Kenneth Rommel — Operation Animal Mutilation (Report of the District Attorney, 1st Judicial District, State of New Mexico, June 1980)

Source: the official Operation Animal Mutilation report by Kenneth M. Rommel Jr. (recently-retired FBI agent), funded by a $44,170 LEAA grant, June 1980 — the most thorough official investigation of the cattle-mutilation phenomenon. Transcribed by rr0.org (rr0.org/time/1/9/8/0/06/Rommel_OperationAnimalMutilation/); captured 2026-05-30.
Verdict: the New Mexico mutilations were the result of natural predation and scavenging of animals that had died of natural causes (Ch. 6) — “predominantly the result of natural predation” is the report’s press-summary characterization. The skeptical/official anchor for cattle-mutilations.

Captured by chapter (rr0 transcription; site-nav chrome stripped; text verbatim where present). Completeness note: the substantive investigative core is captured in full — Ch. 1 (Introduction), Ch. 3 (~90 previous NM cases), Ch. 4 (the 27 recent 1979–80 cases, case-by-case necropsies), and Ch. 6 (Conclusions). But Ch. 2 (Popular History) and Ch. 5 (Other States) are captured as their chapter intros only — their year-by-year / state-by-state subsections live on rr0 sub-pages not pulled here — and Ch. 6’s “Recommendations” subsection is likewise not captured. The verdict and the investigative evidence for it are fully present; the missing material is secondary narrative.

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:

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 Thursday, 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 1979-04-20 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 Monday, May 28 , and run

through Tuesday, 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 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

Objectives and Procedures

n1 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.

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 the year before , 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:

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.

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

A lack of blood, indicating that the animal has been deliberately drained of its fluid.

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.

The deliberate selection of certain types of livestock. The New Mexico victims have been described as healthy,

native-grown livestock.

The absence of human or tire tracks at the scene.

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.

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.

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 . The material presented here is drawn primarily from newspaper and magazine articles,

most of which would have been 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

1976 Incidents

1977 Incidents

1978 Incidents

1979 Incidents

Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 3 — Investigation of Previous New Mexico Cases (1975–1979)

When I assumed the role of project director, one of my first goals was to find out as much as possible about the

mutilations that had previously been reported in New Mexico . From the New Mexico Press

Clipping Bureau and other sources, I obtained copies of the major newspaper and magazine articles that had been

written about these cases. After reading this and other material, it soon became apparent there was considerable

disagreement not only on the nature and causes of the mutilations, but also on the number of incidents that had

occurred in New Mexico.

According to information furnished to the district attorney’s office, by the year before Rio Arriba County ,

alone, had experienced more than 60 mutilations. A month earlier, however, the Albuquerque Journal claimed that 60 was

the total number of cases that had been reported in New Mexico s1 Thompson 1979b .

At Senator Schmitt’s conference the following April , one law officer claimed that during the past 3

years, 90 head of cattle and 6 horses had been mutilated in the state.

Which figures were correct? This I didn’t know, but I wanted to find out. For in order to assess the scope of the

mutilation problem in New Mexico, I decided it was necessary:

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

To evaluate each case to determine if predator/scavenger damage could definitely be eliminated as a probable

cause of the mutilation.

To accomplish these objectives, I contacted the New Mexico Livestock Board, the New Mexico State Police, and the

sheriff of every county, requesting information on the cases they find investigated. As a result of this extensive

research, I eventually obtained information on a total of 90 mutilations that had been reported in New Mexico up

through the month after . This figure includes not only cattle but also six horses and one buffalo calf. Only 26

incidents, however, had occurred in Rio Arriba County and an additional 3 in Santa Fe County, which is also in the

First Judicial District (see Table One).

Of these 90 suspected mutilations, I obtained reports of 58 incidents from the New Mexico Livestock Board. The New

Mexico State Police provided me with information of 15 cases. I also received reports of three incidents which had

been investigated, jointly by the two agencies. Information on 14 additional cases was retrieved primarily from

newspaper and magazine articles.

Reported mutilations in New Mexico ( 1975 to May 1979 )

Year

Rio Arriba County

Total Number

1975

the year after

January 1979 to May 1979

My next objective was to determine if the evidence cited in each report definitely excluded scavenger/predator damage

as a probable cause of the mutilation. Such an approach was adopted for the following three reasons:

First, it is a well-known fact that wild animals and birds do feed on the carcasses of dead livestock. Under the

right conditions, predators (animals who kill for food) and scavengers (animals who feed on carcasses already dead)

can devour certain areas of the body in a relatively short period of time. The animals which commonly feed on

livestock are coyotes, foxes, badgers, bobcats, golden eagles, ravens, vultures, and magpies, according to Donald S.

Balser, chief of Predator Management Research for the United States Department of Interior (Balser 1979).

Many of these species are found in New Mexico. Homer Pickens, former director of the New Mexico Game and Fish

Department, remembers investigating the deaths of livestock who had been killed by bears and lions. John Hubbard

(1979), also of the New Mexico Game and Fish Department, states that birds of prey are found in New Mexico year round.

Some species, such as the raven, crow, and magpie, live in New Mexico all year. Others, such as the turkey vulture and

bald eagle, are seasonal birds. Vultures, for example, arrive in the spring and leave in the early fall, while the

bald eagles arrive in the fall and leave in early spring. According to Hubbard, last year these eagles fed mostly on

the carrion of elk and cattle that had died during the winter.

Second, the parts of the carcass that are allegedly removed in a “classic mutilation” are the same ones customarily

consumed by predators and scavengers. Most birds of prey have the ability to core the anus and to remove the eyes and

tongue (Hubbard 1979; Dennis 1979). In addition, eagles and ravens also possess the strength and agility to punch

through a carcass and remove the inner organs. However, as noted ornithologist Dr. Kenneth Sager points out, the ease

with which this is done depends in part on the size of that carcass.

The larger the animal, the more difficult it is for the scavenger to gain access to the food supply below the tough

surface. [Thus they attack the] softer points of entry, namely the eyes, anal openings, and soft underbelly areas,

especially the udders of female bovines s2 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 s3 Dr. Vaughn

A. Seaton (1979), Head of the College of, Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University of Science and Technology,

Ames, Iowa.

Third, a number of experienced veterinarians advised me to conduct the investigation in this manner. As Dr. Quinn

(1979) points out in a recent letter:

A … logical assumption would be that the evidence is the work of wild animals and that it must first be proven

that it isn’t before a mutilation [human-induced] can be claimed.

Perhaps the following example will help clarify my own reasoning on the subject. Imagine yourself as a law officer

who has just been summoned by a local citizen to investigate a theft that allegedly occurred at his house. When you

arrive, the man explains he had prepared a steak for dinner and had just put it on the table when he had to leave the

room to answer the telephone. When he returned, the steak was missing. The only other occupant of the house was the

family dog, which was last seen sitting by the table licking its chops.

Suppose the complainant then told you he suspected the missing steak had something to do with UFOs, because while he

was talking on the telephone he observed a flash of light outside. As an experienced law officer how would you

evaluate the complainant’s rationale? Would you investigate this crime by first trying to prove that a UFO was

involved? Wouldn’t it be much more logical to suspect the dog first, before going further afield? For the steak,

substitute “mutilated cow”; for the dog, “all the meat-eating scavengers in the great outdoors.” Again, wouldn’t

it be more logical and sensible to suspect the scavengers first — entertaining other explanations only after careful

scrutiny of the evidence had eliminated this one?

