Talk:Reptilian humanoid/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Right. I've taken all the "reptilianoid" stuff and stuck it here, on the grounds that it's better to have a single place for it, rather than to stick it all over the place. For the record, I'm with the skeptics. -- The Anome 19:16, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Being 'with the skeptics' is evidence of a shame-based 4th circuit psychological matrix, in my opinion... I don't really align myself with anyone in particular, but do have various personal theories (rather than one one-dimensional opinion)...

"If at first an idea is not absurd, there is no hope for it."

-Albert Einstein

- Khranus


Khranus

Any reason why you have moved the sentence referring to Reptilian humanoids in fiction to an obscure part of the paragraph dealing with who actually believes in these beings? DJ Clayworth 21:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article primarily deals with theories about real reptilian beings. Moved it to the Phil Dick part because he's a prominent sci-fi author who mentioned three-eyed amphibious beings from Sirius which he personally saw in visions during his experiences during the late 1970s. He wrote about them in VALIS, a semi-ficional account of his actual experiences. (I had explained this, but I guess it got deleted somehow) (I'm a Star Trek fan myself, and have been since I was a kid, but Star Trek doesn't directly relate to this article as much as the theories of David Icke, Zecharia Sitchin, and the thought experiments of Dale Russell) Khranus


My point is that if someone came looking for info about the fiction, they would not find it in the place you put it.

Also there should be a sentence somewhere in the article pointing out that these theories are not taken seriously by the mainstream. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Khranus. You have now removed several times a simple sentence pointing out that these theories are not accepted by most people. Please explain the logic behind this removal. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


It reinforces closed-mindedness, and isn't useful to the article as a whole. It's also an overgeneralisation... It would be more appropriate to add in a section for actual evidence-based reasons why people would discount such theories, rather than promoting blind dismissal of ideas...

The point isn't to preach anything. Quite the opposite. The point is to cause peoples' memetic complexes to overflow with thought, and thus diversify. After enough mental shock, dogmas break down, and people cease to believe in things without questioning them.

I don't personally believe anything, but I keep my neuro-linguistic complex rich in various diverse memes, so that one can't take over my consciousness and turn my mind into a self-destructive totalitarian dictatorship. We've seen such things happen to people who don't have a healthy and varied meme-intake (just look at the Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower Society... They literallly discourage 'independant thinking', which they regard as 'evil' and 'prideful'!

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but honesty is more important than courtesy, and I must say that the Jehovah's Witnesses, along with many other religions like them, are a dangerous and anti-human cult invented to deceive human beings into becoming unwitting slaves to a corrupt system.

Just look at Catholic Europe during the Middle-Ages--same sort of insane corruption. The Tibetan Buddhists (Dalai Lama) cooperated with the Nazis (as did Pope Pius XII). The Roman Emperor Cult was used to justify that corrupt dictator's supreme power over his country. The Mormons have been involved in various racist, violent and KKK-like endeavours since their creation. (there are many many more examples)

I'm not saying that the religious doctrines themselves are corrupt, I'm saying that they have been corrupted by institutuionalising them. I agree with many of the things that the Mormons say, actually, despite the apparent fact that I regard their 'Prophet' as either a conman or a lunatic, and see their cult as dangerous to the United States of America as a nation. Similarly, I am a huge fan of Buddhist ideas, particularly Zen/Mahayana notions of transcendence and spirituality, but the Dalai Lama I view as a corrupt man responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people because of his unwavering support of the UN and their policies. He recently even supported Bush's 'War on Terrorism'! Clearly this man isn't the sort of samadhi-attained god we're told to believe he is. Then there's Mother Theresa ('nuff said)...

Basically, Dogmas are a huge problem in society today, and the disentegration of those dogmas via the introduction of controversial memes will help people overcome their fears, and thus, hatreds (xenophobia, in particular), and will open up all of Humankind to a more mutual and diverse relationship with itself. Currently we're divided up into countries which seem bent on winning childish territorial disputes or proving that their god has a bigger dick than everyone else's god...

People need to stop viewing their opinions as absolute, and start realising that they're theories--perceptions, not fact. If this occured, people might just be able to express themselves honestly in society without worrying about shame to the extent that they apparently do now...


