, or whatever. Otherwise, it is not fair use and is a copyright violation. An appropriatei mage would be one of a Reptilian humanoid that is not a fictional character created by someone else. Even the dinosauroid would not be ok in this situation, given the copyright tag (but it is ok in the section about the dinosauroid). Dinoguy2 02:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird

People on wikipedia are weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.168.93 (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] About proving the Icke's theory

Like most conspiracy theories, proving Icke's hypotheses is impossible, but he continues to sell books and give speaking engagements based on concepts ranging from the New Age to his political opinions.

They're drinking human blood, right? :)

The theory goes that they can't resist on the drop of a human blood, if i read it right. Somebody could well test this theory in front of a camera. We must just find the subject. I know it sounds silly but is a one way to test this hypothesy once and for all and put it to rest.AmonRaa (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I think just by definition, every theory is impossible to prove. The nice thing about theories is that it's entirely possible to disprove them. That statement sounds weaselly and should be rephrased. Dinoguy2 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
I was about to suggest the same thing; the sentence is glaringly weasel-worded.

[edit] External links mess

I've moved the complete external links section here, see below that for rationale and discussion. --Pjacobi 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misjudged one or two as my brain increasingly hurt when checking them, but IMHO they all have in common, that they are

  • unreliable
  • non notable

Yeah, we can use unreliable sources in articles about themselves, but stricly speaking, how should this apply to "Reptilian humanoid". Less strictly speaking the article is about "Reptilian humanoid beliefers", so some of them may be used, but to source specific statements using references. The "external links" section is for further reading at sites we judge as especially informative.

Pjacobi 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the subject is a myth/fantasy so what does reliablity (not "reianability") have to do with external links? The links are notable in that they review reptilian cases. Oh and I fixed the syntax of the intervew link so it works now (someone thought it was an internal wikilink). -Eep² 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of reliable, even scholarly, sources for myths and legends. The less can be found for a specific topic, the less can and should be written in an encyclopedia.
If the links are notable, then pls demonstrate that: Are they mentioned by a reliable source?
Pjacobi 19:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Research them yourself for their credibility but to just mindlessly remove all the links because you don't think they're credible doesn't fly. Put an appropriate cleanup template (like template: external links) if you disagree with or dispute the links. -Eep² 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Putting pastel colored templates on all four sides of crap isn't a solution. Also, per proof of a negative it's misguided to ask for evidence of non-notability. Of course we can start discussing PageRank and Alexa here, but the external links given won't be noticable there. --Pjacobi 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagree all you want but you are the one who is disputing the links so it is up to you to prove their non-notability. Think of it as a trial: you're accusing someone and now you have to bring your case to court. Now, where's your evidence? Prove non-notability... -Eep² 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is at the editor wanting to add something. --Pjacobi 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in this case since the links have been there for a while without dispute. The ball's in your court, bub. Prove it or leave it. -Eep² 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. --Pjacobi 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image Change

This is John Rhodes. I appreciate everyone's work in contributing to this page. For those of you who safeguard it's content, my hat's off to you all. I would like to bring to your attention that I changed the image to one that I believe is more accurate the one already posted. It is derived from the hundreds of reports that I have acquired over the years from eyewitnesses who claim to have encountered, or seen from a distance, a Reptilian-Humanoid. There are other forms, to be sure, but this composite illustration can provided a pretty good general image. I hope you don't mind my contribution and look forward to reading your response. If you would like, you can write me here or at the Reptoids Research Center, located at http://www.reptoids.com. Thanks again. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptohunter (talk • contribs) 23:11, May 17, 2007 UTC

I see you've made changes to the mythology section of the page, could you possibly provide a citation for this? The old version wasn't specifically cited either, so I can't be sure which is more accurate. Someguy1221 08:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Cremo´s " Hidden History of the Human Race " , M.D. Magee´s " Who Lies Beneath ? ", Dr. Seguin´s " Dinosauroid"

Has anyone here heard of Michael Cremo´s "Hidden History of the Human Race" ? or M.D. Magee´s "Who Lies Beneath?". I think these guys are mistakenly talking about ancient "human" civilizations when in fact they should be asking about ancient "Dinosauroids" ? Magee claims Dinosaurs might have developed intelligence 100 million years before humans did. They might have erected gigantic cities, waged wars, built spaceships and blasted off into space while we were still swinging from trees clueless. Whereas Michael Cremo's "Human Devolution" book presents evidence for tool-like artifacts found in African mine shafts that date back 200 million years or so. Cremo believes the tools are evidence of ancient human civilizations, whereas Magee would probably claim they were left behind by intelligent dinosaurs !!!! -----------Moonwatcher

[edit] Is the reference to The Doors really neccessary?

