Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Aquatic Humanoids

  1. #1
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Aquatic Humanoids

    This is a "mockumentary" but it has some footage of actual fact such as human/dolphin cooperative fishing. It is interesting as fiction but I wonder what possible fact of mer-men and mer-maids?


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=/sQ2Wc71PGVI


    this footage is interesting along with many comments


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNb0K_KVpJk


    I also have been interested in the fact that humans have very little hair and some other indicators that we could become at home in a shallow sea condition?



    This is a discussion of the mockumentary and a possible cover-up of sonar weaponry.

    Mermaids, Sound Weapons and Government Cover-Ups | Updated and Compelling Evidence

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (5th September 2018), Dreamtimer (5th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018), NotAPretender (6th September 2018), Woody (5th September 2018)

  3. #2
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts
    Then in 2013

    below is footage taken by Marine Biologist Dr. Torsten Schmidt and former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Biologist Dr. Paul Robertson confirmed that it was similar to a body that was found by himself and a team of scientists prior to this footage. This isn’t the only footage, apparently more footage was captured by the British coast guard which reveals a very similar looking aquatic humanoid type being

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSG3kPa-jOU


    Paul Robertson is possibly a real scientist? The video in the OP has been said to be faked footage and a fictional piece but in the article I posted in the OP, it may have been the victim of a scuttle after the fact because of the info about ocean sound weaponry?

    The show (posted in the OP) states that the film “is science fiction based on some real events and scientific theory, and amateur footage, including photos and videos shot by deep-sea fishermen that has never been seen the United States. It includes includes compelling, credible evidence.”

    What about the ones involved within the film? One criticism of the film is that the people in the film aren’t really real, that they are actors. These theories have been flying around on websites, but nothing is mentioned by animal planet. Many websites claim that he (Dr. Paul Robertson, NOAA Scientist) is an actor named Andre Weideman. When you look at Andre’s pictures and compare them with Dr Paul Robertson, they actually look nothing alike, along with the other supposed actors in the film. But I am still open to the possibility, although it is hard to believe, especially after watching these interviews.

    What lends further credence to the possibility that these people are who they say they are is this video below. Why would animal planet continue on with these interviews if it wasn’t real footage? Why would the program have an appearance by the Mayor of Kiryat, Yam in Israel? (makes an appearance at 9:42) It is indeed him, and the show presents him as him, along with other guests (like Dr. Paul Robertson). Why would this 40 minute dialogue be mixed with real political figures and fake Marine Biologists and Geologists?

    There is also very compelling footage in this interview at approximately 13:40, when the freeze face looks very similar to the one that the geologists captured in the video above.

    Another interesting note to mention is Dr. Paul Robertson’s twitter account. Which replies to questions of real and fake with responses such as “this is real.” Another comment that stood out to me was “Thanks to Animal Planet for making our story public. Don’t trust everything the government is telling you, hashtag “believeinmermaids.” (source) Why would he have a twitter account, continually supporting the film, the facts that mermaids are real and creating awareness about other atrocities that happen in the ocean. Why would he tweet something like this?

    Please read this related article, another phenomenon that was exposed by this mermaid documentary, something that the US Navy has denied for years : The U.S Navy Killing Thousands (possibly millions) of Whales, Dolphins and other marine life with Sonar & Weapons Testing.

    Discovery news also points out that “there were interviews with real NOAA scientists.” They also point out that “though the filmmakers acknowledged that the film is science fiction mixed with fiction, it makes a strong case for the existence of the mermaid.” (source)

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (6th September 2018), Dreamtimer (6th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018), NotAPretender (6th September 2018)

  5. #3
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    2,517
    Thanks
    10,943
    Thanked 12,154 Times in 2,533 Posts
    I had a college educated friend that could not distinguish between mockumentary and dockumentary. He asked me with complete sincerity if one such presentation was 'real'. I felt bad for him and so obviously didn't laugh out loud like I would on this board... <snicker>. I explained that it was possible but there were some serious scientific issues at play.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (6th September 2018), Dreamtimer (6th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018)

  7. #4
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    7,564
    Thanks
    43,915
    Thanked 34,248 Times in 7,479 Posts
    There are various mammals in the ocean. They have ancestors from the land.

