PDA

View Full Version : Cow Mutilation Investigator Says Truth Is Out There


Lavie Enrose
16th May 2005, 06:41 PM
Human researchers, not Martians, likely mysteriously mutilated cattle in the Southwest during the 1970s and 1980s.

That's what a retired police officer tells Action 7 News.

He would like to say more, but he says the topic is too "sensitive."

FULL STORY (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/koat/20050516/lo_koat/2721936)

jmercer
16th May 2005, 06:52 PM
Well, yeah. It's those damned mad scientist fellas from the Umbrella Corporation... :D

VeronicaX
16th May 2005, 07:26 PM
Residential Evil

c4ts
16th May 2005, 07:27 PM
Well, I've got nothing to do with it. If I mutilated cows all the good cuts of meat would be mysteriously missing.

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 01:43 AM
The pictures I sw looked exactly like post-mortem damage by scavenging crows. But no, it couldn't be that simple - could it?

Rolfe.

Ashles
17th May 2005, 04:21 AM
In one case, a witness described how a surgical passage had been cut through a cow's rectum to remove all its insides.
Why do so many alien stories involve anal investigation?

If you (human or alien) wanted to remove a dead cow's internal organs, would you really choose to do it all through the rectum?

When I'm moving house I don't try and do it all through the back door catflap.

The owners of the ranch where the bull was found also said they received threatening phone calls.
So why did anyone even think it was aliens at any point?

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
If you (human or alien) wanted to remove a dead cow's internal organs, would you really choose to do it all through the rectum?If you, a hoodie crow, want to do that, it's a very vulnerable place to start. Happens all the time.

Rolfe.

Donks
17th May 2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
The pictures I sw looked exactly like post-mortem damage by scavenging crows. But no, it couldn't be that simple - could it?

Rolfe.
You're obviously part of the cover-up.

Lavie Enrose
17th May 2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
So why did anyone even think it was aliens at any point?

It was a long distance call?

Ashles
17th May 2005, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
If you, a hoodie crow, want to do that, it's a very vulnerable place to start. Happens all the time.

Rolfe.
Exactly.

"Oh look, a cow has been mutilated in a way entirely consistent with normal animal scavenging... It must be aliens!"

"Oh look, points of light are slowly falling through the sky in a way entirely consistent with dropped flares... It must be aliens!"

"Oh look, I can't have eaten all that pie by myself... It must be aliens!"

Oleron
17th May 2005, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
If you, a hoodie crow, want to do that, it's a very vulnerable place to start. Happens all the time.

Rolfe.

Thanks Rolfe. I'll never eat a sausage roll again.

LW
17th May 2005, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Oleron
Thanks Rolfe. I'll never eat a sausage roll again.

Well, as they say, if you enjoy eating sausages, you should never visit a place where they are made.

VeronicaX
17th May 2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of the ranch where the bull was found also said they received threatening phone calls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So why did anyone even think it was aliens at any point?





That's exactly what the aliens want us to think. They made those calls. I bet ya the cop who said it wasn't the aliens is either one of 'them' or controlled by one of 'them'....

hihihihi

supercorgi
17th May 2005, 05:47 AM
I personally like this bit:

"It's humans," he said, "not UFOs or Satanic groups or people from Mars it was humans," Valdez said.

I guess Satanists aren't human.

jmercer
17th May 2005, 05:48 AM
How truly sad... no-one ever believes that it's the Umbrella Corporation. They're simply too powerful!

Donks
17th May 2005, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by jmercer
How truly sad... no-one ever believes that it's the Umbrella Corporation. They're simply too powerful!
Which is exactly why noone will admit to believing in them.

OMG! I've said too much!

Beth
17th May 2005, 06:45 AM
I heard an explanation some years ago that actually makes sense to me. The mutilations were, as near as I can tell, not indicative of wild animals but something else.

I heard a rumor that it was some agency of the government (FBI perhaps, or military?) that wanted to gather information on the long term, multi-generational effects of the atomic bomb testing that went on decades ago. It was claimed that the mutilations all occurred in areas that were affected by the testing. I don't know if that's true, I haven't researched it myself, but they have all been in the U.S. west and southwest, which is where the atomic bomb testing occurred. The people involved were unable to get permission to legally purchase the animals (I can't remember if it was the cost or the idea of making the reason for the purchase public that upset their administrators) and chose to collect the information they wanted by thievery. Presumably they felt the information they would get and the knowledge obtained by their analysis was justification for the action they were taking. They would randomly select animals (perhaps from specific herds?) and remove the pieces they wanted for testing.

I can't say that this true, but it fits the facts as I understand them. OTOH, jumping to the conclusion that ranchers wouldn't recognize wild animal attacks on their cattle doesn't. Nor do the ranchers necessarily claim alien involvement. At least some of them have merely reported the unusual mutilations and let others go jumping to conclusions about the cause.

This explanation, BTW, also fits with the retired policeman saying he's figured out who did it, that they were human, and that he isn't going to say anymore about it.

jmercer
17th May 2005, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Beth
I heard an explanation some years ago that actually makes sense to me. The mutilations were, as near as I can tell, not indicative of wild animals but something else.

I heard a rumor that it was some agency of the government (FBI perhaps, or military?) that wanted to gather information on the long term, multi-generational effects of the atomic bomb testing that went on decades ago. It was claimed that the mutilations all occurred in areas that were affected by the testing. I don't know if that's true, I haven't researched it myself, but they have all been in the U.S. west and southwest, which is where the atomic bomb testing occurred. The people involved were unable to get permission to legally purchase the animals (I can't remember if it was the cost or the idea of making the reason for the purchase public that upset their administrators) and chose to collect the information they wanted by thievery. Presumably they felt the information they would get and the knowledge obtained by their analysis was justification for the action they were taking. They would randomly select animals (perhaps from specific herds?) and remove the pieces they wanted for testing.

I can't say that this true, but it fits the facts as I understand them. OTOH, jumping to the conclusion that ranchers wouldn't recognize wild animal attacks on their cattle doesn't. Nor do the ranchers necessarily claim alien involvement. At least some of them have merely reported the unusual mutilations and let others go jumping to conclusions about the cause.

This explanation, BTW, also fits with the retired policeman saying he's figured out who did it, that they were human, and that he isn't going to say anymore about it.

Hiya, Beth - haven't seen you around in a while, good to see you're still posting. :)

The government/military-industrial complex conspiracy thing doesn't hang together in any way unless you assume massive incompetency on the part of the organization. (Which would be kind of at odds with keeping it a secret for this long, wouldn't you say? Incompetents are notoriously poor at concealing things. :))

If the government wanted to do this as a "black" or even "gray" program, they'd take the entire cow. Black/Gray programs most emphatically do not want to draw attention to themselves, and go to great lengths to conceal any activities that may draw attention to them. (And in general, the government doesn't want to get caught stealing, either.) Additionally, these program have access to funds like you wouldn't believe. Buying livestock from local farmers through a trusted local intermediary would be a lot "quieter" than performing random on-site dissections without permission, and how much could a cow cost? A few thousand dollars? Chickenfeed. ;)

However, let's assume that they don't want to (or can't) buy the cows for some reason. Instead, they decide to utterly conceal their activities.

In that case, it would be a helluva lot easier to move a living cow onto a truck (they're very docile!), transport it to a private facility - even a temporary one in a tent, for example - dissect it and dispose of the remains. (Bury it, burn it, etc.) Killing the cow on location and performing a partial dissection would be the most risky possible action I can imagine.

It's either a group of locals doing this for some personal reasons, or it's a natural phenomenon. Either way, Occam still applies.

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 07:42 AM
I agree with this last post. These mutilations don't bear the slightest resemblance to any pathology investigation I've ever heard of, and I'm a veterinary pathologist. It wouldn't even occur to a veterinary pathologist to come at the dissection that way. Even "I'll do it a weird way so nobody realises what I'm doing" doesn't stand up as it would obviously be so much easier just to transport the entire carcass to a proper post mortem facility, and deliberately calling attention to yourself by doing weird things to a carcass isn't the best way of staying under the radar I can think of.

I can't explain why nobody looking at these carcasses instantly says "crows". But that's what it looks like to me, and I've seen lots of dead lambs and so on that haven't been found until after Huginn and Muninn had had a jolly good go. Especially picking out the anus and eviscerating the carcass that way. It's SOP.

Rolfe.

Beth
17th May 2005, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by jmercer
Hiya, Beth - haven't seen you around in a while, good to see you're still posting. :)

Been working very hard for the last few weeks, with little time to spare for anything else. I've lurked a bit, but not much of that even. It's been slacking off for the past week, but today I'm finally taking a day off. Nice to know I was missed. Thanks. :D

The government/military-industrial complex conspiracy thing doesn't hang together in any way unless you assume massive incompetency on the part of the organization. (Which would be kind of at odds with keeping it a secret for this long, wouldn't you say? Incompetents are notoriously poor at concealing things. :))

It actually doesn't require much of a conspiracy. Just a few people with access to key resources. And I'm not married to that explanation, it's simply the most believable one I've heard so far. The wild animal explanation doesn't fit with the reported mutilations.

If the government wanted to do this as a "black" or even "gray" program,

I don't think it's any sort of an official program, whether black, gray or any other color. Presuming the explanation true, I think it more likely it's a few individuals in key spots who simply wish to conduct the research on their own after having failed to convince their superiors it was an effort worth pursuing. Such a scenario would also make secrecy a requirement.


It's either a group of locals doing this for some personal reasons, or it's a natural phenomenon. Either way, Occam still applies.

Natural phenomenon seems unlikely. I believe the mutilations occurred in a rather large geographical area, so locals is more or less probable depending on how large an area you consider "local". The key question is still why?

The explanation of research into multigenerational effects of atomic bomb testing makes sense to me. If you hypothesize that as an explanation, it implies research scientists of some stripe performing the mutilations. Speculating that such scientists are employed by some government agency involved in studying those effects is not unreasonable, but piling one speculation on top of another certainly becomes more tenuous.

Locals, who also would have been exposed to the fallout radiation would also have the motivation to research it, but I think they would be more likely to simply request the parts they wanted from other members of their community. There would be no reason for them to keep their research secret.

Beth

Ashles
17th May 2005, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Beth
It actually doesn't require much of a conspiracy. Just a few people with access to key resources. And I'm not married to that explanation, it's simply the most believable one I've heard so far. The wild animal explanation doesn't fit with the reported mutilations.
Why do you say that when a veternary pathologist (Rolfe) has said that this is exactly what it looks like?

I don't think it's any sort of an official program, whether black, gray or any other color. Presuming the explanation true, I think it more likely it's a few individuals in key spots who simply wish to conduct the research on their own after having failed to convince their superiors it was an effort worth pursuing. Such a scenario would also make secrecy a requirement.
This is the most believable theory to you?
Individuals performing unauthorised cow autopsies in the middle of fields?

Natural phenomenon seems unlikely. I believe the mutilations occurred in a rather large geographical area, so locals is more or less probable depending on how large an area you consider "local". The key question is still why?
Why wouldn't the wide area actually favour the natural explanation?

The explanation of research into multigenerational effects of atomic bomb testing makes sense to me. If you hypothesize that as an explanation, it implies research scientists of some stripe performing the mutilations. Speculating that such scientists are employed by some government agency involved in studying those effects is not unreasonable, but piling one speculation on top of another certainly becomes more tenuous.
There are so many better ways to test the multigenerational effect of atomic bomb testing than rogue cow autopsies.
It makes no sense.
I mean really Beth I honestly do not understand how you, as a scientist, could imagine a scenario in which a group of governmental scientists decide to perform incredibly inefficient cow autopsies without the government's help to test the effect of nuclear testing.
The information they would gain from such a method would be so random as to be useless.

Locals, who also would have been exposed to the fallout radiation would also have the motivation to research it, but I think they would be more likely to simply request the parts they wanted from other members of their community. There would be no reason for them to keep their research secret.

You say you are not married to this explanation, but it appears there is no way you will accept that this explanation is incredibly unlikely and makes no logical sense.

I suspect that it would actually not be possible to persuade you of the unlikeliness of your theory.
A conspiracy is just always more exciting a theory than scavenging, or mundane personal grievances.
But this conspiracy theory really holds no water.

Psi Baba
17th May 2005, 08:13 AM
To quote the Bad Astronomer, "Sigh":
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/romindex.htm
Second, the parts of the carcass that are allegedly removed in a "classic mutilation" are the same ones customarily consumed by predators and scavengers. Most birds of prey have the ability to core the anus and to remove the eyes and tongue (Hubbard 1979; Dennis 1979). In addition, eagles and ravens also possess the strength and agility to punch through a carcass and remove the inner organs. However, as noted ornithologist Dr. Kenneth Sager points out, the ease with which this is done depends in part on the size of that carcass.

"The larger the animal, the more difficult it is for
the scavenger to gain access to the food supply
below the tough surface. [Thus they attack the]
softer points of entry, namely the eyes, anal
openings, and soft underbelly areas, especially
the udders of female bovines." (Sager 1979).

Similar observations were also made by the following veterinarians whose advice I sought during the course of the project:

"The tendency is for the softer parts of the
carcass to be removed, e.g. eyes, anus, mammary
glands, tongue..." -- Dr. William J. Quinn (1979),
Chief Diagnostic Laboratory Bureau, State of
Montana.

"One would expect the loss of an eye, tongue, lips,
anus, and rectum from the predation of scavengers
and carnivorous [animals]" -- Dr. L. D. Kintner
(1979), College of Veterinary Medicine, University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

"Predatory animals usually attack carcasses left
laying any length of time and will almost always
chew or incise with their teeth the most available
portion of the body. These parts are the tail, anus
because it is not covered by hair, vulva for the
same reason, and penis, ears, and lips because they
are prominent and accessible" -- Dr. Vaughn A.
Seaton (1979), Head of the College of, Veterinary
Medicine, Iowa State University of Science and
Technology, Ames, Iowa.

Since the parts removed in a classic mutilation are the same ones. eaten by predators and scavengers, the major criterion for differentiating the two types of mutilations would be the procedures used to make the incisions. In a classic mutilation, as Perkins (1979: 22) points out, "the surgery is too precise to have been done by another animal." The literature implies that even an untrained observer can readily differentiate such incisions from the jagged, uneven cuts made by wild birds and animals.

Is this true? To answer this question, I consulted a number of veterinarians. Their answer was unanimous: Wild birds and animals can make neat-looking incisions. The following statement made by Dr. Kintner (1979) is typical of the replies I received:

"Surprising as it may seem to the uninitiated,
many of the scavengers make [as] clean [a] cut
as might be done by a surgeon with a sharp knife."

A even more graphic description of the skill possessed by such animals is offered by Dr. Michael Aleksiuk (1975) in an article entitled "Manitoba's Fantastic Snake Pits". After watching a crow kill and partially eat a snake, Aleksiuk makes the following observation:

"I picked up the snake. The skin had been
broken only in the area of the liver, and that
organ had been neatly excised. Nothing else
had been touched. How the crow performed
the surgery with such precision is a mystery."

And so on. No aliens, no cultists, no black helicopters.

LTC8K6
17th May 2005, 08:29 AM
The pictures always look like the results of animal and insect scavenging to me. The scavengers always start with the softest easiest to get bits.

There is absolutely no reason not to just take the whole animal if you are the government doing research on the long term effects of fallout and you want to keep everything in the black.

Ranchers are not going to miss a cow that disappears now and then, and even if they do keep a careful count, they would expect a cow or three to disappear every once in a while, and they would not think it unusual.

Really, there is no reason for the government to worry about even stealing cows. They could just buy them using front organizations.

There are ways to "sample" various herds of cattle without stealing animals, or chopping up animals in the dead of night.

If you are skulking around in the dark stealing cow parts, you are doing things the hard way, and making yourself known.

Beth
17th May 2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
I agree with this last post. These mutilations don't bear the slightest resemblance to any pathology investigation I've ever heard of, and I'm a veterinary pathologist. It wouldn't even occur to a veterinary pathologist to come at the dissection that way. Even "I'll do it a weird way so nobody realises what I'm doing" doesn't stand up as it would obviously be so much easier just to transport the entire carcass to a proper post mortem facility, and deliberately calling attention to yourself by doing weird things to a carcass isn't the best way of staying under the radar I can think of.

A few (perhaps only one?) renegade researchers acting in direct opposition to their orders might use unorthodox methodologies, work under the cover of night, and not take anything more with them than they felt absolutely necessary. Thus, I find the facts you mention to be consistent with such a hypothesis.

I can't explain why nobody looking at these carcasses instantly says "crows". But that's what it looks like to me, and I've seen lots of dead lambs and so on that haven't been found until after Huginn and Muninn had had a jolly good go. Especially picking out the anus and eviscerating the carcass that way. It's SOP.

Rolfe.

I agree in that I don't understand why experienced people examining the carcasses would not come to that conclusion if the evidence justified it. Sorry to be so skeptical of your professional opinion, but you are basing it on photographs, not having seen the actual carcasses. The probability of correctly identifing a cut or slash as being done by a knife, a beak, or a claw is substantially higher for those who are examining the carcasses themselves. That is why I don't find the wild animal explanation very believable.

Beth

jmercer
17th May 2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Beth
It actually doesn't require much of a conspiracy. Just a few people with access to key resources. And I'm not married to that explanation, it's simply the most believable one I've heard so far. The wild animal explanation doesn't fit with the reported mutilations.


Sorry, Beth - but two objections to this (and one of them is from you, actually :)):

1) A few people acting illegally would almost certainly steal the cow and go to a place of privacy. People breaking the law don't hang around the crime scene.

2) As you said, it's over a large geographical area. "A few people" would find themselves terribly stretched thin. :)

Originally posted by Beth

I don't think it's any sort of an official program, whether black, gray or any other color. Presuming the explanation true, I think it more likely it's a few individuals in key spots who simply wish to conduct the research on their own after having failed to convince their superiors it was an effort worth pursuing. Such a scenario would also make secrecy a requirement.


Trust me on this - people in the government don't go renegade just for curiosity's sake. They love their pensions too much. :)

Originally posted by Beth

Natural phenomenon seems unlikely. I believe the mutilations occurred in a rather large geographical area, so locals is more or less probable depending on how large an area you consider "local". The key question is still why?


I can think of a number of reasons, ranging from publicity to harrassment, to criminal motives...

Originally posted by Beth

The explanation of research into multigenerational effects of atomic bomb testing makes sense to me. If you hypothesize that as an explanation, it implies research scientists of some stripe performing the mutilations. Speculating that such scientists are employed by some government agency involved in studying those effects is not unreasonable, but piling one speculation on top of another certainly becomes more tenuous.

Locals, who also would have been exposed to the fallout radiation would also have the motivation to research it, but I think they would be more likely to simply request the parts they wanted from other members of their community. There would be no reason for them to keep their research secret.

Beth

The problem with this idea is that these studies have been openly done by a number of organizations:
http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00025.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7117/7117pr.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/S1/1146
http://carcin.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/2/325

There are many more, some done by university coalitions, some by governments, etc.

Regarding natural causes - the geographic range for these events actually enhances the odds of it being from scavengers or other natural causes, rather than reduces the likelyhood. Regarding locals - well, if there were reason to perform these tests, I would imagine the locals would be screaming to their local and state government - it would be in newspapers, there would be PETA-like organizations spawned, etc.

So from my perspective, the least likely possiblity are rogue government employees (or even "black project employees) doing random-sampling on site. :)

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Psi Baba
To quote the Bad Astronomer, "Sigh":
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/romindex.htm

And so on. No aliens, no cultists, no black helicopters. Thanks for that quote, Psi Baba. These reports from veterinary surgeons agree exactly with my casual opinion formed when looking at the photographs. It's just such standard obvious bird-of-prey scavenging that it comes as a bit of a surprise to realise that there are people who don't recognise the signs for what they are. Very neat cuts and apparently precise dissections are quite normal.A few (perhaps only one?) renegade researchers acting in direct opposition to their orders might use unorthodox methodologies, work under the cover of night, and not take anything more with them than they felt absolutely necessary. Thus, I find the facts you mention to be consistent with such a hypothesis.Sorry, Beth, this is just paranoid conspiracy theory gone completely mad. To anyone on the inside of veterinary research, there's no reason at all to believe that such investigations would be the slightest use to anyone, and the concept of a "lone renegade researcher" is simply ludicrous.

Yes, I've only seen the carcasses in photographs, because on this side of the Atlantic nobody bats an eyelid at a lamb or even a cow dead in a field with its eyes and tongue pecked out and partially eviscerated through the anus. Part of the countryside scenery, and nobody would be especially interested in photographing it. But having worked on farms I've seen plenty for real, and I can tell you that the photos I saw of these alleged Merican "mystery mutilations" looked exactly the same.

Perhaps the real puzzle here is why the Merikan farmers seem to be so ignorant of a common, natural phenomenon.

Rolfe.

Larry Barrieau
17th May 2005, 09:51 AM
When I was a backcountry ranger in Yellowstone, I came across a number of dead large animals (usually elk). The pattern for a recently dead animal was as described for these "mutilations". Eyes gone first (birds) and then entry through the rectum (coyotes). My young son and I watched the process once from a small hill overlooking the kill. This animal was killed by a poacher and I found the arrow still in it. If the kill was more than a day or two old, it was usually torn apart by bears. Mighty interesting but no UFO's.

Ashles
17th May 2005, 10:03 AM
So Beth, despite not being "married to that explanation" and despite all the logical flaws with the theory, and despite the fact that another perfectly sensible mundane explanation exists...

Are you still intending to stick to the rogue ex-governmental underequipped inefficient scientist carrying out unauthorised cow autopsies in public at night theory?

I'm just finding that interesting.

Garrette
17th May 2005, 10:03 AM
Recently saw a nature show on the television. It was about the American west and had a crew filming a mountain lion taking down an elk and then being chased off by a wolverine.

For a few grisly minutes it filmed the wolverine going at the fresh kill. It took a few bites at the underbelly then went straight for the rectum.

Fascinatingly disgusting to watch.


Rolfe: You spelled it "Merican" the first time and "Merikan" the second. No wonder our conspiracies keep getting discoveried when sloppy folk like you continue to be inconsistent. Get with it, lady.

Garrette
17th May 2005, 10:04 AM
Beth,

I'm interested in how you reconcile your 'few rogue governmental agents' with your observation that it is geographically widespread.

Correa Neto
17th May 2005, 10:11 AM
Well, I hate (actually I don´t, I do enjoy) to burst the conspiracy theory bubble, but here in Brazil there have been some reports of weird mutilations also.

And as soon as a real expert examined the carcasses, the veredict changed from "mysterious surgical cuts" to predator or scavenger activity.

BTW, why would someone collecting material for this sort of research, certainly being a skilled technician make such sloppy cuts? It would be much more efficient and fast to open the carcass with a single sharp cut, as in a necropsy or as one does when cleaning an animal from its guts. Actually this would provide a better cover-up - livestock robbers- than aliens.

So, the integrants of the conspiracy must travel to Latin America and be very unskilled and/or dumb (the last two would cause the agents some difficulties on being part of a secret organization).

Just another conspiracy theory nonsense.

Now, if you excuse me, I have an Illuminati meeting to attend.

Beth
17th May 2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by jmercer
Sorry, Beth - but two objections to this (and one of them is from you, actually :)):

1) A few people acting illegally would almost certainly steal the cow and go to a place of privacy. People breaking the law don't hang around the crime scene.

