Giant Monkey
The Chillicutt evidence: Once i was waiting for my car to be repaired, and in the car shop lobby were numerious magazines. I picked up an issue of 'Field and Stream', and inside i found...
Jimmy Chillicutt is a fingerprint technician for the Conroe, Texas, Police department. His expertise is so valued, that the FBI and DEA often ask him for assistance. Years ago, he thought that the key to understanding human prints might lie in becoming an expert on other primate prints(humans are primates too). He then took over a thousand prints of lemurs, chimps and apes (it wasn't easy- the curators of said primates were skeptical about his intentions- but checking his credentials assured them that he was no kook).
So Chillicutt became a world authority on primate prints. Then he saw a tv show on Sasquatch. Afterwards, he contacted Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Pocallo, Idaho, University, and offered to examine the 1,000 footprint casts of the alleged creature Meldrum has collected over the years. Chillicutt observed that the dermal ridges ran lenthwise, not vertically as with human prints( ape dermal ridges are slanted). Chillicutt also saw evidence of variation of the location of splayed toes
within casts taken from the (alleged) same animal. This showed that the print could not have been made by anyone wearing a faked-up 'boot.' The prints also contained signs of scarring, where the dermal ridge ran inward, which would be expected from an animal that walked 'barefoot' in the wild.
Jimmy Chillicutt began the examination intending to debunk the supposed existence of Bigfoot, but ended up a believer. He said only 4 or 5 other people in the world possessed enough knowledge of primate dermal ridges to fake the prints, and its impossible that these other experts are involved in any sort of hoax (being internationally respected biologists). The dermal ridge evidence is conclusive- an unknown bipedal animal made the prints.
Incidentally, most of the prints were found purely by chance- they were located in very out of the ways areas, with little chance of being found at all- a hoaxer would have made them near a well used trail, to guarantee discovery. But this is not the case.
(Feb. 21, 2000, Houston Chronicle)
Jimmy Chillicutt is a fingerprint technician for the Conroe, Texas, Police department. His expertise is so valued, that the FBI and DEA often ask him for assistance. Years ago, he thought that the key to understanding human prints might lie in becoming an expert on other primate prints(humans are primates too). He then took over a thousand prints of lemurs, chimps and apes (it wasn't easy- the curators of said primates were skeptical about his intentions- but checking his credentials assured them that he was no kook).
So Chillicutt became a world authority on primate prints. Then he saw a tv show on Sasquatch. Afterwards, he contacted Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Pocallo, Idaho, University, and offered to examine the 1,000 footprint casts of the alleged creature Meldrum has collected over the years. Chillicutt observed that the dermal ridges ran lenthwise, not vertically as with human prints( ape dermal ridges are slanted). Chillicutt also saw evidence of variation of the location of splayed toes
within casts taken from the (alleged) same animal. This showed that the print could not have been made by anyone wearing a faked-up 'boot.' The prints also contained signs of scarring, where the dermal ridge ran inward, which would be expected from an animal that walked 'barefoot' in the wild.
Jimmy Chillicutt began the examination intending to debunk the supposed existence of Bigfoot, but ended up a believer. He said only 4 or 5 other people in the world possessed enough knowledge of primate dermal ridges to fake the prints, and its impossible that these other experts are involved in any sort of hoax (being internationally respected biologists). The dermal ridge evidence is conclusive- an unknown bipedal animal made the prints.
Incidentally, most of the prints were found purely by chance- they were located in very out of the ways areas, with little chance of being found at all- a hoaxer would have made them near a well used trail, to guarantee discovery. But this is not the case.
(Feb. 21, 2000, Houston Chronicle)
posted by Zero at 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home