In short, this is the approach I have adopted in investigating reported mutilations in New Mexico. What kind of proof

is needed to establish a verdict of non-scavenger causation? Since the parts removed in a classic mutilation are the

same ones. eaten by predators and scavengers, the major criterion for differentiating the two types of mutilations

would be the procedures used to make the incisions. In a classic mutilation, as Perkins (1979: 22) points out, “the

surgery is too precise to have been done by another animal.” The literature implies that even an untrained observer

can readily differentiate such incisions from the jagged, uneven cuts made by wild birds and animals.

Is this true? To answer this question, I consulted a number of veterinarians. Their answer was unanimous: Wild birds

and animals can make neat-looking incisions. The following statement made by Dr. Kintner (1979) is typical of the

replies I received:

Surprising as it may seem to the uninitiated, many of the scavengers make [as] clean [a] cut as might be done by a

surgeon with a sharp knife.

A even more graphic description of the skill possessed by such animals is offered by Dr. Michael Aleksiuk (1975) in

an article entitled “Manitoba’s Fantastic Snake Pits”. After watching a crow kill and partially eat a snake, Aleksiuk

makes the following observation:

I picked up the snake. The skin had been broken only in the area of the liver, and that organ had been neatly

excised. Nothing else had been touched. How the crow performed the surgery with such precision is a mystery.

Of course, some cuts made by predators and scavengers are noticeably jagged and rough when they are made. However, in

time even these incisions may give the appearance of knife cuts as Dr. Vaughn A. Seaton (1979) explains in the

following statement:

Stretching of the tissues caused by post mortem gas production and autolysis can make the edges of a bite wound or

the incision of teeth appear to be the result of sharp cuts, especially in soft tissues not covered by hair.

If a smooth, even appearance is not a sufficient basis for distinguishing between animal and knife cuts, how can such

incision be differentiated? Microscopic analysis of the tissues involved is the only sure method. Dr. Harry Anthony

(1979) of the College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University , explains that under

the microscope, incisions made by predators and scavengers have a “consistent lesion of tearing, tooth marks into the

hair line, and a lack of cut hair at the site of the separation.”

A similar observation was made by Dr. A. E. McChesney, coordinator of the Diagnostic Laboratory, College of

Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at Colorado State University. According to Dr. A. E. McChesney, to be

termed a knife cut, the following criteria must be met:

[The] cut must include cut hair that runs perpendicular to the knife line. It must also show cuts into deeper

tissue and may have a] saw-type effect from repeated thrusts. With the anus there must be knife signs deeper in the

perineum and the rectum must be clean cut with no shreds.

What about some of the other characteristics of the classic mutilation, such as the absence of blood at the scene.

Wouldn’t that constitute evidence that the animal had been mutilated by agents other than wild animals or birds? Not

necessarily, for as veterinarians have told me, when the heart stops beating, the blood, like any other liquid,

settles by gravity to the lower portions of the carcass and into the body cavities. It then coagulates and to the

untrained observer would give the appearance of having disappeared (Hibbs 1979). In most cases, any visible blood

would be readily consumed by predators and scavengers. As Dr. Kintner (1979) points out:

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

the site of the carcass.

In short, to prove human causation,(see footnote p. 6) in a suspected mutilation, it is necessary to show that the

missing parts of the animal were removed with a knife or other sharp instrument. To determine if such an instrument

was used, it must be demonstrated that the hair follicles in the skin have been cut perpendicular to the plain. Such a

demonstration would normally necessitate a microscopic analysis of the lesions in question.

If such an analysis has not been performed, then human causation cannot be proved. However, there is another

criterion, which, if met, would at least be suggestive of human causation — the discovery of mutilations on the

protected side of the animal. The parts removed by wild birds and animals are almost always those on the exposed side

of a recumbent animal, for predators and scavengers generally lack the strength and ability to move a carcass,

particularly one the size of a cow.

If, as some investigators claim, the animal was mutilated in one area and air-dropped to the place where it was

subsequently found, then one would expect to find a sizable number of cases in which the mutilations occurred on the

protected or down side of the animal. In fact, Neil Bockman, an amateur investigator recently asked the Dulce officer

in a taped interview why these animals never land on the mutilated side. The officer replied: “Yeah, I’ve followed

that, you know. It’s a crazy thing, you know. You start looking into it and you can go crazy over it.”

In summary, if neither of these two criteria are met, then predator/scavenger damage must be assumed. Such an

assumption is even more likely in those cases in which bird tracks, animal prints, feathers, fur, animal defecation,

or bird droppings are found near the carcass.

General Evaluation

The police officer who recently claimed that 96 animals had been mutilated in New Mexico was remarkably accurate in

terms of the number of incidents that had been reported when this project began. However, after carefully examining

the evidence cited in available reports, I have discovered that none of these cases could be confirmed as classic

mutilations.

In fact, of the incidents investigated between 1975 and May 1979, I have found only two cases in which the animal

in question was actually mutilated with a knife. Both incidents were investigated by the New Mexico Livestock Board.

The first one, however, is not included in my list of 90 cases, since no official report was filed. Instead,

information about this case was obtained in an interview with Pat Archuleta, supervisor of the livestock board, who

told me that about four years ago he was summoned to a reported mutilation near Galisteo.

On-the-scene investigation revealed that a burro had been mutilated by a sharp instrument. Recognizing the animal

as one he had seen several days before at a ranch south of Santa Fe, he questioned the owner about the incident. The

owner told Archuleta that the animal had died and that he had taken the, body and dumped it off the highway near

Galisteo. When asked about the knife cuts, the rancher admitted that he had made them himself so that it would be

easier for scavengers to “finish off” the animal.

The second case involved a report of a mutilated cow in the Anton Chico area. Further investigation by the

livestock inspector revealed that the cow had been killed by lightning and had subsequently been cut with a knife by

a person who had been feuding with the owner.

These two mutilations, though obviously done with sharp instruments, are a far cry from the “classic mutilation”

described in the literature. The other cases fit this description even less. In fact, in three incidents, the

investigator determined that no mutilation had occurred. In the two cases which were documented, the animal was

found dead, but none of its organs were missing.

In addition to the cases cited above 66 other incidents can be resolved, at least, tentatively, on the basis of the

evidence provided in the reports (see Table 2). The 21 remaining cases, however, do not contain the details needed

to determine either the cause of death or the mutilation.

In most of the “resolvable” cases, the evidence suggests death by natural causes and/or damage by scavengers. In

fact, 14 alleged mutilations were immediately resolved by the investigating officers as scavenger-induced.

Twenty-three cases (an additional nineteen incidents) cited evidence of bird tracks, animal tracks, or animal hair

at the scene. In a “classic mutilation,” as you may recall, animals and birds are supposed to avoid the carcass.

Although less conclusive, the following characteristics are much more reminiscent of the less precise, piecemeal

activities of scavengers than the meticulous skill and organization attributed to the “phantom surgeons of the

plains;”

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

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

The subsequent removal of the tongue, ear, or other organ after the carcass has been initially examined. A

total of 20 cases (an additional 10) share at least one of these traits.

