Six cows found dead and mutilated along a state highway in east-central Texas with their tongues “completely removed” have prompted an investigation by a county sheriff’s office, authorities said.
Ranchers in Madison County first reported a 6-year-old longhorn-cross cow lying on her side, dead and mutilated, according to a release from the Madison County Sheriff’s Office on Wednesday.
The cow’s tongue was removed “with no blood spill” and a “straight, clean cut, with apparent precision” had been made to remove the hide around the cow’s mouth on one side, according to the sheriff’s office.
While looking into the longhorn-cross’ death, investigators learned of five other cows that were also found in a similarly brutal condition. Each cow was from a different pasture and herd, and was found at a different location along the area of the state highway in nearby Brazos and Robertson counties, officials said.
On two of the cows, a circular cut had also been made, removing the anus and the external genitalia. “This circular cut was made with the same precision as the cuts noted around the jaw lines of each cow,” the sheriff’s office noted.
There were no signs of struggle or blood spill, and no footprints or tire tracks in the area around any of the cows, officials said.
I'm not seeing a lot about cattle mutilation here on MB, but I recall a discussion perhaps on Twitter, involving Skinwalker Ranch, about supposed cattle mutilations being explainable via natural deaths followed by insect or other small-animal activity removing soft tissues with apparent "surgical precision." Does anyone know of an entomological or other source supporting this kind of explanation?
In addition to going for soft tissues first, once the easy soft bits are gone scavengers often go for the anus and mouth because those give direct access to the best bits without dealing with a lot of skin or hair. The tongue is a large and fairly exposed piece of muscle meat, and the anus is a straight road to a lot of organ meat.
Animals don't have the benefit of steel cutlery and a butcher's block, and only the largest predators are able to actually rip chunks off something as big and sturdy as a cow, so they naturally will go for the paths of least resistance, even if those paths are going to be gross by human standards.
Are there any clear photographs of dead animals with the often described surgical precision cuts? Are there conditions where maggots and decomposition can give the appearance of precision cuts? As far as I can tell, normal decomposition looks pretty rough and organic and not very surgical looking at all.
I first heard stories of cattle mutilations with surgically removed organs etc decades ago. It was before I had Internet so not sure what source was, but I recall something about a study where some debunkers set up night vision cameras on animal carcasses. During the decay process when bloating was significant they filmed many areas, udders, mouth anus etc where gas pressure forced some internals to prolapse and be exposed externally. When assorted small scavengers showed up they started on these exposed treats & chewed them off flush, then continued eating & tunneling their way in from the breached openings & eating the softest bits. Eventually the bloated carcass fails to hold gas pressure and collapses. At this point the parts chewed off externally became missing internal organs, tongues etc. It seemed reasonable enough to explain the vast majority of ”mutilation” cases at the time and I’ve ignored any mention of them ever since.
While many unconventional explanations have been put forward to explain cattle mutilations, a variety of scientists, veterinary workers, and knowledgeable observers (including farmers and other agricultural workers) have suggested more conventional ideas, most of which revolve around the hypothesis that "mutilated" animals died of natural causes and were subjected to known terrestrial phenomena – including the action of predators, parasites, and scavengers.[34]
Missing or mutilated mouth, lips, anus, and genitalia are explained as:
Contraction of missing/damaged areas due to dehydration.
The actions of small scavengers and burrowing parasites seeking to enter or consume the body in areas where skin is at its thinnest.
Missing/mutilated eyes and soft internal organs are explained as:
The action of carrion feeding insects such as blowflies, and opportunistic or carrion birds such as vultures, which are known to direct themselves toward an animal's eyes, and to enter the body through the openings of the mouth and anus in order to feed on soft internal organs.
Absence of blood is explained as:
Blood pooling in the lowest points in the body where it will break down into its basic organic components.
Blood that is external to the body, or in the area of a wound being consumed by insects or reduced by solar desiccation.
