What I imagined gorillas looked like as a child.
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
255 points (98.5% liked)
Science Memes
16948 readers
1926 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
imagine a homo florensis (hobbit people lived in they area), walking though the forest and meeting a Gigantopithecus.
Like meeting a gid
Itβs super cool that we can still see it even though the photograph isnβt real.
I think its a real photo of a recreation of the ape.
No, itβs not a real photograph. It says so in the photograph.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.
Sure but I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time "not a real photograph" was the equivalent to the statement "a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be".
Pretty sure they're just joking. They're correct though, it says it's not real on the photo, photos don't lie.
Depicting what the extinct Gigantopithecus blacki looked like standing next to a modern human for scale.
Which one is which?
Basketball players and their girlfriends
We finally got a clear picture of bigfoot.
Call Joe Rogan
Wikipedia on gorillas:
The heaviest wild gorilla recorded was a 1.83 m (6 ft 0 in) silverback shot in Ambam, Cameroon, which weighed 267 kg (589 lb).[30] The tallest gorilla in captivity was Gust, a western lowland gorilla that was captured as a baby in Belgian Congo and spent his life at Antwerp Zoo. He was 2.20 m (7 ft 3 in) tall. Males in captivity can be overweight and reach weights up to 310 kg (683 lb).
Caption writer seems to be confused about what a real photograph is and what conceptual means.
Fake and real photograph used to have a very different meaning indeed.
This is a "real" photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker:
This is a "fake" photo of Denise Richards and Paul Walker (in the body of a cybernetic T-Rex):
In case I wasn't clear about this in my other reply, my main point is that a photo of something fake is not the same thing add as a fake photo. If the dinosaur is animatronic, it's not a fake photo. If the dinosaur is CGI, yeah fake photo.
Yeah, that's why my comment was basically words and phrases have shifting connotations as time passes and contexts change.
No, this is sloppy use of language, which worked the same 50 years ago. The only thing different today is the range of things that exist that we can infer that they really mean by their sloppy language. There were still ways to manipulate photos, before CGI. One might have called such a manipulated photo a 'fake photograph' in that day (though even that is arguably a little sloppy). But a non manipulated photo of a real physical model is not in any way a 'fake photograph'. You could say a photograph of a fake Gigantopithecus, or of a fake scene but that's not the same thing. Yes, we can infer what's meant when people carelessly slap adjectives on the wrong nouns, but it is sloppy writing.
Notice how much more accurate and well written OP's description is: "Paleo-anthro sculptor Bill Munns with his Giganto reconstruction"
Yeah nah.
I agree that its sloppy language but it would've been more descriptive in the 80s.
Dude I'm not arguing that it's correct or not, I'm saying that this is the way many people used to (and how some still do) use the language.
Oh, sure, no disagreement from me on that. But this looks to me like something from a magazine, so one expects some level of professionalism. Now if this is some 12 year old's fanzine or something, ok, I feel bad for giving them shit, but a professional journalist should be embarrassed.
No u should π€¦ββοΈ
I just commented this somewhere else:
I think this photograph was taken in an era when the only technology available to make an image that looked like this was photography. At that time "not a real photograph" was the equivalent to the statement "a photograph of something which is not what it appears to be".
See my reply to the other reply to my comment.
Is there any evidence it stood on two feet? Figured it would look more like a gorilla then this.
The banana is being covered by the dude's left arm.
Great photo. Tried to fix the colors just enough to clarify the scale:
Didn't these two do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?
"Holy FUCK, boys! He looks t' be about a ten footer!"
Raoh vs. Ken in Fist of the North Star.
Chewbacca here is first mate on a ship that might suit us.
RAWRGWAWGGR
I think it would be cool if it was something a bit more human-esque.
Like less contrast between the colours of his fur/face, overall a bit less hair, let's suppose it's just more mobile than gorillas but not as mobile and agile as we are, but that it could make it less hairy due to sweating and whatnot.
And chimp faces are just a tad more human in my opinion than gorillas. And gigantipithecus... sounds like it might be more related to us than gorillas
Yeah, my dude just looks like a swole orangutan.
The Librarian, asked to comment, offered only: "Ook."
Actually I went to read after writing the comment and while originally they thought it might be a hominin, now they think it is actually more closely related to orangutans, making my comment kinda stupid. (Except I still think the face is off. Should be more understanding and kind, orangutangish.)
Don't tell anyone. Well you can tell the Librarian. We're scheduled for coffee next week anyway in the L-space. Feel free to tag along.