Man, Monkey or Both?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

Topic started on 3-1-2010 @ 10:27 PM by The Blind Eye

There is a creature in existence that is so remarkably like us
in shape, feature and posture... that it's freakishly eery and yet fascinating.

A creature so familiar yet alien.

A creature some of us have spent a lifetime looking for (ie bigfoot)
and yet it isn't as hard to find.

...and most important of all,
a creature that represents another solid link in support of evolution...
and yet this creature is rarely covered by wild life documentarians or in text books...
and after reviewing the pictures, on a visceral level i think i can understand why.
He looks so much like us, it naturally prompts one to ask a lot of uncomfortable questions.

Like for instance, is this creature a man, monkey or... both (mankey)?

Behold the Proboscis aka Nasalis larvatus:
(pay special attention to the legs, feet, forearms, back posture and face... remind you of any relatives?)

My point in this thread?

To present proof that in very fundamental ways men are essentially monkeys
and monkeys are basically/basic men...
and that this reality is so hard for us to come to terms with,
that we embrace stories about our superiority instead.

...and most importantly, that the elusive Sasquatch mystery is now officially solved.
So where do i go to collect my accolades and reward money?

Yes, on that last part i'm just monkeying around... or am i?

[edit on 3-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

reply posted on 3-1-2010 @ 11:02 PM by spinkyboo

Those last two pics of him are really something.
Looks like my Uncle Max.

reply posted on 3-1-2010 @ 11:07 PM by Signals

The Dutch Monkey!
Wiki Link

Wiki article says only about 1,000 of them left, very sad.

And....the big nose attracts the ladies!

*What an awesome first thread! - S/F*

reply posted on 3-1-2010 @ 11:30 PM by Lasheic

There can be no doubt.

reply posted on 3-1-2010 @ 11:32 PM by Trexter Ziam

I think the nose is so extreme it looks less human than most chimp's noses. Jimmy Durante excluded of course.

If you search "bush + monkey", the net is full of GWBush 43rd and monkey look-alikes ... one of many examples: politicalhumor.about.com...

But, when I think of man/monkey look alike pictures, one sticks out in my head and I grabbed the correct book and thumbed to the page almost automatically - I wish this picture was on the net! It's a human; but, it hardly appears human and fits right in with the topic here. The picture is on page 301 of the 1976 - 12th printing of "New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology by Prometheus Press. The picture is captioned:

A Samoyed soothsayer from Siberia. The Samoyeds are one of a number of scattered groups which together form the Finno-Ugric race and were among the first to separate from the parent stem at about the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C. ..."

Every time I see this picture, I think man/monkey.

[edit on 3/1/2010 by Trexter Ziam]

reply posted on 3-1-2010 @ 11:37 PM by SLAYER69

There can be no doubt.

Oh my god you're right.

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 12:01 AM by Elijio

reply to post by The Blind Eye

Really? You've never heard of racism/darwinism? Only black people are supposed to look like monkeys, don't you know that?

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 05:47 PM by The Blind Eye

reply to post by Elijio

Good point, we see gorillas, chimpanzees and other dark-skinned monkeys used as subjects/examples when evolution is taught in schools, as a focus for many documentaries and same can be said for most zoos and the species they choose from. So why not give the "white" monkey variety just as much air-time?

Maybe because they are a minority... many of which are endangered species? If so, then wouldn't that merit even more reason to give more coverage and research?

[edit on 4-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 06:04 PM by bigspud

people with downes syndrome are the original humanoids, with 48 chromosomes, just like all other apes.
modern humans were created from them by an alien race, and have 46 chromosomes.

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 06:39 PM by davesidious

reply to post by The Blind Eye

Maybe because we're great apes, as are chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Not monkeys. Also, most chimpanzees have white skin, it's just covered with dense, coarse black hair.

The proboscis monkey is a monkey, not an ape. We're related to monkeys, but not as much as we are to other apes, obviously

Your conjecture on monkey-racism is rather telling, not of the subject, but of your views of the world

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 06:43 PM by davesidious

reply to post by bigspud

Umm - no. Trisomy 21, or Down's Syndrome, is a disorder. That means someone with 46 chromosomes had to exist before one could suffer from Down's Syndrome and have 47 (not 48 as you incorrectly stated) chromosomes. Trisomy 21 means sufferers have an extra 21st chromosome, not an extra pair.

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 06:50 PM by TheWalkingFox

reply to post by The Blind Eye

It's a monkey. A variety of macaque, in fact. Not terribly closely-related to humans (though closer than say, a spider monkey). it shares an ancestor with us about 12 million years ago, but after that, has nothing to do with humans.