Surgical incisions in the skin are explained as:
Tears in the skin created when it is stretched by postmortem bloat and/or as dehydration causes the animal's hide to shrink and split, often in linear cuts.
Incisions caused by scavengers or predators, possibly exacerbated by the above.
...conducted by Washington County (Arkansas) Sheriff's Department. In the experiment, the body of a recently deceased cow was left in a field and observed for 48 hours. During the 48 hours, postmortem bloating was reported to have caused incision-like tears in the cow's skin that matched the "surgical" cuts reported on mutilated cows, while the action of blowflies and maggots reportedly matched the soft tissue damage observed on mutilated cows.
I've never understood what super advanced aliens are trying to accomplish with a half-assed dissection of cows. As popular as the "cattle mutilation" theory is, I wouldn't count out people actually mutilating cattle for any variety of reasons.
I tried to post this before. It's the Madison County Sheriff's Dept Facebook page on the above posted incident. They imply surgical precision cuts but they may be in error depending on their familiarity with bodily decomposition. They also mention lack of predatory scavenging. To be clear I'm only interested in what's actually happening and how much there is to it, not angling for aliens, Satanists or chupacabras. Also, to what degree should we consider law enforcement documentation reliable? These guys seem to be saying there's something vaguely "weird" going on.
Do you use a microscope? Because that's what I think you'd need to use to differentiate maghot feasting from high tech surgery damage. Can you go into more detail about these mice?
I've never understood what super advanced aliens are trying to accomplish with a half-assed dissection of cows. As popular as the "cattle mutilation" theory is, I wouldn't count out people actually mutilating cattle for any variety of reasons.
For some years now, the only semi plausible "theory," as far as my understanding goes, seems to be a covert sampling method to study down range nuclear contamination from testing.
For some years now, the only semi plausible "theory," as far as my understanding goes, seems to be a covert sampling method to study down range nuclear contamination from testing.
I can imagine governmental entities not wanting to panic the locals, or not wanting to admit there might have been an inadvertent release of either radioactivity or toxic gases ...but leaving a couple of tons of meat along a public road hardly fits the definition of "covert".
I can imagine governmental entities not wanting to panic the locals, or not wanting to admit there might have been an inadvertent release of either radioactivity or toxic gases ...but leaving a couple of tons of meat along a public road hardly fits the definition of "covert".
Yes. So a smart "governmental entity" does the purchase covertly, and in the lab they disect the cow properly to find out which organ has the most radioisotopes in it, etc. Except there's no evidence at all (and no reason) that this is happening, either.
Btw, the EPA's RadNet monitors radioactivity in Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma (in Arizona; there are more stations in other states). It's public, and doesn't involve cows:
Do you use a microscope? Because that's what I think you'd need to use to differentiate maghot feasting from high tech surgery damage. Can you go into more detail about these mice?
in all my years watching cattle mutilation type shows, i've only seen 2 wounds that veterinarian pathologists say don't look like predator or natural marks. one the cut area was at an angle (not typical of animal jaw/teeth, the other looked like someone cut the hide with pinking shears..which maybe there is a small animal with teeth that close like pinking shears but i never looked into that one i just assumed a person did it to get on tv. both those examples are in the Monster Quest show i referenced in pic above.
what farmers mean when they say "surgical cuts" are likely not as sharp as an actual surgical cut. at least none of the ones i've seen in photos. i think the farmers "mean" the edges arent as ragged as they would assume all predators would be. so you have to take 'surgical precision' with a grain of salt..they just mean the edges look "unnaturally" [to them] straight. <not like square obviously, and the lines arent straight, just the edge of the wound seems straight/sharp to them.
when an animal 'explodes' from gases produced during decomposition (i'm having a flashback of mb discussing this before) it looks like:
this is also an exact match, edge wise, to what farmers describe as 'surgical precision'.
this was a test cow with a camera on him (ie no ufos or chupacabras, no other predators ...so natural splitting open).
this is a hunter pondering if he can eat a deer had at by coyotes. the wound edges - where the fur is pushed back and we can actually see the edge-look like "surgical cattle mutilation" wounds.
here is a [live video] coyote attacking a deer (the wounds we see look like cattle mutilation wounds ive seen, as far as 'sharpness of edges')
now with trail cams and youtube, there are videos of coyotes attacking and starting to eat deer (while deer is still alive so brace yourself if you look) and you will be able to see with your own eyes that when the coyotes pull the skin away it looks exactly like what we see in 99% cattle mutilation photos online.
