Feb 17 2007
|
|
Those Damned Cattle Mutilations
When we first encounter the cattle mutilation phenomenon, it seems very hard to digest mentally. At that point, predisposition takes over: Believers think it’s aliens doing genetic experiments, Fundamentalist Skeptics counter that it’s merely predators and scavengers who bring down livestock, drain their blood, and in some cases leave them out in back of the farmhouse, mere feet from sleeping ranchers. Both scenarios seem equally ridiculous.
Most agree that the “Kenneth Arnold” event for mutilations was the “Snippy the Horse” case of September 8th, 1967. (Chris O’Brien, author of “The Mysterious Valley,” talked with one of the original witnesses, Harry King, who reported that the horse was in fact named “Snippy,” contrary to popular belief that the animal’s name was “Lady.”) King and his mother noted that Snippy failed to return to a water trough as usual, and two days later found the animal dead on a small mesa.
Flesh had been removed from the head and neck, there was no blood at the scene, and King said that there was a strange medicinal odor in the air. When Agnes King touched a piece of the carcass, a greenish fluid oozed out, and seemed to contain some chemical that burned her skin. Residents in the area reported UFO-like activity in the skies before and after the event.
In the mid-1970s, the problem became so widespread in New Mexico that Senator Harrison Schmitt convened a symposium at the Albuquerque Public Library. In April of 1979, he invited ranchers, researchers, and law enforcement officials to gather and talk about the problem, which had up to that time cost the cattle industry in the neighborhood of $1 million. Few conclusions were reached, and one researcher from Colorado said that “The only sense of mutilations is that they make no sense at all.”
The Justice Department was called in to investigate, and hired retired FBI agent Kenneth Rommel to head “Operation Animal Mutilation.” His report, running 297 pages, was released in 1980. It concluded that the majority of the mutilations were easily accounted for as natural deaths and predator activity, with a small percentage that could not be explained adequately with the resources available. Rommel reportedly told researcher Linda Howe that she was barking up the wrong tree with her alien intervention theory, and that the phenomenon was due solely to natural causes.
With the exception of one or two reports (one where a rancher claimed to observe two alien creatures carrying a dead calf, and the other reported by an abductee under hypnosis) I know of no cases where aliens have been observed in contact with livestock. If we throw out the UFO explanation, this leaves us few options available to account for the observed anomalies in cattle mutilations.
Howe once told me that the aliens want to make it look like humans are doing this to cover their own tracks. I do not agree, and I will explain how I came to my present model of the phenomenon. Some may counter that Howe is a dedicated field researcher and I have no expertise in this area. They are right. My ideas are based on in-depth conversations with other researchers who have many years of hands-on experience with livestock mutilations.
Retired New Mexico State Police Officer Gabe Valdez was involved in the investigation of mutilations from the “ground floor.” He was the first official on the scene in countless incidents in the Dulce area from the late 1970s to the late ’80s. He has showed me firsthand evidence collected in the field, including something resembling radar chaff which was spread around a field at a mutilation scene–some of the pieces were actually stuffed in the animal’s mouth. He also found a gas mask and surgical instruments at other sites. In 2000, Valdez was hired by the National Institute For Discovery Science to contribute to its report on the phenomenon. He concluded that the cattle may be part of a covert experiment to track diseases in livestock. Independent researcher Ted Oliphant, who spent a few years in law enforcement in another mutilation hotspot–Fyffe, Alabama–came to basically the same conclusion after years of study. Chris O’Brien, while not wedded to the theory, remarks that it would account for much of the observed evidence during his years in southern Colorado.
Under this theory, the proximity of UFO sightings to mutilation outbreaks may be an attempt by whatever human agencies are involved to capitalize on the alien connection. It may also be the result of experimental or secret aircraft used in the operations. Researcher Peter Jordan concluded as much in a remote viewing study he conducted in the late 1970s where a majority of his sensitives perceived not alien craft, but light helicopters unloaded from trucks and personnel in hazmat suits. Photographs were given to the viewers in sealed envelopes.
Admittedly, this last example is too much for some to bear, but the possibility of a pathogen which was released accidentally sometime in the mid-1970s by agencies unknown, and attempts to study and control it before the fact becomes public seems to fit the evidence just as well or better than some kind of alien agenda. Diseases such as Bovine Spongiform Encephelopathy (or “mad cow”) and Cruzfelt-Jakob which affect not only domestic animals, but wildlife and humans as well is almost too frightening to consider, especially if the disease was a biowarfare experiment gone awry.