And what evidence is there that they were hanging around the crime scene? I've always presumed that for a single individual or two it would be quicker and easier to kill and take a few parts than to try and manipulate such a large animal, whether conscious, unconscious or dead. If I were working by myself, that's how I'd do it.

2) As you said, it's over a large geographical area. "A few people" would find themselves terribly stretched thin. :)

Yes, but I believe there was a claim to using helicopters. If the individual doing the acts was someone with access to such a vehicle, then it becomes doable. The theory does require that, which certainly narrows the list of suspects down, but doesn't make it impossible either.

In fact, it occurs to me that with such a list, a single policeman putting dedicated effort into tracking down the prepetrator might be able to slowly down the list of individuals who fit the description and eventually learn who did it.

Trust me on this - people in the government don't go renegade just for curiosity's sake. They love their pensions too much. :)

Then you might be surprized at the lengths some scientists are willing to go to find out the things they want to know. Ever know someone with a burning desire to know something? Further, this is something that might have have a profound effect on people they know and love. If this was someone with the ability and access to the equipment needed to do their own experiments, but without the permission to use that equipment for those particular experiments, I don't find it implausible to believe that someone might find a way to do the work without obtaining permission.

I can think of a number of reasons, ranging from publicity to harrassment, to criminal motives...

Harrassment doesn't fit the large geographic area. Publicity would, but who's claiming responsibility? Could be a hoaxer I suppose, but a rather difficult hoax to pull off. It was take a rather dedicated individual or perhaps one and a bunch of copycats? Hmmm...maybe, but personally I find the renegade researcher hypothesis less bizzare. But reasonable people can disagree on that.

The problem with this idea is that these studies have been openly done by a number of organizations:
http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00025.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/archive/7117/7117pr.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/S1/1146
http://carcin.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/2/325

There are many more, some done by university coalitions, some by governments, etc.

I took a quick look at those studies. None of the are specific to multigeneral effects of atomic fallout on large mammals, which was what I recall being claimed as the object of the research. Perhaps some have been done, but I'm not aware of them. If so, that is an argument in your favor. But only if they were being done during or prior to the time of the mutilations.

Regarding natural causes - the geographic range for these events actually enhances the odds of it being from scavengers or other natural causes, rather than reduces the likelyhood. Regarding locals - well, if there were reason to perform these tests, I would imagine the locals would be screaming to their local and state government - it would be in newspapers, there would be PETA-like organizations spawned, etc.

The only problem I have with the natural causes argument is the people who were on the scene claim that wasn't the case. I don't know how to tell the difference personally, but I have no reason to place the competence of observers of photographic evidence above the competence of the observers of the actual carcasses. You may be right, but I don't know that and I'm not willing to put enough effort into verifying or falsifying this particular hypothesis to trust my own analysis of the photos over someone else's, so I simply go with the on-site observers opinions.

So from my perspective, the least likely possiblity are rogue government employees (or even "black project employees) doing random-sampling on site. :)

Okay, :D I don't think my hypothesis is definitely right. I just find it easier to buy than wild animals or hoaxers.

Beth

Edited for spelling errors

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 10:28 AM
Well, I'm quite glad we had this little talk! You see, I was wondering what I could possibly be missing.

This isn't a particularly hot topic this side of the pond, as you many have gathered. It's just that one day I had to pick up my car from the body shop. And they had made the bill out wrongly. And they took an inordinate time getting it right.

I was sitting in the waiting area, surrounded by all sorts of boring motoring magazines, and just this one rather woo-woo publication with a beautiful picture of the most fabulous crop circle I ever saw on the front. So I picked it up and read the article, wishing I could buy whoever made that crop formation a drink! Then I turned a few more pages, and there were some pictures of some very ordinary livestock carcasses with some very routine scavenger damage, and all this woo about mysterious mutilations.

I could see what it was (crows or similar) from one look at the pictures, but nowhere in the long and gory article did anyone even mention this as a possibility. I ended up wondering, why is it not the obvious? I mean, if you have a puppy and there's a wet spot on the carpet, you'd at least expect some try at an explanation of why it wasn't the puppy before you start with the "aliens tried to flood my house" theory. So I thought maybe I was missing something, and there was in fact some clear explanation as to why it wasn't crows.

Now, I just want an explanation as to why Merkan ranchers don't seem to recognise ordinary scavenger damage when it's right in front of their eyes.

Rolfe.

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Beth
The only problem I have with the natural causes argument is the people who were on the scene claim that wasn't the case.Who were these observers? I find it much easier to credit that rather dim yokels (maybe with an eye to tourist dollars) didn't recognise scavenger damage than this whole ludicrous renegade researcher fantasy. (OK, I agree this was the part I found improbable, but not that improbable.)

Find me a veterinary pathologist who has carefully examined several of these carcasses and says that the evidence is inconsistent with scavenger damage and I might start to reconsider. Amateurs don't count.

Rolfe.

jmercer
17th May 2005, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Now, I just want an explanation as to why Merkan ranchers don't seem to recognise ordinary scavenger damage when it's right in front of their eyes.

Rolfe.

Because they're probably laughing their butts off at all these dumb "city fellers" who think it's aliens. :D

Beth
17th May 2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Who were these observers? I find it much easier to credit that rather dim yokels (maybe with an eye to tourist dollars) didn't recognise scavenger damage than this whole ludicrous renegade researcher fantasy. (OK, I agree this was the part I found improbable, but not that improbable.)

Find me a veterinary pathologist who has carefully examined several of these carcasses and says that the evidence is inconsistent with scavenger damage and I might start to reconsider. Amateurs don't count.

Rolfe.

I'm sorry, but I don't recall now who they were. I remember seeing a news stories about one of them at the time of the occurance. There was some uniformed law enforcement officer, the rancher/owner, and some other guy introduced as the expert explaining why the damage to the carcasses wasn't normal predator/scavanger damage. I don't remember the details of why they all felt that way but they were quite convinced it wasn't predators.

I haven't read anything about it or given it a second thought in years. The news story I mentioned was a local one and the people involved did not know what the cause was and I do not now recall if they had any theories. The news crew did. I think the popular one at the time was Satanists. The last time I participated in a discussion on it before this thead was in reference to the theory I've been mentioning and that was some years ago.

If you want to believe the natural causes argument, that's fine. If I knew as much about the photographic evidence as you clearly do, I'd trust my own judgement about it too. But I don't, so I just have to pick which experts I find most believable. For me, it's those who were there.

Beth

Garrette
17th May 2005, 10:55 AM
And so, Beth, you accept the alien/ufo/bigfoot sightings because it was locals who described them and the descriptions were based on what they saw as opposed to the films and photos that were later analyzed?

Aoidoi
17th May 2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Now, I just want an explanation as to why Merkan ranchers don't seem to recognise ordinary scavenger damage when it's right in front of their eyes.

Rolfe. I heard there was some sort of insurance reason to claim foul play rather than natural causes. This is entirely hearsay, so somebody can feel free to correct me if I'm speaking out of my non-crow eaten anus. :p

A cow is a non-trivially expensive critter, and when one dies the owner is out a bunch of money. So there's a whole insurance industry based on livestock. Like most insurance policies there are certain things covered and certain things not, and since certain people seem to find it amusing to shoot other people's livestock, that sort of thing might be covered. But it's expected that a certain percentage of livestock will die of natural causes, so that might not be.

So the rancher tells Mr. insurance adjuster that it was some sort of freaky inexplicable alien/black ops whatever thing, adjuster don't know squat and pays out anyway.

It's such a nice story of the country-wise little guy sticking it to a faceless city-slicker corporation that it's got to be false. But it's a good story. :D

Rolfe
17th May 2005, 01:36 PM
Well essentially the same story is true, but with a more mundane piece of fakery. Lightning strike is generally covered by these insurance policies, and there are innumerable stories of farmers faking burn marks on carcasses to get the death certified as due to lightning. You know, a really really local thunderstorm that nobody else within a couple of miles happened to notice.... :D

However, trying to persuade an insurance assessor that what looks like scavenger-bird damage is aliens is putting it up in an entirely new league! It would be interesting to know if any insurance ever actually paid out on any of those beasts. I would doubt it, personally.

OK, Beth would rather have an unidentified and uncredentialled "expert" put up by the TV station who has an implausible but newsworthy interpretation, than someone who earns her living figuring out what animals died of, and has seen dozens of carcasses with extremely similar mutilations, and testifies that it all looks exactly like known, acknowledged and undisputed cases of something perfectly ordinary.

Right.....

Rolfe.

Ashles
17th May 2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Beth
If you want to believe the natural causes argument, that's fine. If I knew as much about the photographic evidence as you clearly do, I'd trust my own judgement about it too. But I don't, so I just have to pick which experts I find most believable. For me, it's those who were there.
So anecdotal evidence over obvious logical facts?

A question.

This rogue government scientist acting on his own with only access to rudimentary tools (and a helicopter and pilot)...

Why, when he's in a hurry to gather internal organs from cows in the middle of the night, does he choose to go in through the rectum?

The challenge of it?

gtc
17th May 2005, 03:38 PM
So it was either

a) animals and insects
b) bored teenagers wanting to weird out farmers
c) aliens
d) a group of rogue government scientists who want to study the effects of radiation on cows. These guys have access to helicopters that nobody will notice if they steal now and then. These scientists don't care about their pensions or the possibility that they might get shot if caught butchering someone else's cow because they are so dang interested in researching something that other people have already researched and which doesn't show up in higher disease or early death rates in cattle or humans or poorer quality meat.

If I was a covert cow investigator I would set myself up as a hobby farmer and buy a couple of cows from local farmers just to try my home butchery skills in that shed I just built out the back with my buddies from the lab in town.

Psi Baba
18th May 2005, 07:06 AM
Beth, did you even read the report I linked to?
Operation Animal Mutilation (http://www.parascope.com/articles/0597/romindex.htm). At least read Chapter 3.

Rolfe, I'd be willing to bet that American farmers have always known what was really going on until some goofball with a camera but no clue came along and invented a mystery because they didn't understand what they were looking at. By the same token, I suspect that English farmers have always known what crop circles were really about too, since they seem to be rather blasé about the whole thing (the cause, that is--that's not to say that they're blasé about the property damage). I think farmers are much smarter than many people give them credit for.

MRC_Hans
18th May 2005, 07:44 AM
Psi Baba: Good! I was reading the thread and wondering why nobody linked to that report. It answers all Beth's questions, including how you discern between bites and cuts, and exactly what kind of local "professionals" are the ones to declare the damages on carcasses "unexplainable".

There is absolutely no reason why anybody who wanted to dissect cattle should not simply buy their specimens legally. It would be cheaper (not to mention safer :eek: ) than flitting around in helicopters at night, would attract less attention, and you could even sell the beef afterwards.

Hans

Ashles
18th May 2005, 07:51 AM
What is strange is that Beth will be so unwiling to actually say "Oh okay, I guess that makes more sense", but instead will continue to attempt to rationalise her illogical and actually quite silly theory.

She is fixated on the conspiracy theory, and no amount of contrary evidence will persuade her to shake it.

Beth, don't take this the wrong way, but given the choice between the mundane and logical explanation, versus the exciting, you always seem to choose the exciting and alternative explanation, no matter how much less likely it actually is.

Do you have any theory as to why that would be?

Mojo
18th May 2005, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Psi Baba
By the same token, I suspect that English farmers have always known what crop circles were really about tooWasn't it two blokes from Southampton?

Ashles
18th May 2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Mojo
Wasn't it two blokes from Southampton?
They can't all be fake. Therefore some must really be aliens.

Mojo
18th May 2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
They can't all be fake. Therefore some must really be aliens. You'd think that after travelling unimaginable distances from star to star, aliens would have better things to do.

Or maybe not..."Teasers are usually rich kids with nothing to do. They cruise around looking for planets which haven't made interstellar contact yet and buzz them."

"Buzz them?" Arthur began to feel that Ford was enjoying making life difficult for him.

"Yeah", said Ford, "they buzz them. They find some isolated spot with very few people around, then land right by some poor soul whom no one's ever going to believe and then strut up and down in front of him wearing silly antennae on their heads and making beep beep noises. Rather childish really."

Ashles
18th May 2005, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Mojo
You'd think that after travelling unimaginable distances from star to star, aliens would have better things to do.

Or maybe not...
Aliens appear to have a looot of time on their hands.

Can you really trust any xenomorphs who consider this to be their number one priority item to take when visiting new civiliations?

Beth
18th May 2005, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Well essentially the same story is true, but with a more mundane piece of fakery. Lightning strike is generally covered by these insurance policies, and there are innumerable stories of farmers faking burn marks on carcasses to get the death certified as due to lightning. You know, a really really local thunderstorm that nobody else within a couple of miles happened to notice.... :D

However, trying to persuade an insurance assessor that what looks like scavenger-bird damage is aliens is putting it up in an entirely new league! It would be interesting to know if any insurance ever actually paid out on any of those beasts. I would doubt it, personally.

Insurance scam is a new explanation I haven't heard before. If they have paid out on those beasts, it would make that a very likely explanation. Anyone know if that's the case?

OK, Beth would rather have an unidentified and uncredentialled "expert" put up by the TV station who has an implausible but newsworthy interpretation, than someone who earns her living figuring out what animals died of, and has seen dozens of carcasses with extremely similar mutilations, and testifies that it all looks exactly like known, acknowledged and undisputed cases of something perfectly ordinary.

Right.....

Rolfe.

I'm already agreed that from your POV it's reasonable for you to rely on your own judgement. However, from my POV, I don't have expertise in that area and must rely on other people's judgement of the matter. Thus, to me it's a choice between people who actually examined the carcasses when and where they were found, with their full names and credentials given on a TV news program versus someone on the internet whose full name is not given and who's credentials are entirely self-reported discussing magazine photographs that may or may not have been the same case as the one I saw reported. And I don't pick the unknown self-described expert on the internet as being the more reliable source? Go figure. :rolleyes:

Also, as I said, the people who exaimined the beasts didn't make any claims or accusations regarding who did it. They just, and quite emphatically too, claimed it was not a case of a wild animal predation and explained why. I'm sorry, but the news report I saw was roughly 20 years ago and my memory fails me regarding the details as to why they drew that conclusion, but both the rancher and the expert (might have been his vet) discussed that possibility and why they didn't think it so.

Beth

Beth
18th May 2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Garrette
And so, Beth, you accept the alien/ufo/bigfoot sightings because it was locals who described them and the descriptions were based on what they saw as opposed to the films and photos that were later analyzed?

No

Beth
18th May 2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by gtc
So it was either

a) animals and insects
b) bored teenagers wanting to weird out farmers
c) aliens
d) a group of rogue government scientists who want to study the effects of radiation on cows. These guys have access to helicopters that nobody will notice if they steal now and then. These scientists don't care about their pensions or the possibility that they might get shot if caught butchering someone else's cow because they are so dang interested in researching something that other people have already researched and which doesn't show up in higher disease or early death rates in cattle or humans or poorer quality meat.

If I was a covert cow investigator I would set myself up as a hobby farmer and buy a couple of cows from local farmers just to try my home butchery skills in that shed I just built out the back with my buddies from the lab in town.

Look, the animal predation theory was rejected by the experts on the scene. I have no reason to doubt their competence. Presumably, the officer who has finally established the culprits to his own satisfaction, after many years of detective work, didn't buy that explanation either.

Now, if it wasn't animals, and you don't buy into the alien hypothesis (few people do, it's just fun to discuss), then who did it and why?

So far, the renegade researcher theory is the one that makes the most sense to me, although if insurance paid out on the beasts, that theory would be a definite condender for the top spot. Bored teenagers, satanists, and hoaxers are other possibilities, but personally, I find the researcher hypothesis a bit more believable. Still, I can understand if other people don't agree.

I think a small group (say just 2 or 3 people) one of who must be a helicopter pilot and one of whom must be a research scientist interested in the learning more about the effects of atomic testing fallout, would have the means and motivation to accomplish what was done. If they were people who lived in the area when the atomic testing was done, the motivation to find out more about the effects of the fallout could be quite compelling.

Cattle are cheap for institutions, but pricey for individuals to afford. They are large mammals and they have a well-documented lineage, so they are well suited to doing multi-generational research. Because what they were doing was illegal, the perpetrators might well try to disguise their mutilations by making them look as much like normal predatation as possible. If the results of their testing were negative (i.e. no long term negative effects on the beasts) then they would have no reason to publish their results and every reason to keep quite about it.

Finally, I can believe that if a dedicated policeman, after years and years of detective work trying to figure out what was going on eventually tracked these guys down and discovered they were actually dedicated researchers, he might be persuaded to keep quiet about who it was. Whereas if it was hoaxers, satanic cults, or bored teens, why wouldn't he reveal their identity? Hmmm, I suppose there is bribery or some other reason, but the probability that he would keep quite about the identity of the criminal seems more probable with scientists than the other possible groups.

Okay, it's a long speculative theory, but it seems to me to fit the facts, as I am acquainted with them, better than the other theories (insurance scam excepted). You may disagree if you wish, but so far I haven't heard another speculative theory that fits those facts better.

Beth

Ashles
18th May 2005, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Beth
Okay, it's a long speculative theory, but it seems to me to fit the facts, as I am acquainted with them, better than the other theories (insurance scam excepted). You may disagree if you wish, but so far I haven't heard another speculative theory that fits those facts better.
Animals did it.
People love to be on TV and love a mystery.
Some people who saw the carcasses did not correctly identify the damage.

There - a theory that fits the facts perfectly and is much more beliveable than the rogue scientists/pilot anal autopsy investigators.

I'm sorry it's so mundane - I gues that renders it unbelievable. :(

Because what they were doing was illegal, the perpetrators might well try to disguise their mutilations by making them look as much like normal predatation as possible.

Aha! I knew this was coming.
So the wounds look like exactly animal predation because the researchers deliberately made it look like animal predation.
So the wounds look exactly like animal predation...

So we know it was really secret scientists making it look like animal predation and not actually animal predation because... ?

Because of the evidence they didn't leave? Because it looks so like real animal predation?

And obviously it is so much easier to do an autopsy secretly through the anus in the middle of a field at night than just buy the cow, or steal it in a truck...


Sorry you're right Beth. Your explanation is clearly the most sensible. After all a guy on TV said so.

Rolfe
18th May 2005, 10:45 AM
Yup, I'm just an ignorant veterinary pathologist who knows nothing at all about any of this, except that one day she read a long and detailed article about it in a woo-woo magazine, complete with lots of detailed pictures. (And it was a lot more recent than 20 years ago - the crop circle article was discussing the strange fact that crop circles virtually died out during the 2001 FMD outbreak, when the countryside was closed to visitors, only to return with spectacular new forms the minute it was legal to enter the fields again....)

So, the mutilation article left me with just one question. Why isn't this crows?? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS ISN'T CROWS!!!! ESPECIALLY AS IT LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE CROW DAMAGE I'D BE PREPARED TO USE THE PHOTOS AS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THAT FOR A LECTURE. Now, it's possible such an explanation exists. But "I saw someone on TV 20 years ago who said he could tell that it wasn't crows" doesn't really cut it in terms of detailed pathology I'm afraid.

Rolfe.

geni
18th May 2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Beth
someone on the internet whose full name is not given and who's credentials are entirely self-reported discussing magazine photographs that may or may not have been the same case as the one I saw reported. And I don't pick the unknown self-described expert on the internet as being the more reliable source? Go figure. :rolleyes:


A few minutes of searching on google and whois databases will give you rolfe's real name and a lot of back un on her claimed qualifactions.

Rolfe
18th May 2005, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by geni
A few minutes of searching on google and whois databases will give you rolfe's real name and a lot of back un on her claimed qualifactions. Oh, go on. You know that, I know that, but why tell the woos? :c1:

Rolfe.

Rolfe
18th May 2005, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Psi Baba: Good! I was reading the thread and wondering why nobody linked to that report. It answers all Beth's questions, including how you discern between bites and cuts, and exactly what kind of local "professionals" are the ones to declare the damages on carcasses "unexplainable".It's permanently on "bandwidth exceeded" for me. You couldn't give a quick run-down?

Rolfe.

Ossai
18th May 2005, 11:21 AM
Rolfe
I can't explain why nobody looking at these carcasses instantly says "crows". But that's what it looks like to me, and I've seen lots of dead lambs and so on that haven't been found until after Huginn and Muninn had had a jolly good go. Especially picking out the anus and eviscerating the carcass that way. It's SOP. Easy – we look at the carcasses and say coyote – at least in the SE part of the US. – and then say crow. :) Always a problem here and for quiet a few years there has been a bounty on coyote carcasses.

Beth
And I'm not married to that explanation, it's simply the most believable one I've heard so far. The wild animal explanation doesn't fit with the reported mutilations. Actually from the photos I’ve seen they match up exactly with the scavengers theory. I’ll also be the first to say I’m not a pathologist. I grew up on a farm and have see similar mutilations before.

The explanation of research into multigenerational effects of atomic bomb testing makes sense to me. Only if the mutilations are in the areas where atomic bomb testing occurred. You’ve only suggested that link and have offered nothing in the way of corroboration.

LTC8K6
Ranchers are not going to miss a cow that disappears now and then, and even if they do keep a careful count, they would expect a cow or three to disappear every once in a while, and they would not think it unusual. You’re incorrect here. Every rancher keeps an exact count of their herd. While it’s not unusual for one to go missing they are looked for. Remember to a rancher their head of cattle is their livelihood. Or to put it another way; Cattle = $
Someone else already brought up insurance, so I'll leave that one alone.

Ossai

geni
18th May 2005, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh, go on. You know that, I know that, but why tell the woos? :c1:

Rolfe.

A lot of the woos can be traced in a simular way.

jmercer
18th May 2005, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe

So, the mutilation article left me with just one question. Why isn't this crows?? SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS ISN'T CROWS!!!! ESPECIALLY AS IT LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE CROW DAMAGE I'D BE PREPARED TO USE THE PHOTOS AS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THAT FOR A LECTURE.

Rolfe.

Well, how can I resist an opening like this? :D

Top Ten Reasons it can't be Crows:

10) Crows are boring.

09) Everybody knows crows don't know one end of a carcass from the other!

08) Crows? What crows? You see any crows in those pictures?

07) Everybody knows it was Aliens.

06) Everybody knows it was the Men In Black. Chasing the Aliens away before they finished their anal probing of the carcasses, that is.

05) Because it was the Umbrella Corporation and the Illuminati. (Don't ask. Really. It's not healthy to ask too many questions. Seriously. Don't. Too many questions may result in an anal probe when you least expect it.)

04) It can't be Crows because that would be politically incorrect. It would suggest a slur upon a Native American tribe.

03) If it was crows, where are the feathers? Huh? Tell me that! Where are the feathers??

02) Such precision requires the intervention of a small group of rogue government scientists hell-bent on finding information about multi-generational effects of radiation in areas where no atomic testing took place, because they know the studies freely provided by academia is merely a red herring designed to disguise the Truth(tm) about giant mutant cows!

01) It's a conspiracy to prove the paranormal exists - led by Victor Zammit, and abetted by mayday, 1inChrist, Shine Sun, Kumar, Iacchus and Interesting Ian!

Ashles
18th May 2005, 11:59 AM
It can't be scavengers because that's exactly what it looks like.
And obviously that's exactly what the government would want us to think.

Remember those lights that fell slowly to earth? Sure they looked like flares, and acted like flares, and experts later said they were flares, and military planes flying in the area dropped flares in that exact area...

