- The following is a communiqu recieved from the CHILE
C.I.O. research group in regard to the conclusions reached by veterinarian
Arturo Mann on the alleged "monito de monte" corpse. The communique
was issued by Eric Martinez on October 26, 2002 and quotes from a
zoology broadcast on Chile's Megavision TV station. Sebastian Jimenez,
a veterinarian and director of the Santiago de Chile Zoo, was the interviewee.
It turns out that the creature has been given the name TOY (no reason given).
-
- COMMUNIQUE FROM C.I.O CHILE
-
- Sebastian Jimenez: "No conclusions in this regard
could be made beyond a reasonable doubt."
- What is more, he added: "Some are going around saying
its a little mouse, a marsupial, monito, etc. "but that he could not
identify it beyond being a mammal, and that it needs further research."
- In regard to the statements made by veterinarian Arturo
Mann, it is 10% (sic) that he does not know what he is saying. Therfore,
it cannot be final.
-
- Furhtermore, oither veterinarians do not agree on what
the [creature] might be.
-
- The "EL MERCURIO" Newspaper dated October 25,
2002 says the following in an article on the subject: veterinarian Pedro
Katan, of the University of Chile, could not determine the species it belonged
to."
-
- In an interview for TVN (Television Nacional de Chile)
on October 25, 2002 with Eric Martinez (Research Director for CIO CHILE)
and Arturo Mann, Eric Martinez asked the following question off camera:
-
- "Arturo, if it was a marsupial, would it have to
have a tail?"
-
- Arturo's reply: "Yes."
-
- Eric Martinez asked: "So what happened to TOY's
tail?" [bold in the original--SC]
-
- Arturo's reply: "Well...um...maybe it fell off."
-
- It is worth noting that it isn't Arturo Mann who says
"it's final", but the OVNIVISION news section.
- The question is: why such a heading? Isn't it better
to wait for analyses, as OVNIVISION's own director said on the Megavision
news broadcast, that "it was necessary to wait for the DNA exams before
reaching a conclusion."
-
- The only analysis performed by Mr. Arturo Mann was a
visual one, without a magnifying glass or any instrument that might have
aided him [in reaching a] better diagnosis.
-
- How could he identify a given animal, if other veterinarians
are unable to?
-
- No consideration appears to have been given to the diverging
opinions of other specialists, who also examined TOY...
-
- Why was the opinion of the other specialists not published
in this article, which is contrary to that of Arturo Mann?
-
- There are three specialists who examined TOY!!! [bold
in the original--SC]
-
- Two of them have said they cannot identify it.
-
- One has identified it 90% and doesn't know what the remaining
10% might be.
- But the reply given by Mr. Arturo Mann is precisely employed
to define a case such as this one...Why?
-
- Eric Martinez
- Director of Research
- C.I.O. Chile
- Ph: (cell) 09-857-72110
|