- Khranus


Not quite sure what the above rant was about, but honesty (which you seem very keen on) is about truth. It is true that most people do discount these theories (possibly because there is very little evidence). Therefore we ought to record this truth in the article. Not to record it gives a false impression. After all, if people are truly enlightened then it won't matter to them that other people disagree, will it? DJ Clayworth 18:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


There is no 'truth'. Honesty isn't about truth, it's about honest expression of one's thoughts/feelings/perceptions, as opposed to belief in/support of an 'absolute truth' (the likes of which simply doesn't appear to exist in the phenomenological world).

Besides, that's not even a truth, it's an assumption and an over-generalisation. To include it only increases the unfair and deceptive lean toward the socially accepted that's already pathetically evident in the 'pedia in the guise of 'NPOV'... I've seen many cases in which false claims of 'NPOV' have cost articles their value as relatively objective data (especially in those articles dealing with religion)...

The only way to be even remotely objective about this issue is to remove any encouragement of social shame-based 4th-circuit matrix thinking. In other words, remove the emotional 'I'll be weird if I think about this' sensation of alienation, and encourage independant thought, as opposed to fear of rejection in society.

Therefore I shall again remove it, and will continue to do so. I don't see why you make such a big deal about it being there--it's pointless, and very POV, in my opinion.

- Khranus


Changed the article, adding a new section.

The reptiloids should be studied as organisms independant of whatever social or behavioural patterns they demonstrate.

Therefore POV comments about whether they are taking over the world or are benevolent, or simply figments of our imagination, etc. belong in a section devoted to such notions.

(there is substantial evidence that these reptiloids do exist, by the way. I'd give their existence about 70% probability. Higher than anything the state department says (to borrow from RA Wilson)...)


If I interpret Sombunall to mean 'some but not all' then that is better. This needs to be quantified though - after all 'some but not all' people believe pretty much anything. Also, please can we use English words. And if you really don't believe in NPOV you might to reconsider your contributions to Wikipedia. You're going to find a lot of people disagree with your views. I'm also going to promote the first two sentences.

P.S. If you have 'substantial evidence that these reptiloids do exist', maybe this talk page would be the place to bring it to a wider audience.

DJ Clayworth 21:41, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I don't believe in NPOV, but its the most popular current model employed, and thus I at least strive for a rational sort of 'NPOV', something relatively objective, as opposed to what many people mistakenly believe is 'NPOV', that being the socially acceptable 'norms'. In other words, we should take out all the burning information about how Pope Pius XII was heavily invovled with the Nazis, and at the same time decrease the amount of negative attention we give Hitler (his partner in crime), by recognising that, objectively speaking, his regime was not any more particularly bad for its time than many other regimes. (since this topic seems to arouse controversy, from the general population, I'll explain a bit. I think that people have been brainwashed to believe that the Nazis killing 6 million PEOPLE (not just Jews) was somehow exceptional for that war, when it fact it was not exceptional by any means, and the Stalinists actually killed over 10 million of their civilians during the same period, killing another 20 million before Stalin died. Far more than the Nazis could have dreamed of. (it's my contention that the Holocaust is both being used by corporations to justify 'Zionism', and to divert attention from the atrocities committed by the U.S., Britain and esp. the USSR during the same period of time as the Nazis.) I'm not pro-Nazi by any means, but I think that they receive an inordinate amount of attention, as if they're somehow 'special', when actaully plenty of societies in history, including contemporaries of the Nazis, were far worse when it comes to genocide than they were.)


For all sorts of interesting memes describing various perspectives on the non-human/extraterrestrial/UFO phemenon, from Jacques Vallee to Aleister Crowley to Terence McKenna to Cosmic Awareness Communications, visit the Blue Brethren (Fraternitas Caeruleus), at

[1] B:.B:.

They, like Robert Anton Wilson, approach the phenomenon with a sort of wry, sarcastic tone which manages to make one laugh and give interesting perspectives in a semi-serious manner on several probable explanations. The complete lack of any real Dogma beyond 'Do What Thou Wilt' is both entertaining and practical, and certainly adds to the intellectual quality of the site...

(Robert Anton Wilson, by the way, in part coined the sombunall terminology. It is a rational word which must be spread to reduce the amount of irrational stereotyping done so consistently by humans today.)