Admittedly, this theory does not account for all anomalies observed in mutilations, but it does explain many of them, and provides an excellent model for motives. Like many theories on anomalous subjects, the case is not airtight. Mysterious cases of missing organs with no visible incisions to remove them is one example that comes to mind. If the phenomenon is UFO-related though, it seems to make little sense. Hyper-intelligent aliens should not require hundreds of tries to get information on bovine physiology. Humans would need this database, and the pubic outcry if the study were made public before a cure was found would be disastrous.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, February 17th, 2007 at 10:37 pm and is filed under Animal Mutilations, Conspiracies, Evidence, Government Projects, UFOlogists, UFOlogy, Wake Up Down There. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
- Related News Stories:
- Animal Mutes »
- Human Mutes and UFOs »
- Ghastly Door & UFOs »
- More Mutes »
- Bell & The Mutilators »
- Stalking By Night… »
- Aliens or Occultists? »
- Fields of Fear »
- Dulce Undergound Base Conference »
- Dulce: It’s baaaack! »
|
February 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“Hyper-intelligent aliens should not require hundreds of tries to get information on bovine physiology.”
Mr. Bishop, have you ever considered that these “hyper-intelligent aliens” simply enjoy torturing animals? Put this together with what Ecker has written about human mutilations, and the picture is pretty clear, albeit frightening. These “hyper-intelligent” beings are psychopaths. They thrive on terror, and like psychopathic individuals, enjoy torture for the sake of torture.
It seems to me that the mutes done by black-op spooks, along with their ridiculous planted evidence (gas masks and surgical instruments – gimme a break!), provide a more “plausible” and “comforting” alternative. But isn’t that the point?
February 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I read the very detailed version of this theory put out by NIDS a while back. As in most cases like this, some of it makes sense while some does not. There are better ways to be stealthy than to involve muliple personnel and vehicles in an operation that would look SO suspicious if stumbled upon. Government could simple buy these animals and dispose of the carcasses discreetly if it wanted to. Just MHO.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The earlier entry on human mutilations got me wondering and the closest analogy to cattle mutilations I can think of in humans are muti attacks where skin, sex organs, etc. are highly prized:
http://tinyurl.com/2qmvov
I’m sure there are multiple explanations for cattle mutilation (as with most strange phenomena) but the parallels between the two (more so than with anything you’d imagine would be useful for testing purposes and I could never work out what aliens might be after that they couldn’t get in numerous other simpler ways) certainly make me suspicious there is an occult angle.
Interestingly a lot of horse mutilations (in the UK and Europe at least) seem to be less focused and often involve attempts to injure horses (to remove the competition at sporting events?) or due to lone psychopaths or sexual deviants (often involving violation with an inanimate object). So I have to suspect that some cattle mutilations are the product of some troubled mind.
Blaming Satanists, as well as random psychos and perverts certainly make me concerned I may be thinking along the same lines as the Christian Right. Never a comfortable feeling.
however, if humans are involved it is an angle that can’t be ignored.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Remus,
It is a very risky operation, but probably better being caught at it than revealing a possible biowarfare genetic engineering blunder that would devastate the beef industry and kill millions.
The reason that they wouldn’t buy the animals (which they may do as well under the guise of another program) is that whoever is responsible might want a greater sampling than is possible by just buying the livestock. Also, the mutilated animals seem to fall into a few specific categories (lineage, breed, etc.) that might arouse suspicion.
Another reason for the covert nature may simply be to test the efficacy of the operations (logistics, equipment and personnel) for use in other areas and for other reasons.
Like I said, this is the theory that seems to cover much of the observed evidence. There is also reason to believe that other, more sinister elements may be involved, either as witting or unwitting participants. Listen to my interview with Chris O’Brien at radio4all.net (look up Radio Misterioso in the search window) for more on this. Some of it covers very weird and horrifying ideas like blood sacrifice and occult elements of the power structure.
Things to consider, not to believe.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Harry,
Using the phrase “aliens are psychopaths” disturbs me for a variety of reasons. First, we have to agree on what “aliens” could be. Then we have to examine the word “are” as a catchall term for everything observed in regards to “aliens.” And lumping all data about these “aliens” into the “psychopath” category requires a leap of faith that does not square with much of the history of interaction with non-human intelligence. In short, your statement seems to be a pronouncement of faith. I do not have an unshakable belief or faith about anything that is labeled “anomalous.”
