Recently in my history class we studied the Aztec indians. We talked about the fact that to this day, no one knows how such an ancient people could have consructed such amazing feats of architecture as they did, like their pyramids, the fact that they had heiroglyphics that have still not been deciphered, that their artwork depicted figures in what appeared to be spaceships, the fact that their religion encouraged human sacrifice, and finally, the fact that still today, large lizards exist in huge number, a species of which is confined mainly to that region. To me, this all added up amazingly simply and I couldn't believe I hadn't heard of it before. So here's what I came up with:

The reptiod aliens appeared to the Aztecs and aided them in the construction of the pyramids (either as an act to show their good will or something else, I don't know). They left the heiroglyphics, explaining why we can't decipher them, similary to those on the roswell spacecraft, and also the art with the spaceship. When they sacrificed a member of the tribe, that person was abducted and taken by the reptoids, and finally the reason for the lizards: They are under-developed, partially-adapted reptoid offspring left on earth and lacking the environmnet needed for their species to flourish into what we know as reptoid aliens.


I've been to the ruins and seen the lizards and the architecture. This is one of the best arguments for aliens I've ever had.






Go ahead. Acknowledge my insight or shoot me down.

We talked about the fact that to this day, no one knows how such an ancient people could have constructed such amazing feats of architecture as they did, like their pyramids.

These really aren't hard, stack a set of blocks on a larger set of blocks and you create a stepped pyramid. It really isn't hard or complex, just long and hard. Creating tall vertical walls is much harder.

The fact that they had heiroglyphics that have still not been deciphered

They're not the only ones, it's no proof of exterrestrial influence, just a lack of a similar language to compare it to. Every language breakthrough has a Rosetta stone moment, they can only be figured out when written in conjucntion with another, or with a lack of similar characteristics to compare it to.

the fact that their religion encouraged human sacrifice

Lots of religions did this, in fact Hinduism involved the woman immolating herself on her husbands funeral pyre a couple of hundred years ago, until the British Empire (boo, hiss) said it might not be such a good idea.

large lizards exist in huge number, a species of which is confined mainly to that region.

I'm sorry but have you heard of Komodo dragons, much larger lizards in an Indonesian island chain, there are large lizards in every part of the world, from the Meditteranean to Asia. this proves nothing. Also, what species are you refering to? You show a picture of an iguana, but they aren't only in South Anerica.


[edit on 2-10-2006 by RubberJohnny]

Thank you! Finally someone with brains..

See people? This is what I've been talking about that the reptilians date back allllllll the way to early historical periods. But you wouldn't know that anywyas since you haven't studied it. Good post X, I applaud you. It's alright you and I will both be attacked because there are too many people on ATS who hate David icke and conspiracy theorists..

Good lead x daedalus x,

People easily accept that humans are from monkeys, yet they can't imagine another specie evolving in a much similar way..

Believe.. There is good out there.

if anyone wants a good look at reptilian info I highly suggest you go to www.illusionforums.com and click on the reptilian agenda thread.

That's hardly proof. An opinions, but not even close to proof. Why do people keep posting with the word "PROOF" in their titles, then not have anything close to proof in what they post?

Originally posted by sensfan
That's hardly proof. An opinions, but not even close to proof. Why do people keep posting with the word "PROOF" in their titles, then not have anything close to proof in what they post?

Are you kidding me? Cultures with dragons and ritual sacrifices plus many statues depicting dragons and reptilians aren't proof?
There is plenty of proof, what the SKEPTICS need is video or photograph proof.

I'm sorry but I am not going any further than this, I refuse to talk with skeptics about reptilians.

That's right...it's not proof.

Just because there are certain things in legend like nagas and dragons doesn't make them real. There are things we teach our kids today that are not true.

Just imagine of you live in the middle ages and found a t-rex tooth. What would you think it was? And before you answer, remember that just 30 years ago when learning about dinosaurs in school...they were all slow, grey, and stupid. Back in the middle ages, it would have been some horrible large monster that ate people and so on. Now imagine finding a t-rex skull.