Khranus, have you considered taking your article to http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/ where there is not such an emphasis on NPOV as here? -- The Anome 14:52, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Khranus

For someone who complains about the suppression of information, you seem very reluctant to have anyone else's views apart from yours in this article. On a side note, it's a good idea to sign your posts, even if we know it's you. DJ Clayworth 15:47, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Well, apparently,someone is mutilating this article and removing pictures and information, rather than adding information that might be useful...

Or putting information in the wrong category, such as in the top area where the reptilians are theoretically discussed rather than in the area on opinions on reptilians and such.


DJ, I'm sorry if I deleted anything that you added in refreshing the page. It appears that The Anome is the one mutilating the article, and I had to refresh to before he did so. Khranus

And Anome, please explain your reasoning behind removing the most important part of the article--that being the part describing reptioids as organisms rather than going off about POV opinions on them. Khranus


Thank you for the apology, Khranus. I'm sorry you had to delete this stuff three times before seeing the error of your ways. I've added appropriate sentences. DJ Clayworth 14:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I was refreshing to before Anome deleted over half the article without reason, actually. I only found a slight problem with your addition of that particular sentence in that area of the article. But if you insist that we jump directly into discussing subjective opinion on the matter, I will concede, as long as we also both agree that there should be a section devoted to this matter in more detail (opinions on reptoids, theories on reptoids, etc.)... I have added a bit more detail to the first paragraph, to expound upon the debate over the existence of reptoids and how most researchers and debunkers in the area fall along the curve... Khranus

I still insist, by the way, on proliferating the 'Sombunall' meme, as well as giving a less bias and at least slightly more scientific and 'NPOV' view on Popular Opinion...

We don't really know how many people do or do not believe in reptoids, and though we both probably assume that most people in the western world don't, that's based on personal bias, media-indoctrination, and the elementalistic fallacy.

We also assume that the world immediately around us is both separate from the rest and reflects everything else directly. Just because most people we ecounter on a day-to-day basis do not believe in reptoids does not mean that most people throughout the entire western world share similar opinions. (this actually isn't the case with me, as I spend a lot of time discussing things objectively with some very open-minded people who tend to doubt everything but deny nothing. Though I assume its the case with you, based on my neurolinguistic imprint of you. Though I may be mistaken.) User:Khranus


If you insist on "proliferating the 'Sombunall' meme", please add an article about the word. There is no reason to be using a made-up word here, when there is a perfectly good English word (some) meaning exactly the same. I also think we will leave it to our readers to work out that being discounted doesn't make a theory impossible.

Also, do you have any references to back up your assertion that acceptance of the existence of reptiloids approaches 50% in Japan? (I assume that's what you mean - technically opinion being 'in equilibrium' just means it's not changing. It could be 'in equilibrium' with 0.000001% of people believing it.) And please sign your posts. DJ Clayworth 18:07, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me? Do you have any references to back up your claim that they aren't widely accepted to exist? Khranus

[2] B:.B:.

I have just read the "reptilian humanoid" entry, and I find it... mildly outrageous. I have never heard of anybody who actually believed in such a thing before, altho I had seen something similar to that sculpture on a program discussing variant evoloutionary possibilities. DOES any sane person really believe in this? The article suggests to me that it is concievable that the majority of people might! While I find that shockingly unrealistic, I am very interested in what sorts of ordinary people do believe in it (as opposed to psychics, drug guru's, etc..), and why (what proof they might have, etc...). Also, is this "Sombunall" thing something that you personally have invented, or is it becoming a common contraction? I hadn't heard of it before either, and if its a personal thing, it needs edited ;) JackLynch

Well then, you're new to the theory... Good...

Most likely, that was this sculpture, actually... For a brief time Dale Russell got quite a bit of recognition for that...

Define 'sane'... If 'sane' describes a certain set of opinions/dogmas, then I don't want to be sane...

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

The real definition of insanity is self-destructiveness, blindness and delusion, in my opinion, and therefore about 90% of humanity is 'insane'...

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

You are obviously a very 4th-circuit, shame-based individual... Does it matter how many people believe in reptoids? Did it matter how many people believed in a non-geocentric universe when Copernicus was alive? It seems to me that, by your definition, 'insane' people tend to be right more often than 'sane' people...