But I saw some guys on TV at the time who were convinced it was alien ships.
So who you going to believe - the guys who were actually there? Or these so called sceptical experts?

gtc
18th May 2005, 03:13 PM
Beth,

I am so glad I do not attend your University and I can't believe that I am about to explain this to someone who is older and more experienced and with better academic qualifications than me.

The only experts to have actually examined these mysterious corpses and who then get on TV are either cranks or experts after fame and money. Scientists without an agenda don't get to look at these corpses because they would show that it is the work of animals, insects or birds and the corpse would no longer be a mystery.

The only academically qualified scientists who are likely to examine these mutilated corpses are people with an alien. conspiracy proving agenda or people hungry for money or fame. Scientists like this go out looking for mutilated corpses or ask farmers to contact them if they ever find an odd looking corpse.

Scientists without an agenda don't go looking for such corpses because animal mutilated corpses are just not that interesting.

Now if a scientist with an agenda does come upon a weird corpse, they will not let a scientist without an agenda examine that corpse because it would burst their bubble and deny them the proof, fame or money they crave. If another scientist happens to have a look at the corpse and says it is not a mystery, that scientists testimony will be ignored. Alternatively the scientist with an agenda will admit that this corpse isn't mysterious but all the other corpses which only that scientist has been able to examine are really mysterious.

Furthermore, TV shows want ratings. A story about pesky insects, birds and animals mutilating animal carcasses is not good for ratings. Mutilations like this happen every day and are icky for viewers. Therefore, it will never be shown. A story about unexplained mutilations (possibly by aliens) makes good TV and experts prepared to declare that rampaging aliens or sinister scientists are loose in your area is extremely good TV. Now a story about crack pot alien obsessed scientists is always good for a laugh, but only if you can prove they are cranks. If no one but them gets to see the corpses then there is no way to prove them wrong.

This is basic critical thinking, I was taught it in my very first class at University.

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 03:33 PM
Perhaps aliens were involved.... ;)

Geest: Barb: Have you yourself ever seen a UFO?

Becker: Yes. More than once. I basically got involved through investigating
the cattle mutilations in Elsberry, Missouri in 1978. At that time I saw what
I would consider to be a "typical" UFO..."flying saucer".

Geest: I recall the Elsberry case. If I recall correctly, didn't the local
authorites pass it off as a "Satinic Cult" of some type. And Secondly, what
did your investigation turn up?

Becker: The investigation turned up 8 to 10 mutilations within a half mile
radius from April to August. I personally saw, as I said before, what I
consider to be a UFO within that half mile. I watched as others skirted
treetops, appeared to descend and then rise. I have no idea what they were
doing or why I was allowed to watch.

Geest: Recently Dave Rapp a MUFON investigator conducted an investigation on
cattle Mutations in Missouri, he reported that the incissions were very
precise, I do not wish to dwell on this subject but for the sack of information
in your investigation did you find simular markings?

Becker: I was never lucky enough to get in immediately following a
mutilation they were always decomposed. So you ask, how do I know they were mutilations? Well, I don't. What I have to go on is the testimony of the
people of Elsberry, the farmers who have been on the land for generations,
when they tell me that the cattle deaths were "unnatural" I believe them...
who better to know? Also, Nocturnal Lights were seen in all the areas of the
mutilations and one Daylight Disc as well...that places the UFOs in the
vicinity of the mutilations for the specified time period. Circumstantial,
but sometimes that is all have. I also took slides of the NLs.

Source: Interview with Barbra Becker (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/flying_saucers_from_andromeda/barb.html)

Maybe they should have talked to Rolfe first. It would have saved them a lot of time.

Luke T.
18th May 2005, 05:17 PM
Don't you people get it? Cows are the aliens! We are the experiment! Do I have to say it in ALL CAPS to make you believe it?

Moo.

Bronze Dog
18th May 2005, 05:21 PM
It's true. www.bovineunite.com

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 05:24 PM
Does anyone want to throw, "reverse vampires" into the mix? :D

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 06:04 PM
Beth,

If you can find a source for your information please post it. I would be interested in reading it. I did a quick search, but I was unable to find anything in relation to what you have been posting. I am not trying to bait (or debate) you, I am just curious. :)

jmercer
18th May 2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Lavie Enrose
Does anyone want to throw, "reverse vampires" into the mix? :D

Wait. Wouldn't a reverse vampire inject you with blood??

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by jmercer
Wait. Wouldn't a reverse vampire inject you with blood??

Thanks for blowing holes in my new conspiracy theory. That will make it ever more popular!

jmercer
18th May 2005, 07:09 PM
No problem. :)

Say - if I swear one of them deposited 2 pints in me, will I get a commission on your first book? :D

Bronze Dog
18th May 2005, 07:15 PM
I think you might like to know I got stuck behind Dracula Bus on my morning commute a few weeks ago when I was running a few minutes late.

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by jmercer
No problem. :)

Say - if I swear one of them deposited 2 pints in me, will I get a commission on your first book? :D

Okay, I admit it. I know nothing about reverse vampires being involved in cattle mutilations. But this will not stop me from making a fortune on my new book!

Wait. Was reverse vampires not mentioned in an episode of The Simpsons? Damn it! Oh, well. I will just blame it all on the illuminate people who control the world, and are keeping the truth about the cattle mutilations from us all.

Lavie Enrose
18th May 2005, 07:45 PM
I found a few articles:

Rural Cow Mutilations Baffle Authorities (http://www.alternet.org/story/12280)

The Senator’s Case (http://www.demonhunter.btinternet.co.uk/senatercase.htm)

Mad Cow Disease and Cattle Mutilations? (http://tmv.us/site/Editorials/Mad_Cow.html)

Beth
18th May 2005, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Lavie Enrose
Beth,

If you can find a source for your information please post it. I would be interested in reading it. I did a quick search, but I was unable to find anything in relation to what you have been posting. I am not trying to bait (or debate) you, I am just curious. :)

I'm sorry. I cannot give a source. I was traveling in the area the mutilations occured during the period there were happening. I caught the local news discussing a recent occurance. It had been discovered either that day or the day before. They were out there on the site where it happened with the guy who owned the cattle, a law enforcement officer who was investigating it as a crime, and some expert - maybe the guy's vet, I don't recall anymore. There were pictures of the cow lying where they found it with close-ups of the injuries.

This was roughly 20 years ago. They were all adamant that it wasn't predator damage. I don't recall that they had any other opinions about who had done it. But these weren't guys on the talk show circuit, this was before it was a popular deal, back when it was just a local mystery.

These guys were regular working guys who dealt with animal deaths due to predators regularly and professionally and they didn't know what to make of it. All they could say was it wasn't a natural predator.

Now, nobody else has to believe me. You can believe what you like. But I believe those guys would have recognized predator kills and they didn't. They were genuinely puzzled by the circumstances. And the rancher was MAD. He really wanted to find whoever had done it.

Now, I don't know what happened, I just enjoy lively discussions and supposin'. So I occasionally converse about who might have done it and why. That one news story has left me wondering about it ever since.

Beth

MRC_Hans
19th May 2005, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
It's permanently on "bandwidth exceeded" for me. You couldn't give a quick run-down?

Rolfe. OK; I couldn't get at it, either, so this is from memory:

It is an investigation made by the FBI. The investigator carefully examines a number of "victims" over a large area. He especially looks for cut hairs at the edge of the wounds (because that would be what you would see if a sharp instrument was used), he looks for blood-stains (there is often claimed t obe a "mysterious lack of blood stains"), he looks for various traces of scavenging animals, and, finally, he examines the qualifications of the "experts" that originally made the reports.

He finds:

1) No instances of cut hairs alonf the edge of wounds.

2) The apparant straighness of wound edges is due to a combination of bloating of the carcass, and drying of wound edges (both happens within hours in a warm dry climate).

3) Plenty of blood stains, but once circulations stops, a carcass does not bleed that much, consistent with the damages happening posthumously (sp?).

4) Plenty of traces of various scavengers; magpies, coyotes, foxes, although the dry hard ground is not too conductive to preserving souch traces, which can be easily overlooked.

5) Often finds signs of poisoning in the carcasses and points out a widespread poisonous plant that might be responsible for this.

6) Local investigators are often deputee sherifs, one in particular is very prominent in a large district, but also vets. The reports from vets is generally just that the cause of death and injury is unknown. Only when asked directly, do they state that injuries might be due to sharp tools.

7) Generally, carcasses are not investigated very thoroughly by local investigators. Anybody who has been near a dead bovine that has been left in the sun for a couple of days can guess at the reason for the reluctance for too close looks.

Beth: Obviously SOME of the cases might have been humans cutting up a cow. People have been known to do weirder things. But even professionals are sometimes wrong. Here in Denmark, this last autumn, we had a horse mutilation "epedemics". Several horses were found dead or dying, their sexual organs cut up. People, police, and, understandably, owners were very much riled up, and people were standing guard and all. Still several cases were reported over some weeks.

Then, one investigator had a close look at one of the last incidences and came to the result that a stay dog was probably responsible and the horse in question had been lying down, unconscious (due to illness), at the time of the "crime". A review of other cases showed that several more might well be attributed to the same kind of incidens. This is what we skeptics are about all the time: People will see what they expect to see. Even experienced investigators fall prey to this.


Hans

Rolfe
19th May 2005, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
2) The apparant straighness of wound edges is due to a combination of bloating of the carcass, and drying of wound edges (both happens within hours in a warm dry climate). This was one of the things that was clearly visible on the photographs I saw. I recognised it at once. I suppose when you've seen a lot of examples of something like this, it just seems so "obvious", and it's difficult to realise that it's not obvious to everybody who looks at it.Originally posted by MRC_Hans
5) Often finds signs of poisoning in the carcasses and points out a widespread poisonous plant that might be responsible for this.This was a point I was going to make. These animals died of something. With the scavenger theory, death would be due to natural causes, and might not be especially easy to diagnose, particularly on a carcass that has been decomposing for a few days. Plant poisoning is quite high on the list of differentials, in an extensive ranch-type husbandry system.

However, with the conspiracy theory, the implication is that the cattle were deliberately slaughtered. Trust me, it's not easy to slaughter a big healthy animal and leave no trace of how you killed it. The usual method would be shooting in the head, which would leave unmistakable evidence on the skull. Presumably no bullet holes were found in the skulls - it's not the sort of thing you'd just forget to mention. So, if the animals were slaughtered, how were they killed?

I take the point about coyotes, but I still think that a lot of what I saw was some sort of scavenging bird. The modus operandi of going in at the anus and pulling the guts out that way is absolutely typical of a scavenger with a beak, and far less likely to be indulged in by something using teeth.

Rolfe.

Open Mind
19th May 2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by gtc
Beth,

I am so glad I do not attend your University and I can't believe that I am about to explain this to someone who is older and more experienced and with better academic qualifications than me.
.........SNIP [opinion] ...... This is basic critical thinking, I was taught it in my very first class at University.

Dear Beth,

It seems there are nasty scavengers in this forum. :)

I have never took much interest in this repulsive topic but there is a guy in the UK (who most skeptics will regard a crank) who examines such cases and shows these to scientists, the few willing to look (who most skeptics will regard as cranks).

Again I cannot recall his name, it might come to me .... but he did show cases that were puzzling if accurately reported ...... if I remember correctly (and I doubt I will recall the repulsive perfectly :) ... .. it was a couple of years ago) ... such as cow or bull with broken bones as if it had been dropped from a height, birds that would have needed to peck the underside of body (or be assisted by other non interested animal) internal organs removed, blood missing case, a human case, etc.

So what was my conclusion? I felt sick, very queasy indeed, disgusting pictures, I really don't want to know!!! :D

Open Mind (a non fanatical vegetarian)

Soapy Sam
19th May 2005, 06:12 AM
I mean, if you have a puppy and there's a wet spot on the carpet, you'd at least expect some try at an explanation of why it wasn't the puppy before you start with the "aliens tried to flood my house" theory.-Rolfe

This is typical of the sort of unproven slurs made by pro-cattist anti-dog skeptix, who have only seen photographs of wet spots on the carpet, assuming they even know what a carpet is.

I watch crows all the time in the street outside my house. I never yet saw one with it's head up a cow's bottom.

Vets now. I've seen some of the sick stuff they pull. I think the whole business is a diversion by pathological vets who cooked up the whole alien thing to divert our attention from the obviously guilty.

I mean who else do you know who cut up dead cows for a living?

Well OK. Vets and Butchery students.

Psi Baba
19th May 2005, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
It's permanently on "bandwidth exceeded" for me. You couldn't give a quick run-down?

Rolfe.
Strange. I keep getting that now too. When I googled for it, I was able to view several links, but after I posted the link to it, the entire site went down (there can't be that many people trying to access this report). Must be a conspiracy to keep us from finding out the truth! I still have the first three chapters in my cache, however, so I'm going to copy and paste them as three separate posts. Anyone not interested in reading the report can skip my next three posts.

Psi Baba
19th May 2005, 10:28 AM
Operation Animal Mutilation
Report of the District Attorney
First Judicial District
State of New Mexico
by Kenneth M. Rommel, Jr.
Project Director
June, 1980
Prepared for the Criminal Justice Department

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the early 1970's, a disturbing new phenomenon was reported in the United States -- a phenomenon that spread across rural America baffling ranchers as well as law officers. Increasing numbers of livestock were found dead and mysteriously mutilated. This phenomenon began to receive considerable coverage by the media. In Colorado, it was the news story of the year in 1975. Articles appeared in national magazines, and several books were written on the subject.

According to some estimates, by 1979 10,000 head of cattle had been mysteriously mutilated. Of the states that have been affected by this phenomenon, New Mexico has been unusually "hard hit." Since 1975, over 100 cases have been reported. The New Mexico reports, like those from other parts of the country, describe the mutilations as being characterized by the precise surgical removal of certain parts of the animal, particularly the sexual organs and rectum. Predators, it is claimed, avoid the carcass, which is said to be devoid of blood. Mutilation accounts are often accompanied by sightings of strange helicopters or UFOs. The link between UFOs and the New Mexico incidents is further supported by the alleged discoveries of carcasses with broken legs and visible clamp marks, indicating to some investigators that the animals are being airlifted to another place where they are mutilated, and then returned to the spot where they are found. This belief in further supported by two additional reports -- one of a case in which the cowls horn was sticking in the ground as if the animal had been dropped there; the other of a steer "found in a tree five feet above the ground" (Coates 1980).

Although mutilations have been reported throughout the state, a large number of cases have occurred in Rio Arriba County, which is under the legal jurisdiction of the First Judicial District. According to information furnished to the district attorney's office, prior to this investigation, more than 60 mutilations have been reported in that county. This represents an estimated loss of $18,000 a sizeable amount for a county as economically distressed as Rio Arriba. The concern of those whose cattle have been victims of this phenomenon is understandable, especially when there seems to be no obvious motive for the crimes.

In response to the reactions of area residents, Eloy F. Martinez, district attorney for the First Judicial District, decided further investigation of this phenomenon was warranted. On the basis of available evidence, these livestock mutilations appeared to be a law enforcement problem, a belief shared by Senator Garrison Schmitt, who at that time was attempting to initiate a federal. investigation. By legal definition, however, the crime being committed is not a serious one; it's a misdemeanor. According to Section 30-18-2, New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1978 Compilation, as amended:


-2-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


"Whoever commits injury to animals is guilty of a
misdemeanor. Injury to animals consists of willfully
and maliciously poisoning, killing, or injuring any
animal or domesticated fowl, which is the property
of another."



On February 1, 1979, the district attorney's office, First Judicial District, submitted a grant proposal to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) requesting $44,170 to fund an investigation of livestock mutilations in New Mexico. The grant was awarded in the spring. By that time the mutilation problem in New Mexico had catapulted into the national spotlight as the result of a special conference on livestock mutilations conducted by Senator Schmitt. Private investigators and law enforcement officers from more than ten states attended the conference, which was held April 20 in Albuquerque. It was several days after this highly publicized event that the district attorney's office received word the LEAA grant had been awarded.

I was hired shortly afterwards to direct the investigation, which was to begin May 28, 1979, and run through May 27, 1980. The grant specified that the project was to employ a director with at least 20 years of top level investigative experience who was familiar with and had access to the best testing laboratories and who also possessed established communication skills with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

In reviewing my background of experience, the district attorney felt I adequately met all the qualifications for the job. This background includes 28 years as a special agent of


-3-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


of the FBI 10 years of which were in the counter espionage field, working against Soviet and Satellite Intelligence. The remaining 18 years were in the criminal field -- 15 of these devoted almost exclusively to investigating bank robberies and other major crimes of violence. My many experiences involved assignments both within and outside the continental United States.


Investigative Policy

I retired from the FBI in May 1979 and shortly afterwards assumed the role of director of investigations for Operation Animal Mutilation. At that time I had little knowledge about livestock mutilations, although I had read accounts of the phenomenon in the newspapers. However, right at the outset I decided to be very guarded in my comments to the media, a policy I had adopted during my years as an FBI agent. I do not believe that a professional investigation should be subject to possible influence by the media. Since Operation Animal Mutilation was a law enforcement investigation, I believed it wise to adopt a similar policy.

Also, I did not want to inadvertently furnish incomplete, erroneous, misleading or irresponsible information to the public through the media. After reviewing a collection of newspaper clippings, I felt that too many irresponsible statements had already been made about livestock mutilations. I also learned that in other states, the media had played a major role in alarming ranchers and farmers to the point where some of them had


-4-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


formed vigilante committees. I did not want this to happen in New Mexico as the result of any remarks made by me.

Because of the beliefs associated with the phenomenon, I also felt that if it were reported I was investigating a "mutilation" -- and not knowing how each individual perceived the word "mutilation" -- the public might interpret that statement in terms of their own preconceived notions. Moreover, I wanted to see how the media would cover incidents without the benefit of my comments. In other words, I wanted to see if the media, itself, was a part of the problem. Most reporters, I believe, are sincerely concerned with accurately conveying the facts to the public; but in the case of livestock mutilations, who knew what the facts were? This is what I wanted to determine before any information was released to the media. Now that the investigation has been completed, I believe the public has the right to know my conclusions as well as the evidence on which they are based. This, then, is the major objective of this report.


Objectives and Procedures

When I began the investigation on May 28, 1979, I had five objectives:

(1) To determine the reliability of the information on which the grant was based. This entailed gathering as much information as possible about the cases reported in New Mexico prior to May 1979. Letters were written to every sheriff in the state requesting information. The state police was also contacted, and additional information was retrieved through media accounts and from the New Mexico Livestock Board.

(2) To determine the cause of as many mutilations as possible, especially those reported in New Mexico. During the course of this project, 27 incidents were reported. I conducted on-the-scene investigations of 15 of these cases. The remaining 12 incidents were investigated primarily by officers of the New Mexico State Police, the New Mexico Livestock Board, and deputies from sheriff's departments. one incident was not investigated since the notifying officer would not furnish sufficient details, including the location of the incident. To help interpret the evidence, I consulted experts from a number of different fields, including veterinarians, forensic pathologists, and mining engineers.

(3) To determine if livestock mutilations as described constitute a major law enforcement problem. Since it is a well-proved fact that predators and scavengers mutilate livestock, the chief criterion for human causation is the "precision surgical removal" of certain parts of the animal. Therefore, to be considered a major law enforcement problem, it must be shown that in a large number of cases, certain parts of the animal have been surgically removed, in violation of a law.

(4) If these mutilations do constitute a major law


_____________

1 For the sake of brevity, the term "human-induced" mutilation will be used to designate those mutilations performed with the aid of knives or other sharp instruments.


-6-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


enforcement problem, to determine the scope of that problem and to offer recommendations on how to deal with it. To ascertain the extent of the mutilation phenomenon, I asked the governor of every state whether or not livestock mutilations had ever been a problem in that state. In addition to the information I received from these inquiries, I personally reviewed case files in Colorado, Nevada, and Arkansas. Valuable information was also provided by veterinarians connected with nine state animal diagnostic laboratories.

(5) If it is shown that the mutilation phenomenon is not a law enforcement problem, to recommend that no further law enforcement investigations be funded.

In executing this assignment, I have traveled thousands of miles, interviewed numerous people, and compiled a massive amount of material, including many photographs. To help me interpret this evidence, I have consulted experts from a variety of different fields. After laboriously weighing and analyzing the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of mutilations are caused by predators and scavengers.

I fully realize there are those, including other law enforcement officers, whose assessment of the situation may differ from mine and who will take exception to my findings. This is understandable. But I hope that they, and others concerned about the mutilation phenomenon, will take the time to read this report and to examine the evidence that so strongly supports my conclusions. It has not been my purpose or intent


-7-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


to embarrass, criticize, or question the sincerity of anyone in regards to this investigation. My major objectives have been to investigate the phenomenon and to determine the cause of as many reported mutilations as possible. This, I feel, I have done.


More on Operation Animal Mutilation
Dossier: Documented Evidence
ParaScope Main Screen

Psi Baba
19th May 2005, 10:31 AM
CHAPTER 2

A POPULAR HISTORY OF LIVESTOCK MUTILATIONS IN NEW MEXICO,
Winter 1975 - Spring 1979

When the district attorney's office submitted its grant proposal to LEAA in early 1979, there was reason to believe that livestock mutilations in New Mexico were a law enforcement problem. Moreover, the problem appeared to be a serious one both in terms of its economic impact on livestock owners and in the fear it had generated among rural residents. Information obtained from such residents together with material gleaned from newspapers, magazines, and other available reports seemed to indicate these mutilations were being perpetrated by highly skilled individuals with considerable financial backing.

To distinguish these mutilations from the sloppier work of predators and scavengers, the term "classic mutilation soon came into popular usage. A classic mutilation is characterized by the following traits:

(1) The surgically precise removal of certain parts of the animal. As one writer explains, the term "mutilation" is actually "inappropriate to describe the extremely precise and delicate surgery performed on these animals" (Perkins 1979: 20). The parts most commonly removed are the sexual organs, one eye, one ear, tongue, and in female animals, the udder.

(2) A perfectly cored anus, as though a large cookie cutter was used to perform the operation.

(3) A lack of blood, indicating that the animal has


-9-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


been deliberately drained of its fluid.

(4) The unusual rate of decay of the carcass. The carcass decays either extremely slowly or extremely rapidly. In most cases, the usual "death odors" are absent.

(5) The deliberate selection of certain types of livestock. The New Mexico victims have been described as healthy, native-grown livestock.

(6) The absence of human or tire tracks at the scene.

(7) Deliberate avoidance of the carcass by other animals. Animals who do approach the carcass usually circle at a safe distance. Although flies may avoid the body, dead ones are occasionally found on the carcass.

(8) The sighting of strange lights or aircraft within the vicinity of a reported mutilation. In New Mexico, these aircraft have been variously described as UFOs or helicopters.

(9) Unusual reaction of family pets. On the night a mutilation occurs, the family dog, which usually barks at everything, is exceptionally quiet.

In this chapter I will briefly sketch the popular history of livestock mutilations in New Mexico. I do this for two reasons: (1) To show the type of information on which the district attorney based his decision to apply for a LEAA grant, and (2) to indicate the general climate of opinion and belief that prevailed when I assumed the role of project director in May 1979. The material presented here is drawn primarily from newspaper and magazine articles, most of which would have been


-10-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


readily available to New Mexicans. In short, any resident who has followed the mutilation phenomenon through local newspapers and magazines will probably be familiar with the incidents discussed here.