    Imagine if that came back around, and there were land dolphins in the future.

    Fish people could be an evolution, an experiment that escaped a lab, or something else.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (6th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018), Maggie (8th September 2018), NotAPretender (6th September 2018)

  9. #5
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    2,517
    Thanks
    10,943
    Thanked 12,154 Times in 2,533 Posts
    well, to be honest. I've never watched any of it...In the back of my mind, I'm always thinking...maybe.

    I think it was Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden' that lined out the phases of evolution demonstrating a parallel with the development of a fetus. I think since it has been debunked but it was striking. If it wasn't that one it was Broca's Brain. That one 'expounds' on the reptilian brain.

    I've wanted to watch those 'mermaid' shows for a long time...just haven't gotten around to it.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (6th September 2018), Dreamtimer (6th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018)

  11. #6
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    I had a college educated friend that could not distinguish between mockumentary and dockumentary. He asked me with complete sincerity if one such presentation was 'real'. I felt bad for him and so obviously didn't laugh out loud like I would on this board... <snicker>. I explained that it was possible but there were some serious scientific issues at play.
    Yeah THIS one IS mock not doc but was fun. I think also there are serious science facts presented here such as the intelligence of dolphins and other cetaceans. More about the cooperation between fisher-men and fisher-fin

    Fishing With Dolphins
    An astonishing cooperative venture in which every species wins but the fish.
    Cooperative fishing has been going on for at least 120 years—there’s reference to it in a 19th century letter—but no one knows how it started. Did a few dolphins curiously approach a couple of fishermen one day, flashing their dorsal fins or slapping their crescent-moon-shaped tails, and discover a new way to outsmart the speedy tainha? Since dolphins are considered net thieves in much of the world, did men try to chase them off at first? How did the dolphins convince the humans that they could be of service? Who trained whom, and when? One archeologist is looking among the sambaquis, or native middens, for evidence that the relationship between dolphins and humans may have existed even before the Azoreans arrived.

    What’s in it for the dolphin? No one can say for sure. Paulo Simões-Lopes, a professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina who has been studying this population for more than 20 years, hypothesizes that the cooperative fishing disorients and isolates the fish. As the fishermen cast their nets, the school panics, and the dolphins exploit the chaos. They catch larger, quicker fish that would be difficult to capture in a straight-out chase.

    Most of the dolphins in the region are residents. A few are vagabonds, traveling up and down the coastline. They have spread the cooperative tradition to a community about 150 miles to the south. Of the 55 resident dolphins identified in the area, 21 cooperate with fishermen; the rest generally don't. About 200 fishermen take their cues from the botos bons, or “good” dolphins. Those that keep to themselves are described as botos ruins, “bad” dolphins.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (6th September 2018), Dreamtimer (6th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (6th September 2018), NotAPretender (6th September 2018)

  13. #7
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts
    This is all so interesting that I am posting a long segment. Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor? It makes perfect sense to me that "epigenetics" could create changes in a species in a relatively short span of time. OR perhaps we were originally sea creatures that moved to the land? Here is a comment from the article quoted below.

    maybe it was not so much because of evolution: 1) The Bible says about creating Man in God's (the gods') resemblance. 2) A number of so-called "myths" and "legends", notably the one coming from the Dogon tribe in Mali, say about aquatic "gods", half human, half fish, living in water, coming out of water, returning to water. A very brave idea (and possibly to many people it couldn't be any crazier): could it be that we are an effect of genetic manipulations from "aquatic" "gods" such as the Nommo? OK, this is just an idea, perhaps it's rubbish but how would you check whether or not it is?
    Mammals are not designed to walk vertically, because it is grossly inefficient. If the first apes attempted it, they would have been like year old babies: falling over all the time. Furthermore, the “missing link” would have lacked the locking mechanism of the knees that we have today. Imagine trying to stand with your knees bent for a few hours. Without a high priority reason to do so, the human predecessors would have simply given up. Evolution does not have an agenda. Animals cannot see into the future and aspire to being human, they can only respond to need. To gain a better view over the tall grass, a more obvious change, seeing as our ape relatives are good at jumping, would have been to jump higher.