It's not a personal thing... It's a word used quite often by scientists, as it is part of a more logical and honest language called 'E-Prime', which is increasingly being merged with English to increase the rationality of the language. I'm just doing my part in attempt to actualise this merging--manifest it, if you will... Khranus

From my perspective:

  • a small minority of people believe in reptilian humanoids
  • the vast majority of people do not
  • furthermore, there is no scientifically credible evidence for the belief in reptilian humanoids
  • however, the belief itself is of encyclopedic interest

-- The Anome 08:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Totally agree, Anome. Khranus, however, seems determined to give these reptilids a wider audience. 'Sumbunall' was made up by Robert Anton Wilson as far as I can tell, and appears to be one of those words designed to make a simple concept appear exciting and revolutionary. DJ Clayworth 14:13, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Again! Such vigorous opposition! Hilarious and childish fear of the all-too-plausible! Khranus:. - J.A.M.M.

Removed from the article:

Robert Anton Wilson, Philip K. Dick and Timothy Leary all identified as 'Pythagoreans', apparently... 'Pythagoras' means, literally, 'I am the Serpent' in Ancient Greek.

I can find no evidence for this. Does anyone here know enough ancient Greek to confirm or deny the last assertion? -- The Anome 14:27, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • I can phone my father tonight: he taught Ancient Greek and Latin in the University. I post the answer here... Muriel Gottrop 14:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks! The nearest thing to a credible cite I can find is from http://www.kutz-flamenbaum.net/josh/pythagoras/SeniorThesis.html , which says: Some late authors explain it as a combination of the words 'Pythia', the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, and ‘agoreuein’, from the Greek verb "to speak." for which the author gives the cite Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Trans. R. D. Hicks (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons 1931), Vol II Book VIII, line 21, p.339 -- The Anome 14:37, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The old name for Delphi was Pytho, after the Python. But the name Python came from pythein (to rot), because it rotted. Or so says Chambers dictionary. So there's a snake in the etymology somewhere, but it looks a bit tenuous. -Nommo 14:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • I've got no problem with snakes being there somewhere in the etymology: it's just that my doubts about Khranus' assertion appear to be confirmed, which leads me to think that his other assertions may be similarly credulous: that is to say, "if someone says it on the Web, it must be true". -- The Anome 14:50, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Oh yes. I'm quite in agreement with you. -Nommo 14:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Retired Prof. Holstein-Gottorp (aka daddy) says: a) he never heard about it; b) if so is something more like "so spoke the snake". He laughed like a mad, when i described the article... Muriel Gottrop 14:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I might be going against years of Judeo-Christian thought, but it seems to me that a talking oracle is more likely than a talking snake. -Nommo 15:02, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • "The name Pythagoras is related to have been divined by the Delphinian Oracle's Pythia, whom Pythagoras' parents, Mnesarchus and Parthenis, consulted before the child's birth. The female voice of the Pythia strongly influenced the ancient world through her divinely prophetic pronouncements. In the case of Pythagoras, the oracle stated that the child would grow up to be a great sage, surpassing all men in beauty and wisdom. He was named after the already mythical beast Python, a giant serpent-dragon, which was itself held to have been the first and primeval Oracle of Gaia, the Earth." - [3]

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

I don't see the logic in deleting the image (so I'm going to put it back up), though I am quite happy that so many Fundamentalists have come here to scrutinise in fear the notion of nonhumans which are older then humans/superior to humans. It's almost like the apes in 2001 when they approach the monolith. Something strange, new and inexplicable. You have a choice between merely dismissing it and keeping your stagnating dogmas alive, or you can look further into it and shift your neurolinguistic imprint. As Tim Leary said, "You're as young as the last time you changed your mind". Khranus:.

Like Fo-Hi, god of Laughter and Joy, I play mischief with the prison of reality.

- And Please, no more childish generalisations. No derisions. We must approach all things with this parable in mind:

"Not Knowing is True Knowledge,

Presuming to Know is a Disease.

First, You Must Realise You are Ill,

Then You Can Move Toward Health."

-Lao Tse:.

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)


I'm happy to be open-minded on the issue. Show me your evidence, please...