I don't really see how it fits in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.142.48 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - Spudddd 27/1/08

[edit] Look, Sitchin is a loonie, BUT...

not once have I ever heard Sitchin describe the Annunaki (or Nephilim) of his mythos as reptilian. They are human. As he said, "They look like us, we look like them." David Icke was the first person that I know of to claim that Sitchin's Annunaki were reptilian. Serendipodous 12:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosauroid reptilian? No. Avian.

IF theropod dinosaurs survived to the present day and evolved into intelligent "dinosauroids" they would actually be covered in feathers and would look a lot like the bird people. T.Neo 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mentinoed in the article, with a link to this site which attempts to re-interpret the Dinosauroid based on a more modern view of dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The website's dinosauroid looked a little odd, but it shows how anthropocentric people have been(and will be). The suggestion that such a creature would manipulate stuff with its feet ignores the fact that theropods had their arms free for a reason, and I am sure that they gripped prey with their hands. It makes sense that a dinosauroid would maintain a oveall theropod body plan just like birds have, and shows how real-life aliens will look very differant from humans. What is the red wattle on the dinosauroids neck anyway? T.Neo (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Decoration I assume, many modern birds have wattles and evidence exists for them in a few dinosaur skin impressions (Pelecanimimus, Anatotitan, T. rex). Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The arms where rather small, but I guess that was to fit in with the idea that it manipulates stuff with its feet, which doesnt seem to make sence. Interesting, though, and one wonders what would might happen in a parallell universe where the asteroid didnt hit. T.Neo (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading more on a link to a blog from the website (part of which criticesed the old dinosauroid) I would like to point out that a dinosauroid would have smaller teeth and claws. Why? Because if a dinosauroid can make weapons it doesnt need teeth or claws to hunt its prey. would a dinosauoid cook its meat? No, because its theropod teeth would still be adapted to eating meat. T.Neo (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What is so bad about Reptilians?

The people that are claimed to be actually reptilian, really aren't that bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.37 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stop Press! Bush and Cheney after shapeshift!!!

Here it is people the holy grail of shapeshifting evidence. As they say; "a picture speaks a thousands words". Here is a picture of boy george bush and lizard man dick cheney after having shapeshifted!!!! And you know, I actually saw them on TV and they were talking away, although their voices were different, they're still American! I dont't have the video footage but here's a picture, [3] --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction?

The article talks in definite terms about how the dinosaurs were extinct (asteroid). Is this justified? Spuddddd 26/01/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they are explaining that the asteroid idea is what Dale Russell believed was the cause of the extinction of hte dinosaurs, and in turn, using his hypothesis as an example. IronCrow (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Truthism

What the fuck is up with the last part of the article talking about "truthists"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.244 (talk • contribs)

Removed it. Did incorporate a reference to "truthism.com", but it doesn't appear to be a religion, or indeed particularly well disposed toward religion. Serendipodous 12:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The Picture

Could someone please get a better picture of the reptilian at the top, it looks to light and luminisiant, thanks. this is my first post! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Alex Moritz"

There's a bunch of references to an "Alex Moritz" in the "Modern Claims" section of the article. There are no citations, and I can't find any references to him in connection with lizards on Google. Anyone opposed to removing all mentions? Shostie (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly nonsense. I removed it. If anyone wants to put it back, please discuss here first. PubliusFL (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"He contends that most of the world's leaders, from Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and George W. Bush to members of the British Royal Family, are in fact related to the 7-foot (2.1 m) tall, blood-drinking, laser blaster-toting reptilians from the star system Alpha Draconis." Does that sound biased to anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormchaser (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a succinct summary of the man's expressed beliefs. John Nevard (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's also a succinct summary of one of George W. Bush's actions to say "He violently invaded a country on the pretense of seizing WMDs, despite the fact that he had practically no evidence that any such weapons existed", but it's still better to say "He moved to occupy Iraq on the grounds that its leaders were concealing weapons of mass destruction. This claim later turned out to be false." Come on. "Blood-drinking, laser blaster-toting"? The phrasing is obviously meant to try to make him sound ridiculous. And don't say "Well, have any better ideas?", because at the moment I don't. That's why I'm discussing it instead of making the edit myself.

Stormchaser (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)