    The mammalian spine is designed like a clothes rack - things hang from it. It consists of a long, slightly arched rod supported by two sets of legs. The animal’s body weight is evenly distributed and the centre of gravity is low, making for a well-balanced individual. Using four legs has been shown, by the evolution of all the other species, to be best way of getting about. In rare cases like kangaroos and ostriches, you can see how evenly their weight is distributed. No other animal walks perpendicular like humans - it isn’t an efficient way of doing things. If you need more convincing, simply consider the terrible back problems the majority of us will suffer during our life time due to our ridiculous posture.

    There is, however, one primate species that regularly walks on its hind legs, the proboscis monkeys of Borneo. They live in mangrove swamps and regularly drop down into the water below them. They are excellent swimmers, but if they are able to touch the bottom they elect to walk, just like humans. With the support of water around them, the instability and discomfort of terrestrial bipedalism disappears. With their heads held up high they are able to breathe easier than when swimming.

    The plot thickens when we delve into he geological and climatic history of North East Africa, where the fossils of “Lucy” and other famous human ancestors have been dug up. Lucy’s scientific title is Australopithecus afarensis, because she was found in the region of Ethiopia known as Afar. From seven million to 70,000 years ago this area was an inland sea, sea water that flooded in and then got trapped, separated from the ocean proper. This is typical of the environment we would expect an Aquatic Ape to evolve in. Today it has all dried up, leaving a virtually impassable desert, with salt deposits thousands of feet deep.

    A key problem cited by orthodox scientists, the lack of fossil evidence for the Aquatic Ape Theory, is ridiculous. None of the aquatic characteristics listed here can be deduced from fossils. So theoretically any ancient hominids may have had these features, we just can’t tell. For the same reason, scientists might guess at the skin or hair colour of fossils, but they cannot know.

    Turns out that most African hominid fossils have been found in or near bodies of water. This is explained as “they were passing by, and stopped for a drink” or “heavy rains made the river overflow and they drowned”. The obvious explanation, that they lived in and beside the water (as most humans still do), is rarely considered.

    There is considerable evidence to show that regions of Africa once had the same characteristics as the mangrove swamps of Borneo.

    A press release from the University of Toronto, August 1999, states:

    “The first humans may have been beach-dwellers foraging for shellfish, not grassland hunter-gatherers… ….evidence that the large brains of the earliest humans could only have evolved on the nutrient-rich diet provided by shellfish and other animal life found near shorelines. "You don't need a big brain to collect mussels and clams. But living on them gives you the excess energy and nutrients that can then be directed towards brain growth."

    The popular image of the earliest humans living on the African savanna must be wrong, [Stephen] Cunnane says. His team has found that a specific fatty acid, DHA, necessary for human brain and eye development, is easily available in food near shore environments but not in the diet of savanna mammals. This suggests humans evolved near water before spreading inland, he says.

    "We'd like to see early humans as hunters who took advantage of nature and grew a big brain in the process," he says. "But how could that hunting ability miraculously appear overnight? Well, it didn't. Instead, they evolved in a place where they didn't have to hunt."

    Cunnane believes recent hominid finds in South Africa that show proto-human fossils in close association with the remains of aquatic creatures are more evidence for the theory, which he hopes to further test next year by isotopic analysis of early human fossils.”

    Fat, Sweaty and Hairless
    Charles Darwin once wrote:

    “The loss of hair is an inconvenience and probably an injury to man , for he is thus exposed to the scorching of the sun and to sudden chills, especially due to wet weather. No one supposes that the nakedness of the skin is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have divested of hair through natural selection."[2]

    The Savannah Theory fails in this regard. These areas of Africa can cool to 11ºC at night, and it would not be an advantage for humans to sleep there even on a dry night. It is normal for terrestrial animals to have fur or thick hair. Humans still have the capillary muscles which enable our hair to stand on end. If our hair were longer it would then trap a layer of air close to the body, creating a thermal blanket of sorts. Feathers work the same way. Most animals have the ability to adjust their exterior in accordance with changing air temperature, whereas us poor humans have to resort to clothing. Hair or fur is also very useful for protection against injury, something very important in the wild. Obviously we lost our hair, not because hairlessness was an advantage, but because at one time our habitat was such that having hair was a distinct disadvantage.