By the way, I keep on deleting the picture because it appears to be someone else's copyrighted work, and you have not shown that it has been donated to the Wikipedia under the GFDL. -- The Anome 22:24, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


You are...open-minded on the issue? Remember my friend, the Map is Not the Territory. Though you say you are 'open-minded', you demonstrate that you are not...


And I have a little story dealing with the 'copyright issues' (non-existent 'issues') that you seem so concerned about:


Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, "Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

(by Robert Anton Wilson)

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

Don Juan, the Mexican Yaqui Indian shaman, tells Carlos Castaneda the following:

"We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. The Predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile, helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it demands that we don't do so... I have been beating around the bush all this time, insinuating to you that something is holding us prisoner. Indeed we are held prisoner!

"This was an energetic fact for the sorcerers of ancient Mexico ... They took us over because we are food for them, and they squeeze us mercilessly because we are their sustenance. just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, the predators rear us in human coops, humaneros. Therefore, their food is always available to them."

"No, no, no, no," [Carlos replies] "This is absurd don Juan. What you're saying is something monstrous. It simply can't be true, for sorcerers or for average men, or for anyone."

"Why not?" don Juan asked calmly. "Why not? Because it infuriates you? ... You haven't heard all the claims yet. I want to appeal to your analytical mind. Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradictions between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, or the stupidity of his contradictory behaviour. Sorcerers believe that the predators have given us our systems of belief, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores. They are the ones who set up our hopes and expectations and dreams of success or failure. They have given us covetousness, greed, and cowardice. It is the predators who make us complacent, routinary, and egomaniacal."

"'But how can they do this, don Juan? [Carlos] asked, somehow angered further by what [don Juan] was saying. "'Do they whisper all that in our ears while we are asleep?"

"'No, they don't do it that way. That's idiotic!" don Juan said, smiling. "They are infinitely more efficient and organized than that. In order to keep us obedient and meek and weak, the predators engaged themselves in a stupendous manoeuvre �

stupendous, of course, from the point of view of a fighting strategist. A horrendous manoeuvre from the point of view of those who suffer it. They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators give us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now."

"I know that even though you have never suffered hunger... you have food anxiety, which is none other than the anxiety of the predator who fears that any moment now its manoeuvre is going to be uncovered and food is going to be denied. Through the mind, which, after all, is their mind, the predators inject into the lives of human beings whatever is convenient for them. And they ensure, in this manner, a degree of security to act as a buffer against their fear."

"The sorcerers of ancient Mexico were quite ill at ease with the idea of when [the predator] made its appearance on Earth. They reasoned that man must have been a complete being at one point, with stupendous insights, feats of awareness that are mythological legends nowadays. And then, everything seems to disappear, and we have now a sedated man. What I'm saying is that what we have against us is not a simple predator. It is very smart, and organized. It follows a methodical system to render us useless. Man, the magical being that he is destined to be, is no longer magical. He's an average piece of meat."

"There are no more dreams for man but the dreams of an animal who is being raised to become a piece of meat: trite, conventional, imbecilic."

Castaneda, 1998

Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

By the way, I keep on deleting the picture because it appears to be someone else's copyrighted work, and you have not shown that it has been donated to the Wikipedia under the GFDL. If you can show that this picture is not a copyright violation, I will stop doing this. -- The Anome 22:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Don't you have something better to do? (it is not a copyright violation. I have stated this before. please cease to concern yourself with such petty issues, and mind your own business. I'm not seeing where you get the notion that it is a violation, to begin with.) Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

New, good things are spreading fast! As Tamo-San said, this goodness is infectious! The Advent of the Aeon of Maat is upon us. Only 9 years until it begins... O:.T:.O:.

Tetakati was thought to be a reptiloid by the ancients. Sacred and Powerful as he was, he bore what they called 'an inhuman visage, somewhat gruesome'... Wise and Serpentine, anyone? Who wrote this? (Khranus?)


- New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted [4] Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

Khranus, please sign your posts. Mintguy 08:54, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why does it matter if I sign my posts? -- Who wrote this? (Khranus?)

Who wrote that?

Who do you think? Khranus (are you happy?)