As for covert operations along the lines I have discussed, how is the possibility that everyone who has eaten a hamburger in the last 25 years who may now be in danger of having their brains rotted from the inside out more “comforting” than psychopathic aliens?
What you seem to be suggesting is that humans occasionally perform mutilations to cover up the “fact” of alien activity. To me, this seems even more ludicrous than the simple alien idea. Not impossible, just not as likely.
The gas masks and other artifacts found at mutilation sites occurs in a very small percentage of cases. Researchers I mentioned feel that these were oversights due to the fast, covert nature of the operations under cover of darkness.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:19 am
“Emperor,”
I’m glad you take a broad view of this phenomenon. I did not talk about the occult or satanist/ psychopath angle becuase it would have made the post even longer!
The researchers I mentioned have made defintite connections to these aspects because evidence has appeared which seems to support it as well.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:38 am
One other study I forgot to mention was carried out in the late 1970s or early ’80s by Dr. Howard Burgess, a scientist on the government payroll (Sandia Labs) with a specific interest in the UFO phenomenon. Along with Gabe Valdez and rancher Manuel Gomez, he corralled selected cows from Gomez’ herd and ran them through a squeeze chute (animals must go through single file) and shined a variety of light sources on them. On a few animals, he found bluish, sparkling areas that were revealed under ultraviolet light. The markings appeared to have been made by dropping some sort of liquid on the cows, which ran over them and dried.
The marked animals all belonged to the same lineage (sired by the same bulls) and breed. Others who fit this description had already been mutilated. Gomez sold the marked stock.
Why any aliens would bother to worry about which animals they “tortured” and would mark them in such a crude fashion strains credulity.
There may be aliens coming in ships and abducting cows for some strange reason. What I am suggesting here is that the observed data makes more sense as a covert operation, at least in a majority of the cases.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Another possibility is that the government is performing these mutilations not only to test for a specific pathogen but (by doing it in a weird way)to cause an unjust fear and distrust of what ever ufos are. This they reason will help keep them in control, even when the reality of ufos can no longer be kept a secret.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
My own mutilation;
In 1996 I was walking my dog in the outskirts of Los Lunas NM. Los Lunas is a small town (undoubtably larger now) south of Albuquerque. I typically walked Mima (a black lab) in the desert and carried a SKS rifle in case anything weird came up. On this particular day something weird came up.
Something you need to know about the dog, she would eat anything. We are talking about a total scavenger here.
She once ate a bucket of rotten chicken and was sick for a week. She also ate plastic bags, power cords, insulation, other animals feces and anything dead, anything. Other than that she was a sweet dog.
As I am walking with her we come across an area that was just on top of a small ridge and would expose the view of the house as we crested it. Mima would not continue forward. She sat down, put her ears back and squinted her eyes. There was no moving her. I looked ahead and saw the problem. A dead cow, strangely no smell whatsoever. (you desert dwellers know what I am talking about) I approached it from behind and saw no blood, no footprints and no vehicle tracks. The rectum was cored out and the platysma had been removed in a clean fashion. The neck was at a weird angle. Cattle rustling new-mexicans were typical and they would cut up a cow for the meat and run off, but here no edible meat was taken. I didn’t have a camera. I brought my father out who agreed to call someone to investigate, the police could give a damn so we called MUFON. The next day, armed with a camera and a team of MUFON investigators we went back out.
Too my dismay the flesh wounds on the animal had now been lacerated and dirt had been rubbed all over the head and neck. There were fresh boot tracks. (why would someone cover up?) But for vindication one investigator had a geiger counter and the corpse was radioactive (by 50 rads according to her) I am not sure if that is a significant reading.
I have requested the file from NM MUFON several times and they have failed to reply. The location of the animal and the fact that the brand and ear markings had been rubbed out points me to think that this was an occult event, maybe even meant for me to find. (that old paranoia again) We didn’t own any cows and the local ranches didn’t own cows like this one.
If anyone wants to see the pictures let me know, I would like to know what someone with experience thinks of this.
Just one of those things. . .
Jess
February 19th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Bishop. I fully agree that we should not believe any of the theories regarding “aliens”, “covert ops”, etc., but instead use working hypotheses. I even think your theory on cattle mutes may be true, but, as you point out, there is more to it as a whole: the ‘high strangeness’ factor. I don’t think the two ideas (gov’t op vs. ‘aliens’ without conscience) are mutually exclusive.