    The easiest way to determine why humans are hairless is to study other mammals that have evolved into a similar situation. Charles Darwin commented thus:

    “Whales and porpoises, dugongs and the hippopotamus are naked, and this may be advantageous to them for gliding through the water; nor would it be injurious to them from the loss of warmth, as the species which inhabit the colder regions are protected by a thick layer of blubber.”[3]

    Elephants are virtually hairless and are capable of swimming many miles, their trunks perfectly suited to use as a snorkel. The tapir of Asia, Central and South America is like a mini elephant, with a small proboscis nose. It’s hair is very sparse and it loves to swim and dive. Pigs such as the babirusa are yet another mammalian species which have evolved to suit living in the water - losing hair and gaining blubber. (Mammals living in subterranean circumstances have also lost hair, and usually sight as well - this angle is best put aside for whoever invents The Mole Ape Theory,)

    Pigs and hippopotami readily come to the minds of children when searching for animal personifications to bait their obese acquaintances with.

    Compared to all the other primates, humans definitely deserve the “fatty” tag. A gorilla or chimpanzee kept in a cage might put on a fraction of extra weight, as might an old horse that can’t run about as much as it use to. But the only land mammals capable of doubling or trebling their natural weight, to have rolls of fat hanging from arms, legs, hips and bellies, to be unable to walk without breaking into a sweat, are humans.

    This fattiness is normal. If a woman’s body is underweight it chooses not to conceive. A typical 16-year-old girl should have 27% of her body weight in fatty tissue. If it were to drop below 22%, her menstruation cycle will cease. The reason that we need to stitch up serious flesh wounds is because the layer of fat just below our skin tries to ooze out. The edges of the cut become separated and are unable to rejoin and heal - other mammals don’t have this problem, their skin sits on top of muscle, not fat.

    The concept of sweating as a cooling device is ridiculous. This system, which is unique to humans (other mammals that sweat do it less profusely than us, and use a different type of gland) is flawed. It is prone to activating at the wrong time (in humid weather), is too slow to start and stop, provides far more than the thin layer of moisture required for cooling, and wastes salt. We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat. Even when a human is nearing total dehydration it will continue sweating in hot weather and even die. Our sweating system is yet another disadvantage of being human.

    So why do we sweat? One possible reason is to expel salt. If and when they first took to the sea, our ancestors would have been eating seafood (which by definition is salty) and accidentally swallowing salt water. The overload on our kidneys would have created a need for a secondary system to evolve. Seabirds have special glands for removing salt from their body.

    Humans cry, the function of which that has long baffled evolutionary scientists. It is also for the purpose of expelling salt. You may have noticed that if you cry too long, the saltiness will sting your eyes. Why this action is nowadays connected to our emotions is unknown. Have you heard of crocodile tears? Well it is true, crocodiles also cry as a means of expelling salt from their system (of course this is not case with freshwater crocs). Walruses cry. Elephants cry. Non-human primates do not cry. Although we obviously look like monkeys, in some ways we have close connections to water-loving mammals. Pigs love to “wallow”, and we use pigs as organ donors. Elephants are, when you think about it, smooth-skinned, swimming, crying, intelligent, overweight social animals - just like us. It appears that they evolved in the ocean as well, but chose to come back on land rather than becoming whales. Humans made a similar decision, whereas dolphins chose the sea.

    Swimming & Diving

    Swimmers and Divers require a large opening to enable the rapid inhalation and exhalation of air - and our mouths are large compared to the small opening of our nose and the noses of most other mammals. They also need to be able to close their air passages, making it harder for them to accidentally swallow water.

