Faux photography on Animal Planet's "The Cannibal In The Jungle".

<p>I just watched the weirdest documentary on the Animal Planet this Sunday evening and was perplexed, intrigued, fascinated and bamboozled all at the same time. I've never had that happen on any dramatized documentary on any subject of interest including JFK conspiracy docs. I immediately had to do a search on the '77 cannibalism/murder trial of ornithologist Dr. Timothy Darrow because I never heard of it even back then. I got this page first due to my entering his name where I made a comment...</p>

<p>http://www.inquisitr.com/2116836/cannibal-in-the-jungle-untrue-story-flores-indonesia-hobbits-animal-planet-movie/</p>

<p>You've got to see this to see what I mean not for the actual story though that sucks you in but rather on how it's documented by video footage of questionable actual events, interviews by questionable actual authorities (listen to the speech patterns). Animal Planet says on their website that it's a "scripted" film based on true events which are hard to distinguish due to the style of the look of the "real" video footage from re-enacted. </p>

<p>The show actually indicates they found the film that shows the "Hobbit" creatures in Darrow's sister's attic several months after he dies in prison in 2013 and presents it as actual footage. But the thing is the camera/film was handed to the family back in '77 and was not entered into evidence by the Indonesian authorities in the original trail which doesn't make a lot of sense. </p>

<p>I'm now convinced Animal Planet has reached a new low in their attempts to "edu-tain" their audiences. </p>

Next thing we know you are going to tell us that the events that were presented to us in Peyton Place, Dallas, Falcon Crest and Ugly Betty never happened. What is the world coming to...

<p>So some programing presented in a documentary format by networks is scripted ? Who would have guessed?</p>

<p>And I suppose you're going to tell me that the "Alien Autopsy" piece was something less than the cold hard truth? Shocked. I am shocked!</p>

<p>Tim:<br>

I find (even the slimmest) possibility of existence today on earth of intelligent humanoids, other than homo sapiens, fascinating. Biblical story of Genesis tells about creation of a man and a woman – there is no mention of other relatives of ours. Would Noah have saved Neanderthals or “Hobbits” from the flood? My Judeo-Christian cultural roots tell me that humans are unique and special – what if we are not?</p>

<p>Thomas: we are special, in the sense that we survived/merged-with some of the ancestors we had in common with human-ish critters that faded away. But there are plenty of Europeans, for example, walking around with at least a small dose of Neanderthal DNA. So depending on how you want to look at it, those long-gone cousins are still with us. Especially if you ask my wife, while I'm trying to do something delicate, like cooking.</p>

<p>Matt, keep Europeans out of it, please. You can take examples closer to home. You, for example. :)</p>

<p>From the responses I guess I didn't clarify enough the point I tried to make that the "Mockumentary" is presented as if it's real. It's the style of presentation that is misleading.</p>

<p>The story is fascinating and I'm all on board for finding a new species of hominid. That's what drew me in but because the way it was presented I couldn't separate fact from fiction but on a whole other level of deception I haven't seen before. For those that didn't watch it and I get the impression that includes everyone that responded I'll give an example.</p>

<p>The production jump cuts between what appears to be three types of video clips to tell the story of the three men who went into the Flores jungle hunting for an endangered bird, one is labeled as re-enacted by actors, the second is what looks like archival footage from the '77 expedition due to the three men looking different causing me to assume these are the actual men because there is another jump cut to footage of these men showing the actual hominids in large groups surrounding them but there's something off looking (CGI'ed?) in their appearance as way too over the top scary but well blended into the '70's film stock look of that period.</p>

<p>They then jump cut to old pictures of Tim Darrow when he was a child next to his sister as they jump cut back to her now grown up in an interview explaining her brother could never do such a horrid thing as cannibalism, but her speech pattern sounds like she's an actress even though she's labeled in the lower right corner as Tim Darrow's sister. The old pictures show Tim Darrow as looking like the younger version of the re-enactment actor so I'm trying to distinguish whether the sister's interview is part of the re-enactment sequences.</p>

<p>Hope you get my point. It's the production of this very fascinating story that does a disservice to the videographers and documentarians profession in the way they presented it. </p>

<p><a href=" of the Worlds</em></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"causing me to assume"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well yes, that clears things up.</p>

 

<p>Yeah, and what a bust 'Al Capone's vault' turned out to be. I'll never trust Geraldo again.</p>

<p>Have any of you who have commented seen the show?</p>

<p>Or are you going to ankle bite the entire the discussion?</p>

<p>While I'm not going to watch 2 hours of bad television, on a channel I already know to be idiotic in order to satisfy Tim or anyone else, I did read the thread linked to.</p>

<blockquote>

" Animal Planet combines the fictional, untrue story of Dr. Timothy Darrow and real scientific discovery for a new, two-hour movie "<br /><br />

</blockquote>

Most likely that sums things up.