I'd like to know why it seems that I am being actively monitored by certain members here... Are you guys seriously so dogmatic and obsessive that you have to follow my every move? Khranus


I've protected this page. Please discuss the problem and stop the intant reversions. Mintguy 09:05, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have discussed the problem. With Anome, and he apparently has not decided to stop reverting the article himself... Khranus

Wikipedia is degenerating. I think it's due to an excess of rules here--and an obsession with them. Khranus

And now I'm being censored. Which just goes to show that this place, though it may not be run by any central ruler, is policed by hordes of meme-slaves who don't know their own minds... I should have expected such ridiculous behaviour... Khranus

As I understand it the copyright of the image has not been established. Mintguy 09:13, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


As I understand, according to that guidline, about 90% of the images in Wikipedia ARE NOT established... Someone obviously has a problem with this particular image--and did from the beginning. (last time I checked, I wasn't required to fill out a series of legal papers 'establishing copyright' when I submitted this image)

You would have had to confirm that you were the copyright holder in order to upload the image. Mintguy 09:25, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Until a large number of people adopt a philosophy at least vaguely similar to model agnosticism, there is no hope for wikipedia. You have confirmed this. Khranus

Nice coverup there, Mintguy, by the way, trying to make yourself not look like an idiot...

On looking further into this issue, I see that the copyright owner of this image is known and that permission has been sought. Until such time as that permission is granted the image should not be used. Please look at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Mintguy 09:23, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since when is the copyright owner known? You're either lying to me, or you're misguided. Khranus

On a Philosophical Note: And have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, if people stopped enforcing this flawed (and completely modern) notion of 'copyright', there might just be a hell of a lot less poor people the world over? Have you ever pondered that 'copyright' might just be invented to increase profits (and price gouging)? Khranus

I'm going by the comments at [5] Mintguy 09:33, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this proves that taking pictures in a museum is illegal... Khranus

I don't think anyone suggested that. But if you did not take the picture you do not own the copyright, which is contrary to what you would have stated when you uploaded the image. I assume that JamesDay has established that this image is from an official publication by the museum (maybe not), but the fact remains that if the copyright holder has not granted Wikipedia permission to use the image, the image cannot be used. Ohh and please don't think this image is being singled out. Please see http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/copyvio#Images_awaiting_deletion for a list of images of dubious copyright awaiting deletion. Mintguy 09:45, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BUT IT IS BEING SINGLED OUT! It is THE ONLY IMAGE that I have had any 'copyright issues' with, which just goes to show that this isn't about copyright at all, but suppression of undesirable memes. Khranus

If you are suggesting that you have uploaded images for which you do not hold the copyright. Then I suggest that you either remove them or establish your right to upload them. If not I will look through your contributions and request deletion of images for which the copyright holder cannot be established. Wikipedia has a very clear image use policy which must be respected. If you wish to remain an active contributor you too must respect this policy. This is by no means the first time a user has had to be warned about this issue. Please respect this policy. Mintguy 09:54, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that I have never had a hassle with other images. Exactly as I said! I have uploaded a number of images I either took or created myself--but I haven't had to prove that I own copyrights to them (in fact, ironically, some images I have done myself I have never copyrighted, and thus, under some idiotic nations' laws, I suppose they would be illegal--even though I created them (drawings, even!)) Do you have any idea what exactly you're fighting for when you fight for copyright? You're fighting for your own enslavement! Khranus

Ok the page remains protected. I'm off to get some early lunch. Bye Bye Mintguy

I will unprotect the page if you give me an assurance that you will respect this copyright issue. Mintguy

Frankly, I think the image is kind of a lesser issue here next to the fact that (entirely IMO, of course) much of this article's text is pseudoscientific gobbledygook and Khranus seems bound and determined to not let any of it be removed or properly qualified. I'd hate to get into an edit war over this nonsense. Bryan

Obviously you're a dogmatist, perhaps a Fundamentalist Materialist. Interesting that you feel the arrogance to call anything 'psuedoscience', before ever investigating it. The term itself is likened to the Catholic Church's 'heresy', in my opinion, to begin with. Science has merely become another religion, another dogma. And even though real scientists are coming closer and closer to merging science with the spiritual (read: quantum mechanics, cosmology), it seems that a vast legion of petty fools who know nothing of, for example the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, still deny such notions as Universal Oneness or Hyperdimensional Miridians. Similarly, closed-minded fools like yourself blindly dismiss the idea that nonhuman entities evolved on Earth before we did, making them superior to us in intellect and technology, most likely. Therefore what you really deny is anything denouncing the 'fact' that humans are somehow the ultimate being, separate from all other animals. Therefore you're nothing but a common Humancentrist. You deeply fear the idea that beings exist in the immediate universe which are intellectually superior to us humans, despite the overwhelming evidence, statistical and scientific, which supports their existence as a theory. There's a term for that--denying something despite vast amounts of evidence--delusion. Khranus