I can imagine governmental entities not wanting to panic the locals, or not wanting to admit there might have been an inadvertent release of either radioactivity or toxic gases ...but leaving a couple of tons of meat along a public road hardly fits the definition of "covert".
This is a classic conspiracy belief that's not a conspiracy theory because it makes no sense — perform a highly classified secret test for some nefarious purpose, but then leave the smoking-gun evidence right there. Analogous to how alien craft have low observability but put their lights on at night to see. Or how low-level 2020 election workers passed USB drives to each other underneath security cameras.
Government regulatory testing can be hilariously non-covert. There was a recent investigation of the tank farm at a GM plant in Michigan. The EPA rolled up with a mobile shelter truck, guys got out in hazmat suits with contained air supplies and started taking samples around the factory perimeter, waving at workers and saying, "Nothing to worry about. Just protocol!"
And it was nothing to worry about. Some minor soil contamination around the tank farm that was mitigated but as long as nobody was eating the dead seagulls no people were exposed.
Saw something similar at my Father-in-law's house near the Titabawassee River after the Wixom and Sanford dams broke in 2020. EPA and Dow Chemical trucks roll in and six dudes dressed for Armageddon climb out and take soil samples while retirees feed the ducks.
I find it hilarious to think the EPA would sneak around poking dead cows when I've seen them in broad daylight saying, "No no, please continue your picnic, I'm just gonna slip past ya and get a quick sample."
Reading the above posts made me remember something I'd not thought about for decades.
When I was young, there was a flurry of reports of "assaults" on horses (some of which were found dead) in Hampshire, England.
The police (Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary) launched "Operation Mountbatten", named for one of the dead horses, to collect information and "stake out" areas to catch offenders (none were ever caught- or even seen).
I wonder if some of the causal mechanisms of mutilation- and the local community responses- might be (loosely) analogous to what's been reported in cattle mutilations in the US.
There are cattle in England of course, but there aren't the vast ranches to be found in America, Canada, Australia etc.
-Would add, Hampshire is unusual in having New Forest ponies, which are basically feral (they are owned, but roam free- once a year they are rounded up for checks, de-worming and branding; frail animals are kept in for care over winter if necessary).
I don't know if any of the reported assaults involved Forest ponies, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyway, remembering "Op Mountbatten" I did some in-depth research googled it- and this came up:
"Horse ripper fears are false, says researcher", Steven Morris, 23/04/01, The Guardian:
Most mutilations of horses which have been blamed on sadistic attackers are in reality caused by accidents or by other animals, a leading member of a charity for horses claimed yesterday.
The theory put forward by Ted Barnes, a field officer for the International League for the Protection of Horses, will upset many who believe their animals were the victims of "horse rippers".
But Mr Barnes, who has spent 20 years investigating apparent attacks, insists that the widely held view that there are gangs of sadists with a fetish for mutilating the sexual organs of horses is a myth. He said that in most of the cases he had examined, injured horses probably had been involved in an accident and then had aggravated their wounds or been attacked by another animal after death.
Mr Barnes, former head of the Metropolitan police's equine crime unit, said: "When a mare is in season she will do the most ridiculous things. She will rub her back end on a gatepost. She might start by nicking herself on a sharp object. She will try to relieve that by continuing the rubbing and inflict the most horrendous injuries on herself. She would not stop because she sees blood. Horses do not have the same interpretation of pain as human beings."
