Cow Mutilation Investigator Says Truth Is Out There

[Lavie Enrose]

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]

Well, yeah. It's those damned mad scientist fellas from the Umbrella Corporation... :D

[VeronicaX]

Residential Evil

[c4ts]

Well, I've got nothing to do with it. If I mutilated cows all the good cuts of meat would be mysteriously missing.

[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.

[Ashles]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Ashles
So why did anyone even think it was aliens at any point?

It was a long distance call?

[Ashles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How truly sad... no-one ever believes that it's the Umbrella Corporation. They're simply too powerful!

[Donks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Beth,

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

[Correa Neto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Mojo
Wasn't it two blokes from Southampton?
They can't all be fake. Therefore some must really be aliens.

[Mojo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

It's true. www.bovineunite.com

[Lavie Enrose]

Does anyone want to throw, "reverse vampires" into the mix? :D

[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. :)

[jmercer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ve