I'm unprotecting the page. I hope everybody has cooled off. Mintguy 16:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Khranus, I'm going to remove some stuff that has nothing to do with Reptilian humanoids. I'll copy it here - maybe you can find a better place for it. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Interesting... So if he speaks of such creatures, and we rely on his accounts of more 'plausible' history, why not at least investigate his claims of the paranormal? It seems that these accounts were taken seriously for centuries, up until the 19th century or so, when such things as The Law of Octaves were frowned upon as 'mystical' and 'irrational'... Interestingly, however, the Law of Octaves, itself devised by Pythagoras, was the basis for the uncannily familiar Periodic Table of the Elements, as well as many of Nikola Tesla's theories on electricity. In fact, since the 19th century, mysticism and science have begun to conjoin once again, especially in cosmological fields like Quantum Mechanics. Superstring Theory almost directly mimics a Gnostic cosmology, which was based upon ideas put forth by...Pythagoras...

Clearly denying the mystical is not the way to go if one wants to seek scientific truths... As Science itself suggests, all claims must be investigated, none denied, and all must be treated as theory...

I have been repeatedly fixing the first paragraph of this article, and having it reverted by Khranus. The stuff I object to:

None has yet been generally accepted, though this of course does not rule out the possibility that these theories describe actual phenomena. Some researchers more moderate on the issue have suggested that there is a roughly equal proportion of evidence for and against claims of reptiloids and other such nonhumans (though most researchers involved in this field are either strongly for or strongly against the theories, with few in between).

Basically, the way I see it this says "this theory might or might not be true. Ambivalent researchers say it could go either way. Most researchers are not ambivalent, however, either believing it or not believing in it." This strikes me as complete fluff, devoid of any significant meaning. Unless Khranus actually says something to justify this version I'm going to keep on removing it. Bryan 05:15, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Calling these ideas somehow 'New Age' and such is just plain irrational. Someone originally insisted upon putting something about peoples' opinions on the first paragraph, and this format is more acceptable than one which declares that these ideas are 'New Age'...

I think I'll just return the first paragraph to its original format, without any mention of anything but the theories themselves in the simplest possible way... Khranus

moved

seems to POV, and too hard to substantiate. Can anyone cite some sources refering to the universal, neutral nature of the lizard-folk? ", and it appears that overall they were thought to be a neutral species. That is, neither benevolent or malevolent. " JackLynch

How is that hard to substantiate? In mythology, there is an abundance of stories about malevolent, benevolent and indifferent reptilian humanoids. I'm not seeing how this is in any way 'POV'... After all, I did say 'overall'... Khranus

yeah, but can you cite me some sources? Quite a few, actually, as you claim an abundance JackLynch

Why did I remove Herodotus

Herodotus is clearly talking about snakes with wings, not Pteranodons.

  • He says that some are small. A human historian is never going to describe a Pteranodon as 'small'.
  • He says they are like water snakes. A pteranodon is nothing like a water snake.
  • He says the ibis' 'content' with them. No ibis is going to last more than five seconds in a fight with a giant flying lizard.
  • There is no indication that these snakes are intelligent, or humanoid, in which case there is no place for them in an article about Reptilian humanoids.

DJ Clayworth 16:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are all sorts of different sizes of pteranodons and other such animals that have been uncovered. Perhaps you can add that maybe he is instead describing archaeopterix or something more along those lines (though I don't remember him mentioning feathers)... Khranus

I also removed parts about the claims of Philip K Dick and Timothy Leary, because I can find no evidence that they even made these claims. If someone can point to a reference that says they did I'll happily put them back (claims made while Dick was experiencing psychotic symptoms will not count). DJ Clayworth 16:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For Philip K. Dick, merely read 'VALIS' or his 'Tractate Criptica Scriptura'... VALIS is semi-autobiographical, and the Exegesis (TCS) is completely autobiographical (it was his vast attempt to make sense of what he saw in visions). In the Tractate, he both mentions these amphibious beings from Sirius and draws them. I think that's enough evidence... If you aren't very well-read on Phil Dick, however, here's a link to a website about him: Palm Tree Garden

I'm very surprised you couldn't find information on Phil Dick's various experiences. They're rather famous...

