Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not realistic, a dead cow is not like finding a dead deer or squirrel...they are of significant value to the farmer, and most, (if not all) cattle are insured...
Not to mention, 'not reporting' cow deaths would be extremely risky to the farmers, (considering it may be disease that killed them) and that could come back to severely bite them!
That is not realistic, a dead cow is not like finding a dead deer or squirrel...they are of significant value to the farmer, and most, (if not all) cattle are insured.
It is very realistic and happened here many many times. We had a large influx of immigrants. They would go kill a local farmers animal for mainly organ meat and leave the rest lay there. It was never reported on by any news source. I know only because I had friends who had it happen to their animals. Nothing was ever done for a few reasons.
In Oregon it could be the homeless doing some of it.
It is very realistic and happened here many many times. We had a large influx of immigrants. They would go kill a local farmers animal for mainly organ meat and leave the rest lay there. It was never reported on by any news source. I know only because I had friends who had it happen to their animals. Nothing was ever done for a few reasons.
In Oregon it could be the homeless doing some of it.
Laboratory reports
Laboratory reports carried out on some mutilated animals have shown unusually high or low levels of vitamins or minerals in tissue samples, and the presence of chemicals not normally found in animals. However, not all mutilated animals display these anomalies, and those that do have slightly different anomalies from one another. On account of the time between death and necropsy, and a lack of background information on specific cattle, investigators have often found it impossible to determine if these variations are connected to the animals' deaths or not.
In one case documented by New Mexico police and the FBI, an 11-month-old cross Hereford-Charolais bull, belonging to a Mr. Manuel Gomez of New Mexico, was found mutilated on March 24, 1978. It displayed "classic" mutilation signs, including the removal of the rectum and sex organs with what appeared to be “a sharp and precise instrument” and its internal organs were found to be inconsistent with a normal case of death followed by predation.
"Both the liver and the heart were white and mushy. Both organs had the texture and consistency of peanut butter"Gabriel L Veldez, New Mexico Police The animal's heart as well as bone and muscle samples were sent to the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for microscopic and bacteriological studies, while samples from the animal's liver were sent to two separate private laboratories.
Los Alamos detected the presence of naturally occurring Clostridium bacteria in the heart, but was unable to reach any conclusions because of the possibility that the bacteria represented postmortem contamination. No microscopic changes of pathological significance were found in the heart tissue.
Samples from the animal's liver were found to be completely devoid of copper and to contain 4 times the normal level of zinc, potassium and phosphorus. The scientists performing the analysis were unable to explain these anomalies.
Blood samples taken at the scene were reported to be "light pink in color" and “Did not clot after several days” while the animal's hide was found to be unusually brittle for a fresh death (the animal was estimated to have been dead for 5 hours) and the flesh underneath was found to be discolored.
None of the laboratories were able to report any firm conclusions on the cause of the blood or tissue damage. At the time, it was suggested that a burst of radiation may have been used to kill the animal, blowing apart its red blood cells in the process. This hypothesis was later discarded as subsequent reports from the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory later confirmed the presence of anti-coagulants in samples taken from other cows mutilated in the region.
So, why are there not many cattle mutilation cases each year? If what you say is accurate, there should be 1000s of annual 'cattle mutilations'.
That is because of our yellow press that wants to sensationalize what many of you consider 'mutilation'. All of us beef eaters are accomplices when if comes to mutilating cows. If it did not contain beef we would be screaming for our beef. Our press only wants us to think of eye, ear, nose, tongue, reproductive parts, and anus extraction; but that is a narrow sighted version of the definition.
As far as unusual chemicals found in their blood; there are many unusual chemicals in our soil. If you go back 50, 70, or a 100 years or more; people dumped hazardous chemicals wherever they wanted to. Many businesses had their own dumps. Even municipal dumps were located on top of the land without any containment. So the idea of a cow getting into a chemical that we are not familiar with is not a far stretch of the imagination.
That is not realistic, a dead cow is not like finding a dead deer or squirrel...they are of significant value to the farmer, and most, (if not all) cattle are insured...
Not to mention, 'not reporting' cow deaths would be extremely risky to the farmers, (considering it may be disease that killed them) and that could come back to severely bite them!
Reported to the media, I should have said . If the deaths are only reported to the sheriff and insurance, you would never hear about it. Good luck getting any money from the insurance companies though.
It’s livestock that is meant to be sold to slaughter. It’s value is that. If you don’t get to do that, then you suffer a loss. Now you would have to take steps to make sure that they are reasonably safe. But yes. If somebody stole the cattle it would be the same thing.
That is because of our yellow press that wants to sensationalize what many of you consider 'mutilation'. All of us beef eaters are accomplices when if comes to mutilating cows. If it did not contain beef we would be screaming for our beef. Our press only wants us to think of eye, ear, nose, tongue, reproductive parts, and anus extraction; but that is a narrow sighted version of the definition.
As far as unusual chemicals found in their blood; there are many unusual chemicals in our soil. If you go back 50, 70, or a 100 years or more; people dumped hazardous chemicals wherever they wanted to. Many businesses had their own dumps. Even municipal dumps were located on top of the land without any containment. So the idea of a cow getting into a chemical that we are not familiar with is not a far stretch of the imagination.
Dont you think scientists that work for places that investigate things like this, would factor that into cattle mutilation cases they were working on? Heck, thats probably the first thing they looked into in the attempt to find a source!!!
As far as the first part of your post...I have no idea what you are trying to say, Im not sure why there would be any benefit to 'sensationalizing cattle mutilations'...there are not that many people that will believe the supernatural/UFO/mysterious theories...so it would be pointless to sensationalize it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solly says — Be nice!