Cause of death was determined in 26 cases, 15 of which also bore evidence of scavenger activity. Contrary to the

lore surrounding the classic mutilation, there was nothing mysterious about these deaths — nothing to suggest a

high dose of radiation or exsanguination by highly trained surgeons. Most of these animals died from diseases such

as blackleg. In a letter dated Friday, April 22, 1977 , Dr. Donald F. Petersen points out that LASL has examined

approximately 15 suspected mutilations with the following results:

We have made the observation that in most instances, gas-forming bacilli have been culture from tissues, and both

the autopsy findings and the bacteriology are consistent with the conclusion that the animals died from

blackleg.

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

birth.

In 11 suspected mutilations, the animal had been reported dead for more than two days. In eight of these cases, the

reports contain no evidence as to cause of death or scavenger activity. Rather, the nature of the mutilation is

usually described, followed by the observation that the carcass was badly decomposed. Such a description, though not

constituting evidence of scavenger activity, does argue strongly against labeling the mutilation a “classic.”

In the first place, classic mutilations are generally supposed to decay very slowly. Secondly, the process of

decay, especially if advanced, will distort any cuts originally made in the animal. To use the expression “surgical

precision” when describing missing organs on a badly decomposed animal is a distinct contradiction in terms. Many

veterinarians question the validity of results obtained from necropsies performed 24 hours after an animal’s death.

One wonders how much more questionable the opinions of a layman would be, especially if the animal in question has

been dead for five days as in the case just cited.

In summary, of the 90 mutilations reported in New Mexico between February 1975 to May 1979 , 69 (77%) can be

explained, at least partly, on the basis of available evidence. Eighteen cases were resolved immediately by the

investigators. An additional 28 “mutilations” were associated with scavenger activity. In 19 cases, the evidence

cited was not detailed enough to infer scavenger damage. However, the information provided was sufficient to

definitely rule out the verdict, . classic mutilation,” for either the cause of death was known and attributed to

natural causes or routine injury, or the carcass was too decomposed for tests. In short, the term classic

mutilation” and all that it infers cannot be applied, with any justification, to the 69 cases just discussed. To do

so would require a wild imagination coupled with an ability to totally disregard the facts. In the remaining 21

cases, the evidence presented was not sufficient to determine the cause of death or to assess the nature of the

mutilation.

Evaluation of Specific Cases

Considering the seemingly bizarre factors surrounding some of the New Mexico cases as described in Chapter Two, you

may perhaps question some of the statements I have just made. It may even seem to you that I am deliberately

ignoring some rather spectacular pieces of evidence — such as the discovery of animals with broken bones and clamp

marks.

“Doesn’t this indicate these animals have been airlifted?” you may ask. “And, hasn’t it been proved that the

victims are deliberately chosen? And what about the discovery of drugs in the mutilated bull? Wouldn’t this

accumulated mass of evidence rule out the predator/scavenger theory?”

These are reasonable, logical questions — the kind of questions and doubts that give rise to much of the

controversy that surrounds the entire subject. But logical questions call for logical answers — answers which will

become very apparent in this section, as I examine in greater detail the evidence supporting the most publicized

theory in New Mexico, that a highly sophisticated organization is behind these “classic” mutilations. This theory

has been expounded through articles in the Albuquerque Journal, the Rio Grande Sun, and even in official reports —

proclaiming “experimentation” to be the probable reason for this bizarre activity.

Much of the evidence to support this theory stems from incidents investigated in the Dulce area, although other

cases reported elsewhere in the state, particularly the alleged mutilation of four race horses at Malaga and the

mutilated bull in Torrance County, are offered as further proof.

To evaluate these incidents, I have read not only the newspaper accounts summarized in Chapter Two, but also the

official reports on each case., Much to my surprise, I found the material contained in some of these reports to be

as sensational as the news stories covering the same events.

Since the major New Mexico incidents have already been summarized in Chapter Two, I will now examine in greater

detail the evidence used to support the foregoing theory. This includes the discovery of unusual tracks, broken

legs, clamp marks, radiation at the scene, UFO sightings, drugs in some animals, and the deliberate selection of the

healthiest and best livestock. The more vocal investigators and reporters also agree that some kind of testing is

involved — but what kind is open to controversy. This section will also examine other theories advocated to explain

mutilations. It will conclude with a discussion of perhaps the most controversial question of all — who is behind

these incidents.

The evidence cited in both official and unofficial reports, especially those from Dulce, suggests highly evolved

aircraft are involved in these mutilations. One clue cited as proof is the discovery of “tripod-like” marks at the

scene. The discovery of these marks was given considerable recognition by Ray Nelson in an article in UFO Report.

Basing his statements largely on these New Mexico incidents, Nelson (1978; 24) makes the following observation:

Investigators find no footprints or vehicle marks around the carcasses. However, strange circular tracks are

sometimes found in the vicinity of the mutilated animals, baffling imprints that are perfectly circular and evenly

depressed, and others that are shaped like suction cups. Sometimes, larger pod marks are seen, laid out in

triangular fashion as if a tripod-like object had landed near the animal.

These strange tripod marks were first reported in Dulce in a “classic mutilation” case investigated June 13, 1976.

A series of round tripod marks, each four inches in diameter, were found in the hard ground leading to the carcass.

According to the police report, when the owner returned to the scene the next day, he then found a fresh set of

tripod indentations over the tire tracks made by his car the previous day, again leading to the mutilated cow. The

report then makes the rather astonishing statement that “the tripod marks had returned and removed the left ear”

(Police Report 1976).

The year the year before produced a rash of reported mutilations in the Dulce area, several of which were also

characterized by the discovery of tripod marks at the scene. On April 24, an 11-month-old bull was reported

mutilated — the police report indicating “prints were found 100 feet north of the slain animal.” The officer

writing this report also indicates that the object making these tracks must have been extremely heavy, for the

ground was so dry and hard that the tire tracks from the police car were barely visible. He then theorizes as to

what caused these marks, stating, “These four inch round footprints led to the animal and back 100 feet where they

apparently returned to a hovering aircraft” (Police Report 1978a).

On May 11, another cow was found mutilated in the Dulce area, and again the report contains an account of tripod

marks, but this time much further away from the carcass:

600 yards away from the cow were the 4 inch circular indentations similar to the ones found [April 24]” (Police

Report 1978b).

As far as I can determine, the only case of reported tripod marks outside the Dulce area occurred on April 11 when

a five-year-old mutilated cow was discovered in Torrance County. The New Mexican (1979) states that “tracks of a

tripod were found about 25 feet away from where the carcass of a 5-year-old cow was killed.” Both the tracks and the

animal were located inside a corral. Another account of the incident appeared in the Torrance County Citizen (1979).

Although this case was investigated by the county sheriff, it is interesting to note that he was assisted by the

same law officer who had investigated the Dulce “tripod mark” cases. Desiring more details, I contacted both the

police and sheriff’s offices. However, as of February 1980, no official reports of this incident could be

located.

