Colombian Monkey-man attacks geologists in 1920 *picture*

i have seen this picture and heard this story before. now i can't exactally say where or when i heard and saw this pic but it was proven to be a hoax. i think it was on the discovery channel, but it's been a while so i don't remeber exactally. the picture i remeber clearly though. just another explorer trying to make a name for himself.

For real AegisFang? You dont happen to have a link or something do you?

sorry i don't have a link. i'm really stretching my memory here, but i think i saw it on discovery, or history channel on ape man hoaxes or something and it was at least a year ago. sorry i couldn't be of more help, i may even be mistaken, so take my unsubstantiated information if you would like but don't quote me.

correction.


"hangle dangle"


saying "its a dick!" is rather lewd and uncalled for on this board.

Monkey

You of all monkeys.

Reread the article.

I am really concerned for you. You cannot tell between a monkey's hangle dangle and whatever a female has.

I suppose you might come back and say that you meant a female hangle dangle, but I still think you are one confused little monkey. Are you AC-DC?

lol no. handle dangle doesnt really give sex. it has reproductive organs/parts that are hangling and dangling.

men and women have parts that can/do hangle dangle.

its a general term.

i wasnt aware i had to explain this.


still beats the "its a dick!" comment like it owes me money.

LOL

Ok Monkey

As I understand you have expertise in both your own kind, and in the hangle dangles thereof, I wonder:

Just why is the hangle dangle of the female spider monkey such long dangly hangle dangle?

i dont know. such a female would give me envy....lol

or at least one...

[url]http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/hominids/drfrancois.htm[/url}

Scientists of the day seemed to concur with the spider monkey analysis...and there's even a tidbit in there about the handle dangle

Gazrok, that is the same link as the one I originally gave when I started this thread.

It never states apecifically in the link that it was a hoax, just that the explorer could not make resonable arguments out of it.

So it is...but the reference and inference is still there...

This: compared to this:

Personally I believe the body is that of a spider monkey, and the head is a sculptured thing made by a person who is definately not into anatomy. Most primates (humans and spidermonkeys included) have their eyes in the exact center of the scull. This thing, however seems to have it's eyes way above the center. It may not proove anything to you, but my opinion is that this is a complete hoax. But I'll have to admit that she's got one huge monster-clit..... Fascinating......

Besides, those eyes doesn't look dead to me.... More like eyes such as those they put into stuffed animals....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-7-2003 by mikromarius]

Hey guys..I was watching X-Files on SCIFI last night and Fox Mulder had that very same picture in his office.(ofthe monkey man)

That probably prooves more than anything that this is abit too strange to be real....

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Truth is always stranger than fiction, Mikro.

The strangest fiction is an adaptation of truth.

Wow Mulder has it up in his office? I just went ape over that!

Jesus that was a terrible pun, kill me now.

Hehe. Yes, you can say that But this picture just looks too much like a hoax to me. I believe in the Yeti, but this one is either two merged pictures, that of a monkey body and a sculptured head, or a human head with a monkey mask. There are anatomical features that doesn't look like primates. Though I'm not an expert in anatomy. I have some basic knowledge from books on art, drawing etc.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

His name is Oliver, i remember reading a book on him in high school. here is a link: www.n2.net...

Looks like jnosh hit it right on the head. Nothing out of the ordinary to see here folks.

This is a classic cryptozoological case, and just about everyone agrees that it is a large spider monkey. There is indeed nothing in the picture to prove otherwise.