1975 Incidents

In 1975, a number of ranchers, many of whom lived on the eastern plains of New Mexico, reported finding their cattle mysteriously dead and mutilated. By the fall, the problem was considered serious enough that the New Mexico Livestock Board requested assistance from Los Alamos scientific Laboratory (LASL) to help determine the cause of death of these animals. According to an article published in the Albuquerque Journal, "in most cases... inspectors have found no blood and no tracks at the scene to indicate the cause of death." The article does point out, though, that most of the carcasses were not fresh enough "where we [livestock inspectors] could determine anything about them" (Cohea 1975).

Accompanying some of the reported mutilations were sightings of unidentified aircraft, particularly helicopters.

"We [Livestock Board] had reports that someone said
they saw a helicopter the day before the mutilated bull
was found near Abiquiu, and in the areas of Clayton,
Raton, and Tucumcari there have been reports of lots of
helicopters. But we haven't tied helicopters in with the
mutilations..."



In the years to follow, such sightings continued to be linked with mutilations.


-11-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


1976 Incidents

The mutilation phenomenon escalated in 1976, according to some reporters. In addition, the target of mutilations seemed to shift from the eastern plains to northern New Mexico. Dulce, a small community in northern Rio Arriba County, received considerable attention that year as the result of an incident reported June 13. The case, which was investigated by the cattle inspector and a law enforcement officer, involved the discovery of a mutilated cow belonging to an area rancher. What made this "mutilation" so unusual was its alleged association with "a mysterious trail of suction cup-like impressions" (Albuquerque Tribune 1976).

In a story which appeared in the June 15 issue of the Albuquerque Tribune, the victim is described as a three-year-old cow, its sexual organs, ear, tongue, and lower lip having been removed with a sharp instrument. The article goes on to say there is no indication how the animal died. There was no sign of a struggle, only the strange tracks and an unknown oily substance, which the officer recovered from the ground near the carcass.

The article describes the track as consisting of a series of tripod-like indentations, each of which was approximately four inches in diameter and twenty-eight inches from the other two tracks. Each series of tripod marks were said to be about 28 inches apart. The law officer claimed that "the trail ended about 500 feet from the animal carcass, 'as if they had


-12-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


landed at that point, gone to the cow, and then returned to that point.' The article further reports that the owner had gone back to the area the next day and "found more depressions on top of the tire tracks made by his truck the day before."

Although mutilations were subsequently reported in other parts of the state, none seemed to generate as much interest or speculation as the Dulce incident. The story was covered not only in local and state newspapers, but also was circulated to other areas via United Press International (UPI). An account of the incident later appeared in different magazines, including UFO Report (Nelson 1978) and Alberta Report (1979). This case is also important in that it marks the first in a series of similar incidents investigated in the Dulce area. These cases, some of which involved the same rancher, were investigated in 1978.


1977 Incidents

After the rash of incidents that were investigated in 1976, 1977 was a very slow year in terms of the number of reported mutilations. Only a handful of cases were investigated. Nevertheless, livestock mutilations were still a newsworthy topic. In fact, that fall Fritz Thompson (1977), a reporter for the Albuquerque Journal, published a major article in Impact, the journal's magazine. In this article, Thompson discusses some of the major mutilation cases that have been investigated, drawing heavily from Colorado. He also summarizes the major theories


-13-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


that had been advocated to account for the phenomenon. The impact this article had on the public is difficult to assess, but within the next few months more mutilations were reported.


1978 Incidents

In 1978 there was a dramatic increase in the number of reported mutilations. Some of the most publicized cases again occurred within the vicinity of the little community of Dulce. On April 24, the same rancher who had been "victimized" in 1976, found his 11-month-old bull dead, its sex organs and rectum missing. The investigating officer removed the liver "and it was all white and felt like mush" (Thompson 1978a). The Albuquerque Journal referred to the case as a "classic mutilation." Tracks similar to those found in the 1976 case were also reported.

"I'm [investigating officer] confused as hell. Whether it's
human or something else, they cut that animal and it was
not a cow or horse or predator that left those tracks."



According to the article, no scavengers had even touched the carcass (Thompson 1978a).

This incident was also accompanied by reports of strange lights seen in the vicinity of Dulce at the time the mutilation supposedly took place.

"As in numerous other mutilation cases, there was an
unofficial report from a Department of Game and Fish
officer of a large orange light in the darkness along a
ridge directly south of the meadow" (Thompson 1978a).



To determine the cause of death, the heart muscle and


-14-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


other parts of the bull were taken to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories for analysis. According to an article that appeared in the May 18 issue of the Albuquerque Journal (1978a) the results of the test were inconclusive because of "possible contamination [of the sample] from outside sources." Although not reported until later (see Olson 1978d and Valerio 1979), the bull's liver together with a liver from a healthy animal were also analyzed in a laboratory. In contrast to the "healthy" liver, the bull's liver contained no copper. Instead, it was found to have an unusually high concentration of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous (Olson 1978d).

This case was later described in an article in UFO Report as were two other incidents that were investigated in Dulce that spring (Nelson 1978). In May, a cow belonging to the Jicarilla Apache Tribal Chief of Police was found dead; "its udder had been removed... and there appeared to be bruise marks around the body where several straps had been attached." The article goes on to say that about 100 yards north, the police investigator found "several pairs of perfectly round, deeply imprinted tracks" (Nelson 1978: 26).

A few weeks later, another rancher in the Dulce area reported finding his cow dead and sexually mutilated. According to Nelson, the investigating officer discovered unusual tracks and other evidence to suggest that the animal had been airdropped.

"The round prints were fifty to seventy-five yards
away from the carcass in an area of




-15-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


thick sagebrush. He [investigator] also remembers
that several branches had been broken off in the
treetops above the carcass as if the animal had been
brought down through the trees and dropped to the
ground. Flies buzzing around the broken tree branches
suggested that blood from the carcass had been
splattered on the tree tops" (Nelson 1978: 26-27).



On June 14, another mutilated cow was reported in the Dulce area by the same rancher whose bull had allegedly been mutilated in April. The Albuquerque Journal (1978b) describes the victim as a four-year-old Hereford cow. Its udder, rectum and part of the lower lip were reported missing; its legs fractured; and its vertebrae broken. Elsewhere it was claimed that one of its horns had broken off and was sticking in the ground.

The investigating officer told the Journal reporter that the victims are apparently airlifted to a place where they are mutilated, the carcass then being returned to the pasture that night. In the article the officer also discussed the possibility that such livestock are marked ahead of time in order to aid in their identification at night. To test this hypothesis, the lawman announced that he and a retired scientist from Albuquerque were planning to conduct an experiment (Albuquerque Journal 1978b).

This experiment was conducted in Dulce that summer. Its results, when they were released to the press in December, were front page news. The following description is based on an article, "New Findings Deepen Mystery of Mutilations", which was published December 15 in the Albuquerque Journal.


-16-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


on July 5, approximately 120 cattle belonging to a Dulce rancher were penned in a corral and headed through a squeeze chute under an ultra-violet light. Five animals were found "with a glittery substance on the right side of the neck, the right ear and the right leg." Samples from the affected hide as well as unaffected "control" samples were sent to a laboratory in Albuquerque, which reported that the affected hides contained a significant deposit of magnesium and potassium. Although there was little speculation as to what the substance might be, one of the experimenters noted that "mutilated cattle are generally found lying on their right sides -- the same side the live cattle were 'marked on' " (Thompson 1978b).

This article also reported the results of another test, which seemed to provide further evidence of a link between UFOs and livestock mutilations. According to the article, the Dulce law officer and his Albuquerque collaborator had recently learned that four nights before the July 5 experiment was conducted, a UFO was sighted near Taos. It was reported that three families living three miles northwest of Taos were startled at 12:05 a.m. by "a very bright orange light." The object appeared to be hovering over a fuel tank and a pickup truck, which was parked outside one of the homes. The next morning, "a thin powder was found on the roof of the pickup's cab," which one of the witnesses collected and put in a jar." When the experimentors" learned of this incident, they had a sample of the powder sent to the same laboratory that had run the cowhide tests.


-17-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Preliminary analysis of this substance revealed that it contained significant amounts of potassium and magnesium, the same elements found on the hides of the cattle test four nights later Thompson 1978b).

In an article published two weeks later in the Rio Grande Sun, Gail Olson (1978D) makes a further observation that the chemical components found in the affected cowhides and the powder from the Taos "Flying machine" are the same as those found "in the 'white and mushy' liver of a cow which was mutilated near Dulce last April."

As 1978 drew to a close, cattle mutilations were very much in the headlines. Media coverage of the more spectacular New Mexico cases suggested a possible link between UFOs and livestock mutilations. The results of the experiment and related tests seemed to provide further evidence for such a connection. The possible implications of such a connection gave rise to further speculation by the press, particularly in the year that followed.


1979 Incidents

Shortly after the New Year began, a mutilation was reported in Taos. According to the Albuquerque Journal (1.979a) on January 12 a five-year-old cow was found dead about one quarter mile from where a UFO had been seen the year before. Its neck had been fractured.

A few weeks later, a more serious incident was


-18-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


reported in southern New Mexico. At Malaga near Carlsbad, a rancher found four of his horses dead. The Albuquerque Journal (1979b) stated that three of them had been mutilated. In an article appearing in the Rio Grande Sun, a law officer claimed that all four horses had been mutilated (Olson 1979a). These animals were described as "prize racehorses, each worth $10,000." The article also points out that the horses were "found near Carlsbad, the proposed site of the nation's first official nuclear dumping ground" (Olson 1979a).

The district attorney's decision to apply for a LEAA grant was based largely on the information contained in articles such as these and those cited earlier. Also, the police officer from Dulce, who had investigated many of the cases in Rio Arriba County, claimed the mutilations were caused by humans. As Olson (1979a) points out:

"He [the officer] has determined to his satisfaction
that highly evolved aircraft are involved in the
mutilations and that whoever is responsible has
strong resources for backing."



The belief that such mutilations were a major law enforcement problem was also shared by Senator Harrison Schmitt, who at that time was trying to interest the FBI in conducting a special investigation.

Not everyone agreed with this position, however, for on November 9, 1978, the Rio Grande Sun published an article based on an interview with Dr. Jim Prine, a veterinarian affiliated with the Mammalian Biology Group at Los Alamos Scientific


-19-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Scientific Laboratories. In this interview Dr. Prine attributes the mutilations to predators. These cattle, according to him, die primarily from blackleg, red water, and other natural causes. The article also devotes considerable space to interviews with two state officials, both of whom disagreed with Dr. Prine's findings. To discredit the predator theory, one official claimed he has seen fresh carcasses in which the incisions were "similar to laser cuts" (Olson 1978b). Dr. Prine was interviewed again in an article that appeared the following February in a number of area newspapers, including the Albuquerque Journal (1979c).

In support of Dr. Prine's theory, however, some of the mutilations discussed in the newspapers were actually described as rather "sloppy." In fact, the following case, which was reported November 28, 1978, in the New Mexican (1978) clearly seems to be the work of "canine mutilators." A cow belonging to a rancher from Hernandez was found dead and mutilated in a corral about 150 feet from the home. According to the investigating officer, its head was found wedged between two boards, where it had apparently choked to death. Its tail, rectum and sexual organs were missing, as though they had been "dug out." Although the officer claimed that the tail section had probably been eaten by dogs, the neighbor who had found the animal believed the missing parts had been "cut with a knife or a similar sharp object." As an experiment, the carcass was left in the open to see if dogs would feed on it. They did.


-20-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


A series of mutilations similar to this one were also reported in 1978 in the Rio Grande Sun. Gail Olson (1978a) states that on October 3, "three cows and a two-month-old calf were murdered and mutilated in northern Rio Arriba County." The rectums and sex organs of the three cows were reported missing. The reporter points out, however, that these mutilations had not been very precisely executed: "Though circular, the incisions were ragged and sloppy."

But articles advocating a predator/scavenger explanation were a drop in the bucket compared with the number claiming human causation. In fact, in the case just described, Olson goes so far as to suggest the mutilators were probably "amateurs" who had not yet completed their "mutilation apprenticeship" (Olson 1978a). Moreover, not all veterinarians accepted the predator/ scavenger explanations. On December 14, 1978, the Rio Grande Sun published an article based on an interview with Dr. William T. Fitzgerald, a Colorado veterinarian (Olson 1978c). In this article, Dr. Fitzgerald discusses the results of an examination he performed on a mutilated cow found near Durango. According to him, the cow, which displayed "classic mutilation symptoms," was bled to death using a 12 to 14 gauge needle inserted into the left jugular vein. He goes on to say that the murder and mutilation of this animal would have required "a capture gun, blowgun or special arrow, one or more sharp knives or scissors, and hypodermic needles." Dr. Fitzgerald was then asked to comment on LASL's findings "that area cows similarly found dead


-21-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


had died natural deaths, then were attacked by predators." According to Olson (1978c), "Dr. Fitzgerald remained unconvinced."

The grant proposal was submitted by the district attorney's office on February 1, 1979. The LEAA awarded the grant later that spring, the project to begin May 28. In the intervening months, livestock mutilations and associated phenomena continued to dominate the news.

On March 26, 1979, a cow was found dead and mutilated in Torrance County. The sheriff was assisted in his investigation by the law officer from Dulce. What made this case interesting was the alleged discovery of tripod marks inside the corral where the five-year-old cow was found dead and mutilated (New Mexican 1979). The Rio Grande Sun (1979) reported that the cowls tongue was burned and its neck broken, as though it had been killed elsewhere and "dragged." The article attributed the cause of death to exsanguination.

On April 8, 1979, "a mysterious aircraft thought to be involved in cattle mutilations," was sighted in the Dulce area (Albuquerque Tribune 1979a). The Albuquerque Journal (1979d) reports that two Jicarilla Apache tribal officers were on routine patrol, their vehicle lights off, when they spotted "the aircraft hovering about 50 feet off the ground with a powerful spotlight aimed at the cattle."

A police officer in Dulce subsequently witnessed the craft, which "he thinks had to be connected with a series of 16


-22-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


recent cattle mutilations in the Dulce area." Although the identity of the craft was not known, one reporter said he had learned from military sources that a relatively quiet, jet-powered helicopter had been developed earlier for use in Vietnam (Albuquerque Journal 1979d). Another reporter also speculated the craft might have been a type of helicopter currently being tested (Olson 1979b).

A connection between livestock mutilations and UFO sightings was also made by Candyce Valerio. In an article entitled "Cattle Mutilations in Northern New Mexico", which appeared in the March/April issue of Taos Magazine, Valerio (1979) rehashes the Taos UFO incident and the cowhide experiment previously described. According to her, the "retired scientist" who participated in that experiment has also been conducting extensive tests on the organs of both mutilated animals and healthy ones. The author claims that his tests have shown that the livers of mutilated cows disintegrate within six to eight hours as though the animal had been subjected to "a high level of radiation in the microwave region." Valerio (1979: 30-31) points out that both the scientist and the Dulce law officer with whom he has been working "are cautious when discussing why such mutilations occur, but note that since the lips, tongue, and rectal area are removed, the mutilations may be related to a scientific study of the lymphatic system and production of bacteria."

Why such mutilations occur was also one of the topics


-23-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


discussed at the livestock mutilation conference conducted April 20 in Albuquerque. Law officers and independent investigators from 11 states attended the meeting, which was hosted by Senator Harrison Schmitt and United States Attorney R. E. Thompson. The purpose of the day-long conference was to help define the scope of the problem and to examine "the possible FBI activities which will be of value in solving these crimes" (Schmitt 1979: 5).

The morning was devoted to a public hearing, which was attended by a variety of people, including government officials, UFO enthusiasts, veterinarians, independent investigators, and concerned citizens. Although a number of different views and opinions were offered, the theory that seemed to excite local reporters the most was one advocated by David Perkins, an amateur Colorado investigator using the name Animals Mutilations Probe. Perkins suggested that environmental testing might be the motive behind livestock mutilations. To support his theory, he displayed a map showing what he claimed was an association between mutilations and nuclear-related activities.

Perkins' presentation received considerable coverage in both the Albuquerque Journal (1979) and the Rio Grande Sun Olson (1979c). In support of his theory, Olson (1979c) pointed out that many of the New Mexico mutilations have occurred in Dulce, which is located near Gas Buggy, "the site of the nation's first underground nuclear explosion designed to stimulate the production of gas." In an earlier article, she explained that the explosion was set off in 1967 as an experiment by the


-24-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


El Paso Natural Gas Company and the United States Atomic Energy Commission (Olson 1978a).

The afternoon session of the conference, which was closed to the public, was attended by law enforcement officers from New Mexico, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, and Arkansas, as well as representatives from the FBI. Those who had conducted on-the-scene investigations discussed their particular cases. To support the claim that livestock mutilations were not the work of predators and scavengers, one New Mexico law officer said he had found a mutilated cow in the branches of a tree.

The general consensus of the session was that livestock mutilations were indeed a problem that warranted further investigation. It was decided that in New Mexico, the investigation should be conducted by one of three agencies -- the FBI, the New Mexico State Police, or the District Attorney's office in Santa Fe, which was still awaiting LEAA's decision on the proposed grant. Four days later the grant was awarded. Shortly after the announcement was released to the press, I was hired to direct the project.

In the meantime, livestock mutilations continued to dominate the news, for as one reporter astutely observed, "the cattle mutilation mystery [had] become a media event" (Thompson 1979c). Senator Schmitt's conference, of course, received considerable coverage in both local and out-of-state newspapers. Several weeks later, a television crew from ABC arrived in New Mexico to film a documentary on livestock mutilations. Towards


-25-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


the end of the month, Fritz Thompson (1979c) reviewed the New Mexico mutilation phenomenon in "The Cattle Mutilation Mystery Revisited", which appeared in the May 22 issue of Impact.

In addition, mutilation cases were still being reported in local newspapers. In fact, on May 2, one of the most startling discoveries of the year was announced -- the discovery of two drugs in the carcass of a mutilated bull. According to the Albuquerque Tribune (1979b), a Los Alamos chemist had just discovered traces of two drugs in the carcass of a six-month-old bull that had been found mutilated earlier that year in Torrance County. The two drugs were chlorpromazine, "a street drug, often used to tranquilize schizophrenics" and citric acid, "an old-fashioned anti-coagulant once used by ranchers to help drain the blood from the animal."

This discovery excited the two lawmen who had investigated the case. In an interview in the New Mexican (1579), one officer stated that the tranquilizer was probably used to immobilize the animal while the other drug was used "to clog the blood" so that it could be more easily removed through the jugular vein. He also said he is aware of only three other cases where drugs have been found in mutilated carcasses. All three incidents occurred in Arkansas, he claimed, and were reported "about the same time that this case was found." The other officer told the reporter there were "skid marks near the carcass, indicating it might have been dropped from the air."


-26-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Summary and Conclusions

Operation Animal Mutilation officially began on May 28, 1979. On that date, I assumed the role of project director, well aware of the controversial nature of the subject I was about to investigate. During the past few years, as I have shown, scores of articles had been written about the New Mexico cases. These mutilations have been variously linked with UFOs, environmental testing, biological experiments, and nuclear activities. A few individuals, however, including some very knowledgeable veterinarians, have continually maintained that the real mutilators are predators and scavengers. This theory, I soon learned, was one of the least popular.


-27-


More on Operation Animal Mutilation
Dossier: Documented Evidence
ParaScope Main Screen

Psi Baba
19th May 2005, 10:35 AM
CHAPTER 3

INVESTIGATION OF PREVIOUS NEW MEXICO CASES
(1975-1979)

When I assumed the role of project director, one of my first goals was to find out as much as possible about the mutilations that had previously been reported in New Mexico. From the New Mexico Press Clipping Bureau and other sources, I obtained copies of the major newspaper and magazine articles that had been written about these cases. After reading this and other material, it soon became apparent there was considerable disagreement not only on the nature and causes of the mutilations, but also on the number of incidents that had occurred in New Mexico.

According to information furnished to the district attorney's office, by 1979 Rio Arriba County, alone, had experienced more than 60 mutilations. A month earlier, however, the Albuquerque Journal claimed that 60 was the total number of cases that had been reported in New Mexico (Thompson 1979b). At Senator Schmitt's conference the following April (1979), one law officer claimed that during the past three years, ninety head of cattle and six horses had been mutilated in the state.

Which figures were correct? This I didn't know, but I wanted to find out. For in order to assess the scope of the mutilation problem in New Mexico, I decided it was necessary:

(1) To determine as accurately as possible the number of reported incidents, and


-28-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


(2) To evaluate each case to determine if predator/scavenger damage could definitely be eliminated as a probable cause of the mutilation.

To accomplish these objectives, I contacted the New Mexico Livestock Board, the New Mexico State Police, and the sheriff of every county, requesting information on the cases they find investigated. As a result of this extensive research, I eventually obtained information on a total of 90 mutilations that had been reported in New Mexico up through May 1979. This figure includes not only cattle but also six horses and one buffalo calf. Only 26 incidents, however, had occurred in Rio Arriba County and an additional 3 in Santa Fe County, which is also in the First Judicial District (see Table One).

Of these 90 suspected mutilations, I obtained reports of 58 incidents from the New Mexico Livestock Board. The New Mexico State Police provided me with information of 15 cases. I also received reports of three incidents which had been investigated, jointly by the two agencies. Information on 14 additional cases was retrieved primarily from newspaper and magazine articles.


REPORTED MUTILATIONS IN NEW MEXICO
(1975- May 1979)

Year Rio Arriba County Total Number
1975 1 19
1976 4 21
1977 1 5
1978 15 30
1979 (Jan-May) 5 15
__ __
26 90




-29-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


My next objective was to determine if the evidence cited in each report definitely excluded scavenger/predator damage as a probable cause of the mutilation. Such an approach was adopted for the following three reasons:

First, it is a well-known fact that wild animals and birds do feed on the carcasses of dead livestock. Under the right conditions, predators (animals who kill for food) and scavengers (animals who feed on carcasses already dead) can devour certain areas of the body in a relatively short period of time. The animals which commonly feed on livestock are coyotes, foxes, badgers, bobcats, golden eagles, ravens, vultures, and magpies, according to Donald S. Balser, chief of Predator Management Research for the United States Department of Interior (Balser 1979).

Many of these species are found in New Mexico. Homer Pickens, former director of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, remembers investigating the deaths of livestock who had been killed by bears and lions. John Hubbard (1979), also of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, states that birds of prey are found in New Mexico year round. Some species, such as the raven, crow, and magpie, live in New Mexico all year. others, such as the turkey vulture and bald eagle, are seasonal birds. Vultures, for example, arrive in the spring and leave in the early fall, while the bald eagles arrive in the fall and leave in early spring. According to Hubbard, last year these eagles fed mostly on the carrion of elk and cattle that had died


-30-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


during the winter.

Second, the parts of the carcass that are allegedly removed in a "classic mutilation" are the same ones customarily consumed by predators and scavengers. Most birds of prey have the ability to core the anus and to remove the eyes and tongue (Hubbard 1979; Dennis 1979). In addition, eagles and ravens also possess the strength and agility to punch through a carcass and remove the inner organs. However, as noted ornithologist Dr. Kenneth Sager points out, the ease with which this is done depends in part on the size of that carcass.

"The larger the animal, the more difficult it is for
the scavenger to gain access to the food supply
below the tough surface. [Thus they attack the]
softer points of entry, namely the eyes, anal
openings, and soft underbelly areas, especially
the udders of female bovines." (Sager 1979).