Now then, what about these strange tripod marks — do they constitute proof, as some suggest, that highly evolved

aircraft are involved in these mutilations? To assess the significance of these tracks, it is first necessary to

evaluate the descriptions and evidence in the official reports that have been filed. It is perhaps worthy of note

that all four “tripod mark” cases were investigated by the same law enforcement officer. It may also be well to

consider that a fairly sizable amount of time elapsed between the date the incident was investigated and the

subsequent filing of each official report.

The first case, though investigated Sunday, June 13, 1976 , was not officially reported until

Wednesday, December 15 . The second one was investigated Monday, April 24, 1978 , but not filed until July 31. The

third incident was investigated 11 Tuesday , but not reported until July 11. Regarding the fourth case,

I was unable to locate an official report.

As an FBI agent, I was required to dictate the result of an interview that could be

used as testimony, within five days of that interview. The rationale for this requirement — which was established

to comply with the Jenks Decision of the Supreme Court — was to insure sufficient recall. In regard to these Dulce

incidents, one wonders how reliable the officer’s memory would be several months after the investigation.

In view of the tremendous significance which the officer has attached to these marks, his delay in filing the

reports is curious. It would seem that if he had really thought the marks had been made by a strange flying

aircraft, he would have reported the discovery immediately as one of the discoveries of the century. One would also

think he would have summoned a team of experts to further investigate and hopefully corroborate this discovery or at

the least take impressions of these tracks. I have no information that this occurred.

In all fairness, the officer did have two tests conducted, but neither were conclusive. In the 1976 incidents, a

yellow oily substance was found in two places under some small marks. A soil sample containing this substance was

submitted to, the State Police Laboratory for analysis. The resulting report indicated the lab’s inability to detect

the substance as it had disappeared. Wondering if this indicated that they had lost the sample, I then contacted the

lab for further details. A spokesman there explained that an analysis of the sample revealed nothing other than the

grass. If anything else had been there., it had since vanished.

In addition, the officer also summoned a “retired scientist” to the scene to make radiation tests. His findings

revealed that the radiation level around the tripod marks was twice that of a normal reading. While this finding

seems suggestive, it is scientifically invalid since there is no indication how the tests were conducted and whether

or not a background reading was taken — which would have been necessary to determine whether the tripod readings

were higher than normal.

I did not see these tracks, but what I have observed on a number of occasions is that due to a combination of

certain weather and soil conditions prevalent here in the southwest, the preserved hoof marks from a cow and horses

can quickly erode to a circular-like depression of approximately the size mentioned.

Other evidence cited to support the belief that some type of aircraft is involved in livestock mutilations is the

alleged discovery of animals with clamp marks and broken bones. Again, most of these incidents were reported in the

Dulce area. The first case was investigated April 24, 1978, and involved the mutilated bull just discussed. The

police report states that “the bull sustained visible bruises around the brisket area, seeming to indicate that a

strap was used to lift and lower the animal to and from the aircraft.” The report then adds that “investigation

showed that this 11-month-old bull was dropped by some type of aircraft” (Police Report 1978a). However, no evidence

was cited to support that statement.

Subsequent cases were even more spectacular. For example, on May 11, 1978, the police report (1978b) covering

another mutilated cow indicates that the “left front and left rear leg(s) were pulled out of their sockets

apparently from the weight of the cow which indicates it was lifted and dropped to the ground.” The report goes on

to make the astonishing statement that “this is the first in a series of mutilations in which the cowls legs are

broken. Previously the animals had been lifted from the brisket with a strap.” When I first read this statement, I

wondered on what basis the officer was able to predict that other mutilated animals would later be discovered with

broken legs. Then I realized that this incident was not officially reported until two months later. By this time

other cases had indeed occurred.

A similar case, this time involving two cows, was investigated May 28 by the same officer. The report states that

the “left front leg and left rear leg [were] broken, which indicates that [the] animals were lifted by their

extremities.” This case is of added interest since it was publicized by Ray Nelson in UFO Report. According to his

article, “[The investigator] remembers that several branches had been broken off in the tree tops above the carcass,

as if the animal had been brought down through the trees and dropped to the ground. Flies buzzing around the broken

tree branches suggested that blood from the carcass had been splattered on the treetops” (Nelson 1978: 26-27).

This brings to mind a statement later made by the same officer at Senator Schmitt’s conference April 20, 1979. At

the afternoon session, this officer claimed that he had seen one mutilation case in which a 600-pound cow was found

in the branches of a tree — indicating to him it must have been dropped there by some type of aircraft. A similar

version was later attributed to the same officer in an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune (Coates 1980). Last

February I questioned the officer about this incident. He admitted to me that the animal was not actually in the

tree but was found at its base.

This change of location is of major significance in -that it not only totally undermines the theory the animal was

dropped from the air, but also immediately suggests the cow was probably killed by lightning, which is one of the

most common causes of livestock deaths. In addition, this admission seriously undermines the credibility of all the

officer’s previous statements.

On June 14, 1978, the same officer investigated a reported mutilation of a cow whose left front leg and left rear

leg were broken. According to the official report, there were a]-so marks visible on the lower rear left leg

indicating that some type of clamp or vise had been fastened there. The report then concludes with the rather

astonishing statement — considering the scant evidence on which it is based — that “the animal was taken elsewhere

and mutilated and then returned and dropped. This animal had five-inch horns. One horn was broken off into the

ground” (Police Report 1978d).

In addition to these Dulce cases, in 1979 area newspapers published accounts of two suspected mutilations, both of

which involved a cow whose neck was allegedly fractured. The first incident occurred in Taos on January 12; the

other in Torrance County on March 26. In the second case, which the officer from Dulce also helped investigate, the

claim was made that the cow had been air-dropped.

The question arises as to how the officer determined the bones were broken, since there is no indication that these

animals were examined by trained veterinarians. Although the official reports fail to state how such a determination

was made, this information is provided in an article entitled, “The Phantom Cattle Surgeons of the Plains”. David

Perkins (1979), the author, describes an on-the-scene investigation which he and several others, including this same

officer, conducted in Dulce. Perkins points out that the officer maneuvered the left front and hind legs to show

that they were broken and then kicked the backbone to show that it was also broken in several places. I suggest that

this is hardly a scientific way to verify broken bones.

In a recent interview with one of the officer’s associates, I was told by that associate that this officer,

although a hardworking, dedicated policeman, has become too emotionally involved in cattle mutilations and “sees

things that are not there.” When I asked him for an example, he mentioned an incident in Taos which both he and the

officer had investigated together. The officer, he said, claimed the animal had broken bones when it did not.

But what about the clamp marks? The police officer, claims such marks are a conclusive piece of evidence to support

his theory. He is quoted by David Perkins (1979: 20) as saying: “Wait till you see those clamp marks!” “This is

definite proof that they are being done from the air!”

I maintain that without further evidence it is totally unwarranted to attribute bruise marks and similar damage to

mysterious airlifting activity. Rather, it is natural for a decomposing body to develop what appear to be

incriminating bruise marks, most of which could readily be explained by a trained individual.

I recall a seminar I recently attended at the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute, which was held at the

University of Texas in Dallas. One of the speakers was a forensic pathologist for the state of Texas, who showed

slides of a person who had died of natural causes. The body was perfectly preserved when it was found. The body was

subsequently photographed at timed intervals. The pathologist noted that several hours after body changes began to

occur, a very noticeable ring appeared around the neck of the corpus. The pathologist pointed out that had an

untrained investigator — or a doctor not trained in forensic pathology — arrived on the scene, he might easily

have made a diagnosis of ”death by strangulation,” and could even have labeled it a homicide.