I don’t think identifying so-called “aliens” as psychopathic involves a leap of faith. No more than accepting the possibility that there even IS a ‘paranormal’. It’s a working hypothesis based on the data I’m aware of. So, IF there is even such thing as non-human intelligences or beings that interact with humanity, and if accounts of such interactions can be trusted, then I see some definite psychopathic qualities presented by such “beings.” Deceitfulness, manipulativeness, lack of conscience, awareness of the humanity’s psychological weaknesses, ruthlessness, etc.
I can’t think of any data that are not compatible with this idea. That is not to say I ‘believe’ it. I just think the data fits. And on that note, regarding lumping all alien data into the “psychopath” category as going against much of the history of interaction with non-human intelligence, which data are you referring to?
If you read Robert Hare’s book, Without Conscience, or Andrew Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology, you might get a better understanding of the scope of the problem (even if just on the ‘human’ level). Human psychopaths are experts at putting on a “mask of sanity” and fooling nearly anyone that they are good and decent people. They are experts at ‘damage control’. They will treat you like a king if they know it will get them something in return. But really, all they want is control at any cost.
Perhaps this explains why psychopaths so often rise to the top. When you consider the very likely idea that the very people involved in these covert operations are psychopaths themselves, it may explain the “ludicrous” nature of their damage control. Because, while psychopaths often rise to the top, they are not particularly intelligent. They are simply “damage control machines”. When caught in a lie, they tell another, often to the bewilderment of those who know better.
So these very ‘black op’ spooks who know something about what’s going on will cover it up at any cost, because they need to be in control. They’ll copycat mutilations (thus incriminating themselves!) simply to cover up the ‘paranormal’ factor. But that doesn’t mean they will not use the paranormal factor to cover up other secrets, e.g. stealth technology. It’s just the way they work. And they get away with it because most people are ignorant even of the existence of psychopaths.
(Oh, and personally, I think the idea of psychopathic mind-marauding, gore-loving aliens is a LOT scarier than brain-rotting beef, but maybe that’s just me.)
Harry
February 19th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Is it just me, or does talk of ‘cattle mutilation’ bring to mind visions of ‘Frankenstien-ian’ creations? The subject not only reeks of a black-ops project, but also of a rogue black-ops project.
-Jason Gammon
February 19th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“psychopathic mind-marauding, gore-loving aliens”
You’ve seen the film Evil Aliens then?
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Greg, the other day I watched an episode of SciFi Investigates (the one with Richard Dolan) and they covered Dulce, cattle mutilations and the belief amongst locals that there is an underground base there.
They had Gabe Valdez on and he displayed some of the items you mention; specifically the gas mask – which Dolan and others I think actually tried on.
But what blew my mind was Gabe basicly said he felt certain he knew who was responsible but wouldn’t say anything more beyond saying it was a covert human government agency.
I think even Gabe said he thought there was an underground base there.
I kept yelling at the TV, “Read Greg’s Book!”
SMiles
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 am
Miles,
Gabe has told me a little more about this, but since no one seems to be interested in publishing a book on the subject, it remains “in the files” for now. And yes, he also mentioned that he now believes that there was an undergound facilty there, but it was not used as an alien base. He thinks it was humans. This was a change from his attitude when I interviewed him for the book.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
Harry,
Plenty of abduction researchers and abductees have a positive view of their experiences and the “aliens.” For example, Strieber, John Mack, Richard Boylan, and countless contactee-types. Why we should agree one or the other camps is beyond my ability to believe. Data, especially anecdotal data, can be shaped to conform to any opinion. Either way, it’s a leap of faith.
The reason I think that human diseases are more frightening than crazy aliens is that it is something that we can all agree exists and affects millions of people. UFOs are still up in the air for most people–mixed metaphor intended.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 am
Seein’,
This is exactly one of the models I currently hold, and suggested as much in my posts on “What Does The Government Know?”
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 am
Jess,
Thanks for your story. It resonates with some of what Chris O’Brien has found. You might want to contact him through the Mysterious Valley website.
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 am
Jason,
The “rogue” black ops angle was specifically mentioned by Peter Jordan in his 1979 Fortean Times article.