Similar observations were also made by the following veterinarians whose advice I sought during the course of the project:

"The tendency is for the softer parts of the
carcass to be removed, e.g. eyes, anus, mammary
glands, tongue..." -- Dr. William J. Quinn (1979),
Chief Diagnostic Laboratory Bureau, State of
Montana.



"One would expect the loss of an eye, tongue, lips,
anus, and rectum from the predation of scavengers
and carnivorous [animals]" -- Dr. L. D. Kintner
(1979), College of Veterinary Medicine, University
of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.



"Predatory animals usually attack carcasses left
laying any length of time and will almost always
chew or incise with their teeth the most available
portion of the body. These parts are the tail, anus
because it is not covered by hair, vulva for the
same reason,




-31-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


and penis, ears, and lips because they are
prominent and accessible" -- Dr. Vaughn A.
Seaton (1979), Head of the College of, Veterinary
Medicine, Iowa State University of Science and
Technology, Ames, Iowa.



Third, a number of experienced veterinarians advised me to conduct the investigation in this manner. As Dr. Quinn (1979) points out in a recent letter:

"A ... logical assumption would be that the
evidence is the work of wild animals and that
it must first be proven that it isn't before a
mutilation [human-induced] can be claimed."



Perhaps the following example will help clarify my own reasoning on the subject. Imagine yourself as a law officer who has just been summoned by a local citizen to investigate a theft that allegedly occurred at his house. When you arrive, the man explains he had prepared a steak for dinner and had just put it on the table when he had to leave the room to answer the telephone. When he returned, the steak was missing. The only other occupant of the house was the family dog, which was last seen sitting by the table licking its chops.

Suppose the complainant then told you he suspected the missing steak had something to do with UFOs, because while he was talking on the telephone he observed a flash of light outside. As an experienced law officer how would you evaluate the complainant's rationale? Would you investigate this crime by first trying to prove that a UFO was involved? Wouldn't it be much more logical to suspect the dog first, before going further afield? For the steak, substitute "mutilated cow"; for the dog,


-32-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


"all the meat-eating scavengers in the great outdoors." Again, wouldn't it be more logical and sensible to suspect the scavengers first -- entertaining other explanations only after careful scrutiny of the evidence had eliminated this one?

In short, this is the approach I have adopted in investigating reported mutilations in New Mexico. What kind of proof is needed to establish a verdict of non-scavenger causation? Since the parts removed in a classic mutilation are the same ones. eaten by predators and scavengers, the major criterion for differentiating the two types of mutilations would be the procedures used to make the incisions. In a classic mutilation, as Perkins (1979: 22) points out, "the surgery is too precise to have been done by another animal." The literature implies that even an untrained observer can readily differentiate such incisions from the jagged, uneven cuts made by wild birds and animals.

Is this true? To answer this question, I consulted a number of veterinarians. Their answer was unanimous: Wild birds and animals can make neat-looking incisions. The following statement made by Dr. Kintner (1979) is typical of the replies I received:

"Surprising as it may seem to the uninitiated,
many of the scavengers make [as] clean [a] cut
as might be done by a surgeon with a sharp knife."



A even more graphic description of the skill possessed by such animals is offered by Dr. Michael Aleksiuk (1975) in an article entitled "Manitoba's Fantastic Snake Pits". After watching a


-33-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


crow kill and partially eat a snake, Aleksiuk makes the following observation:

"I picked up the snake. The skin had been
broken only in the area of the liver, and that
organ had been neatly excised. Nothing else
had been touched. How the crow performed
the surgery with such precision is a mystery."



Of course, some cuts made by predators and scavengers are noticeably jagged and rough when they are made. However, in time even these incisions may give the appearance of knife cuts as Dr. Vaughn A. Seaton (1979) explains in the following statement:

"Stretching of the tissues caused by post mortem
gas production and autolysis can make the edges
of a bite wound or the incision of teeth appear to
be the result of sharp cuts, especially in soft
tissues not covered by hair."



If a smooth, even appearance is not a sufficient basis for distinguishing between animal and knife cuts, how can such incision be differentiated? Microscopic analysis of the tissues involved is the only sure method. Dr. Harry Anthony (1979) of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, explains that under the microscope, incisions made by predators and scavengers have a "consistent lesion of tearing, tooth marks into the hair line, and a lack of cut hair at the site of the separation."

A similar observation was made by Dr. A. E. McChesney, coordinator of the Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical. Sciences at Colorado State University. According to Dr. A. E. McChesney, to be termed a knife cut, the


-34-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


following criteria must be met:

"[The] cut must include cut hair that runs
perpendicular to the knife line. It must also
show cuts into deeper tissue and may have
a] saw-type effect from repeated thrusts.
With the anus there must be knife signs
deeper in the perineum and the rectum must
be clean cut with no shreds."



What about some of the other characteristics of the classic mutilation, such as the absence of blood at the scene. Wouldn't that constitute evidence that the animal had been mutilated by agents other than wild animals or birds? Not necessarily, for as veterinarians have told me, when the heart stops beating, the blood, like any other liquid, settles by gravity to the lower portions of the carcass and into the body cavities. It then coagulates and to the untrained observer would give the appearance of having disappeared (Hibbs 1979). In most cases, any visible blood would be readily consumed by predators and scavengers. As Dr. Kintner (1979) points out:

"It is the rule rather than the exception for
these animals to do a neat job and not leave
either blood or mess at the site of the carcass."



In short, to prove human causation,(see footnote p. 6) in a suspected mutilation, it is necessary to show that the missing parts of the animal were removed with a knife or other sharp instrument. To determine if such an instrument was used, it must be demonstrated that the hair follicles in the skin have been cut perpendicular to the plain. Such a demonstration would normally necessitate a microscopic analysis of the lesions in question.


-35-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


If such an analysis has not been performed, then human causation cannot be proved. However, there is another criterion, which, if met, would at least be suggestive of human causation -- the discovery of mutilations on the protected side of the animal. The parts removed by wild birds and animals are almost always those on the exposed side of a recumbent animal, for predators and scavengers generally lack the strength and ability to move a carcass, particularly one the size of a cow.

If, as some investigators claim, the animal was mutilated in one area and air-dropped to the place where it was subsequently found, then one would expect to find a sizable number of cases in which the mutilations occurred on the protected or down side of the animal. In fact, Neil Bockman, an amateur investigator recently asked the Dulce officer in a taped interview why these animals never land on the mutilated side. The officer replied: "Yeah, I've followed that, you know. It's a crazy thing, you know. You start looking into it and you can go crazy over it."

In summary, if neither of these two criteria are met, then predator/scavenger damage must be assumed. Such an assumption is even more likely in those cases in which bird tracks, animal prints, feathers, fur, animal defecation, or bird droppings are found near the carcass.


General Evaluation

The police officer who recently claimed that 96


-36-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


animals had been mutilated in New Mexico was remarkably accurate in terms of the number of incidents that had been reported when this project began. However, after carefully examining the evidence cited in available reports, I have discovered that none of these cases could be confirmed as classic mutilations.

In fact, of the incidents investigated between 1975 and May 1979, I have found only two cases in which the animal in question was actually mutilated with a knife. Both incidents were investigated by the New Mexico Livestock Board. The first one, however, is not included in my list of 90 cases, since no official report was filed. Instead, information about this case was obtained in an interview with Pat Archuleta, supervisor of the livestock board, who told me that about four years ago he was summoned to a reported mutilation near Galisteo.

On-the-scene investigation revealed that a burro had been mutilated by a sharp instrument. Recognizing the animal as one he had seen several days before at a ranch south of Santa Fe, he questioned the owner about the incident. The owner told Archuleta that the animal had died and that he had taken the, body and dumped it off the highway near Galisteo. When asked about the knife cuts, the rancher admitted that he had made them himself so that it would be easier for scavengers to "finish off" the animal.

The second case involved a report of a mutilated cow in the Anton Chico area. Further investigation by the livestock inspector revealed that the cow had been killed by lightning and


-37-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


had subsequently been cut with a knife by a person who had been feuding with the owner.

These two mutilations, though obviously done with sharp instruments, are a far cry from the "classic mutilation" described in the literature. The other cases fit this description even less. In fact, in three incidents, the investigator determined that no mutilation had occurred. In the two cases which were documented, the animal was found dead, but none of its organs were missing.

In addition to the cases cited above 66 other incidents can be resolved, at least, tentatively, on the basis of the evidence provided in the reports (see Table 2). The 21 remaining cases, however, do not contain the details needed to determine either the cause of death or the mutilation.

In most of the "resolvable" cases, the evidence suggests death by natural causes and/or damage by scavengers. In fact, 14 alleged mutilations were immediately resolved by the investigating officers as scavenger-induced. Twenty-three cases (an additional nineteen incidents) cited evidence of bird tracks, animal tracks, or animal hair at the scene. In a "classic mutilation," as you may recall, animals and birds are supposed to avoid the carcass.

Although less conclusive, the following characteristics are much more reminiscent of the less precise, piecemeal activities of scavengers than the meticulous skill and organization attributed to the "phantom surgeons of the plains;"


-38-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


(1) The partial removal of an organ such as the tongue or penis;

(2) The removal of only the exposed eye and/or ear;

(3) The subsequent removal of the tongue, ear, or other organ after the carcass has been initially examined. A total of 20 cases (an additional 10) share at least one of these traits.

Cause of death was determined in 26 cases, 15 of which also bore evidence of scavenger activity. Contrary to the lore surrounding the classic mutilation, there was nothing mysterious about these deaths -- nothing to suggest a high dose of radiation or exsanguination by highly trained surgeons. Most of these animals died from diseases such as blackleg. In a letter dated April 22, 1977, Dr. Donald F. Petersen points out that LASL has examined approximately 15 suspected mutilations with the following results:

"We have made the observation that in most
instances, gas-forming bacilli have been
culture from tissues, and both the autopsy
findings and the bacteriology are consistent
with the conclusion that the animals died
from blackleg."



In addition to death from disease, several cattle were fatally injured and at least two cows died while giving birth.

In 11 suspected mutilations, the animal had been reported dead for more than two days. In eight of these cases, the reports contain no evidence as to cause of death or scavenger activity. Rather, the nature of the mutilation is usually


-39-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


described, followed by the observation that the carcass was badly decomposed. Such a description, though not constituting evidence of scavenger activity, does argue strongly against labeling the mutilation a "classic."

In the first place, classic mutilations are generally supposed to decay very slowly. Secondly, the process of decay, especially if advanced, will distort any cuts originally made in the animal. To use the expression "surgical precision" when describing missing organs on a badly decomposed animal is a distinct contradiction in terms. Many veterinarians question the validity of results obtained from necropsies performed 24 hours after an animal's death. One wonders how much more questionable the opinions of a layman would be, especially if the animal in question has been dead for five days as in the case just cited.

In summary, of the 90 mutilations reported in New Mexico between February 1975 and May 1979, 69 (77%) can be explained, at least partly, on the basis of available evidence. Eighteen cases were resolved immediately by the investigators. An additional 28 "mutilations" were associated with scavenger activity. In 19 cases, the evidence cited was not detailed enough to infer scavenger damage. However, the information provided was sufficient to definitely rule out the verdict, . classic mutilation," for either the cause of death was known and attributed to natural causes or routine injury, or the carcass was too decomposed for tests. In short, the term


-40-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


classic mutilation" and all that it infers cannot be applied, with any justification, to the 69 cases just discussed. To do so would require a wild imagination coupled with an ability to totally disregard the facts. In the remaining 21 cases, the evidence presented was not sufficient to determine the cause of death or to assess the nature of the mutilation.


-41-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]







__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Evaluation of Specific Cases

Considering the seemingly bizarre factors surrounding some of the New Mexico cases as described in Chapter Two, you may perhaps question some of the statements I have just made. It may even seem to you that I am deliberately ignoring some rather spectacular pieces of evidence -- such as the discovery of animals with broken bones and clamp marks.

"Doesn't this indicate these animals have been airlifted?" you may ask. "And, hasn't it been proved that the victims are deliberately chosen? And what about the discovery of drugs in the mutilated bull? Wouldn't this accumulated mass of evidence rule out the predator/scavenger theory?"

These are reasonable, logical questions -- the kind of questions and doubts that give rise to much of the controversy that surrounds the entire subject. But logical questions call for logical answers -- answers which will become very apparent in this section, as I examine in greater detail the evidence supporting the most publicized theory in New Mexico, that a highly sophisticated organization is behind these "classic" mutilations. This theory has been expounded through articles in the Albuquerque Journal, the Rio Grande Sun, and even in official reports -- proclaiming "experimentation" to be the probable reason for this bizarre activity.

Much of the evidence to support this theory stems from incidents investigated in the Dulce area, although other cases reported elsewhere in the state, particularly the alleged


-43-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


mutilation of four race horses at Malaga and the mutilated bull in Torrance County, are offered as further proof.

To evaluate these incidents, I have read not only the newspaper accounts summarized in Chapter Two, but also the official reports on each case., Much to my surprise, I found the material contained in some of these reports to be as sensational as the news stories covering the same events.

Since the major New Mexico incidents have already been summarized in Chapter Two, I will now examine in greater detail the evidence used to support the foregoing theory. This includes the discovery of unusual tracks, broken legs, clamp marks, radiation at the scene, UFO sightings, drugs in some animals, and the deliberate selection of the healthiest and best livestock. The more vocal investigators and reporters also agree that some kind of testing is involved -- but what kind is open to controversy. This section will also examine other theories advocated to explain mutilations. It will conclude with a discussion of perhaps the most controversial question of all -- who is behind these incidents.

The evidence cited in both official and unofficial reports, especially those from Dulce, suggests highly evolved aircraft are involved in these mutilations. One clue cited as proof is the discovery of "tripod-like" marks at the scene. The discovery of these marks was given considerable recognition by Ray Nelson in an article in UFO Report. Basing his statements largely on these New Mexico incidents, Nelson (1978; 24) makes


-44-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


the following observation:

"Investigators find no footprints or vehicle
marks around the carcasses. However, strange
circular tracks are sometimes found in the
vicinity of the mutilated animals, baffling
imprints that are perfectly circular and evenly
depressed, and others that are shaped like
suction cups. Sometimes, larger pod marks are
seen, laid out in triangular fashion as if a
tripod-like object had landed near the animal."



These strange tripod marks were first reported in Dulce in a "classic mutilation" case investigated June 13, 1976. A series of round tripod marks, each four inches in diameter, were found in the hard ground leading to the carcass. According to the police report, when the owner returned to the scene the next day, he then found a fresh set of tripod indentations over the tire tracks made by his car the previous day, again leading to the mutilated cow. The report then makes the rather astonishing statement that "the tripod marks had returned and removed the left ear" (Police Report 1976).

The year 1978 produced a rash of reported mutilations in the Dulce area, several of which were also characterized by the discovery of tripod marks at the scene. On April 24, an 11-month-old bull was reported mutilated -- the police report indicating "prints were found 100 feet north of the slain animal." The officer writing this report also indicates that the object making these tracks must have been extremely heavy, for the ground was so dry and hard that the tire tracks from the police car were barely visible. He then theorizes as to what caused these marks, stating, "These four inch round footprints


-45-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


led to the animal and back 100 feet where they apparently returned to a hovering aircraft" (Police Report 1978a).

On May 11, another cow was found mutilated in the Dulce area, and again the report contains an account of tripod marks, but this time much further away from the carcass:

"600 yards away from the cow were the 4 inch
circular indentations similar to the ones found
[April 24]" (Police Report 1978b).



As far as I can determine, the only case of reported tripod marks outside the Dulce area occurred on April 11 when a five-year-old mutilated cow was discovered in Torrance County. The New Mexican (1979) states that "tracks of a tripod were found about 25 feet away from where the carcass of a 5-year-old cow was killed." Both the tracks and the animal were located inside a corral. Another account of the incident appeared in the Torrance County Citizen (1979). Although this case was investigated by the county sheriff, it is interesting to note that he was assisted by the same law officer who had investigated the Dulce "tripod mark" cases. Desiring more details, I contacted both the police and sheriff's offices. However, as of February 1980, no official reports of this incident could be located.

Now then, what about these strange tripod marks -- do they constitute proof, as some suggest, that highly evolved aircraft are involved in these mutilations? To assess the significance of these tracks, it is first necessary to evaluate the descriptions and evidence in the official reports that have been


-46-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


filed. It is perhaps worthy of note that all four "tripod mark" cases were investigated by the same law enforcement officer. It may also be well to consider that a fairly sizable amount of time elapsed between the date the incident was investigated and the subsequent filing of each official report.

The first case, though investigated June 13, 1976, was not officially reported until December 15. The second one was investigated April 24, 1978, but not filed until July 31. The third incident was investigated May 11, 1978, but not reported until July 11. Regarding the fourth case, I was unable to locate an official report.

As an FBI agent, I was required to dictate the result of an interview that could be used as testimony, within five days of that interview. The rationale for this requirement -- which was established to comply with the Jenks Decision of the Supreme Court -- was to insure sufficient recall. In regard to these Dulce incidents, one wonders how reliable the officer's memory would be several months after the investigation.

In view of the tremendous significance which the officer has attached to these marks, his delay in filing the reports is curious. It would seem that if he had really thought the marks had been made by a strange flying aircraft, he would have reported the discovery immediately as one of the discoveries of the century. One would also think he would have summoned a team of experts to further investigate and hopefully corroborate this discovery or at the least take impressions of


-47-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


these tracks. I have no information that this occurred.

In all fairness, the officer did have two tests conducted, but neither were conclusive. In the 1976 incidents, a yellow oily substance was found in two places under some small marks. A soil sample containing this substance was submitted to, the State Police Laboratory for analysis. The resulting report indicated the lab's inability to detect the substance as it had disappeared. Wondering if this indicated that they had lost the sample, I then contacted the lab for further details. A spokesman there explained that an analysis of the sample revealed nothing other than the grass. If anything else had been there., it had since vanished.

In addition, the officer also summoned a "retired scientist" to the scene to make radiation tests. His findings revealed that the radiation level around the tripod marks was twice that of a normal reading. While this finding seems suggestive, it is scientifically invalid since there is no indication how the tests were conducted and whether or not a background reading was taken -- which would have been necessary to determine whether the tripod readings were higher than normal.

I did not see these tracks, but what I have observed on a number of occasions is that due to a combination of certain weather and soil conditions prevalent here in the southwest, the preserved hoof marks from a cow and horses can quickly erode to a circular-like depression of approximately the size mentioned.


-48-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Other evidence cited to support the belief that some type of aircraft is involved in livestock mutilations is the alleged discovery of animals with clamp marks and broken bones. Again, most of these incidents were reported in the Dulce area. The first case was investigated April 24, 1978, and involved the mutilated bull just discussed. The police report states that "the bull sustained visible bruises around the brisket area, seeming to indicate that a strap was used to lift and lower the animal to and from the aircraft." The report then adds that "investigation showed that this 11-month-old bull was dropped by some type of aircraft" (Police Report 1978a). However, no evidence was cited to support that statement.

Subsequent cases were even more spectacular. For example, on May 11, 1978, the police report (1978b) covering another mutilated cow indicates that the "left front and left rear leg(s) were pulled out of their sockets apparently from the weight of the cow which indicates it was lifted and dropped to the ground." The report goes on to make the astonishing statement that "this is the first in a series of mutilations in which the cowls legs are broken. Previously the animals had been lifted from the brisket with a strap." When I first read this statement, I wondered on what basis the officer was able to predict that other mutilated animals would later be discovered with broken legs. Then I realized that this incident was not officially reported until two months later. By this time other cases had indeed occurred.


-49-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


A similar case, this time involving two cows, was investigated May 28 by the same officer. The report states that the "left front leg and left rear leg [were] broken, which indicates that [the] animals were lifted by their extremities." This case is of added interest since it was publicized by Ray Nelson in UFO Report. According to his article, "[The investigator] remembers that several branches had been broken off in the tree tops above the carcass, as if the animal had been brought down through the trees and dropped to the ground. Flies buzzing around the broken tree branches suggested that blood from the carcass had been splattered on the treetops" (Nelson 1978: 26-27).

This brings to mind a statement later made by the same officer at Senator Schmitt's conference April 20, 1979. At the afternoon session, this officer claimed that he had seen one mutilation case in which a 600-pound cow was found in the branches of a tree -- indicating to him it must have been dropped there by some type of aircraft. A similar version was later attributed to the same officer in an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune (Coates 1980). Last February I questioned the officer about this incident. He admitted to me that the animal was not actually in the tree but was found at its base.

This change of location is of major significance in -that it not only totally undermines the theory the animal was dropped from the air, but also immediately suggests the cow was probably killed by lightning, which is one of the most common


-50-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


causes of livestock deaths. In addition, this admission seriously undermines the credibility of all the officer's previous statements.

On June 14, 1978, the same officer investigated a reported mutilation of a cow whose left front leg and left rear leg were broken. According to the official report, there were a]-so marks visible on the lower rear left leg indicating that some type of clamp or vise had been fastened there. The report then concludes with the rather astonishing statement -- considering the scant evidence on which it is based -- that "the animal was taken elsewhere and mutilated and then returned and dropped. This animal had five-inch horns. One horn was broken off into the ground" (Police Report 1978d).

In addition to these Dulce cases, in 1979 area newspapers published accounts of two suspected mutilations, both of which involved a cow whose neck was allegedly fractured. The first incident occurred in Taos on January 12; the other in Torrance County on March 26. In the second case, which the officer from Dulce also helped investigate, the claim was made that the cow had been air-dropped.

The question arises as to how the officer determined the bones were broken, since there is no indication that these animals were examined by trained veterinarians. Although the official reports fail to state how such a determination was made, this information is provided in an article entitled, "The Phantom Cattle Surgeons of the Plains". David Perkins (1979),


-51-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


the author, describes an on-the-scene investigation which he and several others, including this same officer, conducted in Dulce. Perkins points out that the officer maneuvered the left front and hind legs to show that they were broken and then kicked the backbone to show that it was also broken in several places. I suggest that this is hardly a scientific way to verify broken bones.

In a recent interview with one of the officer's associates, I was told by that associate that this officer, although a hardworking, dedicated policeman, has become too emotionally involved in cattle mutilations and "sees things that are not there." When I asked him for an example, he mentioned an incident in Taos which both he and the officer had investigated together. The officer, he said, claimed the animal had broken bones when it did not.

But what about the clamp marks? The police officer, claims such marks are a conclusive piece of evidence to support his theory. He is quoted by David Perkins (1979: 20) as saying: "Wait till you see those clamp marks!" "This is definite proof that they are being done from the air!"

I maintain that without further evidence it is totally unwarranted to attribute bruise marks and similar damage to mysterious airlifting activity. Rather, it is natural for a decomposing body to develop what appear to be incriminating bruise marks, most of which could readily be explained by a trained individual.


-52-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


I recall a seminar I recently attended at the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute, which was held at the University of Texas in Dallas. One of the speakers was a forensic pathologist for the state of Texas, who showed slides of a person who had died of natural causes. The body was perfectly preserved when it was found. The body was subsequently photographed at timed intervals. The pathologist noted that several hours after body changes began to occur, a very noticeable ring appeared around the neck of the corpus. The pathologist pointed out that had an untrained investigator -- or a doctor not trained in forensic pathology -- arrived on the scene, he might easily have made a diagnosis of ''death by strangulation," and could even have labeled it a homicide.