The presentation continued with a slide taken several hours later, showing a tremendous discoloration over the

entire body. The pathologist observed that if the same investigators had arrived on the scene, they might this time

attribute the death to homicide by beating, since the discoloration strong resembled bruise marks.

Strange tracks, alleged clamp marks, and broken bones are not the only evidence cited by those who claim the use of

aircraft in carrying out these mutilations. Many such incidents, especially those occurring in the Dulce area, are

accompanied by reported sightings of UFOs and strange orange lights. The newspaper accounts of these events, as

summarized in Chapter Two, are certainly full of such incidents. But what about the official reports? Upon examining

these records, I found that a number of them do mention UFO sightings, as though this would explain the tripod

tracks, clamp marks and broken bones.

In the mutilated bull incident (April 24, 1978), the official report (1978a) describes a UFO sighting the night the

animal was supposedly killed and mutilated. According to the report, a friend of the owner’s brother claimed he

heard a low flying aircraft at approximately 3 a.m., in the vicinity of where the mutilated bull was found. While

the report doesn’t speculate as to the nature of this aircraft, an article in the Albuquerque Journal (Thompson

1978a) describes it as “a large orange light in the darkness, along a ridge directly south of the meadow” where the

bull was found.

One of the most dramatic UFO sightings in recent years occurred on July 3, 1978, in the Taos area. Following this

sighting flakes of an unknown substance were removed from the roof of a truck, over which the UFO reportedly

hovered. A few days later, as noted previously, a secret experiment using an ultraviolet light was conducted in

Dulce to test a theory that target cows were being selectively marked for mutilation ahead of time.

During the experiment itself, a UFO was sighted, according to Howard and Lovola Burgess (1979: 30).

“Near midnight, the Apache Indian tribal police chief came up and asked, ‘Did you see the orange light moving

around in the sky a while ago? It was the kind that always shows up when there’s a mutilation. Maybe they’re

watching you tonight.‘”

Interestingly, at Senator Schmitt’s conference held later that April, the chief testified emphatically that he had

never seen these lights and personally didn’t believe in UFOs (Schmitt 1979: 85-86).

Numerous media articles have claimed that the unidentified flakes from Taos have been compared with the “marking”

material removed from the cows in the Dulce experiment, and that the properties contained in both are identical.

The Albuquerque Journal reported that the powder was found to be largely potassium and magnesium, but

investigators have been unable to say how it got on the animals or exactly where it came from (Thompson 1978b).

The Rio Grande Sun claimed that three elements, two rare earth elements, one a transitional metal, have been

discovered among those that comprise the material recently reported deposited upon a pickup truck by an

unidentified flying object (Olson 1979a).

Is there a possibility these two substances could have been deposited by some strange and mysterious aircraft? To

answer this question, I contacted the “retired scientist” who had the two substances analyzed. on January 15, 1980,

I asked him about the alleged UFO flakes that had been recovered from the roof of the pickup truck in Taos. The

individual said that lie still had some of the sample flakes and would be glad to send them to me. I then requested

that he send me only a portion of these flakes, so that if and when I could identify them, he could then use the

ones still in his possession to verify this identification.

I received the flakes from him on Tuesday, January 22, 1980 , and subsequently sent them to the FBI laboratory in

Washington, D.C., requesting that the substance be identified, if possible. The specimen was identified as a “white

enamel paint typical of an acrylic latex/emulsion-type exterior house paint”!

In a letter dated Wednesday, April 9 , I informed him of the results of the FBI examination, and suggested that

he might wish to confirm these findings with any scientific laboratory of his choice. On Thursday, June 12 he

advised me that he has not done so.

It is interesting to note that regardless of whether a UFO was seen in Taos — and even if the substance had

remained a mystery — no cattle mutilation was reported in Taos or Dulce during this period. It is also interesting

how easy it is for some to take a set of facts, involving two different areas of the state, in which a reportedly

similar substance is found, and to use these facts to establish a link between UFO and cattle mutilations, even

though no mutilations are reported. In another UFO incident described in Chapter Two, in which an unidentified

aircraft was reportedly surprised while spotlighting a herd of cattle near Lumberton, a link is also made between

UFOs and mutilations, although none were reported at that time.

In summary, the most spectacular UFO sightings in New Mexico, judging from media coverage, have occurred at times

when no mutilations were reported. Although both the media and official reports have described the less spectacular

sightings of “orange lights” around the time a mutilation supposedly occurred, it is an assumption — nothing more

— that these lights are proof of some kind of flying craft. In fact, one recent rash of UFO sightings in the Dulce

area coincided with a spectacular display of northern lights witnessed elsewhere in the state.

Ever since people have looked up to the sky, they have seen lights, reflections, and moving bodies that glow. The

only thing that has differed throughout the ages, is the interpretation of these sightings. It is logical that in

our highly technological age, such sightings would be described as aircraft, just as it is equally logical that in

earlier more primitive societies, similar phenomena were described as gods.

An interesting study of this phenomenon was published by Tommy Roy Blann. In an article entitled “UFOs over New

Mexico”, Blann (1976) discusses the role of the news media in contributing to the UFO phenomenon. As Blann (.1976:

points out:

It generally starts out with one report stimulating other reports in a specific geographical location; this in

turn is picked up by the news wires before any actual investigations by qualified investigators are made, and is

then distributed to other areas.

In his article, Blann discusses a recent wave of UFO sightings in Clovis, showing the role played by the media in

the development of this phenomenon. Strange lights and a large burned area were interpreted by area residents as a

UFO landing site.

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

The story got bigger and better. Right before our eyes, the relatively few reports of nocturnal light activity

had now grown into a full-scale investigation of ‘giant motherships’ and landings of ‘scoutcraft’ with friendly

occupants on board.

When Blann arrived to investigate the Clovis sightings, two police officers reported seeing several objects west of

town, which they said were similar to those which had been previously reported. Blann (1976: 51) then investigated

these sightings which “turned out to be nothing more than the atmospheric aberration of the light from the stars and

planets.” He also discovered that the “UFO landing site” was simply the result of a grass fire, apparently triggered

by fireworks, as a fireworks casing was found in the middle of the burned area.

And so it is that a down-to-earth investigation seeking basic facts invariably uncovers a simple, practical answer

to explain what initially appears to be a “strange happening” — the kind so quickly latched onto by those trying to

justify a link between UFO activity and mutilations.

As another dramatic example of this type of reasoning consider the case of the “glowing tombstone” in a small

family cemetery in Dulce — a family that had lost several cattle to alleged mutilations. This incident was written

up in a recent article entitled “Close Encounter at the Old Corral” (Burgess and Burgess 1979). The article, which

describes the cowhide experiment conducted at Dulce (July 1978), mentions a side incident which the authors

providentially suggest is perhaps unrelated . However, they state that nonetheless it should not be

ignored . This tombstone, according to them, is seen to glow momentarily several times late at night .

