The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Missing Monkey (looks like Olsen Twin)
image The Tailspinning into Tomorrow Livejournal has posted a picture of a flyer put up by someone searching for their missing monkey. Here's the text of the flyer:

Missing Monkey
Last seen in diaper carrying blue 'blankie'
looks like Olsen twin (circa 1985 Full House baby)
Responds to nickname 'F123'
If found call: *******
Monkey is NOT trustworthy


I like how they specify that the monkey isn't trustworthy. But I'm wondering if the flyer might be an example of the classic weird-missing-pet phone prank. An earlier example of this I recorded was A Cat Named Killer. Here's the prank: put out an ad or flyer listing a weird pet as missing; include your friend's phone number as the contact; wait for your friend to gets hundreds of bizarre phone calls.
AnimalsPranks
Posted by The Curator on Fri Jan 21, 2005
Considering that the Olsen Twins weren't born until June, 1986, I'd say it's a hoax. Hey, somedamnbody has to keep track of these things.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  11:41 AM
What kind of person names their monkey 'F123'?
Posted by Ashley Pomeroy  in  Location, location  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  12:44 PM
I just noticed that the number listed on the flyer is an 866 area code. That's a toll-free number. So perhaps this isn't a prank. Perhaps it's a form of guerrilla (or gorilla) advertising.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  01:01 PM
The fact that the author of the flyer doesn't know when Full House was on does nothing to prove or disprove it's voracity.
The fact that the picture looks more like an orangutan, but is described as a monkey is a little more suspect IMHO. Plus, what's with the F123?
Sounds like maybe a lab designation or something.
Posted by Matt  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  01:42 PM
What (and how much) the monkey eats would prove its voracity. And, yes, any assertions regarding the Olsen twins Do reflect on the vEracity of the claimant, as pursuant to Hairy's Edict, which states: The inverse ratio of the Truth and hoaxes is directly proportional to complete knowledge (non-biblical) of Mary Kate and Ashley's D.O.B.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  02:12 PM
Thanks for breakin it down in mathematical speak HH. I would also subtract the impractical dubiousness of claims stated divideD by the farout flyers NUMBER stated being a callcenter FOR CLEARASIL INFO.
Posted by sbnature  in  sb ca  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  02:58 PM
Clearasil eh? The only word replaying in my mind is... WHY??
Posted by mystic kitten  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  03:23 PM
In case you have zits, that's why. Silly kitten.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  03:29 PM
Kids like monkeys (think MJ), kids have zits. This might be some strange marketing angle campaign???
Posted by sbnature  in  sb ca  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  03:39 PM
Let me see... You're suggesting that this is a marketing campaign designed to sell The Olsen Twins Clearasil? Or are you suggesting this is to ruin the careers of MK and A by comparing them to zit-ridden monkeys? Please clear this up. I must know.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  04:04 PM
Yes, veracity. That's what I meant.
Anyway, it's clearly not a monkey.
Posted by Matt  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  04:13 PM
You are right, Matt. It's an orangutan, which is an ape. Or it's Emmett Kelly, Jr. (figure out That obscure reference, Hairyphiles)
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  05:02 PM
Easy, thats Emmett Kelly Sr.'s son.
Posted by sbnature  in  sb ca  on  Fri Jan 21, 2005  at  07:17 PM
Perhaps there was a terrible zit-related accident that befell a confused young man who can't tell the difference between monkies and orangutans, and the Clearasil hotline team just couldn't save him. (sad, oh sob, sob...)

And this is his revenge. A really half-assed Phantom of the Opera style tragedy.

Clearly, the involvement of the Olsen twins, much like communism, is just a red herring....
Posted by Barghest  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  12:28 AM
Ironically, doing a Google image search of "baby monkey" brings up this exact picture on the poster as the very first item, showing the people who made this poster didn't try very hard.