The presentation continued with a slide taken several hours later, showing a tremendous discoloration over the entire body. The pathologist observed that if the same investigators had arrived on the scene, they might this time attribute the death to homicide by beating, since the discoloration strong resembled bruise marks.

Strange tracks, alleged clamp marks, and broken bones are not the only evidence cited by those who claim the use of aircraft in carrying out these mutilations. Many such incidents, especially those occurring in the Dulce area, are accompanied by reported sightings of UFOs and strange orange lights. The newspaper accounts of these events, as summarized in Chapter Two, are certainly full of such incidents. But what about the official


-53-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


reports? Upon examining these records, I found that a number of them do mention UFO sightings, as though this would explain the tripod tracks, clamp marks and broken bones.

In the mutilated bull incident (April 24, 1978), the official report (1978a) describes a UFO sighting the night the animal was supposedly killed and mutilated. According to the report, a friend of the owner's brother claimed he heard a low flying aircraft at approximately 3 a.m., in the vicinity of where the mutilated bull was found. While the report doesn't speculate as to the nature of this aircraft, an article in the Albuquerque Journal (Thompson 1978a) describes it as "a large orange light in the darkness, along a ridge directly south of the meadow" where the bull was found.

One of the most dramatic UFO sightings in recent years occurred on July 3, 1978, in the Taos area. Following this sighting flakes of an unknown substance were removed from the roof of a truck, over which the UFO reportedly hovered. A few days later, as noted previously, a secret experiment using an ultraviolet light was conducted in Dulce to test a theory that target cows were being selectively marked for mutilation ahead of time.

During the experiment itself, a UFO was sighted,



according to Howard and Lovola Burgess (1979: 30).

"Near midnight, the Apache Indian tribal
police chief came up and asked, 'Did you see
the orange light moving around in the sky a
while ago? It was the kind that always shows
up when there's a mutilation. Maybe they're
watching you tonight.'"




-54-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Interestingly, at Senator Schmitt's conference held later that April, the chief testified emphatically that he had never seen these lights and personally didn't believe in UFOs (Schmitt 1979: 85-86).

Numerous media articles have claimed that the unidentified flakes from Taos have been compared with the "marking" material removed from the cows in the Dulce experiment, and that the properties contained in both are identical.

The Albuquerque Journal reported that "the powder was found to be largely potassium and magnesium, but investigators have been unable to say how it got on the animals or exactly where it came from" (Thompson 1978b). The Rio Grande Sun claimed that "three elements, two rare earth elements, one a transitional metal, have been discovered among those that comprise the material recently reported deposited upon a pickup truck by an unidentified flying object" (Olson 1979a).

Is there a possibility these two substances could have been deposited by some strange and mysterious aircraft? To answer this question, I contacted the "retired scientist" who had the two substances analyzed. on January 15, 1980, I asked him about the alleged UFO flakes that had been recovered from the roof of the pickup truck in Taos. The individual said that lie still had some of the sample flakes and would be glad to send them to me. I then requested that he send me only a portion of these flakes, so that if and when I could identify them, he could then use the ones still in his possession to verify this


-55-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


identification.

I received the flakes from him on January 22, 1980, and subsequently sent them to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., requesting that the substance be identified, if possible. The specimen was identified as a "white enamel paint typical of an acrylic latex/emulsion-type exterior house paint"!

In a letter dated April 9, 1980, I informed him of the results of the FBI examination, and suggested that he might wish to confirm these findings with any scientific laboratory of his choice. On June 12, 1980 he advised me that he has not done so.

It is interesting to note that regardless of whether a UFO was seen in Taos -- and even if the substance had remained a mystery -- no cattle mutilation was reported in Taos or Dulce during this period. It is also interesting how easy it is for some to take a set of facts, involving two different areas of the state, in which a reportedly similar substance is found, and to use these facts to establish a link between UFO and cattle mutilations, even though no mutilations are reported. In another UFO incident described in Chapter Two, in which an unidentified aircraft was reportedly surprised while spotlighting a herd of cattle near Lumberton, a link is also made between UFOs and mutilations, although none were reported at that time.

In summary, the most spectacular UFO sightings in New Mexico, judging from media coverage, have occurred at times when no mutilations were reported. Although both the media and


-56-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


official reports have described the less spectacular sightings of "orange lights" around the time a mutilation supposedly occurred, it is an assumption -- nothing more -- that these lights are proof of some kind of flying craft. In fact, one recent rash of UFO sightings in the Dulce area coincided with a spectacular display of northern lights witnessed elsewhere in the state.

Ever since people have looked up to the sky, they have seen lights, reflections, and moving bodies that glow. The only thing that has differed throughout the ages, is the interpretation of these sightings. It is logical that in our highly technological age, such sightings would be described as aircraft, just as it is equally logical that in earlier more primitive societies, similar phenomena were described as gods.

An interesting study of this phenomenon was published by Tommy Roy Blann. In an article entitled "UFOs over New Mexico", Blann (1976) discusses the role of the news media in contributing to the UFO phenomenon. As Blann (.1976: 23) points out:

"It generally starts out with one report
stimulating other reports in a specific
geographical location; this in turn is picked
up by the news wires before any actual
investigations by qualified investigators are
made, and is then distributed to other areas."



In his article, Blann discusses a recent wave of UFO sightings in Clovis, showing the role played by the media in the development of this phenomenon. Strange lights and a large burned area were interpreted by area residents as a UFO landing site.


-57-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Blann (1976: 25) emphasizes how these reports continued to escalate.

"The story got bigger and better. Right before
our eyes, the relatively few reports of nocturnal
light activity had now grown into a full-scale
investigation of 'giant motherships' and landings
of 'scoutcraft' with friendly occupants on board."



When Blann arrived to investigate the Clovis sightings, two police officers reported seeing several objects west of town, which they said were similar to those which had been previously reported. Blann (1976: 51) then investigated these sightings which "turned out to be nothing more than the atmospheric aberration of the light from the stars and planets." He also discovered that the "UFO landing site" was simply the result of a grass fire, apparently triggered by fireworks, as a fireworks casing was found in the middle of the burned area.

And so it is that a down-to-earth investigation seeking basic facts invariably uncovers a simple, practical answer to explain what initially appears to be a "strange happening" -- the kind so quickly latched onto by those trying to justify a link between UFO activity and mutilations.

As another dramatic example of this type of reasoning consider the case of the "glowing tombstone" in a small family cemetery in Dulce -- a family that had lost several cattle to alleged mutilations. This incident was written up in a recent article entitled "Close Encounter at the Old Corral" (Burgess and Burgess 1979). The article, which describes the cowhide


-58-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


experiment conducted at Dulce (July 1978), mentions a side incident which the authors providentially suggest "is perhaps unrelated." However, they state that nonetheless "it should not be ignored." This tombstone, according to them, is "seen to glow momentarily several times late at night." The article then suggests some possible explanations: Is it some "airborne beam exciting natural florescence found in many stones or" -- and here is the clincher -- "has the stone been splashed for use as a navigational marker?" one wonders how effective an object as low as a tombstone would be in guiding aircraft, but then again, when one transcends the realm of facts, anything is possible.

However, we can quickly dismiss all further speculation regarding this incident since a recent investigation by several law enforcement officers revealed that the glow was simply a reflection from a nearby light. Two officials later told me, in separate accounts, that when they walked between the stone and the light source, the third officer reported the marker no longer glowed.

As for the sightings of strange helicopters, these reports, like those of other UFOs, are almost always vague and unsubstantiated by facts. Moreover, it should be noted that once people are alerted to a possible connection between helicopters and livestock mutilations, then such sightings -- which previously would have caused no concern -- begin to assume a new, if not sinister significance.

Evidence such as that just cited has been used by


-59-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


both official and amateur investigators as tentative proof of the ingenuity and sophistication of those responsible for the mutilation of livestock. In fact, even some of the official police reports make such claims.

In a report dated June 13, 1976, the investigating officer discusses the theories that have been advanced to explain mutilations. After mentioning Satan worshippers and predators, he makes the following statement: "Both have been ruled out due to [the] expertise and preciseness and the cost involved to conduct such a sophisticated and secretive operation" (Police Report 1976).

Again, in a report dated April 24, 1978, he makes the following comment: "One has to admit that whoever is responsible for the mutilations is very well organized with boundless technology and financing and secrecy" (Police Report 1978a).

Following an incident investigated June 14, 1978, a similar statement is made:

"It is the theory of this writer that whoever
is responsible for these mutilations is operating
out of a well-equipped undercover truck van
which is heavily guarded. This van supposedly
carries the aircraft which operates within a
40-mile radius" (Police Report 1978d).



Since these are official reports, one would expect some incriminating evidence -to be cited to support these statements. None is offered, other than making the usual generalizations about tripod marks, clamp marks, and broken bones.

Other evidence used to emphasize the alleged


-60-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


sophistication of this organization centers around the techniques used to kill and mutilate the animals -- techniques described in the media by such terms as "exsanguination" and "laser beam precision" (Olson 1979a; Rio Grande Sun 1979).

The news media, however, is not the only source of statements proclaiming the surgical preciseness of the mutilations. A number of police reports from Dulce also make such assertions. The earliest of these reports is more conservative in this respect, stating that the "left ear, tongue, udder, and rectum had been removed with what appears to be a sharp instrument" (Police Report 1976). The second Dulce incident (April 24, 1978) goes a step further: "The rectum and sex organs had been removed with a sharp and precision instrument" (Police Report 1978a).

The term "precisely removed" is also used to describe the manner in which the organs of three other alleged mutilation victims were excised -- two cows on May 28, 1978, and another cow on June 14, 1978 (Police Report 1978c, 1978d). In both incidents, as mentioned previously, it is stated that the animals were too decomposed to perform any tests -" which in itself tends to lessen the accuracy of reported observations. Also, nowhere in these reports did the officer state how he determined that the incisions were made with a sharp instrument.

Other evidence cited by those who believe that mutilations are engineered by skilled individuals is the presence of drugs in the carcasses of some mutilated livestock. The


-61-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


detection of two drugs in a mutilated bull in Torrance County, for example, received considerable coverage in local newspapers. As mentioned in Chapter Two, the two drugs were identified as chlorpromazine, a tranquilizer, and citric acid, an anticoagulant among other things. One officer interviewed by the press theorized that the chlorpromazine was probably used to tranquilize the animal; while the citric acid was administered to keep its blood from clotting so that it could be removed more easily.

The only official report I was able to obtain of this incident was prepared by Inspector A. J. Gibbs of the New Mexico Livestock Board. According to his report, the animal in question was not a bull but a black steer, which weighed 220 pounds. It was found dead and "mutilated" on January 29, 1979 (,New Mexico Livestock Board 1979).

Although the media had classified this incident as a legitimate or "classic" mutilation, Gibbs' report states that there were cuts and scratches over most of the animal's body, including its neck and between the hind legs. The stomach had been ripped open, and there were jagged edges on the head where the ear had been removed. Gibbs later informed me that this animal had been culled from the rest of the herd prior to sale because it was sickly.

The report also states that three sets of dog tracks were found leading from the carcass back to Duran. In addition, small patches of black hair were noted near the animal, and the cuts and scratches were said to resemble teeth marks. It is


-62-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


difficult to understand how anyone who has read Gibbs' report could possibly classify this case of obvious predator-scavenger damage as a "classic mutilation."

In an interview with Gibbs, the inspector told me he recalls that the owner, a large sheep and cattle rancher, had been having go much trouble with dogs that he had personally warned their owners that he would kill any dogs found on his property. Gibbs also mentioned that some of the rancher's animals had had their ears chewed off while still alive. An article in the New Mexican (1979) adds further spice to this "bull" story with the following comment: "Skid marks [were found] near the bull's carcass, indicating it might have been dropped from the air." The livestock inspector, however, told me that he believed ringworm had caused some of the damage to the hide. He said he recalls discussing the ringworm situation with the owner.

Since there was no mention of drugs in the foregoing report, I decided to investigate the case further, which by this time had received national publicity. In an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune January 27, 1980, the reporter refers to this incident with the following statement:

"The investigating officer said that tests of
blood samples from one of his cases showed
large amounts of a powerful tranquilizer and
a drug that prevents blood from clotting"
(Coates 1980).



On April 8, 1980, I contacted Dale Spall of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who had performed the original blood


-63-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


tests. He told me that he had found only a trace of chlorpromazine in the blood. When asked to define a trace, Spall said that the amount found was not significant enough to have affected the animal. He also said that the drug may have been present in the blood for quite some time. Spall further stated that he had found a high level of napthalene in the blood, which indicated the animal had been on a hormone feed. Dr. Spall noted that although he had originally thought the amount of citric acid in the steer exceeded normal levels, he has since determined, through additional tests, that the amount of citric acid was normal. This drug, he pointed out, occurs naturally in all animals.

Arlene Gallagher of Smith, Kline, and French Drug Manufacturers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, informed me on April 9, 1980, that chlorpromazine is produced by their drug house under the name of Thorazine. However, she stated that this drug can now be made by anyone, inasmuch as their 17-year patent ran out quite some time ago. Gallagher further indicated that the drug had been used in the past to tranquilize animals; also, that it metabolizes very slowly and thus can remain in the body for quite some time. When I asked her how long, she said it could be weeks or longer, depending on the size of the animal and how quickly it metabolized the drug.

On April 18, 1980, Dr. Dan Upson, professor of pharmacology at Kansas State University, informed me that chlorpromazine is used as a tranquilizer in large animals,


-64-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


particularly when weaning. Although normally injected into the animal, it could be added to alfalfa or administered as an oral tablet. Dr. Upson further stated that when some animals are ill, they get "goofy" or act strangely. In such cases, a tranquilizer is sometimes administered to aid in handling the animal. He also mentioned that chlorpromazine is very easy to obtain and is accessible to ranchers.

On April 1, 1980, I contacted the owner of the steer and asked him if he had any idea how these drugs could have gotten into his animal. He replied that this could possibly have happened through its feed. He did not elaborate on this statement, but did state that the bull had not been wormed, nor had it been treated by a veterinarian.

Inspector Gibbs, however, in an interview the following day, said that to the best of his recollection, the animal had been on medicated feed. I then asked Inspector Gibbs why the owner of the animal would not have mentioned this. Gibbs replied that the owner was a personal friend of his and that at the time this incident occurred, the owner had become very upset with the way the investigating officers had sensationalized the incident through the media. He told Inspector Gibbs that he was sorry he had ever reported it.

An article in the Albuquerque Journal states that this incident is the first time New Mexico authorities have found a drug in a mutilated animal (Thompson 1979b). However, according to a police report (1976) dated June 13, 1976, the investigating


-65-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


officer claims that in one of the mutilated cows found in New Mexico [he does not say which incident] a high dosage of atropine insecticide was discovered in the blood system. This substance, according to the report, is used as a tranquilizer.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1976) defines atropine as an extremely poisonous alkaloid obtained from belladonna and related plants. Belladonna is also known as deadly nightshade, which is described in the Merck Veterinary Manual as adversely affecting all animals who ingest it (Siegmund 1973: 982). The manual goes on to say that it may cause weakness, trembling, dyspnea, nausea, constipation, diarrhea, or even death. This plant grows along fences, in waste areas, and in grain and hay fields.

Once again, the facts rule out the more exotic interpretation -- such as the sinister use of drugs by a highly skilled organization in the execution of these mutilations. To the contrary, all evidence to date confirms that the drugs found in animals are a result of either (1) medication administered by a veterinarian and/or a rancher, (2) substances acquired through the animals' feed, (3) substances found in plants growing in the field, (4) dangerous chemicals used in the ranching operation.

If these mutilations are being perpetrated by some highly skilled group, as some investigators claim, the next question is "Why?" One answer frequently disclosed in the press is that these individuals are conducting some type of experiment.


-66-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


One piece of evidence cited to support this view is the seemingly deliberate selection of certain livestock as the victims -- often described as the biggest and healthiest in the herd. In numerous articles about cattle mutilations, one finds statements such as the following:

"For some reason, the animals killed and
mutilated tend to be the best livestock in a
rancher's herd." or, "The animal when last
observed was in perfect health."



It should be noted, however, that certain diseases also tend to claim lives of the best and healthiest animals. As the Merck Veterinary Manual points out in a section dealing with clostridial infections:

"Commonly, the animals that contract
blackleg are of the best breeds in excellent
health, gaining weight and usually the best
animals in their group" (Siegmund 1973: 334).



One incident cited as an example of the deliberate selection of prime animals is the reported mutilation on January 22, 1979, of four prize race horses south of Malaga (cited by Olson 1979a). Each was said to have been valued at $10,000. Information obtained from the New Mexico Livestock Board revealed, first of all, that although four horses were found dead, only three of them were "mutilated." In these three horses, the upper eyelid as well as the upper tips of the ears had been excised. In one animal, the genital area had been removed.

It is important to note that the investigating officer concluded there was nothing mysterious about this damage, which he attributed to coyotes. The files of the New Mexico


-67-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Livestock Board (1979) contains a memorandum prepared by Dr. R. L. Pyles, state veterinarian, dated January 25, 1979. In this memorandum Dr. Pyles describes the damage inflicted on the carcasses and states that in the opinion of Dr. M. D. Reynolds, coyotes were responsible.

A necropsy of two of the animals was conducted by Dr. M. D. Reynolds. His memorandum of January 27, 1979, sets forth his findings as follows:

"It is my opinion, after examination of the
area, gross examination of the cadavers,
pathologist's report, interviewing of the owner
of the horses and the owner of the ranch, that
the horses died as a result of acute toxic
hepatitis, possibly caused by ingestion of
plants high in selenium, and/or exposure to
feed containing ammonia products in level
detrimental to the health of the horses."



Coupled with the belief that only the best and healthiest livestock are chosen, is the theory that these animals are deliberately marked ahead of time, so they can be readily selected when their time is up. In an official police report (1978a) dated April 24, 1978, the investigating officer states: "It is the writer's opinion that these animals have been marked for some time before they are mutilated."

To test this theory, the officer, together with a "retired scientist," conducted the cowhide experiment previously described. According to an official report (1978d) the test involved 72 cattle belonging to Manuel Gomez. These animals were checked at night under an ultraviolet light. A florescent substance was subsequently discovered on the forepart of the


-68-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


body of two four-year-old Herefords, and three two-month-old heifers. The report then makes the following statements: "The area where the mutilations occur is carefully analyzed weeks in advance. These animals have been marked years in advance." The latter is an interesting observation and an impossible task in view of the fact that three of the so-called marked animals were only two months old.

As noted previously, samples from the affected hide were sent to a laboratory for analysis, together with control samples. The results of the test were announced that December. While the lab did not attempt to identify the substance, the report indicated that the "florescent material sample contained a much higher level of potassium than the control sample."

To evaluate these tests, I contacted the same chemist who had discovered the traces of chloropromazine in the steer and sent him a copy of the lab report. Although he was unable to make a conclusive statement as to what these results indicated, he did make the following observation:

"In humans, element variations are well
known as indicators of diet, with the average
values varying by as much as a factor of 10 for
large numbers of people tested."



Another scientist whom I contacted stated, -- after viewing the tables listing the chemical composition and the affected" sample, -- that there was nothing unusual about these samples, for all the trace amounts were as expected. He also said that an analysis of the affected sample, by any established


-69-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


forensic toxicological laboratory would probably show the values to be within normal limits.

In summary, the test was not very revealing. Not only was the substance on the hides not identified by the laboratory, but also none of the supposedly marked animals were ever mutilated, as far as I could determine.

If livestock mutilations represent some type of experimentation, as many believe, the next question is "what is being tested." A number of answers have been suggested. Even some of the official reports offer solutions.

In a police report (1976) dated June 13, 1976, the investigating officer makes the following observations:

"Investigation has revealed that on all cattle
mutilations which have occurred in New Mexico
and surrounding states, the object of the
mutilations has been the lymph node system."



The officer goes on to state that he has narrowed the explanation down to theories involving "the experimental use of Vitamin B 12 and the testing of the lymph node system." He also claims in the report that he is currently studying the procedures involved in germ warfare testing.

A similar theory is offered in an article by Burgess and Burgess (1979: 28):

"In these animals the same parts of the
lymphatic and digestive tract are removed
from each animal in a very precise and
bloodless operation. The operation is generally
performed in the air and the dead animal
dropped."




-70-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


What evidence is used to support this theory? According to some investigators, the fact that the lips, tongue, and rectal area are often missing in mutilated animals indicates that mutilations may be related to "a scientific study of the lymphatic system and production of bacteria" (Valerio 1979: 30-31). However, as I have noted previously, these are the same parts that are commonly eaten by predators and scavengers.

Another piece of evidence frequently cited to support this and other theories of biological experimentation is the alleged association between mutilated animals and high levels of radiation. This association has been prompted largely on the basis of the following three observations:

(1) The alleged discovery of high levels of radiation at the scene of a mutilation. According to one official report, a "retired scientist" conducted radiation tests at the scene of a livestock mutilation in Dulce and claimed that the radiation levels around the tripod marks and in the immediate tracks was twice as high as normal (Police Report 1976). I have already commented on the validity of this test. What makes this case interesting, however, is the remark made by the officer who investigated the incident. In the report he states: "it is the opinion of this writer that radiation findings are deliberately being left at the scene to confuse investigators." one can only speculate as to his reason for making such a statement, as he fails to provide any justification for it in his report.

Also cited as evidence of radiation at the scene is


-71-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


the observation made in both official reports and newspapers that some people who have visited mutilation sites have subsequently complained of nausea and headaches (Police Report 1978a). I do not doubt this in the least, but without further evidence, it is totally unwarranted to attribute this to "radiation poisoning." In fact, unless you are used to working with dead animals, it would be more unusual if you didn't feel nauseated in the presence of a rotting carcass.

(2) The discovery of certain abnormalities in the carcasses of mutilated animals. In a series of police reports from Dulce, the investigating officer states that the animal's blood is pink -- a fact that he claims indicates possible exposure to high doses of radiation.

"A possible explanation for the pinkish
blood is a control-type of radiation used to
kill the animal, according to radiation experts"
(Police Report 1978a).



Similar observations are made in subsequent reports (Police Report 1978b, 1978c, 1978d). Again, these observations are not supported by any concrete evidence. Without scientific analysis of blood samples, such observations are meaningless.

The results of tests performed on the organs of mutilated animals, particularly the liver, are also used to support the "biological experimentation" theory. Such tests are briefly described in an article in Taos Magazine (Valerio 1979: 31). Valerio states that the livers of mutilated animals disintegrate very rapidly -- a fact which a "scientist


-72-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


attributes to a high level of radiation."

Probably the most publicized of these tests is the one performed on the liver of a mutilated bull found in Dulce on April 24, 1978. The liver, described elsewhere as white and mushy (Olson 1978), was removed and sent to several private laboratories for analysis. According to the police report (1978a), this liver was checked against a control sample -- "a healthy food market liver." The report states that the bull's liver was found to contain no copper instead it had four times the amount of phosphorous, zinc, and petroleum as the control sample. The Rio Grande Sun (Olson 1978d) later claimed that the chemical components of the bull's liver were the same as those found in both the Taos UFO and Dulce cowhide samples. This, according to the article suggests a possible link between mutilations and UFOs.

The results of these tests were also discussed in a series about cattle mutilations which appeared on a program aired August 23, 1979 on Channel 4, Albuquerque. In this program, the "retired scientist" made the following statement:

"The interesting thing that we found, and once
again we don't know what it means, but on the
control sample of good liver, we found it had
copper which is a normal thing found in living
tissues; but in the mutilated animal, there is
absolutely no copper in the tissue, and the
liver gives the impression that it may have
had a very (heavy) dose of microwave
radiation."