    "Several unrelated aquatic species have evolved some kind of movable flap either instead of, or in addition to, valvular nostrils. The penguin has one, and the crocodile has one. Alone among the primates, humans have such a flap - that is, the back of the soft palate, known as the velum, which in our species can be raised and lowered to isolate the nasal passages from the mouth cavity. It could not opeate in this fashion if the larynx had not retreated out of its way to its present position below the back of the tongue.

    "The only other mammals which are known to feature a descended larynx are diving mammmals - the sea lion and the dugong. These two species are about as unrelated to one another as they are to humans. The descended larynx must have evolved independently in each of them, after their respective land-dwelling ancestors entered an aquatic environment."[4]

    While we were aquatic mammals, our descended larynx helped us with communication - as we began to speak we were capable of a wider range of sounds. The primary reason why apes such as the chimpanzee can not "speak" is not because of the limited range of sounds available to them - they can say "ah", "ee", "oo", and pronounce the letters k, p, h and m. These few sounds are ample to create a large number of words. They have proven to be capable of excellent communication using sign language, and they also understand verbal instructions, but they lack the capacity speak as we do. The reason is not intelligence, it is to do with breathing. Like most mammals, the breathing function in chimpanzees is not voluntary, it is as automatic as the heart. To some extent it is also involuntary in humans, like when we sneeze, hiccup or get a sudden fright. But the rest of the time we get to choose how we breathe - this is directly attributed to our aquatic past, when we had to hold our breath to dive below the surface.

    Conscious control of breath is a characteristic that we share with all other diving mammals, and something that no other non-aquatic mammals have.

    The Penis
    The large comparative size of the penis in adult male humans (man 13cm vs gorilla 3cm) is not related to the frequency of deployment. It is a necessary consequence of the retraction and relative inaccessability of the vagina.

    “An aquatic environment seems to have had a broadly similar effect on some other species - that is, relative retraction of the femal sex organ leading to a corresponding extension of that of the males. For example, most birds and reptiles do not possess a penis; the pressing together of the cloacal apertures seems to suffice for the transference of the sperm. But many species of aquatic reptiles (crocodiles and turtles) and aquatic birds (swans, ducks, geese) have found it necessary to evolve a penis as part of their adaption to a watery habitat.”[5]

    Scent Signalling
    “In mammals, oestrous status is communicated by scent signalling - a pheromonal message emitted by the female. Being airborne, it may be carried quite a long way - as evidenced by the distance a dog will travel to locate a bitch on heat. But in a wading or swimming ape the pheromones would be washed away almost as soon as they were scented.

    “...But in humans the ability to receive and interpret scent signals is very low. The olfactory lobe in our brains is proportionately smaller than in the brains of apes. (This is a common feature in aquatic mammals. In whales and seals the olfactory lobe has diminished almost to vanishing point.) So one reason for the ending of the oestrus could be that it ceased to work properly. As a result of the pheronomal secretions being washed away, plus diminished scent perception, the signal was simply not getting across.”[6]

    The Missionary Position
    As humans we have a common sexual position that is quite different to that of other land-based mammals – front to front. The usual explanation is that we wish to kiss...

    “Ventro-ventral copulation, very rare in land mammals, is the commonest mode in aquatic mammals except for those that go ashore to breed. Whales and dolphins, dugongs and manatees, beavers, and sea otters are among the numerous aquatic species which mate face to face. Swimming promotes this method of copulation in the same way that bipedalism does, because in both cases the spine and the hind limbs are realigned, forming a continuous straight line instead of the 90-degree angle found in most quadrapreds.”[7]http://survive2012.com/aquatic_ape_t..._page=show_all
    Last edited by Maggie, 6th September 2018 at 23:56.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (7th September 2018), Dreamtimer (7th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), NotAPretender (7th September 2018)