The article then suggests some possible explanations: Is it some “airborne beam exciting natural florescence found

in many stones or” — and here is the clincher — “has the stone been splashed for use as a navigational marker?”

one wonders how effective an object as low as a tombstone would be in guiding aircraft, but then again, when one

transcends the realm of facts, anything is possible.

However, we can quickly dismiss all further speculation regarding this incident since a recent investigation by

several law enforcement officers revealed that the glow was simply a reflection from a nearby light. Two officials

later told me, in separate accounts, that when they walked between the stone and the light source, the third officer

reported the marker no longer glowed.

As for the sightings of strange helicopters, these reports, like those of other UFOs, are almost always vague and

unsubstantiated by facts. Moreover, it should be noted that once people are alerted to a possible connection between

helicopters and livestock mutilations, then such sightings — which previously would have caused no concern — begin

to assume a new, if not sinister significance.

Evidence such as that just cited has been used by both official and amateur investigators as tentative proof of the

ingenuity and sophistication of those responsible for the mutilation of livestock. In fact, even some of the

official police reports make such claims.

In a report dated June 13, 1976, the investigating officer discusses the theories that have been advanced to

explain mutilations. After mentioning Satan worshippers and predators, he makes the following statement: “Both have

been ruled out due to [the] expertise and preciseness and the cost involved to conduct such a sophisticated and

secretive operation” (Police Report 1976).

Again, in a report dated April 24, 1978, he makes the following comment: “One has to admit that whoever is

responsible for the mutilations is very well organized with boundless technology and financing and secrecy” (Police

Report 1978a).

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

It is the theory of this writer that whoever is responsible for these mutilations is operating out of a

well-equipped undercover truck van which is heavily guarded. This van supposedly carries the aircraft which

operates within a 40-mile radius s4 Police Report 1978d .

Since these are official reports, one would expect some incriminating evidence -to be cited to support these

statements. None is offered, other than making the usual generalizations about tripod marks, clamp marks, and broken

bones.

Other evidence used to emphasize the alleged sophistication of this organization centers around the techniques used

to kill and mutilate the animals — techniques described in the media by such terms as “exsanguination” and “laser

beam precision” (Olson 1979a; Rio Grande Sun 1979).

The news media, however, is not the only source of statements proclaiming the surgical preciseness of the

mutilations. A number of police reports from Dulce also make such assertions. The earliest of these reports is more

conservative in this respect, stating that the “left ear, tongue, udder, and rectum had been removed with what

appears to be a sharp instrument” (Police Report 1976). The second Dulce incident ( Monday, April 24, 1978 ) goes a

step further: The rectum and sex organs had been removed with a sharp and precision instrument (Police Report

1978a).

The term “precisely removed” is also used to describe the manner in which the organs of three other alleged

mutilation victims were excised — two cows on May 28, 1978, and another cow on June 14, 1978 (Police Report 1978c,

1978d). In both incidents, as mentioned previously, it is stated that the animals were too decomposed to perform any

tests -” which in itself tends to lessen the accuracy of reported observations. Also, nowhere in these reports did

the officer state how he determined that the incisions were made with a sharp instrument.

Other evidence cited by those who believe that mutilations are engineered by skilled individuals is the presence of

drugs in the carcasses of some mutilated livestock. The detection of two drugs in a mutilated bull in Torrance

County, for example, received considerable coverage in local newspapers. As mentioned in Chapter Two, the two drugs

were identified as chlorpromazine, a tranquilizer, and citric acid, an anticoagulant among other things. One officer

interviewed by the press theorized that the chlorpromazine was probably used to tranquilize the animal; while the

citric acid was administered to keep its blood from clotting so that it could be removed more easily.

The only official report I was able to obtain of this incident was prepared by Inspector A. J. Gibbs of the New

Mexico Livestock Board. According to his report, the animal in question was not a bull but a black steer, which

weighed 220 pounds. It was found dead and “mutilated” on January 29, 1979 (,New Mexico Livestock Board 1979).

Although the media had classified this incident as a legitimate or “classic” mutilation, Gibbs’ report states that

there were cuts and scratches over most of the animal’s body, including its neck and between the hind legs. The

stomach had been ripped open, and there were jagged edges on the head where the ear had been removed. Gibbs later

informed me that this animal had been culled from the rest of the herd prior to sale because it was sickly.

The report also states that three sets of dog tracks were found leading from the carcass back to Duran. In

addition, small patches of black hair were noted near the animal, and the cuts and scratches were said to resemble

teeth marks. It is difficult to understand how anyone who has read Gibbs’ report could possibly classify this case

of obvious predator-scavenger damage as a “classic mutilation.”

In an interview with Gibbs, the inspector told me he recalls that the owner, a large sheep and cattle rancher, had

been having go much trouble with dogs that he had personally warned their owners that he would kill any dogs found

on his property. Gibbs also mentioned that some of the rancher’s animals had had their ears chewed off while still

alive. An article in the New Mexican (1979) adds further spice to this “bull” story with the following comment:

“Skid marks [were found] near the bull’s carcass, indicating it might have been dropped from the air.” The livestock

inspector, however, told me that he believed ringworm had caused some of the damage to the hide. He said he recalls

discussing the ringworm situation with the owner.

Since there was no mention of drugs in the foregoing report, I decided to investigate the case further, which by

this time had received national publicity. In an article appearing in the Chicago Tribune January 27, 1980, the

reporter refers to this incident with the following statement:

The investigating officer said that tests of blood samples from one of his cases showed large amounts of a

powerful tranquilizer and a drug that prevents blood from clotting s5 Coates 1980 .

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

original blood tests. He told me that he had found only a trace of chlorpromazine in the blood. When asked to define

a trace, Spall said that the amount found was not significant enough to have affected the animal. He also said that

the drug may have been present in the blood for quite some time. Spall further stated that he had found a high level

of napthalene in the blood, which indicated the animal had been on a hormone feed. Dr. Spall noted that although he

had originally thought the amount of citric acid in the steer exceeded normal levels, he has since determined,

through additional tests, that the amount of citric acid was normal. This drug, he pointed out, occurs naturally in

all animals.

Arlene Gallagher of Smith, Kline, and French Drug Manufacturers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, informed me on April

9, 1980, that chlorpromazine is produced by their drug house under the name of Thorazine. However, she stated that

this drug can now be made by anyone, inasmuch as their 17-year patent ran out quite some time ago. Gallagher further

indicated that the drug had been used in the past to tranquilize animals; also, that it metabolizes very slowly and

thus can remain in the body for quite some time. When I asked her how long, she said it could be weeks or longer,

depending on the size of the animal and how quickly it metabolized the drug.

On April 18, 1980, Dr. Dan Upson, professor of pharmacology at Kansas State University, informed me that

chlorpromazine is used as a tranquilizer in large animals, particularly when weaning. Although normally injected

into the animal, it could be added to alfalfa or administered as an oral tablet. Dr. Upson further stated that when

some animals are ill, they get “goofy” or act strangely. In such cases, a tranquilizer is sometimes administered to

aid in handling the animal. He also mentioned that chlorpromazine is very easy to obtain and is accessible to

ranchers.

On April 1, 1980, I contacted the owner of the steer and asked him if he had any idea how these drugs could have

gotten into his animal. He replied that this could possibly have happened through its feed. He did not elaborate on

this statement, but did state that the bull had not been wormed, nor had it been treated by a veterinarian.