Mr Barnes added that a lot of injuries he had seen were almost certainly caused after the death of the horse. He said: "Very alarming-looking injuries can be caused. If a vet is not sure of the explanation for a horse's death, quite rightly he tells the owner to contact the police. But another problem is that because these reports are relatively rare, the officers concerned have little experience investigating them.
"The problem is that because it involves genitalia, people assume it is being done by a pervert." He conceded that a "handful" of attacks probably had been carried out by a sadist, but he claimed the problem had been blown out of proportion in the closely knit equine community.
"Horse-ripping" has been known since medieval times. It was the subject of Peter Shaffer's play Equus (1973), in which a boy is examined by a psychiatrist to find out why he put out the eyes of horses with an iron spike.
In Britain, the police and animal experts have speculated that fertility cults, rival horse owners and sadists could be behind attacks.
Hampshire's police launched Operation Mountbatten after scores of attacks were reported, but no convictions were made. The force's officers are still convinced a horse ripper was at large.
The Mountbatten team established, however, that the horses were not drugged. This led them to postulate that the "mutilators" were used to working with horses. But the fact that horses were not drugged may add credence to Mr Barnes's theory that most mutilations are accidental or happen after a horse's death.
I'm not sure the "in season" behaviour is particularly relevant to cattle mutilations, but the "attack by another animal after death", and "...almost certainly caused after the death of the horse" might be.
Mr Barnes statement about genitalia being involved also resonates with the Madison County Sheriff's Office statement.
I suspect the undeniable evidence of genital damage in some of these cases taps into some deeper unease common to many of us- "UFO abductees" sometimes report their captors as having great interest in human reproduction, as well as conveying warnings about less personal sources of angst- nuclear weapons, pollution, etc.
If there are similar causes for some US "cattle mutilations" and some English "horse-ripping", I think it's interesting how at least some people in two different communities have interpreted them.
In the USA, there are fears of covert specimen gathering or experimentation- perhaps by the Government, or even ETIs.
In England, people are convinced there are sex-maniacs roaming the countryside, or even
fertility cults
doing terrible things to horses.
...I guess it pays detectives to keep an open mind, but really?!
I'm in a soppy mood tonight, so just to prove they exist here are some (healthy and happy) New Forest ponies, in Hampshire.
well sometimes here they are satanists too. but i guess beastiality is more a taboo thought in the US as even the satanists aren't sex perverts (in regards to the animals) , they just use the parts for rituals.
well sometimes here they are satanists too. but i guess beastiality is more a taboo thought in the US as even the satanists aren't sex perverts (in regards to the animals) , they just use the parts for rituals.
Are you sure, or is that just the story told by the fearful?
Modern Satanism (1980s - Present) has been the subject of many conspiracy theories implicating Satanic ritual abuse and pedophilia. These claims have been investigated by various law enforcement agencies and are currently unfounded.
I can imagine governmental entities not wanting to panic the locals, or not wanting to admit there might have been an inadvertent release of either radioactivity or toxic gases ...but leaving a couple of tons of meat along a public road hardly fits the definition of "covert".
I want to clarify that I don't believe the theory, but the logic behind it makes internal sense.
As the US government became increasingly concerned with the down range effects of nuclear testing, they wanted to get a better idea of what they were dealing with. Buying or otherwise overtly collecting samples demonstrates the scale of their concern, which opens the topic to general public concern and, potentially, legal liability once their findings are completed and published. They do that sort of work around Oak Ridge and people accept it as a fact of life, given what they know goes on there. But, it is a small geographic area with no intentionally, large scale atmospheric release like you get with weapons testing. Stealing cattle to sample keeps the research in the dark, so there's no public demand for the study data to be revealed and there's a public misdirect about the nature of the cattle carcasses: they're just dead cows showing signs of predation. No one is investigating the carcasses to see if they were sampled for actual scientific testing and anyone that is appears to be tainted: they're UFO cranks. Presumably, this ended (likely following the termination of US nuclear testing), but the lack of any obvious distinction between dumped carcasses and natural deaths means that they sampling program appears and disappears from the regular background cattle death numbers. You could practically get away with it without anyone noticing, really.
i'm sure that some people think the cattle mutilations are the work of satanists. the same way that apparently some people int he uk think the horse mutilations are the work of sex perverts.
i'm not saying these theories are correct. I dont understand how so many of my responses are being misinterpreted lately.