In a letter to me dated September 28, 1979, this same individual explained his position more explicitly:

"Some reports seem to indicate that copper in
trace amounts is [present] in the cell structure




-73-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


in tissue and in blood. From such reports, it
appears that one function of the copper is to
help bind iron in the system. Some research also
indicates that high levels of certain radiation do
not remove copper, but do appear to release it.
It is no longer bound. This could perhaps mean
that in a structure such as the liver, which is
essentially made up of blood vessels and
capillaries, the released copper might be
flushed out by the blood to settle in other areas."



He goes on to explain why the blood in mutilated animals may be pink in color:

"If the copper is released from the blood,
perhaps at least some of the iron would also
be released and settle into cavities and pockets,
which might explain the watery, slightly pink
blood found remaining in the liver of such
animals. This condition reminded me of
conditions I had seen years before while doing
development work with high frequency
medical diathermy."



To evaluate this theory, I contacted several experts, including Dr. G. S. Smith, professor of animal nutrition at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. When asked to comment on it, Dr. Smith replied, it "sounds preposterous to me." He goes on to make the following observation:

"In fact, most of the statements in [the
scientist's] letter of September 28, 1979, add
up to one overriding conclusion; [He] is (as he
stated) not a biologist. He obviously doesn't
know a whole lot about the metabolism of
trace elements in animals. I don't know what
it is that he has expertise in; but I'm skeptical
about his speculations on mobilization of copper
from cattle livers. The whole tone of his letter
suggests to me "long on theory and short on
facts."



I also contacted Dr. Dale Spall, a chemist at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. In a letter dated March 21, 1980,


-74-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]

he criticizes the procedures used in the experiment in which the bull's liver was compared with one from a super market.

"My personal opinion of the results would be
that the whole exercise was not done well
enough nor completely enough to make any
valid comparison. True comparison can only
come from other cattle in the same herd. They
need be of the same age, sex, and feeding
history as the test cow."



Spall also points out that "if a tissue sample is collected from a slaughter house or market, it must be carefully dried before analysis or the analytical results will be nearly useless.

I also contacted another scientist knowledgeable in this field and showed him the three tables listing the element levels found in the cow hair and cow liver samples. He stated that the liver is exactly what one would expect considering postmortem changes. This individual also pointed out that the data furnished to him did not reveal a lack of copper in the liver; to the contrary, the table indicated, if anything, an amount slightly higher than average.

In regard to the mushy appearance of the liver from the mutilated bull, Dr. Clair Hibbs of the Animal Diagnostic Service at New Mexico State University makes the following observation. According to him, certain clostridial infections, particularly blackleg, can do considerable damage to an animal's internal organs, particularly the liver. It's not unusual for the liver of such an animal to assume a "mushy" appearance.

The rapid disintegration of the liver of so-called mutilated animals can also be readily explained. According to


-75-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


J. Howard Sherrod, a veterinarian at Valverde Animal Clinic in Corrales, internal organs, particularly the liver, usually decompose quite rapidly, especially at high elevations. He further points out that when an animal dies, the internal organs usually maintain their high temperature -- a fact that aids in the rapid deterioration of organs such as the liver and the spleen.

(3) The alleged discovery of mutilated livestock in areas characterized by nuclear activity. At Senator Schmitt's 1979 conference several speakers discussed the possible implications of such an association. In addition, several newspaper articles have indicated that mutilated carcasses are often found near sources of environmental problems, including areas where nuclear weapons and military operations are located.

The Rio Grande Sun, for example, has published several articles suggesting such a connection. In an article that appeared February 1, 1979, Olson (1979a) cites the case of the four prize race horses, which according to her, were found dead and mutilated near Carlsbad, "the proposed site of the nation's first official nuclear waste dumping ground." This statement is interesting in view of the fact that officials had determined the horses had died of acute hepatitis, their carcasses subsequently being damaged by coyotes. Even if this fact were not known, it seems a bit premature to link mutilations with a facility that hasn't even been established.

Olson's major argument however, is the alleged association between the Dulce mutilations and Operation Gas


-76-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Buggy, the site of an underground nuclear explosion designed to stimulate the production of natural gas. In a article published May 3, 1979, Olson (1979c) states that the experiment was conducted as a part of Operation Plowshare, a plan designed under the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Olson points out that the plan failed because the resulting gas was deemed too radioactive to sell to consumers.

In an interview with Olson on June 26, 1979, she referred me to Dr. Thomas Buhl of the New Mexico State Radiation Protection Center, Environmental Improvement Division. Dr. Buhl, she claimed, was very knowledgeable about the relationship between Operation Gas Buggy and cattle mutilations. Shortly afterwards, I contacted Dr. Buhl, who confirmed Olson's statement about his familiarity with Operation Gas Buggy. However, he stated that from both a scientific and technical point of view, it was difficult for him to see how Operation Gas Buggy could even be remotely involved with cattle mutilations. Buhl said Operation Gas Buggy was a "pretty clean event" in that the radiation was extremely minute, well contained, and released only on a planned basis.

Buhl also stated that he could see no advantage to be gained by any scientific study involving the mutilation of animals. According to him, the government's involvement in this entire project had been on the "up-and-up;" consequently, he could not give any credence to the government conspiracy theory.


-77-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


When asked about Olson's remarks, Dr. Buhl said he remembered speaking to her about six months ago, and to the best of his knowledge, had related substantially the same information to her as he had to me.

I also contacted officials at El Paso Natural Gas and requested them to furnish me with a summary of Operation Gas Buggy, which they did (see appendix). It should also be noted that of the 90 mutilations that have been reported in New Mexico through May 1979, only 7 occurred in Dulce. In addition, it should also be noted that Dulce is not located within the site of project Gas Buggy. Rather, this site is approximately 25 miles southeast of Dulce -- an hour's ride over dirt roads.

In addition to these theories of biological experimentation, another explanation for livestock mutilation is that cattle are being mutilated to determine whether there is oil or uranium deposits beneath the ground. The rationale behind this theory is that these deposits may leave certain traces in the grass eaten by the cow, which will subsequently turn up in the animal. This theory was discussed by an individual, presumably a scientist, on a television program narrated by Loren Nancarrow, which appeared August 23, 1979, on Channel 4. During the program, the alleged scientist made the following observations;

"If uranium is in the soil because of some
deposit lower down, plants could take the
uranium up, accumulate it in the tissues and
thereby cattle feeding on the plant could
accumulate uranium again in their bodies.



"I think, historically, when plants have been
used to indicate rare metals or heavy metals,
they have




-78-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


simply looked at the plants themselves. I am
not aware of research which has looked at
animals, although animals can accumulate some
elements to higher levels than plants can, so
it's theoretically possible."



Nancarrow then made the following observation;

"Incidentally, we've learned that investigators
are taking this theory quite seriously and that
they have some good leads in that direction."



As to whom these investigators are and what their good leads consist of -- Nancarrow leaves us guessing.

To evaluate this explanation, I contacted experts from several different fields. Although their replies differed depending on their particular area of expertise, they all agreed that the theory was "ridiculous" to quote the term used by one engineer.

For example, on October 3, 1979, I contacted Dr. Franklin M. Orr, senior engineer at the Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, and asked him to comment on the oil exploration part of the theory. Dr. Orr pointed out that deposits of oil and gas in New Mexico are from 3,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface, and would not in any way be reflected in the plant life. Dr. Orr also stated that there were many more sophisticated methods, including seismic and geologic techniques, which could be employed to determine the location of deposits. Dr. Orr further noted that if the theory had any validity at all, the plants contaminated by oil would have a bad taste and thus would not be eaten by livestock.


-79-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


In a letter dated November 2, 1979, Mr. G. R. Griswold, president of Chapman, Wood and Griswold, Inc., Mining Engineers and Geologists, Albuquerque, New Mexico, made the following comments:

"I have studied your letter of October 19 and
have discussed the theory with several
colleagues. The consenus is that trace elements
of minerals are present in all living organisms,
but the pinpointing of the source of these
elements as to a specific area would be most
difficult, if not impossible. A great deal of
scientific data has been developed in the field
of trace mineral elements in plants, trees,
animals and humans.



"It is my opinion that responsible corporations
and individuals would not resort to mutilation
of animals when searching for hydrocarbons,
uranium, or other mineral deposits, as it would
be very inefficient compared to geochemistry,
geophysics and applied geology. An animal
would graze over thousands of acres in its
lifespan and pinpointing the source area of
trace minerals found in animal tissue would
be next to impossible."



Mr. Griswold, who has a M.S. degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Utah, has been a registered professional engineer and land surveyor in New Mexico since 1938.

The following letter was received from Ms. Helen L. Cannon, who is employed by the Geological Survey, United States Department of Interior in Denver, Colorado:

"I have received your inquiry regarding the
possibility that the cattle mutilations in New
Mexico might be related to prospecting for oil.
In my opinion, there would be no reason to
analyze parts of cows in a search for oil or
metals when samples of soil or grass that the
cows eat would be far easier and quicker to
collect. Furthermore, hydrocarbons have not
been found to accumulate in grass nor would
they accumulate in organs of the cow. Metals
may accumulate in vegetation rooted in
mineralized ground and plant analysis has
been used as a means of prospecting."




-80-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Dr. G. S. Smith, in a letter dated October 30., 1979, sums it up with the following observation:

"I can't find much about the theory that
cattle mutilations' are a means of geochemical
sampling to lend it any credibility."



If livestock are being mutilated for experimental purposes, as many people believe, the next logical question is "'who are performing these tests?" Some of the more vocal investigators claim that the government is behind both these incidents. The strongest supporting argument for this theory is that "anything this big and this sophisticated has to be done by the government." It is never explained why the government would not purchase its own animals or why after lifting them and carrying them off to the place of surgery, the government would risk further detection by returning them to the area of discovery.

Surprisingly, such a theory is advocated by several New Mexico officials, whose opinions have been broadcast through the media. On August 20, 1979, as part of the same series on cattle mutilations mentioned previously, Loren Nancarrow showed a news clip of an elected law enforcement official, who said he believed that the military might be involved in cattle mutilations. Since all interviews on that program had been reduced to a 15-second news clip, I thought that supporting data for this statement may have been furnished in the part of the clip not shown to the public. With this in mind, I sent a letter to the law official requesting that he supply me with the data he used to support his statement. This letter has gone unanswered.


-81-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


The government conspiracy theory is also implied by certain statements made by the police officer from Dulce. In an article appearing in the Boulder Monthly, this officer accuses Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of deliberately withholding the results of tests conducted on samples he had submitted from mutilated livestock. He also voices his suspicions of the conclusions reached by LASL that the samples he had submitted from a mutilated bull found April 24, 1978, may have been contaminated.

"We were really careful. We wore gloves and
kept it clean. They put that in the newspaper,
too, that we contaminated them and froze
them. They made us look like fools. It just
makes me madder than hell" (Perkins 1979: 43).



He is also quoted as saying "You know what? I don't think they even tested those samples."

To investigate these claims, I contacted LASL. The officer's suspicions, I soon learned, were totally unwarranted. The laboratory had indeed submitted the results to the investigator. These results, however, were inconclusive. The report states that clostridium, a type of virus responsible for such diseases as blackleg and red water, was found in the heart chambers of the animal. However, this substance, I learned, can invade the tissues as the result of postmortem contamination of the carcass. Such a statement need not imply contamination by persons submitting the samples, for clostridium can invade a carcass 24 hours after an animal dies.

In short, the analyses performed by LASL, like those conducted by any qualified lab, don't always yield conclusive


-82-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


results. Nevertheless, they may provide the basis for an informal opinion. The scientist who performed the test on the bull said he thought that the animal had probably died of blackleg. However, since the lab results were hot completely positive, the results stated in the official report were "inconclusive."

Elsewhere, this same investigating officer has made statements to the effect that this laboratory may be part of the conspiracy behind livestock mutilations. That LASL officials would be upset by such statements is understandable, especially in view of the many hours of time and expertise they have generously donated in analyzing specimens from suspected mutilation cases. LASL has been performing this service since 1975, in response to a request by the governor of New Mexico. The initial agreement was that all results be submitted to the New Mexico Livestock Board -- an agreement still honored today. However, upon request, LASL will submit its findings to other agencies.

This same officer has also suggested a possible link between livestock mutilations and the CIA. The incident which allegedly provided him with the necessary evidence was a UFO sighting made in northern New Mexico in April 1979 (see Chapter Two for specific details). This sighting, as you may recall, involved an unidentified aircraft which was allegedly surprised while spotlighting a herd of cattle near Lumberton. According to the newspapers, immediate investigation was instituted by local. officials, who subsequently learned that the Air Traffic


-83-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Control Center in Longmont, Colorado, had spotted an aircraft flying south at an altitude of 5,1800 feet, at a speed of approximately 300 miles per hour. The traffic controllers lost the radar blip approximately 20 miles north of Albuquerque.

It is not clear whether flight records were checked or if additional information was provided by air traffic control, but the official investigating this incident later learned that a plane had arrived in Albuquerque from Durango, Colorado, during the time in question. This aircraft was identified as a company-owned plane belonging to a New Mexico based mining company. It was then learned that one of the owners of this company is a world famous balloonist. Further investigation revealed that the balloon used by this individual was apparently designed and built in South Dakota by a person who may have also designed a balloon for the CIA. Although no cattle mutilations were reported on the night this incident took place, a rumor was circulated that a connection between the-CIA and cattle mutilations had been established.

To interpret this incident, I subsequently interviewed the pilot of the aircraft, who said that he had indeed flown from Durango to Albuquerque in a company-owned Beach Bonanza the night in question. However, he said that he flew at an altitude of 11,500 feet and that the closest he got to Lumberton was about 35 miles away. The pilot told me that he recalled the flight because he had also been interviewed by a police official, to whom he had supplied the same information just furnished to me.


-84-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Although the Rio Grande Sun (1980) has recently printed a denial by the officer who had circulated this rumor, his statement leaves some room for doubt. An associate of this officer informed me that he (the associate was the one to first establish a possible connection between the balloon designed and the CIA. He said he subsequently passed this information on to the officer, impressing on him the need for confidentiality. Despite this fact, the associate said the officer immediately reported this information to several other people, including a reporter.

In short, the government conspiracy theory, though one of the most highly publicized theories in New Mexico has not one shred of evidence to support it. The major problem, as I see it, would be the ability of an organization as large and complicated as the government -- with its complex system of checks and balances -- to keep such a project secret. For judging from descriptions in the media, this conspiracy would have to involve personnel from numerous governmental agencies, including the CIA, the military, and animal diagnostic laboratories across the country. The ability of people from so many different agencies to maintain, for over five years, the secrecy required to conduct their grisly experiments would be a phenomenon rivaling that of livestock mutilations themselves.

Equally unsupported by any evidence is the theory that livestock mutilations are performed by some type of exotic cult like the one suggested in The Mute Strategy, a novel about


-85-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


mutilations in New Mexico .(DeWitt 1979). This theory, though providing the basis for an entertaining story, has received little publicity in recent years. The theory of extraterrestrial involvement is somewhat more popular, but again has no evidence to support it.

In addition to these explanations, there are also a few individuals who claim that livestock are deliberately being mutilated by the ranchers, themselves, in order to defraud their insurance companies. To investigate this theory, I contacted a number of agents employed by a major insurance company in New Mexico. They were unable to locate any records indicating that claims had been paid on mutilated cattle.

During the course of my investigation, I soon learned that many of the people who stress the bizarre nature of livestock mutilations, periodically resort to the following cliché when all else fails: "I've been a rancher all my life and I've never seen a predator remove organs with such precision." Many people are under the impression that a rancher would certainly know the difference between a "mutilation" and a carcass damaged by scavengers. This, I learned, was simply not true -- a fact dramatically illustrated in the incidents I investigated myself.

In each case, the rancher summoned me to the scene, believing that there was something peculiar about the damage done to the carcass of their animal that required further investigation. In each case, as I demonstrate in the following chapter, the damage was clearly done by predators or scavengers.


-86-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


Moreover, when brought to their attention, several ranchers agreed with me that the cuts on the carcass were actually quite jagged and rough. When asked why they requested an investigation, they usually replied that they had read about livestock mutilations in the paper and wanted to make sure that this wasn't one of them. I would also like to point out that merely spending of time on a ranch or farm does not make one an expert in animal husbandry or forensic pathology. Such expertise requires extensive training at the college level.


Summary and Conclusions

In my evaluation of the 90 previous New Mexico cases, I found nothing in the official reports to indicate that the animal was mutilated by any agents other than predators and scavengers. Available evidence strongly suggests that those animals died from natural causes or common injuries and were subsequently ravished by scavengers.

As I have shown, there is simply no concrete evidence to support the theory that mutilations are being conducted as experiments by highly skilled individuals using precision instruments. The facts cited to support this belief are at best questionable, and in many cases involve incredible flights of fantasy, as in the three tests whose findings supposedly established a link between mutilations, UFOs and high levels of radiation.

In the following chapter, I present the results of the


-87-




__________________________________________________ _________

[page break]


investigations conducted in New Mexico during the course of Operation Animal Mutilation. The evidence presented in each case provides further support for the conclusion that the vast majority of livestock mutilations are caused by nothing more mysterious than nature's own ecologists hard at work.




-88-


More on Operation Animal Mutilation
Dossier: Documented Evidence
ParaScope Main Screen

SezMe
19th May 2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Beth
If the results of their testing were negative (i.e. no long term negative effects on the beasts) then they would have no reason to publish their results and every reason to keep quite about it.
I disagree. If the testing was following a valid scientific protocol, there results would merit publication, whatever the result. Scientists who only publish "preferred" results are cherry picking and are, well, not scientists.

Bronze Dog
19th May 2005, 12:51 PM
I think I just stumbled on the REAL culprit: The Overlords of the UFO! (http://www.agonybooth.com/overlords/) :eek:

Back to seriousness:

SezMe is right about publication: Believers never publish negative results, or at least they try to polish them into a false "inconclusive." Real scientists publish everything, and probably put more effort into it if it contradicts what they expect, since that means there might be something worth studying and getting paid to do so.

Negative results may not be good propogan- I mean news, since people don't like to know there are things going right in the world, such as an absence of long term negative effects on cattle.

Beth
19th May 2005, 07:46 PM
Psi Baba - You win! I was unable to get to the link you posted the other day, but I did read all three of your posts from the report. This is most credible reliable information I've seen on the matter to date. He did a very thorough examination of the cases in New Mexico and the documentation is excellent. Thank you. I've always wondered about the news report I saw so many years ago.

Beth

Rolfe
20th May 2005, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Beth
Psi Baba - You win! I was unable to get to the link you posted the other day, but I did read all three of your posts from the report. This is most credible reliable information I've seen on the matter to date. He did a very thorough examination of the cases in New Mexico and the documentation is excellent. Thank you. I've always wondered about the news report I saw so many years ago.That's very gracious of you, Beth. I too couldn't get to the pages at the time, and I've just read the re-posted material with considerable interest. I have to say it's extremely entertaining to see all one's tentative conclusions from a relatively small amount of evidence so comprehensively confirmed.

After my off-the-cuff remarks about puppies piddling on the carpet, I particularly liked this part:Perhaps the following example will help clarify my own reasoning on the subject. Imagine yourself as a law officer who has just been summoned by a local citizen to investigate a theft that allegedly occurred at his house. When you arrive, the man explains he had prepared a steak for dinner and had just put it on the table when he had to leave the room to answer the telephone. When he returned, the steak was missing. The only other occupant of the house was the family dog, which was last seen sitting by the table licking its chops.

Suppose the complainant then told you he suspected the missing steak had something to do with UFOs, because while he was talking on the telephone he observed a flash of light outside. As an experienced law officer how would you evaluate the complainant's rationale? Would you investigate this crime by first trying to prove that a UFO was involved? Wouldn't it be much more logical to suspect the dog first, before going further afield? For the steak, substitute "mutilated cow"; for the dog, "all the meat-eating scavengers in the great outdoors." Again, wouldn't it be more logical and sensible to suspect the scavengers first -- entertaining other explanations only after careful scrutiny of the evidence had eliminated this one?I suppose it's a good example of how stories will grow in the telling, and how the situation develops where the mundane and obvious explanation is actively rejected because that would really spoil the fun. Shades of the Roswell weather balloons!

Rolfe.

Beth
20th May 2005, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Rolfe
That's very gracious of you, Beth. I too couldn't get to the pages at the time, and I've just read the re-posted material with considerable interest. I have to say it's extremely entertaining to see all one's tentative conclusions from a relatively small amount of evidence so comprehensively confirmed.

And it's gracious of you to admit that your previous conclusions were tentative. I generally go with the most credible evidence I have at hand, which for me was the testimony of people who had actually examined the evidence, not the testimony of people who looked at magazine photos of the evidence.

The evidence Psi Baba posted was from a named verifiable source who had examined the evidence first hand when possible and spoken with those who did examine the evidence first hand when it wasn't possible. The documentation - who he spoke with, when, regarding what incidences, when they had occurred, and what they claimed to have seen - was excellent.

Such evidence easily trumps the single news story I saw years ago.

Beth

Rolfe
20th May 2005, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Beth
And it's gracious of you to admit that your previous conclusions were tentative. I generally go with the most credible evidence I have at hand, which for me was the testimony of people who had actually examined the evidence, not the testimony of people who looked at magazine photos of the evidence.

The evidence Psi Baba posted was from a named verifiable source who had examined the evidence first hand when possible and spoken with those who did examine the evidence first hand when it wasn't possible. The documentation - who he spoke with, when, regarding what incidences, when they had occurred, and what they claimed to have seen - was excellent.

Such evidence easily trumps the single news story I saw years ago.

Beth Well, I did say I'd only read one (though long and detailed) magazine article about it. With lots of pictures, which were represented as being the very best they had. I was merely trying to find out what evidence there was that the (to me) obvious explanation wasn't the correct one, especially as there was no mention at all of the obvious explanation in the article.

Seems as if, like Roswell, like the crop circles and so on, the obvious wins every time.

By the way, there's a diagram of the crop circle that drew my eye to that magazine on the front page of the circlemakers web site (http://www.circlemakers.org/), and a photo of the circle itself is on their best of 2001 page (http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2001.html). It's an absolute beauty. My all-time favourite is on the 2002 page (http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2002.html) but the 2004 page (http://www.circlemakers.org/totc2004.html) takes a bit of beating too.

Rolfe.

Garrette
20th May 2005, 07:39 AM
Kudos, Beth, on publicly revising your opinion based on new and better evidence.

If I may, though, I think the issue taken with your original position centers on whether your original evidence was credible after all.

I understand how it can seem to be, but it does not take much thought to reveal that that which was apparently credibly is actually not.

First, you continued to cite 20 year old evidence from memory which we all know is so faulty as to be unreliable, particularly when more strongly felt.

Second, we are well aware of the media's tendency to (intentionally or not) misrepresent a story.

Third, we are well aware of the presence of large numbers of people who pretend expertise while having none.

Fourth, we are well aware of the presence of people who seek attention for various reasons and therefore have no qualms about misrepresenting facts.

Fifth, we are well aware of the presence of people who for various reasons delude themselves into believing an extraordinary claim, if only to be part of something special.