I can't remember in which of his books Tim Leary mentions contact with beings from Sirius, but I know that he said it somewhere. As soon as I find out, I'll give you a link to whatever info there is on the Net on the issue. Khranus

Many people consider VALIS to be fiction. Exegesis appears to be a mess of uncategorised manuscripts. Plus Dick was probably Bipolar. I guess the fact that he believed this stuff is at least worthy of record.

How about justifying the Pythagoras stuff while we are here? DJ Clayworth 14:42, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I assure you, about 80% of VALIS is non-fiction. I own an in-depth biography of Phil Dick called 'Divine Invasions' by Lawrence Sutin. If you're interested in PKD's life, I strongly suggest you read it.

(by the way, Phil Dick attended psychiatrists regularly, but neither delusions, pathological lying, nor schizophrenia could be diagnosed. In fact, he was never proven to have any sort of mental illness beyond minor bipolar disorder (and I do not know a single case of bipolar in which someone sees things as elaborate as PKD did. I know several people who have visions like this in their dreams--as have I. Not the same extent of PKD, of course (his visions also occured in waking), but I certainly have received profound information from dreams, which could not have been generated by my own physical brain. I should suspect that every human has had at least one profound or lucid dream in their lifetime.) Khranus

Can't you people see that this is all an elaborate hoax in which "Khranus" is just pulling your chains to show how he can manipulate events and make himself feel important? By arguing with his arrant nonsense you only encourage him to post more of it. Adam 22:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You're probably right, Adam. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Hey, what happened to Arborealoids? I laughed out loud as I read that (which was a problem, as I was supposed to be working). I hope it still exists somewhere. DJ Clayworth 17:51, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The have been moved away (suspicious, very suspicious), but I was able to discover where they are hidden: Wikipedia:Even more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. And by the way, dramatic new insights are at [6] - ehm.... Kosebamse 18:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I hope laughing at that isn't a shame-based 4th-circuit reaction. DJ Clayworth 19:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it matters of Khranus is joking (which I doubt), as there is some evidence of people believing in this, I guess, what with that David Icke fellow and all. JackLynch

No, believe me, this is no hoax. It is a small bit of the truth which is being slowly unveiled to humanity. For my reasons for shamelessly speaking of things generally not told to the general populous, see Talk: Ordo Templi Orientis. Khranus:.

I softened the 'probably nonexistent' remark on NPOV grounds. It's certainly a good thing to point out repeatedly in the article that mainstream science thinks that this is essentially absurd -- we do a good job of that, and that's good. There's no need, therefore, for wikipedia itself to take a stand on the matter. I think my rewording achieves both objectives, but may be a bit clumsy for other reasons. Be bold!

We should mention Reptile from Mortal Kombat in this article. Martin 23:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why?207.189.98.44 23:54, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

dispute

we should remove the NPOV and factual disputes at the top of the page. Kranus is gone, and besides, I put one of them there, and the article seems ok to me now. JackLynch 18:32, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article: Dragons are a type of monster that can shape-shift into human form and often hoard gold. The aliens described in Zecharia Sitchins work and by David Icke came to earth to mine gold and some say can shape-shift. No context given, does not look helpful. Kosebamse 22:54, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I thought this "article" was deleted and its author Khranus banned months ago. Now I see they are both back. What is going on? Adam 12:41, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Where's Khranus? His user page still says that he's banned -- do you think he's back under a new handle? — No-One Jones (talk) 12:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The page wasn't deleted and Khranus still seems to be banned. Secretlondon 12:52, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
User:24.224.204.137's contributions do look suspicious. Kosebamse 06:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Both Khranus and 24.224.204.137 are from the eastlink.ca ISP, see User:Maximus_Rex/banned_users. silsor 06:43, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)