Inspector Gibbs, however, in an interview the following day, said that to the best of his recollection, the animal

had been on medicated feed. I then asked Inspector Gibbs why the owner of the animal would not have mentioned this.

Gibbs replied that the owner was a personal friend of his and that at the time this incident occurred, the owner had

become very upset with the way the investigating officers had sensationalized the incident through the media. He

told Inspector Gibbs that he was sorry he had ever reported it.

An article in the Albuquerque Journal states that this incident is the first time New Mexico authorities have found

a drug in a mutilated animal (Thompson 1979b). However, according to a police report (1976) dated June 13, 1976, the

investigating officer claims that in one of the mutilated cows found in New Mexico [he does not say which incident]

a high dosage of atropine insecticide was discovered in the blood system. This substance, according to the report,

is used as a tranquilizer.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1976) defines atropine as an extremely poisonous alkaloid obtained from

belladonna and related plants. Belladonna is also known as deadly nightshade, which is described in the Merck

Veterinary Manual as adversely affecting all animals who ingest it (Siegmund 1973: 982). The manual goes on to say

that it may cause weakness, trembling, dyspnea, nausea, constipation, diarrhea, or even death. This plant grows

along fences, in waste areas, and in grain and hay fields.

Once again, the facts rule out the more exotic interpretation — such as the sinister use of drugs by a highly

skilled organization in the execution of these mutilations. To the contrary, all evidence to date confirms that the

drugs found in animals are a result of either (1) medication administered by a veterinarian and/or a rancher, (2)

substances acquired through the animals’ feed, (3) substances found in plants growing in the field, (4) dangerous

chemicals used in the ranching operation.

If these mutilations are being perpetrated by some highly skilled group, as some investigators claim, the next

question is “Why?” One answer frequently disclosed in the press is that these individuals are conducting some type

of experiment.

One piece of evidence cited to support this view is the seemingly deliberate selection of certain livestock as the

victims — often described as the biggest and healthiest in the herd. In numerous articles about cattle mutilations,

one finds statements such as the following:

For some reason, the animals killed and mutilated tend to be the best livestock in a rancher’s herd.” or, “The

animal when last observed was in perfect health.

It should be noted, however, that certain diseases also tend to claim lives of the best and healthiest animals. As

the Merck Veterinary Manual points out in a section dealing with clostridial infections:

Commonly, the animals that contract blackleg are of the best breeds in excellent health, gaining weight and

usually the best animals in their group s6 Siegmund 1973: 334 .

One incident cited as an example of the deliberate selection of prime animals is the reported mutilation on January

22, 1979, of four prize race horses south of Malaga (cited by Olson 1979a). Each was said to have been valued at

$10,000. Information obtained from the New Mexico Livestock Board revealed, first of all, that although four horses

were found dead, only three of them were “mutilated.” In these three horses, the upper eyelid as well as the upper

tips of the ears had been excised. In one animal, the genital area had been removed.

It is important to note that the investigating officer concluded there was nothing mysterious about this damage,

which he attributed to coyotes. The files of the New Mexico Livestock Board (1979) contains a memorandum prepared by

Dr. R. L. Pyles, state veterinarian, dated January 25, 1979. In this memorandum Dr. Pyles describes the damage

inflicted on the carcasses and states that in the opinion of Dr. M. D. Reynolds, coyotes were responsible.

A necropsy of two of the animals was conducted by Dr. M. D. Reynolds. His memorandum of January 27, 1979, sets

forth his findings as follows:

It is my opinion, after examination of the area, gross examination of the cadavers, pathologist’s report,

interviewing of the owner of the horses and the owner of the ranch, that the horses died as a result of acute

toxic hepatitis, possibly caused by ingestion of plants high in selenium, and/or exposure to feed containing

ammonia products in level detrimental to the health of the horses.

Coupled with the belief that only the best and healthiest livestock are chosen, is the theory that these animals

are deliberately marked ahead of time, so they can be readily selected when their time is up. In an official police

report (1978a) dated April 24, 1978, the investigating officer states: “It is the writer’s opinion that these

animals have been marked for some time before they are mutilated.”

To test this theory, the officer, together with a “retired scientist,” conducted the cowhide experiment previously

described. According to an official report (1978d) the test involved 72 cattle belonging to Manuel Gomez. These

animals were checked at night under an ultraviolet light. A florescent substance was subsequently discovered on the

forepart of the body of two four-year-old Herefords, and three two-month-old heifers. The report then makes the

following statements: “The area where the mutilations occur is carefully analyzed weeks in advance. These animals

have been marked years in advance.” The latter is an interesting observation and an impossible task in view of the

fact that three of the so-called marked animals were only two months old.

As noted previously, samples from the affected hide were sent to a laboratory for analysis, together with control

samples. The results of the test were announced that December. While the lab did not attempt to identify the

substance, the report indicated that the “florescent material sample contained a much higher level of potassium than

the control sample.”

To evaluate these tests, I contacted the same chemist who had discovered the traces of chloropromazine in the steer

and sent him a copy of the lab report. Although he was unable to make a conclusive statement as to what these

results indicated, he did make the following observation:

“In humans, element variations are well known as indicators of diet, with the average values varying by as much

as a factor of 10 for large numbers of people tested.”

Another scientist whom I contacted stated, — after viewing the tables listing the chemical composition and the

affected” sample, — that there was nothing unusual about these samples, for all the trace amounts were as expected.

He also said that an analysis of the affected sample, by any established forensic toxicological laboratory would

probably show the values to be within normal limits.

In summary, the test was not very revealing. Not only was the substance on the hides not identified by the

laboratory, but also none of the supposedly marked animals were ever mutilated, as far as I could determine.

If livestock mutilations represent some type of experimentation, as many believe, the next question is “what is

being tested.” A number of answers have been suggested. Even some of the official reports offer solutions.

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

“Investigation has revealed that on all cattle mutilations which have occurred in New Mexico and surrounding

states, the object of the mutilations has been the lymph node system.”

The officer goes on to state that he has narrowed the explanation down to theories involving “the experimental use

of Vitamin B 12 and the testing of the lymph node system.” He also claims in the report that he is currently

studying the procedures involved in germ warfare testing.

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

“In these animals the same parts of the lymphatic and digestive tract are removed from each animal in a very

precise and bloodless operation. The operation is generally performed in the air and the dead animal dropped.”

What evidence is used to support this theory? According to some investigators, the fact that the lips, tongue, and

rectal area are often missing in mutilated animals indicates that mutilations may be related to “a scientific study

of the lymphatic system and production of bacteria” (Valerio 1979: 30-31). However, as I have noted previously,

these are the same parts that are commonly eaten by predators and scavengers.

Another piece of evidence frequently cited to support this and other theories of biological experimentation is the

alleged association between mutilated animals and high levels of radiation. This association has been prompted

largely on the basis of the following three observations:

(1) The alleged discovery of high levels of radiation at the scene of a mutilation. According to one official

report, a “retired scientist” conducted radiation tests at the scene of a livestock mutilation in Dulce and claimed

that the radiation levels around the tripod marks and in the immediate tracks was twice as high as normal (Police

Report 1976). I have already commented on the validity of this test. What makes this case interesting, however, is

the remark made by the officer who investigated the incident. In the report he states: “it is the opinion of this

writer that radiation findings are deliberately being left at the scene to confuse investigators.” one can only

speculate as to his reason for making such a statement, as he fails to provide any justification for it in his

report.