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 09:18 PM by The Blind Eye

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
...when I think of man/monkey look alike pictures, one sticks out in my head and I grabbed the correct book and thumbed to the page almost automatically - I wish this picture was on the net! It's a human; but, it hardly appears human and fits right in with the topic here. The picture is on page 301 of the 1976 - 12th printing of "New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology by Prometheus Press. The picture is captioned:

A Samoyed soothsayer from Siberia. The Samoyeds are one of a number of scattered groups which together form the Finno-Ugric race and were among the first to separate from the parent stem at about the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C. ..."

Every time I see this picture, I think man/monkey.

What can i say TZ, you have me intrigued enough to track down the encyclopedia online, but unfortunately there are no pictures in this version. www.scribd.com... Do you by chance have a digital camera or scanner handy?

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 09:53 PM by The Blind Eye

The females look similar but as you can see have considerably smaller noses within proportion to overall facial features, and are in body weight half that of the males, but only slightly shorter in height. Reportedly the largest difference of any primate species, with regard to gender.

The ladies remind me of the Whos of Whoville from Jim Carey's Grinch:

...and up close the baby's look like little something between Eddy Muster and Mickey Mouse.

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 10:05 PM by Lasheic

reply to post by The Blind Eye

Good point, we see gorillas, chimpanzees and other dark-skinned monkeys used as subjects/examples when evolution is taught in schools, as a focus for many documentaries and same can be said for most zoos and the species they choose from. So why not give the "white" monkey variety just as much air-time?

Chimpanzees (our closest relatives) are not "dark skinned". Not consistently anyhow.

As TheWalkingFox said, the reason why Proboscis Monkeys isn't given as much air time as Great Apes, Hominidae (to which we belong), is because they aren't Great Apes. They are Colobinae from the Cercopithecidae line, whereas we are Hominidae - a division of Haplorrhini along the Catarrhini branch. These divisions aren't determined by skin or hair color, but genetically and morphologically.

The comparisons between black people and apes are not substantiated by any independent measure - but can serve as a measure of the ignorance of the person making the claim.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by Lasheic]

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 10:30 PM by randyvs

No that's

That's Walter Matthau.

No kin of mine.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by randyvs]

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 11:20 PM by Trexter Ziam

Originally posted by The Blind Eye

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
...when I think of man/monkey look alike pictures, one sticks out in my head and I grabbed the correct book and thumbed to the page almost automatically - I wish this picture was on the net! It's a human; but, it hardly appears human and fits right in with the topic here. The picture is on page 301 of the 1976 - 12th printing of "New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology by Prometheus Press. The picture is captioned:

A Samoyed soothsayer from Siberia. The Samoyeds are one of a number of scattered groups which together form the Finno-Ugric race and were among the first to separate from the parent stem at about the beginning of the fourth millennium B.C. ..."

Every time I see this picture, I think man/monkey.

What can i say TZ, you have me intrigued enough to track down the encyclopedia online, but unfortunately there are no pictures in this version. www.scribd.com... Do you by chance have a digital camera or scanner handy?

I put it in a Temporary folder - to be deleted next time I login. Hope this works!

reply posted on 4-1-2010 @ 11:35 PM by The Blind Eye

reply to post by Lasheic

Thank you for setting me straight on the chimpanzees, previously i only recalled seeing them with dark skin but now you have jogged my memory... but i don't remember ever seeing one without any hair. The photo of the naked chimpanzee, is that a genetic malfunction or is this another rare branch? Amazing how similar we look without the coat.

reply posted on 5-1-2010 @ 12:15 AM by The Blind Eye

As for these two insinuating presumptuous comments:

Originally posted by davesidious
Your conjecture on monkey-racism is rather telling, not of the subject, but of your views of the world

Originally posted by Lasheic
The comparisons between black people and apes are not substantiated by any independent measure - but can serve as a measure of the ignorance of the person making the claim.

Tell me this... if we are looking at how monkeys are men and men are monkeys, where is the discrimination? Whether it be different colored men in relation to same colored primates, the point/purpose of this exercise is to see how much we are a like, not different. Any thing i have had to say in kin to racism, is purely a side note on how perspectives are easily influenced in the most subtle ways when we don't cover all the different features that primates express genetically and behaviorally.

As for genetics and which branches we are most closely related to, this is obviously noteworthy... we could all go on and on nit-picking in the name of science (or religion) about how different we are... but i think it's more interesting and enlightening to take a closer look at how similar we are. In doing so, maybe we could all learn to embrace the fact that all we are... are crafty monkeys, nothing more and nothing less.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

reply posted on 5-1-2010 @ 12:34 AM by The Blind Eye

reply to post by Lasheic

A close-up of your Durante-Monkey

What is most striking to me, is just about every element in the expression of the face. Human yet animal, but this is really just a play of words to create the sense of difference, when in reality we are basically the same creature. Sure go on about chromosome count and fancy species names and branches but don't fool yourselves... when you look in the mirror you may not see this ugly mug but just a slightly different version, just like we see such variance between our own species... there are still shockingly more common features, then not. Many of you are just to uncomfortable to admit it.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^