So if there is a conspiracy question here maybe it should be why, for several decades now, do law enforcement investigations sometimes use shoddy forensics to promote a belief in possibly occult high precision removals when it's only hide tears from bloating and maggot feeding tendencies? What's up with that?
It's because you state these bunk claims without distancing yourself from them. There is no way to read the post I quoted above other than parsing "they just use the parts" as you stating your opinion.
Neither @Ann K nor I read you as attributing the mutilations to satanists, but we both think that "satanists" performing rituals involving animal genitalia sounds like a bunk claim—and we read your post as making that claim, with no evidence.
So if there is a conspiracy question here maybe it should be why, for several decades now, do law enforcement investigations sometimes use shoddy forensics to promote a belief in possibly occult high precision removals when it's only hide tears from bloating and maggot feeding tendencies? What's up with that?
I suspect it's because the Sherriff is an elected official, and it's easier to roll with the flow than tell your voters they're wrong. Law enforcement training syllabus may also be an issue.
So if there is a conspiracy question here maybe it should be why, for several decades now, do law enforcement investigations sometimes use shoddy forensics to promote a belief in possibly occult high precision removals when it's only hide tears from bloating and maggot feeding tendencies? What's up with that?
Not every police department uses "CSI-type" critical thinking and the latest in high-tech analysis to reach their conclusions, especially outside metropolitan areas. Perhaps more importantly, local sheriffs are as subject to belief in rumor, innuendo, and conspiracies as are the general public.
Reading the above posts made me remember something I'd not thought about for decades.
When I was young, there was a flurry of reports of "assaults" on horses (some of which were found dead) in Hampshire, England.
There was a spate of cases in France in 2020 as well. My memory is that it spread to a few adjeacent contries in a small way - given the societal stresses we were all under that year, I suspected it might go global, but it did not.
The recent spate of horse mutilations reported across France has provoked horror and outrage. Satanic cults have been mooted, or individual perpetrators engaged in copycat crimes. But what if the panic reveals more about our collective state of mind in 2020 than any new and twisted form of human behaviour?
...
Not that those on Facebook are listening, but a few quiet voices have raised the possibility that no one is responsible for the shocking injuries. On 3 September, Le Monde pointed out that they could be a natural phenomenon – horses that have hurt themselves or died naturally and been set upon by scavengers such as foxes and crows. Previous scares, from the US to Germany, have eventually been explained this way. In the UK, in the decade from 1983, a rash of horse mutilations was widely blamed on a “horse ripper”, but despite prolonged investigations no conviction was ever made. Experts concluded that most of the injuries were sustained through accident or post mortem. A fox’s teeth are razor sharp, apparently; they can inflict damage that closely resembles a knife wound.
...
In France, to date, investigators seem to have made the classic error – the staple of many crime dramas but also of real-life miscarriages of justice – of zeroing in too fast on a single hypothesis. Nobody even seems to know if the number of mutilations noted this year represents a departure from the norm. Instead, ministers have asked the public to be vigilant – ensuring heightened attention to the phenomenon – and spoken of barbarians and justice. It’s hard not to see a vicious cycle at work: the number of reports increases; ministers respond with promises to catch the culprits, with the public’s help; the reports increase again.
It's because you state these bunk claims without distancing yourself from them. There is no way to read the post I quoted above other than parsing "they just use the parts" as you stating your opinion.
you could look to your beloved wiki to debunk me then. or not.