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:01 am
Greg,
You may recall back in the 90s then Congression Rep for New Mexico got his chops busted by a Senator by talking about a underground base in Northern New Mexico (but no linkage to Dulce) I was working on a Cold war history book and interviewed one former Cold Warrior who talked about an underground base he worked at that they did research at near where I-25 goes into New Mexico on the New Mexico side of things. Another retired cold warrior who had worked there for a time told me that they did medical/genetic type research there. Both of them have told me that the location was no more then 50 miles from the freeway and the freeway provides easy transport to get things in and out. Apparently you have to know where it is/exactly where to go because the entrance is well hidden.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Robert,
Do you mean I-25 near Raton? If the base was or is 50 miles west of the highway, the link to a “Dulce Base” makes a lot of sense. If people were looking for a base on the Archuleta mesa, they were purposely misdirected by disinfo leaks. If your info is correct, it makes a lot of sense not only in light of what I discussed in “Project Beta,” but also partially confirms what Gabe Valdez told me about the base not being just a rumor or disinfo.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:39 am
In Pursuit Vol. 13, Number 4, Fall 1980, David DeWitt presents excellent evidence that the mutilations are caused by mining companies. It seems that minerals leech upward, and you can estimate underground desposits by testing the tissues of surface animals.
Jerome Clark and others stepped in to make it seem like it was really aliens. They were some squabbles printed in Pursuit…
The mining companies (which includes Big Oil) are implicated repeatedly in the UFO field…
-Andy
andycolvin.com
February 26th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I did mean the I-25 near Raton. However don’t know (nor did they give me any clue) which direction east, south or west, likewise whether it was a total of 50 miles in one direction or the other, or within a 50 mile circle, meaning 25 miles west, east, or south. Alot of variance there.
I did forgot to mention that I threw out the possibility that it was Los Alamos as they are loaded with underground facilities and both sources said definitively no.
This particular underground facility may, or may not be the same underground facility that Richardson got in trouble when he was a Congressman.
Bottom line is there is at least one and perhaps two or more underground facilities in northern NM, however we don’t know what part of northern NM. I don’t believe its under Archuleta Mesa.
One wonders that if we could get researchers de lasered off of Archuleta, there is a possibility we might find the facility(s) with some good research and leg work.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Greg and all,
Someone posted relevant documentary footage online that chronicles the experiments mentioned where Officer Gabe Valdez and scientist Howard Burgess used ultraviolet lights to detect that powder substance marking cattle that were likely to be mutilated.
It can be viewed here:
http://www.anomalytv.com/site/archives/1341
March 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
mothphotographer,
Isn’t it “strange” that money + power often = UFO interest?
March 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Robert,
I always think of the Stealth fighter crash near Baskersfield in the late 1980s that was discovered by UFO researchers as a rumor about a UFO crash. “Insiders” leaked the supposed location, which was 20+ miles away, which kept prying eyes away while the area was cleaned up.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Greg,
When you mention the Stealth Fighter crash around Bakersfield, I assume you are refering to the one on July 11, 1986, tail number 792, which killed Pilot Ross Mulhare. This was one of 7 or so Stealth Crashes that happened.
Even after the so called military cleanup, researchers were able to go and dig around on site and found pieces of Stealth material etc etc. Point being is a military cleanup operation doesn’t get “everything.” I have visited a number of crash sites over the years, some of which were cleaned up and you can still find something. If a UFO crashed, not matter how good the military cleanup was, a person would probably find “something” from the object. It it might require work and digging (like the researchers who found pieces of Stealth at Bakersfield) but you can still find things.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
robert,
True, but my point was that UFO researchers were directed to another site to keep prying eyes away until the cleanup was completed.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:13 am
At the time of the crash, the area was cordoned off and the military didn’t let people in for awhile. Everybody including the media knew where the crash happened and some folks were watching from a distance with high power scopes. Likewise even though the airspace around the crash site was restricted TV news crews were flying around outside the restricted airspace, peering in. If somebody was confused about the location, they wanted to be confused
March 11th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
robert,
I was told about this years ago by another researcher. Perhaps they were given the info before it hit the news.
March 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I don’t see how anyone could have been confused about the location of the crash site near Bakersfield, California, in July 1986. In the immediate aftermath of the accident, it was hard to miss.
The post-impact brush fire was visible for miles. Local law enforcement officials and, later military personnel, established an obvious perimeter with checkpoints. Helicopter gunships patrolled over the scene and other helicopters ferried personnel to the impact site daily for several weeks. The FAA established a restricted airspace overhead, effectively painting a “bullseye” on the target for anyone wanting to find the site. The restricted airspace was limited to a certain altitude, so newsmen and private pilots were able to fly over the site at higher levels. Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine published a good map showing the location. The impact crater was an obvious feature in the burn area. Before the clean-up crew left, they erected a memorial (20-foot pole with U.S. flag) to the pilot on the most prominent point just above the crater.
It would have been nearly impossible to mislead someone regarding the location.