Found at the following URL:
http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/smyth/images/baby monkey.jpg
Posted by Sarah  in  Dallas  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  02:07 AM
What I really want to know is: Which of the Olsen Twins does this baby monkey (ape) look like according to the postermaker? I see a hint of Mary Kate, but no Ashley. A little John Stamos in there, if you squint.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  01:54 PM
You know, that does look like Emmett Kelly (without his hat). I could add some REALLY obscure chatter here about the old feud between Emmett Sr. and Emmett Jr., but I won't.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  08:28 PM
I saw Emmett Kelly Jr. at the 1963/84 New York World's Fair. I seem to remember my Dad mumbling something about a Sr./Jr. feud, but I thought he was trying to give me a hint, pushing some weird metaphor on me. (I was six) I'm saving up for more therapy, and the house-arrest ankle bracelet comes off in June.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  08:39 PM
"What I really want to know is: Which of the Olsen Twins does this baby monkey (ape) look like according to the postermaker? I see a hint of Mary Kate, but no Ashley. A little John Stamos in there, if you squint."

Well, given that they are TWINS..........
Posted by aw  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  04:27 PM
http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/smyth/
That is one of the cutest primates I have ever seen!
Posted by Citizen Premier  in  spite of public outcry  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  05:01 PM
"I saw Emmett Kelly Jr. at the 1963/84 New York World's Fair."

That must have been a heck of a long fair, Hairy.
Posted by Big Gary C  in  Dallas, Texas  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  05:37 PM
63/64... sorry, I have Typo blood
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  05:57 PM
AW sez: "Well, given that they are TWINS........" The poster clearly says: "Looks like Olsen TwiN". Singular. If it looked like the TwinS, it would say TwinS. So... which one? My guess is Ashley Kate.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Sun Jan 23, 2005  at  06:03 PM
"Well, given that they are TWINS...."

As every creepy adult male and pre-pubescent female knows, they're actually fraternal twins. Not identical.
Posted by Matt  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  09:10 AM
No, they're identical. It's so easy to tell. I've stayed up real late at night looking at the posters so I'm sure they are identical. The article I just put in my Olsen Twin scrapbook says they are identical. I've read it over and over, and I'm sure that's what it says. That's not creepy, that's just research. Am I breathing heavily? I gotta lay down. Where's that Olsen Twin magazine? Oh, here it is. Mmmmmmm....
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  10:53 AM
Not only is the picture that is used pre-existing on the web, but the concept of "monkey is NOT trustworthy" may be kipped from the song "Monkeys Are Bad People" by Logan Whitehurst and the Junior Science Club:

Monkeys can't be trusted with your business
They're sneaky and dishonest through and through
Monkeys can't speak English, so they can't tell the truth
Monkeys are bad people, and so are you
Posted by Nat  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  11:21 AM
Of course the are identical. Weren't they hired to play the same child on Full House? This obsession of yours must stop. This is important. really, really important, so get it right, man, for the love of god. Damn, Sam...
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  11:23 AM
"Too much Monkey Business, for me to get involved with..." - Chuck Berry
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Jan 25, 2005  at  02:46 PM
Look. The Olsen twins are fraternal twins, not identical!
if they were identical it would of been hard to know which one is which- and it's not.
I have a twin-sister too and we're identical. The different is huge.

They got the role as Michelle because of their talent in different way of acting.Mary-kate did the funny scenes and Ashley the seriouse ones. They were a little worried about it, though, because they're fraternal. as everyone knows is fraternal twins not more alike than normal sisters and brothers so they were worried that mary-kate and ashley would change when the grew up-and they did but not that much.If they would of change more: then they had to use only one twin instead of two because they weren't alike. but they took the chanse and hoped that the twins wouldn't change so much that they weren't alike anymore. It's normal for fraternal twins to be 'identical' when they're little and two different persens when they grow up.

I hope you'll understand. I'm from Europe so i'm not that good in english

//Nikki and (Jessie)
Posted by Nina  in  Europe  on  Sun Aug 14, 2005  at  06:52 AM
The monkey looks better than one of the Olsen twins
Posted by That Guy  on  Sat Aug 27, 2005  at  02:52 PM
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.