Article:
It is alternatively hypothesised that cattle mutilations are the result of two unrelated deviant phenomena. The bulk of mutilations are the result of predation and other natural processes, and those with anomalies that cannot be explained in this way are the work of humans who derive pleasure or sexual stimulation from mutilating animals.
...
However, contraryto the deviancy hypothesis, which holds that cattle are mutilated at random by individual deviants, the cult hypothesis holds that cattle mutilations are coordinated acts of ritual sacrifice carried out by organized groups.
Beliefs held by proponents of the cult hypothesis vary, but may include:
That the apparent absence of blood at mutilation sites may indicate cult members would harvest it[40] That organs have been removed from cattle for use in rituals[34]
That unborn calves have been harvested from mutilated cattle.
The hypothesis that cults were responsible for cattle mutilation was developed in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s, a time of growing national concern over cults (such as the Peoples Temple and Jonestown) and ritual satanic abuse ("Satanic panic").[41][42]
Nearly every aspect of the ritual abuse is controversial, including its definition, the source of the allegations and proof thereof, testimonies of alleged victims, and court cases involving the allegations and criminal investigations. The panic affected lawyers, therapists, and social workers who handled allegations of child sexual abuse. Allegations initially brought together widely dissimilar groups, including religious fundamentalists, police investigators, child advocates, therapists, and clients in psychotherapy. The term satanic abuse was more common early on; this later became satanic ritual abuse and further secularized into simply ritual abuse.[1] Over time, the accusations became more closely associated with dissociative identity disorder (then called multiple personality disorder)[2] and anti-government conspiracy theories.[3][4]
......
Of the more than 12,000 documented accusations nationwide, investigating police were not able to substantiate any allegations of organized cult abuse.[7]
You don't like Wikipedia, but the very principles that make it possible for everyone to add to it mean also that everyone can fact-check it, and the original sources are foot-noted throughout.
Please note, you are quoting what your source refers to as a "cult hypothesis". You're conflating two things: (1) A lot of people thought (and still do) that the allegations are true, and (2, and the very bedrock foundation of Metabunk) their opinions are not borne out by the known facts. Allegations are easy to throw around, but without supporting evidence they are just idle words.
Beliefs held by proponents of the cult hypothesis vary, but may include:
That the apparent absence of blood at mutilation sites may indicate cult members would harvest it[40] That organs have been removed from cattle for use in rituals[34]
That unborn calves have been harvested from mutilated cattle.
The hypothesis that cults were responsible for cattle mutilation was developed in the U.S. during the 1970s and 1980s, a time of growing national concern over cults (such as the Peoples Temple and Jonestown) and ritual satanic abuse ("Satanic panic").[41][42][/article]
thank you for acknowledging that I have indeed read your post correctly.
you have not made a claim of evidence.
that which is claimed with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence
you have provided evidence that some people believe satanic cults do this (we all agree that these beliefs exist).
you have not provided evidence that satanic cults actually do this.
thus, there is nothing to debunk.
Because you didn't just claim the beliefs exist. You specifically stated:
but i guess beastiality is more a taboo thought in the US as even the satanists aren't sex perverts (in regards to the animals) , they just use the parts for rituals.
Emphasis mine. That statement wasn't about the belief of the actions. Your statement endorses those beliefs as fact, even if that wasn't your intention. There is no other way to read what you wrote.
I think of this as the "who sez?" test. If the assertion is not backed up by at least an identified claimant, competent to make the claim, into the trash it goes.
i'm specifically responding to a quote about belief of the actions.
but thankyou for clarifying that people are having trouble understanding my context. I guess i should have said"
"well, here in the USA, it is not just fears of government or ETI specimen gathering, we also have fears of satanists gathering organs too...but here the claims are not that they are sexually motivated like your horses example which is the main topic of your comment. I guess beastility is more taboo a thought in the U.S as even the satanists arent accused of sexual motivations, they just use the parts for rituals"
does that make it clearer for you? or is that still confusing.
as even the satanists aren't sex perverts (in regards to the animals) , they just use the parts for rituals.