  15. #8
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    11,960
    Thanks
    54,067
    Thanked 48,990 Times in 11,940 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor?
    Actually, the claim that humans would have evolved from apes (or monkeys) has always been nothing but a very tenacious urban legend, because that is not what scientific research has shown. According to scientific findings, humans and apes evolved as separate species from — indeed — a common ancestor, which itself would have been a primate.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (7th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Indigris (7th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), Maggie (8th September 2018), NotAPretender (7th September 2018)

  17. #9
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    2,517
    Thanks
    10,943
    Thanked 12,154 Times in 2,533 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    This is all so interesting that I am posting a long segment. Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor? It makes perfect sense to me that "epigenetics" could create changes in a species in a relatively short span of time. OR perhaps we were originally sea creatures that moved to the land? Here is a comment from the article quoted below.
    If you wanna see something REALLY fascinating watch: "Humanzee"
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (7th September 2018), Dreamtimer (7th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018)

  19. #10
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    If you wanna see something REALLY fascinating watch: "Humanzee"
    To me, the story is fraught with pathos.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPtxcyMvuA

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (7th September 2018), Dreamtimer (7th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), NotAPretender (8th September 2018)

  21. #11
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    2,517
    Thanks
    10,943
    Thanked 12,154 Times in 2,533 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    To me, the story is fraught with pathos.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBPtxcyMvuA
    It was weird...but why pathos...maybe I remember but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (8th September 2018), Dreamtimer (8th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018)

  23. #12
    Senior Member United States Maggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th November 2015
    Posts
    1,149
    Thanks
    1,632
    Thanked 7,069 Times in 1,149 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    It was weird...but why pathos...maybe I remember but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.
    there have been multiple, documented attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees, who, along with bonobos, are our closest relatives. For example, in the 1920’s, Soviet scientist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov wanted to make a “chuman” by impregnating women with chimp sperm while pretending to conduct a medical exam, according to New Scientist. The experiments were to take place in Guinea, which was a French colony at the time. The French governor forbade it, and although Ivanov later found willing volunteers in the Soviet Union, his sperm-donor chimp died before he could proceed.

    The Chicago Tribune reported in 1981 that a scientist had claimed to have successfully impregnated a chimp with human sperm in 1967. But the experiment was interrupted when the laboratory was smashed by authorities under the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the chimp reportedly died from neglect.https://www.newsweek.com/could-chimp...ossible-796646
    I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
    I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
    I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
    I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
    I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
    I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
    I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

    Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
    I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

    What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
    The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.
    Last edited by Maggie, 8th September 2018 at 04:53.

  24. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Maggie For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (8th September 2018), Dreamtimer (9th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), Melidae (8th September 2018), modwiz (8th September 2018), NotAPretender (8th September 2018)

  25. #13
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    11,960
    Thanks
    54,067
    Thanked 48,990 Times in 11,940 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
    I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
    I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
    I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
    I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
    I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
    I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

    Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
    I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

    What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
    The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.

    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (9th September 2018), Dumpster Diver (8th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), Maggie (8th September 2018), Melidae (8th September 2018), modwiz (8th September 2018), NotAPretender (8th September 2018), Shadowself (8th September 2018)

  27. #14
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,592
    Thanks
    12,727
    Thanked 13,101 Times in 2,611 Posts
    There are so many pointers that in fact tend towards our having been constructed rather than having evolved.

    The keeping of pets simply adds to our karmic load, we trap, eat, domesticate, breed, etc these poor critters, so little wonder more evolved critters are allowed to do the same to us.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (8th September 2018), Dreamtimer (9th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018), NotAPretender (8th September 2018)

  29. #15
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    2,517
    Thanks
    10,943
    Thanked 12,154 Times in 2,533 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Maggie View Post
    I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
    I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
    I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
    I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
    I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
    I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
    I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

    Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
    I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

    What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
    The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.
    That pretty much covers it...

    I understand that, and I think that is what I found so fascinating when watching this...because one of the premises was that it had happened in 'nature'. If you watched it until the end you might have seen that the 'Humanzee' was a 'mutation' of some kind. It had not a strictly chimp genomic makeup but something different but obviously not human.
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (8th September 2018), Dreamtimer (9th September 2018), Kathy (11th September 2018)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •