Monkey Brains

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

JLA: Yes. You are.[wrong]

TheBrain: Sorry GOD. I forgot you are always watching.

JLA: You can’t refute my statements, so you go for the personal attack?

TheBrain: But GOD, you don’t seem to understand that when you make overwhemling generalized statements no one takes them seriously. But, I am sorry because now I KNOW you are GOD and can’t be wrong.

JLA: I’ve pulled off or helped to pull off some very convincing “gore” scenes, thankyouverymuch. And I’ve obviously done more research than you have.

TheBrain: WOW! Again, all that proof to show me how arong I am. I guess all that research you did paid off. But, I can’t seem to read the itsy bitsy tiny print between your lines that must ACTUALLY contain the proof you flaunt on my computer screen.

JLA: Well, I and others have posted sources that do a very good job of debunking the scene. Why don’t you provide a source for your claims? Or don’t you have any?
TheBrain: JLA, have you been to the sources you talk about? Urbanlegends.com’s proof consists of some jackass’s personal accounts to the writer’s reaction to FoD-I while the writer was watching it. Gosh, what more proof could I possibly want? And, AGAIN, I refer to my disagreeing with Cecil on what a Snuff Film is. And, Idid list my source, his article, and he DOES list many movies that DO fall under my definition. And, you JLA, haven’t listed one single source that PROVES FoD I as a fake. Not one. Not on my screen. Must be that itsy bitsy tiny print you use. You do know you can make your font larger don’t you.

42

Ah yes, more happy smiling faces here in CCC! :smiley:

So far I don’t see anything that really calls for a WWF-style smackdown on the part of yours truly, moderator here, but need I remind everybody here that our rules say no personal insults in this forum?

Before anyone feels tempted to tiptoe over that line and end up having their mummified foot hanging over my mantlepiece as another trophy of successful moderatorship, you may want to think twice. Our friends down at The BBQ Pit are always available to oversee your less-than-civil arguments.

P.S. Thanks to dantheman for providing the link to the online column.

moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»

43

Actually, TheBrain, you listed one yourself: the master Cecil Adams, who says:

Where “reenactments” means, as far as I’m concerned, “fake”. As far as the monkey-brain eating scene in Faces Of Death, here is my point of view.
[ul]
[li]Eating monkey brains from live monkeys is very rarely documented.[/li][li]The fact that it even occurs at all is disputed.[/li][li]Such a scene appears in the film “Faces of Death”.[/li][li]However, the director of the movie admits that many of the scenes were filmed by himself with special effects. (See the link kindly provided by Xgemina).[/li][/ul]

I think the points outlined above are sufficient for anyone to have sufficient reasons to dispute the “monkey-brain eating” scene of Faces of Death, absent any documentation of the authenticity of the footage.

44

Cecil’s comments don’t give sufficent eveidence to prove the scene in question is a fake. I will state again that I was exagerating my belief in that scene. I do not think it is a true depiction of monkey brain eating. However, nothing on this string PROVES it to not be. Cecil’s statement about FoD seems to say, to me, that some of the film is true and some is not. He does not elaborate on the scene in question. I have serious doubts as to whether Cecil has even seen the film given that he failed to mention it in the orginal column, so his comments are probably second hand at best. The interview cited by Xgemina does not mention the monkey scene directly. And, the urbanlegends.com article is as reliable as my comments. The link http://www.snopes2.com/movies/other/snuff.htm seems to be contradicted by Cecil himself. In it they give the definition of a Snuff Film.

[This stuff is so horrible, but, for the sake of clarity, here goes.] One it says the movies need to made for only a select few. So, media coverage of murders, like standoffs, when they know a murder is likely to occur and then does, doesn’t count I guess. Also, we could debate when murder IS. In the snuff article that gives the definition it sites a male female team raping women. The woman gives on of the females a lethal dose of tranquilizer. The woman kills the girl right then, but the girl actually dies off camera. Other than that, we could debate the enjoyment part of the definition. However, Cecil’s “masturbation” film at first glance seems to be about enjoyment. Execution films would could be about enjoyment, and there are filmings of executions. The rest you will all have to decide on your own. But, don’t be fooled people die all the time in front of a camera, and the media does it for profit and your enjoyment; but, ten million viewers is more than a select few, so I guess that isn’t so bad.

The first quote Arnold cites of mine is very very specific. JLA did not provide squat when I wrote that. He did eventually provide EVIDENCE that F/X could do what my exageration said it couldn’t. That is all I said.

Everything after the second quote you wrote, Arnold, I agree with completely. It is the best most accurate statement said on this string about monkey brain eating.

Why don’t we prove them all wrong and go get a hammer and a monkey? Let me be the second to say yuck!

45

Well, since both Cecil and the FBI are “wrong” in their definition of what constitutes a snuff film, perhaps you’d be so kind as to favor us with your definition, Brain. So far, you’ve yet to clearly articulate it.

I’ll even get you started by giving you something to work off of (though if past is precedent, you’ll just ignore it…just as you’ve ignored all the previous points I’ve made that you obviously have no answer for).

I will agree that whether a film is made for commercial gain or not is irrelevent to the definition. In my view, a snuff film is one in which the filmmakers are the direct agents of a real on-screen death – a death that would not have taken place without them in some way setting the precipitating events in motion.

This cuts every single one of the “many movies” (your phrase, not his) cited in Cecil’s column right out of the picture:

  • Accidental deaths caught on film – would have happened whether the filmmakers were present or not.

  • Zapruder – Kennedy would have been shot whether Zapruder was present or not.

  • The two who died in the making of porno films – perhaps would not have happened without the filmmakers present, but neither death was arranged with intent to take place by the filmmakers.

  • The hunchback in Morroco – This death, from the way it’s described, does not seem as though it was arranged by the filmmakers or even for the filmmakers’ benefit, though we can’t be sure. This is the only film out of all those described that could possibly fit a reasonable definition of a snuff film, and it’s a stretch.

  • Filmed executions – would have happened whether the filmmakers were there or not.
    Please tell me why I’m being unreasonable, Brain. I eagerly await your reply…although I’m not sure why.

You know, in civilized debates, one acknowledges the points made by the other side and attempts to refute them specifically, rather than simply ignoring them if they make one uncomfortable and hoping no one notices.

You apparently think that this rule doesn’t apply to you (which makes your attempt at sarcasm by calling another poster God all the more amusing).

In my view, your credibility is less than zero right now. I guess I’m just having fun playing with you at this point.
(edited by moderator to remove trailing {/B} tag that was causing font discrepancies)

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 03-11-2001 at 09:42 AM]

46

Arnold, I knew I’d get called on that! :smiley:

47

Sure there’s no proof. But in this particular case (monkey-brain eating) I think it’s reasonable to say that the burden of proof should be on the filmmaker or those who claim the footage of true, not on the part of the skeptics. (You seem to agree with that yourself.)

To make an (imperfect) analogy:
If I see footage of lions romping around on the Savannah on PBS, I’ll accept that it’s true without too much difficulty. But if on the FOX network I see some grainy footage of a big hairy creature walking through the snow and some FOX show TV actor comes on screen to say “There you go folks, the yeti caught on film!” My first reaction will be to say “Prove it. Where does the film come from? What date/day/time/location ? Who filmed it? Were there witnesses?” etc…

I think others are adressing the issue of snuff films so I don’t see anything that I would say that hasn’t been said yet.

48

Not to distract from this fascinating discussion of snuff films, but was anyone else less than overwhelmed by Cecil’s column on monkey brains? It seemed (dare I say it?) like some yahoo with a computer passing along an urban legend. I mean, his research consisted of poking around on the Internet and then quoting a friend who has a friend whose father claims to know about the practice.

If The Brain tried to offer that kind of “proof,” we’d ridicule him mercilessly.

Surely the mighty Cecil could talk to some experts on Asian culture, unearth some ancient tome describing the grisly procedure or at least experiment in his kitchen with a couple of stolen monkeys to see if he could re-create the experience. That’s the kind of awe-inspiring scholarship I’ve come to expect.

I think Cecil let us down.

49

Finally, someone got it! Thank you very much Clark for actually putting two and two together. Even though I spelled it out more than once. Arnold probably understood, but, since, he works for Cecil I can understand why he didn’t write it out.

BigStar303, you had promise but you missed the point. But, even more disapointing is that, AFTER I gave you what you wanted, you became even more demeaning and aggressive. What didn’t you like my citing Cecil, http://www.snopes2.com/movies/other/snuff.htm, the interview cited by Xgemina and urbanlegends.com? I gave you what you wanted and you say this, “You know, in civilized debates, one acknowledges the points made by the other side and attempts to refute them specifically, rather than simply ignoring them if they make one uncomfortable and hoping no one notices. You apparently think that this rule doesn’t apply to you (which makes your attempt at sarcasm by calling another poster God all the more amusing).” I did that, and the part about me calling someone God, have you read that guys posts up to that point?

Johnny LA’s argument consisted of him saying I am right and you are wrong. And, even though I didn’t list exact citings up to that point at least my beliefs on the subject were based in reality. And, hmmmmm, we haven’t heard much from Johnny LA since I started revealing my sources which he claimed to know intimately. Either he already knew and just wanted to have an argument, or he didn’t and now is too red faced to debate longer.

Lets look at the definition of a Snuff Film as defined at http://www.snopes2.com/movies/other/snuff.htm. They define it like this:
Snuff films depict the killing of a human being – a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.

Hmmmm? Your definition, a snuff film is one in which the filmmakers are the direct agents of a real on-screen death – a death that would not have taken place without them in some way setting the precipitating events in motion, doesn’t seem to fit in with theirs either. Are you noticing that, BigStar? While the only part of the definition that my example, the media, conflict with is the part: circulated amongst a jaded few. [And, just by chance you want to argue whether I have any media examples I will give you one that you have seen. Remember the street execution of a manacled National Liberation Front prisoner by the chief of the Saigon national police?] The snipes source also stipulates that many organizations and people also use the want of profit in their definition of a Snuff Film. Media coverage depicts the killings of so many humans we couldn’t count the list. And, the media could arguably be about entertainment in this day and age, and the media are certainly all about profit. The media just destributes to a jaded few million.

Next time, why don’t you read someone’s post, THINK for a few days, and then come back with something intelligent!

50

Time to eat some more crow, BigStar303.

Here is the FULL definition used at the snopes source:
Definition of the Term: As to what is or is not a snuff film, according to Kerekes and Slater, authors of Killing for Culture, the bible on the snuff film rumor:
Snuff films depict the killing of a human being – a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.
It’s a simple definition, but a workable one.

Some will further claim that a profit motive must exist, that the final product has to be offered for sale (as opposed to being passed around without charge within a select circle, or remaining solely in the possession of its maker). That detail is extraneous. It’s the recording of the death itself which constitutes the “snuff” in snuff films, not who makes a buck out of it.
[Seperated for BigStar’s appetite for crow.]
Likewise, claims that the filmmaker must have had no other motivation than the production of the film should be dismissed.
[END Seperation]
A psychopath who tortures and murders solely to satisfy his personal demons but who videotapes the event to create a reliveable record of the experience has produced a snuff film.

If you can’t figure out how wrong you are then there is no hope. Why don’t you try some more insults? I think they are cute.

51

No, I just decided you’re not worth the effort.

52

No substance just defiance. I couldn’t ask for a better debate.

What, does it hurt so bad to be defeated so completely?

Let me anticipate your next post of proof:

JLA: But, I am right and you are wrong, Brain.

TheBrain: Boy, that was the kicker, you sure showed me.

53

Hey Brain, I think you’re having difficulty with your reading comprehension.

Bigstar’s definition:
A film in which the filmmakers are the direct agents of a real on-screen death – a death that would not have taken place without them in some way setting the precipitating events in motion.

snopes definition:
The depiction of the killing of a human being – a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetuated for the medium of film and circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment.

Now, if a human sacrifice is perpetuated for the medium of film, doesn’t that imply that the filmmakers are the direct agents of an on-screen death which would not have taken place without them? These two definitions are perfectly compatible. The only difference, and it is a trivial one, is the part about being “circulated amongst a jaded few for the purpose of entertainment”, which I think is a given in any definition of a snuff film.

And regarding your comments about Clark K being “the winner” because he was the only person smart enough to see your true point, that’s a load of crap. Are you really expecting us to believe that your statements, which started out as blindingly idiotic, and got slightly better as everyone slapped you around, were really part of some clever point you were making, but were too subtle to come right out and say? Give me a break.

54

Brain, the only thing I “got” was tired of you, so I returned to the original topic. Please don’t try to suggest you have had some brilliant agenda since the very beginning to make a point about Cecil’s column. You simply offered some comments that made you look gullible and then got defensive when people scoffed.

55

Let us take this one at a time.

Galt, my boy:

You obviously didn’t read the entire section at snopes concerning the definition of Snuff Films. You obviously didn’t read my post which excerpted the entire section. You obviously didn’t read all my posts or you would have noticed me aknowledging that portion of the definition and disagreeing with it. You obviously just want to jump into a conversation and try and look smart. If you would have tried to comprehend the conversation between BigStar and I, you would have noticed he was berating me because I diverged from the normal definition of a Snuff Film. You then, if you had the intelligence, would have noticed that I was POINTING OUT to him that he was doing the same thing [Again, I refer you to the entire section of the snopes definition.] In that section it SPECIFICALLY says that his definition is not taken into consideration. And, your example would be a Snuff Film, but it would not be a part of ALL Snuff Films.

If you would have read my posts, or understood them, you would have noticed a little paragraph at the end of my second post. In it I clearly make a contridiction to my earlier assertations of my opinions being valid as proof. Hasn’t anyone here heard of contridictions or sarcasm. Your fatherjohn would be very disapointed in you, I am sure. And, nobody slapped me around. I have backed up everything I have said and done. Just because you don’t understand them is not my responsibility. Read it again, like a hundred times, and you might start to understand.

Clark K: I am sorry. You obviously didn’t get it. You as well haven’t read the posts or followed the string. You must be another one of those people that can’t remember the last page you read in a book. At least everything is new and wonderful for you no matter how hard you study.

Neither of you have seemed to noticed my contridictions or even tried to ponder why these are there. Granted the short time I have spent doing this may not have made it as clear as I wanted, but at least I have read and understood what people wrote BEFORE I made them look the fool. You all live in a whitebread, satin sheet world where people rarely argue, with daily lives as bland as water, don’t you?

To Everyone:
One last thing. At first, I was using the snopes definition from memory. I should have confirmed the FBI thing since the snopes article just said “some further claim.” The rest of my contridictions were purposeful in a attempt for you all to get off your butts and bitch at Cecil when he doesn’t do the job we pay him to do. I suppose I should have used the correct language. baaa bbaaaa ba baaaaaa baa ba. Is that better?

56

There still has not been ONE SINGLE source listed that PROVES the FoD Monkey scene as a fake. Not One. None. This MEANS there isn’t one on this string. But, why don’t you all give your OPINIONS one more time.

Let me give you one of my favorite quotes:

TO BELIEVE IS NOT TO KNOW. TO KNOW IS TO BELIEVE.

[It isn’t mine, and I am sorry BigStar I forget the man/woman who wrote it.]

57

That makes two of us, Johnny.

Brain, I’ve got to hand it to you, your strategy is brilliant. Utterly ignore the specifics of any challenges to your statements, and plow blithely on with your own tortured logic. Then declare victory.

It’s obvious that you’re unable to answer the questions I’ve repeatedly posed in an effort to in some way clarify your senseless rambling.

Being a reasonable individual, I’ll stop doing that now. If you repeatedly knock on the door and no one answers, you can only conclude that no one is home.
To wrap this fascinating little exercise up, let’s review:

  1. Brain gets snookered by the Faces of Death monkey brain eating scene. (QUOTE: “What is definitally [sic] not in doubt is whether the actual killing, prying open the brain and eating the brain occured.”)

  2. For reasons known only to himself, he includes a reference to snuff films in his original post (another gem of construction, by the way… QUOTE: “Even the FBI denied Snuff Films are not censidered snuff because people don’t sell the movies. There are dozens of movies where people are killed for the viewers enjoyment.”)

  3. I challenge him to document these two statements and supply specific cites. Brain ignores these requests.

  4. Not having learned his lesson from the Faces of Death incident, Brain now undertakes to prove that snuff films really do exist, despite much expert opinion to the contrary.

  5. Cecil’s article and the one from Snopes provide working definitions of what would truly constitute a snuff film, and conclude that they don’t exist.

  6. According to Brain, the FBI follows a similar path – however, despite additional questioning, he is still unable to provide a cite for the FBI definition of a snuff film, or provide a source for this definition. We’re just supposed to believe this is so because he says so.

  7. In an attempt to clarify and get Brain on point, I provide a simple definition of a snuff film myself. Brain finds a conflict with the other definitions where there is none, and declares victory.

  8. All of these definitions having proved unsatisfactory for his purposes, Brain promulgates his own definition of snuff films (but again, despite repeated requests, refuses to share the specifics of it).

  9. Without specifics, we can only surmise from his posts that Brain’s definition of snuff incorporates virtually ANY film in which a death is shown – regardless of what events led up to that death. Newsreel footage of combat in which a soldier is killed? Yep, that’s a snuff film. Zapruder? Snuff. A filmed execution, which would have gone on just the same if the cameraman had missed the bus? Snuff. Documentaries on the History Channel? Hmmm, not sure, but they must be snuff too.

  10. Armed with his own definition, Brain now triumphantly shouts, “See? There really ARE snuff films after all! All these other people don’t know what they’re talking about! I’m right. Whoopee!”
    The funniest thing about all of this? Brain doesn’t realize how totally foolish he makes himself look with each succeeding post. No doubt, as more and more people point this out, it will only stiffen his resolve that he is right and everybody else in the universe is wrong. There’s a psychiatric term for this syndrome.

Brain, you were fun to toy with for a little while. But just as I wouldn’t give booze to an alcoholic, I think it’s time I stopped feeding your illness now.

58

Do any of you people even read the posts people write? Or do you just visually bleep out the parts that bother you?

How many $%^& times do I have to say I don’t think that scene was real, and that I never did. It was a contridiction made for a point, that your devoted love for Cecil has caused you to ignore. Really intelligent there.

How many times do I have to write that there has been NO PROOF? BigStars latest idiotic response still doesn’t prove it false.

BigStar, you yourself made a definition of Snuff Films that is DIRECTLY refuted in the snopes article. but, i am a bad guy for doing the same thing. I love hypocrisy, it makes for such a convincing argument.

When you asked for sources I provided them. Over and Over and Over again. My memory wasn’t perfect, but my general statements were not wrong[except when noted.] NOTED, that means I admitted my mistakes. Unlike the rest of you.

Quit talking to yourself, BigStar, and start READING the posts.

Oh I forgot. baaaa ba baaa ba baaa baaaa.

The sheep rule here.

See you all at the next Cecil stumble. Before then, some of you could use a lesson or two in debating, should open a dictionary, and you could all benefit in reading Shakespeare.

59

Look, there might be no concrete proof that the monkey brain eating scene in FoD is, in fact, fake, but there is plenty of reason to believe it. For example, it has been pointed out that it was filmed from several vantage points and in several shots, that would either require stopping the action and moving the camera, or using multiple cameras, which would have appeared in the footage. It was also pointed out that the director of FoD has gone on record saying that scenes in it were faked. It was further pointed out that the mnkey’s head rotates as if on a turnstile, not in a natural way.

Johnny L.A. also offered his opinion, as someone who has filmed similar special effects, that the footage looks like special effects, not a real event. You don’t address these points, you just insult the people who made them, and ramble nonsense about snuff films.

You say things like:

And don’t provide any research of it on your own. All you have is a scene in a movie full of “reenactments”. A scene which apparently looks fake. If you want to take that at face value as proof, go ahead, but don’t expect anyone to go to extraordinary lengths to disprove it to your satisfaction.

And then whenever people ask for cites or proof or clarification, you bring in new and unrelated arguments, resort to personal insults or simply ignore them. Just a hint, when everyone simply gives up rather than trying to argue with you, it’s not generally because you’re winning the argument. It’s more likely to be that you are obviously not following any reasonable standards of intellectual debate and honesty.

60

Dear Cecil,
I refer to your column of 9th March and allow me to put in my two cents bit. First of all, some background. Singapore lies between two parts of Malaysia, one of which is attached to the Asian mainland and the other in Borneo island. The country supports a larger Chinese population than Singapore as well as over 35 other ethnic groups that consume moneys. (At this juncture, I must clarify that the term “baba” is not ethnic Chinese as per your article, but refers to a Chinese sub-culture that evolved over 600 years ago from the Malacca Sultanate. They do not speak Chinese, only Malay, and have adopted Malay customs. They do not, as a rule, eat monkey). Malaysia has also huge tracts of forests that support substantial Epicurean food resources. Having travelled extensively throughout my country and spent considerable time in rural and jungle locales, I have witnessed (and partaken of) the consumption of numerous wildlife, of which monkeys are one of the less exotic. Moneys are not commonly consumed because of the meat is very gamey. Where monkey hunting (for food) is carried out, the preferred species is the pig (short)-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina), the others being too tough and scrawny. I agree the skinned animal looks unnervingly like a human child. The brain is eaten with the meat, though on all occasions I was present, it was cooked (albeit lightly) as well.
The issue, of course, is not the issue of eating monkey brain per se, but the extremely cruel manner in which the Chinese are supposed to go about it. The story of the monkey being shackled under a table only to have its skull removed and its brain scooped out while it is still alive originates apparently in a newspaper report to that effect sometime in 1948, when a columnist (I forgotten his name) wrote a tongue-in-cheek column on the broad ranging feeding habits of ethnic Chinese (not babas). He was also apparently responsible for the saying that the “Chinese eat everything in the water except submarines, everything in the air except aeroplanes and everything with legs except furniture”, a wisdom that has got lost in the mists of time. All these comments were made at a time when it was still politically acceptable to poke fun at Chinese (the columnist himself was ethnic Chinese). He confessed in a revelation some time back (shortly before his death) that he had no idea that the monkey brain story would take on the dimension of an urban legend, but there you are. I am inclined to believe him because in my numerous travels, I have visited many Chinese restaurants (some of which have venerable histories going back 50 years or more, others in the business of preparing exotic dishes like curried civet cat and the like) and, while all have heard the story, none have actually witnessed the event.
About time you got someone else to do your snooping around here for you!
Regards
Gopinath Nagaraj