Sixth, we are well aware of the pattern of pseudo-science to present itself solely in the media and to avoid publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Seventh, we are well aware of other mundane causes of such phenomena.

Given the above, it was not unreasonable for people to question your reason for believing. It was not cruel, unfair, unkind, or arbitrary to do so. It was within the bounds of reason.

Beth
20th May 2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Garrette
Kudos, Beth, on publicly revising your opinion based on new and better evidence.

Thank you.

Given the above, it was not unreasonable for people to question your reason for believing. It was not cruel, unfair, unkind, or arbitrary to do so. It was within the bounds of reason.

No, it was not unreasonable, cruel, unfair, etc. for others to question or to not accept my evidence. I didn't hold any illusions about how good it was - to anyone else it was second hand unverifiable information and I wasn't expecting it to change anyone else's mind. However, some of the comments made were cruel, unfair, and unkind. But hey, that's why I find the ignore option so useful. I don't have to converse with people who are cruel, unfair or unkind, so I don't.

What was unreasonable was to expect me to change my opinion without providing any better evidence than what I had seen previously. Second hand reports of experts with contrary opinions was not better evidence than the first hand expert reports I had previously seen. Experts often differ on matters of controversy. That proved nothing to me. I feel that first hand reports are more credible.

I stated at the outset that I wasn't married to my favorite theory, but that I felt it fitted the evidence I had better than any others. I still feel that is true. But more evidence is always reason to revise one's opinion. Psi Baba provided better evidence.

Beth

Garrette
20th May 2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Beth:

What was unreasonable was to expect me to change my opinion without providing any better evidence than what I had seen previously. Second hand reports of experts with contrary opinions was not better evidence than the first hand expert reports I had previously seen. Experts often differ on matters of controversy. That proved nothing to me. I feel that first hand reports are more credible

I'm trying to forumlate a response and can't decide on which is the better or more accurate, so I'll write it both ways:

1. We disagree, then, on whether better evidence was provided. I submit it was.

2. I think part of the problem is in the use of the word "evidence." You saw no evidence. You saw a television report interviewing people claiming to be experts. Even if they were experts, they published nothing on these findings. There were no reports, no studies. Just television commentary. Given that all you based your acceptance of the theory on was simply television commentary, it seems unfair to dismiss internet commentary, particularly since you could remember no specifics of the television commentary but you could check on the qualifications of the internet commentators.


ETA: I'm leaning toward #2

Ashles
20th May 2005, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Beth
I stated at the outset that I wasn't married to my favorite theory, but that I felt it fitted the evidence I had better than any others. I still feel that is true. But more evidence is always reason to revise one's opinion. Psi Baba provided better evidence.
But you still feel that your favorite theory matches the evidence best? Even after Psi Baba's link?

Beth
20th May 2005, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
But you still feel that your favorite theory matches the evidence best? Even after Psi Baba's link?

No. I feel that my favorite theory matched the evidence I had prior to Psi Baba's link best.

Beth

Beth
20th May 2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Garrette
I'm trying to forumlate a response and can't decide on which is the better or more accurate, so I'll write it both ways:

1. We disagree, then, on whether better evidence was provided. I submit it was.

Okay. We can agree to disagree on that.

2. I think part of the problem is in the use of the word "evidence." You saw no evidence. You saw a television report interviewing people claiming to be experts. Even if they were experts, they published nothing on these findings. There were no reports, no studies. Just television commentary. Given that all you based your acceptance of the theory on was simply television commentary, it seems unfair to dismiss internet commentary, particularly since you could remember no specifics of the television commentary but you could check on the qualifications of the internet commentators.


The experts I had seen gave evidence the mutilations were not done by wild animals. Maybe they were wrong. Maybe they weren't. I still don't know about that and neither does anyone else here. Some of the mutilations were confirmed to have been done by humans, however, in all of those cases the person who had done them was found. Since I only saw a report of an initial discovery, I have no way of knowing what the outcome of that particular case was.

Now, given that I had seen evidence of at least one mutilation occurring, it's reasonable for me to accept other reports that such mutilations had occurred. No reason for me to assume the one that occurred when I was around was unique.

So, given that something other that predation was occuring, what was the best theory? I had my favorite, but recognized it's dependence on rather weak evidence and speculation. Unfortunately, that was all the evidence I had. Thus, it was the best. You don't have to consider it evidence. It isn't for you - it's a second hand unverifiable report to you. But it was first hand evidence for me. I think it's reasonable to consider a local news show about a local event as evidence. I do so whenever I watch the local news. And I think it's reasonable to presume that an event that occurs during the brief period I was in the area was a typical event, not an unusual one.

Since the only evidence they had presented was reasonable for me to believe - i.e. experts showing the mutilation and claiming it not predatation - I saw no reason to disbelieve it without equally credible evidence against it. Psi Baba provided a first hand report that verifies that the probability of misidentification was large, and if wan't a misidentification, then it was a rare occurrance, not a typical one. Other people made claims about such things, but no one else provided first hand information verifying their claims.

Beth

Psi Baba
20th May 2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Beth
Psi Baba - You win! I was unable to get to the link you posted the other day, but I did read all three of your posts from the report. This is most credible reliable information I've seen on the matter to date. He did a very thorough examination of the cases in New Mexico and the documentation is excellent. Thank you. I've always wondered about the news report I saw so many years ago.

Beth
I'm glad you took the time to read it all. I hated to have to make such enormous posts, but with the site no longer working, it was the best way I could think of to provide the information. There are six chapters to the report, but I had only clicked on the first three, so that's all that is still in my browser's cache. The third chapter seems to contain the most convincing material, anyway. I'd seen this report years ago, so I knew about it. I tried googling for it elsewhere, but no one else seems to have it. There are also 50 pictures that go with it, but I didn't happen to download any of them this time. I'm sure the photos are readily available elsewhere.

Ashles
20th May 2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Beth
No. I feel that my favorite theory matched the evidence I had prior to Psi Baba's link best.

Beth
Okay, fair enough.
I got confused by where you wrote
I stated at the outset that I wasn't married to my favorite theory, but that I felt it fitted the evidence I had better than any others. I still feel that is true.
I'm assuming you mean that you still feel that it was the best explanation before Psi Baba's link.

With regard to your last post I think that the acceptance of anecdotal evidence is related to:
a) Our own preconceptions
b) The reliability of the person relating the anecdote
c) The nature of the subject

Now if a local expert is on TV outlining information about traffic problems, or a flu epidemic, or an arson case I will be very likely to accept their explanation. They are mundane and everyday topics that are well understod and there is no reason to suspect any particular agenda or mistake by the person.

But when it comes to anything involving paranormal, or conspiracies or mysteries we see over and over again reporters, everyday folk and seemingly reliable witnesses like policemen seem to throw all logic out of the window in favour of an exciting explanation.

Predation and scavenging of cattle is not a newsworthy story so we will only ever hear it reported when someone seeing it decides it is something different - whether it is the rancher, or a policeman or whoever. These exciting filler stories are often seen but rarely followed up in any detail.

This has been an excellent example of a story that most of us felt was nothing other than what it appeared to be at face value.
You, Beth, took more convincing that it was a mundane story. This isn't a criticism in itself, merely an interesting way of outlining how different people react differently to stories dependent on personality and predisposition.
And also how little we can rely on one-off news stories which do not follow up their claims and reports.

Interesting news is always so much better than the mundane. So when they have an 'interesting' story there is not a great deal of percentage for most reporters to dig in any particular detail.

But I applaud you for eventually changing your view Beth (although it was hard work :) ) and I am under no illusions that sceptics aren't just as stubborn in changing their views sometimes (on occasion more so).

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Garrette
[B]Kudos, Beth, on publicly revising your opinion based on new and better evidence.


You sound surprised :rolleyes:. I just find it a great shame that those who label themselves "skeptics" do not likewise allow their beliefs to be determined by what evidence and reason dictate.

Instead they just roll out the law of Occam which they seem to consider equates to the thesis that any evidence or reasoning which contradicts skeptics beliefs must necessarily be flawed.

Very very sad :(

Garrette
20th May 2005, 01:07 PM
Yes, Ian, I was surprised. Perhaps I should not have been, but I was. Best of all, it was a pleasant surprise and not an unpleasant one.

As for the rest of your statement, your logic seems to run like this:

1. Garrette (skeptic) congratulates Beth (believer) on changing her mind based on the evidence.

2. Therefore, Garrette (skeptic) never changes his mind based on the evidence.

Besides the fact that your logic (or conclusion jumping or whatever it is) is both faulty and unnecessarily insulting, it's wrong. I've changed my mind about something quite significant as a result of my discussions on this board. I'll decline for now to tell you what it was, though I've mentioned it more than once recently. I'll leave it to you to prove me wrong. :D

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Ashles


But I applaud you for eventually changing your view Beth (although it was hard work :) )



She changed her mind when some evidence was provided. It would not have been rational for her to have changed her mind as a consequence of ridiculing and hysterical ranting by "skeptics".


and I am under no illusions that sceptics aren't just as stubborn in changing their views sometimes (on occasion more so). [/B]

What evidence do you have that Beth is stubborn in changing her views?

Skeptics are stubborn? Nah, that's not the word for it. That's not the right word to describe a complete and total certainty that they are right in all things relating to the interpretation of unusual phenomena. Mindless unthinking dogmatism, yes.

Garrette
20th May 2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian:

...stubborn? Nah, that's not the word for it. That's not the right word to describe a complete and total certainty that they are right in all things relating to the interpretation of unusual phenomena. Mindless unthinking dogmatism, yes.
I'm thinking of the one person in this thread whose position is described perfectly with this post. Someone who has said on other threads that he will not change his mind regardless of the evidence. Someone who expresses a complete and total certainty about his interpretation of (reported) unusual phenomena. Can you guess who it is?

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Garrette
Yes, Ian, I was surprised. Perhaps I should not have been, but I was. Best of all, it was a pleasant surprise and not an unpleasant one.

As for the rest of your statement, your logic seems to run like this:

1. Garrette (skeptic) congratulates Beth (believer) on changing her mind based on the evidence.

2. Therefore, Garrette (skeptic) never changes his mind based on the evidence.



Yet another example of the apparent inability of "skeptics" to understand the most basic English.

Garrette
20th May 2005, 01:15 PM
I stand ready to be educated, Ian. Please explain to me what you really meant.

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Garrette
I'm thinking of the one person in this thread whose position is described perfectly with this post. Someone who has said on other threads that he will not change his mind regardless of the evidence. Someone who expresses a complete and total certainty about his interpretation of (reported) unusual phenomena. Can you guess who it is?

I said with certain types of paranormal phenomena.

Obviously it's perfectly sensible not to change ones mind about some things eg that I am conscious, or have just ate some cheese and crackers, or that I have experienced anomalous cognition and other paranormal phenomena in my life.

I was referring to phenomena where such definitive conclusions are not possible without at least, a careful appraisal of the evidence.

Garrette
20th May 2005, 01:42 PM
I see.

Ignoring for the moment that you haven't addressed your contention elsewhere that you won't change your mind even in the face of evidence, what you're saying is:

For those things about which you are certain, it is okay to be certain.

For those things about which you are not certain, it is not okay to be certain.

Or am I simply not understanding basic English again?

Ashles
20th May 2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Skeptics are stubborn? Nah, that's not the word for it. That's not the right word to describe a complete and total certainty that they are right in all things relating to the interpretation of unusual phenomena. Mindless unthinking dogmatism, yes.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am of course prejudiced in the opposite direction as no amount of scientific research would convince me ot the non-existence of PSI.
From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870896900&highlight=opposite+direction#post1870896900)

So what is the right word then... hmmm.... "a complete and total certainty that they are right in all things relating to the interpretation of unusual phenomena".... hmmm...

How about Ianterpretation?

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Ashles
From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870896900&highlight=opposite+direction#post1870896900)

So what is the right word then... hmmm.... "a complete and total certainty that they are right in all things relating to the interpretation of unusual phenomena".... hmmm...

How about Ianterpretation?

{sighs}

Pay attention Ashles.

Read my last post.

Ashles
20th May 2005, 04:42 PM
I read it, then I read Garrette's post. I believe he skewers your hypocrisy quite neatly.

"I am sure about those paranormal phenonemena, but uncertain about those paranormal phenomena. The difference? Nothing concrete. Just what I reckon..."

Another ridiculous argument devoid of logic or evidence

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Garrette
I see.

Ignoring for the moment that you haven't addressed your contention elsewhere that you won't change your mind even in the face of evidence, what you're saying is:

For those things about which you are certain, it is okay to be certain.

For those things about which you are not certain, it is not okay to be certain.

Or am I simply not understanding basic English again?

I have no idea if you are or not because I am unable to make any sense out of your post whatsoever.

Interesting Ian
20th May 2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Ashles
[B]I read it, then I read Garrette's post. I believe he skewers your hypocrisy quite neatly.



Care to translate?



"I am sure about those paranormal phenonemena, but uncertain about those paranormal phenomena. The difference? Nothing concrete. Just what I reckon..."

Another ridiculous argument devoid of logic or evidence

Are you sure that you had something to eat today? What? Yes? Will anything change your mind regarding your belief? What? No? :eek: Tut tut. You're so irrational.

Let's try to be sensible shall we? There are things we believe in absolutely, normally due to repeated personal experiences. There are many things we do not have personal experience of and therefore we need to weigh up the various arguments and evidence for the thing in question.

What don't you understand about this?

And I think we're rather drifting from the point. Let's not talk about my alleged irrationality. The original point I was making was that Beth weighed up the evidence and came to a conclusion by looking at and appraising all the pertinent facts. Something you so-called "skeptics" would be well advised to emulate.

Jeff Corey
20th May 2005, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{sighs}

Pay attention Ashles.

Read my last post.
I see a synergistic interaction here between Dr. MAS and Ian. We are being called children and told to pay attention.
Two extremely stupid people with delusions of brains.

Ashles
21st May 2005, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The original point I was making was that Beth weighed up the evidence and came to a conclusion by looking at and appraising all the pertinent facts. Something you so-called "skeptics" would be well advised to emulate.
Yes, there is no convincing, replicable, distinct evidence of psi existing at all.

Yet you are convinced it exists and have stated that no evidence will convince you otherwise.

That point you are making is called hypocrisy Ian.

I have not seen any believers or sceptics on here state categorically that no amount of evidence would cause them to change their mind.

Just you Ian, which appears to make you about as far from a sceptic on these boards as it is possible to be. You have declared that your mind cannot be changed on this issue, so criticising sceptics for refusing to change their minds, or choosing to accept current levels of evidence is rather laughable coming from you.

Interesting Ian
21st May 2005, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Ashles
Yes, there is no convincing, replicable, distinct evidence of psi existing at all.

Yet you are convinced it exists and have stated that no evidence will convince you otherwise.

That point you are making is called hypocrisy Ian.

I have not seen any believers or sceptics on here state categorically that no amount of evidence would cause them to change their mind.

Just you Ian, which appears to make you about as far from a sceptic on these boards as it is possible to be. You have declared that your mind cannot be changed on this issue, so criticising sceptics for refusing to change their minds, or choosing to accept current levels of evidence is rather laughable coming from you.

I would consider your assertion "Just you Ian, which appears to make you about as far from a sceptic on these boards as it is possible to be" to be a compliment -- at least for the definition of the word "skeptic" commonly used nowadays.

We're talking about scientific evidence here, right? Now how do you imagine you can have scientific evidence against paranormal phenomena? Surely we can only have evidence which lends support to the existence of certain phenomena. If hypothetically no such evidence was produced, then one can simply introduce an auxiliary hypothesis to the effect that psi is capricious, evasive, or whatever. In which case it would be quite impossible to prove that psi doesn't exist.

Such an auxiliary hypothesis is rendered plausible when we note that this is wholly consonant with peoples' experiences of this type of phenomena.

Of course, in reality we have a huge amount of scientific evidence for psi. But this isn't going to be convincing to a lot of people as scientific research can always be rejected. Just as it can always be saved by the employment of auxiliary hypotheses, so it can always be rejected by the suggestion of various artifacts which might possibly have skewed the results.

So this is the problem with science, at least for the soft sciences. It's never going to completely convince either way. Personal experiences and anecdotes -- especially where they are not limited to a time or place, but are Universal -- are more persuasive, especially where the anecdotal accounts seem to have the same characteristic nature of ones own experiences of the phenomenon in question.

Ashles
21st May 2005, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course, in reality we have a huge amount of scientific evidence for psi.
No we don't. This is where you are continually getting confused.

The occasional controversial study does not constitute a huge amount of evidence. There is no great conspiracy to disbelieve in psi, merely an absence of evidence.

Please provide a list of some of this "huge amount of scientific evidence" that only you are aware of.

Interesting Ian
21st May 2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Ashles

I have not seen any believers or sceptics on here state categorically that no amount of evidence would cause them to change their mind.

Just you Ian, which appears to make you about as far from a sceptic on these boards as it is possible to be.

Just in case anyone still thinks I'm like a sKeptic it might be appropriate to repeat what I have said previously on this board.

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known.

And that love is the key to all things. The only purpose of life".

Ashles
21st May 2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just in case anyone still thinks I'm like a sKeptic it might be appropriate to repeat what I have said previously on this board.

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known.

And that love is the key to all things. The only purpose of life".
Thank you for clearing that up Ian.

I'm sure will no-one will think of you as a sceptic (of any spelling or definition) under any circumstances any more.

ETA: For some reason your above quote looks like it should end "... yeah baby", but maybe that's just me.

Mojo
21st May 2005, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We're talking about scientific evidence here, right? Now how do you imagine you can have scientific evidence against paranormal phenomena? Surely we can only have evidence which lends support to the existence of certain phenomena. If hypothetically no such evidence was produced, then one can simply introduce an auxiliary hypothesis to the effect that psi is capricious, evasive, or whatever. In which case it would be quite impossible to prove that psi doesn't exist.If this is your reason for believing in psi, I take it that you believe that absolutely anything exists. Now where's my invisible pink unicorn gun?

And yes, I'm sure pretty much everybody on here knows that it's impossible to prove a negative. I just wish we weren't continually being asked to do so.

P.S.A.
21st May 2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just in case anyone still thinks I'm like a sKeptic it might be appropriate to repeat what I have said previously on this board.

"I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known.

And that love is the key to all things. The only purpose of life".

Jeebus, what a disgusting hypocrite you are Ian.

You start out claiming, in a thread where Skeptics congratulate someone for changing their mind because of evidence, that Skeptics don't appreciate that value themselves.

And then, when it's pointed out that there is ample evidence that you yourself do that, you then argue that you are NOT like Skeptics, by confirming that you do indeed "know" certain truths, and always have.

But no Ian, you are not different. Everyone's experiences are more valid to them than anyone else's, because they experience them more directly, more powerfully. And the world is full of prejudicial, drunken, abusive people; I could walk into any pub on any street and be told how I don't understand, be it the local politics I'm an outsider too, the football team, or just the people in that particular bar. It's tribalism, and it's a societal throwback, nothing civilized or respectable at all. The streets explode every Friday night with people who share that failing just like you do... People kicking the homeless because of what they believe the homeless are, people smashing up the take away because of what the Chinese or Indians are, because we know, alright? We know what they are like... The difference is, you come to the JREF to drunkenly smash up the objects of your prejudice. But it's nothing new, nor is it unique. The only thing that seperates you from the hordes of mindless hooligans is that you simply are too arrogant to even have a tribe. It's just you, and your crusade against the "skeptics."

You know Ian, you wouldn't attract attention from "the stupidest person in the world" if every time I saw one of your posts it wasn't showing the most appallingly disgusting behaviour. I granted you that you might have some inner beauty in the thread you ran off from after claiming I had made up things you'd said; which is what makes your actions all the more revolting... After all, what am I supposed to think when someone says "love is the key to all things", but whose reaction to being chatted up by a man was to run to the JREF and make an immature and outraged post about how vile it was? It's like watching a china doll going around cutting people's hearts out and eating them... what a wonderfully uplifting example you are Ian. I think I should love to live in a universe defined by your understanding of love.

Or not. Fortunately, I don't. There are billions of people just like you, and fortunately, the laws of Physics, the laws which govern our world don't pay the slightest attention to any of those billions. Phew.

Mojo
21st May 2005, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If hypothetically no such evidence was produced, then one can simply introduce an auxiliary hypothesis to the effect that psi is capricious, evasive, or whatever.Which, of course, is exactly what you've done.

But why do you think a capricious, evasive, unreliable psi is more likely than the other explanation: no psi at all? If you look at the history of evolution, for example, you'll see that once a structure or ability exists, the forces of natural selection ensure that it rapidly becomes highly efficient. Any organism with slightly better abilities than its competitors would be more successful and so be able to pass its enhanced abilities on to more offspring. That's how natural selection works. Why shouldn't this apply to psi (apart from the fact that it would invalidate your a priori assumption that psi exists)?

Of course, I suppose you'll now say that psi abilities are not part of the organism but somehow arrive in the body from elsewhere, as you claim consciousness does.

Interesting Ian
21st May 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by P.S.A.
Jeebus, what a disgusting hypocrite you are Ian.

You start out claiming, in a thread where Skeptics congratulate someone for changing their mind because of evidence, that Skeptics don't appreciate that value themselves.

And then, when it's pointed out that there is ample evidence that you yourself do that,



So where is any of this elusive evidence?? My beliefs are generally determined by evidence and reason. Should I believe something to be the case, but am presented with compelling evidence and/or reasons to suppose it is not the case, then I will quite readily change my mind -- this is in stark contrast to skeptics.

However, if there is no evidence and /or reasons for supposing something not to be true, and I and many other people have first hand experience that it is true, then it would be utterly preposterous to reject that belief because it contradicts the worldview of the cretins calling themselves "skeptics" who contribute to this board.




Everyone's experiences are more valid to them than anyone else's, because they experience them more directly, more powerfully. And the world is full of prejudicial, drunken, abusive people; I could walk into any pub on any street and be told how I don't understand, be it the local politics I'm an outsider too, the football team, or just the people in that particular bar. It's tribalism, and it's a societal throwback, nothing civilized or respectable at all. The streets explode every Friday night with people who share that failing just like you do... People kicking the homeless because of what they believe the homeless are, people smashing up the take away because of what the Chinese or Indians are, because we know, alright?



You're completely off your head. And I find your post deeply offensive. I am absolutely diametrically opposite to these type of people in every conceivable way. They hate me; have always hated me. In turn I just think they are f*cking aliens.



You know Ian, you wouldn't attract attention from "the stupidest person in the world" if every time I saw one of your posts it wasn't showing the most appallingly disgusting behaviour. I granted you that you might have some inner beauty in the thread you ran off from after claiming I had made up things you'd said;



You always make up things I've said, as do most of the skeptics on here. I think you're worse than the rest of them however. I especially find this following accusation outrageous:



what am I supposed to think when someone says "love is the key to all things", but whose reaction to being chatted up by a man was to run to the JREF and make an immature and outraged post about how vile it was?



You're a disgusting despicable liar. Yes it is the case that *I* most certainly do not like being chatted up by guys. Indeed, the very first time it happened I was amazed at the repugnance I felt. But that's just me. The pertinent point here is that my subjective reaction --which I have no control over -- is utterly irrelevant to the ethical issues of male homosexual relationships. I've always been extremely vocal with arguing against irrational discrimination against homosexuals. I'm in favour of allowing homosexuals, both male homosexuals and female homosexuals, getting married to each other.

And you clearly have absolutely no idea what the word love means.

From now on you're on my ignore list.