<p>I guess you missed the Animal Planet/Discovery 'documentaries' "<strong>Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives</strong>" and <strong>"Mermaids: The Body Found</strong>", both scientifically illiterate edu-tainement shows, which have the facade of being real documentaries but which are in fact scripted conjectures. After those two "<strong>The Cannibal In The Jungle</strong>" wouldn't come as much of a shock. It's pretty much par for the course these days.</p>

<p>I can't wait for what they put out on Evolution and Climate Change. On second thoughts, maybe I can...</p>

<p>Tim it was an intentionally misleading presentation and I'm curious as to who the advertisers were? Here <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/television/animal-planet-has-lined-dozens-new-advertisers-153915">http://www.adweek.com/news/television/animal-planet-has-lined-dozens-new-advertisers-153915</a> . I see that Animal Planet content is designed to attract live viewers, that is, designed to attract viewers who don't skip ads through playback. Somehow you didn't just turn the channel or turn it off, so the content successfully delivered your attention to the advertisers. That is a bad thing. You were used. And now you feel cheated and cheap.</p>

<p>Your human faculty to freely give your attention is a precious capacity born of all the suffering and triumphs of every living thing that has come before you since the beginning of time.</p>

<p>Yes Animal Planet has many junk shows, as Bob says. Once, I think, they did indeed think they were genuinely educating their viewers or at least entertaining their viewers with largely correct information. But in the quest for ratings, the junk has set in. Like so much "science" coverage sensationalism and hyperbole is king. They are embarrassing: I note also that the Military Channel likes to imply the US won the Vietnam war, without actually saying it out straight.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I'm not going to watch 2 hours of bad television, on a channel I already know to be idiotic in order to satisfy Tim or anyone else, I did read the thread linked to.</p>

" Animal Planet combines the fictional, untrue story of Dr. Timothy Darrow and real scientific discovery for a new, two-hour movie "<br /><br />

<p>Most likely that sums things up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Gordon, when I read that line you quoted I can't tell which story they're referring to as untrue...the story Tim Darrow gave to Indonesian authorities or the story related by the "mockumentary".</p>

<p>This is what pisses me off more than anything because it was such an interesting story but they debased it with their presentation on such a devious level. I was beginning to think the making of this fictional documentary is what killed Dr. Darrow since he was able to survive for 33 years in an Indonesian prison to suddenly die right after being interviewed.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess you missed the Animal Planet/Discovery 'documentaries' "<strong>Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives</strong>" and <strong>"Mermaids: The Body Found</strong>", both scientifically illiterate edu-tainement shows, which have the facade of being real documentaries but which are in fact scripted conjectures. After those two "<strong>The Cannibal In The Jungle</strong>" wouldn't come as much of a shock. It's pretty much par for the course these days.<br>

I can't wait for what they put out on Evolution and Climate Change. On second thoughts, maybe I can...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bob, I don't watch those shows you mentioned for the very reason you outlined. I stick to Investigative Discovery forensic investigation programs which give me an insight on human behavior across all classes of society I wasn't aware. The random nature in the way discovery unfolds with each case in catching the bad guys I find fascinating. </p>

<p>The reason I focused on the show in question is that it appeared to be a similar type of thorough investigation on a '77 trial of an ornithologist from reading the cable TV synopsis banner. Now I know what I'm getting into when programs such as this start out with statements similar to the effect..."an inspired fictional account based on a true story"...translation...("This is a lie about a lie"). It also means I'm fixing to waste my time and wind up frustrated as hell.</p>

 

<p>Read more recent comments on that link and just want to make it official, the entire show was all made up. The person they said was Dr. Tim Darrow interviewed in the Indonesian prison is British actor Richard Brake. There was no such person as Dr. Tim Darrow. There was no trial of a Tim Darrow in Indonesia.</p>

<p>So the word "untrue" applies to the entire program. Even though I did a search on the trail, I thought why nothing showed up was due in part to it taking place in '77 and that maybe Indonesia back then had purged or censored the controversial news coverage much like other countries who don't want to be viewed as backward.</p>

<p>So basically I fell for a story ripped from the pages of "National Inquirer", a magazine I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole even back in '77. Now I can add Animal Planet. Live & learn.</p>

<p>I wonder if what was learned through this experience—which seems to have been begging for clarity on what's fact and what's fiction and how they relate—could be put to use in helping deal with the POTW of a couple of week's ago that so confounded you.</p>

<p>No Fred, I've long forgotten about that POTW discussion.</p>

<p>But I did ponder a bit further on the "mockudramentary" and found something NOT untrue which was their highlighting the fact amongst the jump cut editing showing species of animals known to be extinct that have been discovered in similar remote locations across the world as a way to draw attention to the possibility of discovering a new species of hominid which were to blame for the fake cannibalism in the untrue parts of the show.</p>

<p>But this point was obscured and lost on the audience who focused more on the interesting fake story that took as fact which pretty much defeated their purpose.</p>

<p>That was the producer's original intent (drawing attention to endangered species and finding some that are not) which I finally figure out after finding out the rest was all untrue.</p>