Think of how much more we know now.

Another fun fact for you. There are only 2 (maybe now 3) complete skeletons of t-rex in the world. Could you study man with only 3 skeletons put together and know all about them? No.

The point is that reptillian lore could have grown in a number of ways over time. Being snatched by a croc off a bank is damn close to "abduction" when you are in a spear-throwing stage of knowledge.

Originally posted by RavenWindfree
Cultures with dragons and ritual sacrifices plus many statues depicting dragons and reptilians aren't proof? There is plenty of proof, what the SKEPTICS need is video or photograph proof.

You do realize that using this logic, in a post-apocalyptic world...our ancestors would believe that smurfs, teletubbies, and Superman were all real as well.

There are statues about those too. And books, and stickers, magnets, lunchboxes, lamps, wall phones, bed sheets, comic books, etc, etc.

The bottom line is you can't take a statue or artwork from ages past as being factual. People back then DID have imagination and creativity too you know. They had monster stories to tell the children to keep them from harm. They had fears and joys of heros and villans. Gods and demons.

So no, I'm not even a skeptic as you say since I believe there is life out there and I still say there is no proof.

Uhh I don't care!!! I don't care what anyone thinks! I saw reptilian hybrids in Florida in a freaking apartment at 3 AM in the morning. It was a horrible experience I had to waste time typing it to people that have a hard time believing in it.
I don't care what anyone has to say, I have heard all of it. You either take it or leave, I'm sorry but it just frustrates me. Ahhh...

Original poster can you please back me up. And why did they get rid of the David Icke thread, that was a good one.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
You do realize that using this logic, in a post-apocalyptic world...our ancestors would believe that smurfs, teletubbies, and Superman were all real as well.

There are statues about those too. And books, and stickers, magnets, lunchboxes, lamps, wall phones, bed sheets, comic books, etc, etc.

The bottom line is you can't take a statue or artwork from ages past as being factual. People back then DID have imagination and creativity too you know. They had monster stories to tell the children to keep them from harm. They had fears and joys of heros and villans. Gods and demons.

So no, I'm not even a skeptic as you say since I believe there is life out there and I still say there is no proof.

very good post Zeddicus

agree entirely, why are so many people taking these artifacts as factual representations, rather than artistic creativity???

Originally posted by RavenWindfree
I'm sorry but I am not going any further than this, I refuse to talk with skeptics about reptilians.

And i refuse to talk to reptilian believers then, you all seem to have a common trait, that is any bit of information that may lean towards your theory slightly you present as "FACT" or "PROOF", you gobble it up like candy.

Theres so much reptilian rubbish on this forum now its ridiculous.

Once again I was suckered into reading a thread with "proof" in the subject line and it turned out to not have proof but rather wild conjecture mixed with heartfelt belief. Please stop. I'm not saying nobody should throw around wild conjecture (that seems to be part of the spirit of this site), but for goodness sake please tell us what you're really offering in the subject line. You're being misleading.

How about "Wild conjecture about reptoid aliens"? Or perhaps (more charitably): "My opinions about how some ancient stuff suggests that reptilian aliens had a lot to do with everything despite the fact that there's no real evidence or even belief in these things outside of conspiracy sites".

Of course, that would be too long of a subject line.

I am an artist myself, but I don't think that was artistic creation.. wow..

Currently attending Ringling.

But you know what. I just don't give a hoot anymore. Why shoud I care about whether people believe in reptilians or not. I am not so sure myself. Whatever I have a lot of things to do. College is a busy life.

You know? Just forget about it. Oh well.. lol

I'm tired anyways, sorry if I seemed angry.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by RavenWindfree]

Oh my gosh...there is finally someone (acually two) who are smart here. I've seen some of the the heiroglyphics with lizards and I understand your theory. I had a suggestion. I believe it was egypt, but they used to worship lizards. Lizards=reptoids, reptoids "control" The Illuminati. Do you think that the Illuminati would have "evolved" (more in a mental state, not physical. who believes in evolution anyay?) from the ancient...people? Also, would you have any proof that they helped in the pyramids? Perhaps the Egyptians may have seen something. Problem is, we're not ancient Egyptians. Had they seen anything? (Like did aliens have UFO's back then? If they were so advanced in technology they would have somethig better today. Maybe that's we don't often pick 'em up on radars.) I just don't understand how they would've met or whatever, then how'd they ally. And how come there is no Biblical reference of aliens or any proof in journals or Egyptians who have descended generation after generation. They would know something. It's not everyday you meet an alien...


I'd say a bit more reptilian. Thank you for being intelligent! (You too Raven.)

... weird ...

I didnt want to start a huge argument about aliens' existence and I really had no plans of touchingn on egypt, but hey, whahtever floats you boat ivy.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander




The bottom line is you can't take a statue or artwork from ages past as being factual. People back then DID have imagination and creativity too you know. They had monster stories to tell the children to keep them from harm. They had fears and joys of heros and villans. Gods and demons.

So how come the Egyptians painted the rulers as wearing elongated head pieces, and Egyptian mummies were found with.....elongated heads.

What came first? - The chicken or the egg?

Since the subject of what people thousands of years ago thought, felt or knew was brought up I'd like to take this chance to pose a question that's been bugging me for quite some time. I wont even try to get involved in the reptilian/alien discussion because I know nothing about it. Anyway if anyone would like to help me with this my question is:

- Often it is common to define the human beings that were alive thousands of years before us as naive or mentally chalenged (compared to us that is). What I find odd is that I (at least) have never read or heard of any proof to the fact that in physical terms their brains were less developed than ours in terms of their ability to understand and reason. Now of course the cultural card can be brought forth here and there lies my question - if it is so easy for human beings with the same body and brain structure that we have (the same sensitive aprehension of reality as well) to make mistakes... how can we trust everything we know? Or think we know. Can we trust the assumption that we are indeed smarter? The concept of smart (or perhaps you'd preffer intelligent) is a bit hard to define, no? There are right now tribal cultures in the world and it is tempting, I must admit, to say that I know more than them but a perhaps more important fact is that if you dropped me in their environment I wouldn't be able to survive from the knowledge that I have. It would perhaps even be easier for them to survive in my environment than me in theirs. So how can I consider myself to be more wise than them?

On the dinosaur issue for example would it be stupid to say that with the information that is available to us (in terms of fossiles and skeletons)we accept as scientifically correct nowadays be limited in their closeness to an actual truth? Are we that different from the human beings that lived before us?

Really I am puzzled about this. I do not have an answer myself or a certain view on the subject so would like to know what anyone thinks about it.

(Note: I have problems with the English language - it is not my mother language and there are limits to what TV can teach me. I am sure I made many grammar mistakes through this post and hope it didn't turn you off reading my post.)

EDIT: I messed up my post somehow - touchpads aren't my specialty.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by InTrueFiction]

Originally posted by RavenWindfree

Originally posted by sensfan
That's hardly proof. An opinions, but not even close to proof. Why do people keep posting with the word "PROOF" in their titles, then not have anything close to proof in what they post?

Are you kidding me? Cultures with dragons and ritual sacrifices plus many statues depicting dragons and reptilians aren't proof?
There is plenty of proof, what the SKEPTICS need is video or photograph proof.

I'm sorry but I am not going any further than this, I refuse to talk with skeptics about reptilians.

There are also civilizations which believe in humanoids with animal heads - Please show me a human/elephant hybrid and you got me convinced with your 'amazing proof'..

RavenWindfree,

In one post you say "I saw" then in the next post you say "I'm not so sure". You were getting quite impassioned about it and then admitted to doubting yourself.

Which is it? I'm not trying to pick on you I just saw a 180 and am wondering why?