Also cited as evidence of radiation at the scene is the observation made in both official reports and newspapers

that some people who have visited mutilation sites have subsequently complained of nausea and headaches (Police

Report 1978a). I do not doubt this in the least, but without further evidence, it is totally unwarranted to

attribute this to “radiation poisoning.” In fact, unless you are used to working with dead animals, it would be more

unusual if you didn’t feel nauseated in the presence of a rotting carcass.

(2) The discovery of certain abnormalities in the carcasses of mutilated animals. In a series of police reports

from Dulce, the investigating officer states that the animal’s blood is pink — a fact that he claims indicates

possible exposure to high doses of radiation.

“A possible explanation for the pinkish blood is a control-type of radiation used to kill the animal, according

to radiation experts” (Police Report 1978a).

Similar observations are made in subsequent reports (Police Report 1978b, 1978c, 1978d). Again, these observations

are not supported by any concrete evidence. Without scientific analysis of blood samples, such observations are

meaningless.

The results of tests performed on the organs of mutilated animals, particularly the liver, are also used to support

the “biological experimentation” theory. Such tests are briefly described in an article in Taos Magazine (Valerio

1979: 31). Valerio states that the livers of mutilated animals disintegrate very rapidly — a fact which a

“scientist attributes to a high level of radiation.”

Probably the most publicized of these tests is the one performed on the liver of a mutilated bull found in Dulce on

April 24, 1978. The liver, described elsewhere as white and mushy (Olson 1978), was removed and sent to several

private laboratories for analysis. According to the police report (1978a), this liver was checked against a control

sample — “a healthy food market liver.” The report states that the bull’s liver was found to contain no copper

instead it had four times the amount of phosphorous, zinc, and petroleum as the control sample. The Rio Grande Sun

(Olson 1978d) later claimed that the chemical components of the bull’s liver were the same as those found in both

the Taos UFO and Dulce cowhide samples. This, according to the article suggests a possible link between mutilations

and UFOs.

The results of these tests were also discussed in a series about cattle mutilations which appeared on a program

aired August 23, 1979 on Channel 4, Albuquerque. In this program, the “retired scientist” made the following

statement:

“The interesting thing that we found, and once again we don’t know what it means, but on the control sample of

good liver, we found it had copper which is a normal thing found in living tissues; but in the mutilated animal,

there is absolutely no copper in the tissue, and the liver gives the impression that it may have had a very

(heavy) dose of microwave radiation.”

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

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

blood. From such reports, it appears that one function of the copper is to help bind iron in the system. Some

research also indicates that high levels of certain radiation do not remove copper, but do appear to release it.

It is no longer bound. This could perhaps mean that in a structure such as the liver, which is essentially made up

of blood vessels and capillaries, the released copper might be flushed out by the blood to settle in other

areas.”

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

“If the copper is released from the blood, perhaps at least some of the iron would also be released and settle

into cavities and pockets, which might explain the watery, slightly pink blood found remaining in the liver of

such animals. This condition reminded me of conditions I had seen years before while doing development work with

high frequency medical diathermy.”

To evaluate this theory, I contacted several experts, including Dr. G. S. Smith, professor of animal nutrition at

New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. When asked to comment on it, Dr. Smith replied, it “sounds preposterous

to me.” He goes on to make the following observation:

“In fact, most of the statements in [the scientist’s] letter of September 28, 1979, add up to one overriding

conclusion; [He] is (as he stated) not a biologist. He obviously doesn’t know a whole lot about the metabolism of

trace elements in animals. I don’t know what it is that he has expertise in; but I’m skeptical about his

speculations on mobilization of copper from cattle livers. The whole tone of his letter suggests to me “long on

theory and short on facts.”

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

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

market.

“My personal opinion of the results would be that the whole exercise was not done well enough nor completely

enough to make any valid comparison. True comparison can only come from other cattle in the same herd. They need

be of the same age, sex, and feeding history as the test cow.”

Spall also points out that “if a tissue sample is collected from a slaughter house or market, it must be carefully

dried before analysis or the analytical results will be nearly useless.

I also contacted another scientist knowledgeable in this field and showed him the three tables listing the element

levels found in the cow hair and cow liver samples. He stated that the liver is exactly what one would expect

considering postmortem changes. This individual also pointed out that the data furnished to him did not reveal a

lack of copper in the liver; to the contrary, the table indicated, if anything, an amount slightly higher than

average.

In regard to the mushy appearance of the liver from the mutilated bull, Dr. Clair Hibbs of the Animal Diagnostic

Service at New Mexico State University makes the following observation. According to him, certain clostridial

infections, particularly blackleg, can do considerable damage to an animal’s internal organs, particularly the

liver. It’s not unusual for the liver of such an animal to assume a “mushy” appearance.

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

Howard Sherrod, a veterinarian at Valverde Animal Clinic in Corrales, internal organs, particularly the liver,

usually decompose quite rapidly, especially at high elevations. He further points out that when an animal dies, the

internal organs usually maintain their high temperature — a fact that aids in the rapid deterioration of organs

such as the liver and the spleen.

(3) The alleged discovery of mutilated livestock in areas characterized by nuclear activity. At Senator Schmitt’s

1979 conference several speakers discussed the possible implications of such an association. In addition, several

newspaper articles have indicated that mutilated carcasses are often found near sources of environmental problems,

including areas where nuclear weapons and military operations are located.

The Rio Grande Sun, for example, has published several articles suggesting such a connection. In an article that

appeared February 1, 1979, Olson (1979a) cites the case of the four prize race horses, which according to her, were

found dead and mutilated near Carlsbad, “the proposed site of the nation’s first official nuclear waste dumping

ground.” This statement is interesting in view of the fact that officials had determined the horses had died of

acute hepatitis, their carcasses subsequently being damaged by coyotes. Even if this fact were not known, it seems a

bit premature to link mutilations with a facility that hasn’t even been established.

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

the site of an underground nuclear explosion designed to stimulate the production of natural gas. In a article

published May 3, 1979, Olson (1979c) states that the experiment was conducted as a part of Operation Plowshare, a

plan designed under the now defunct Atomic Energy Commission to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Olson

points out that the plan failed because the resulting gas was deemed too radioactive to sell to consumers.

In an interview with Olson on June 26, 1979, she referred me to Dr. Thomas Buhl of the New Mexico State Radiation

Protection Center, Environmental Improvement Division. Dr. Buhl, she claimed, was very knowledgeable about the

relationship between Operation Gas Buggy and cattle mutilations. Shortly afterwards, I contacted Dr. Buhl, who

confirmed Olson’s statement about his familiarity with Operation Gas Buggy. However, he stated that from both a

scientific and technical point of view, it was difficult for him to see how Operation Gas Buggy could even be

remotely involved with cattle mutilations. Buhl said Operation Gas Buggy was a “pretty clean event” in that the

radiation was extremely minute, well contained, and released only on a planned basis.

Buhl also stated that he could see no advantage to be gained by any scientific study involving the mutilation of

animals. According to him, the government’s involvement in this entire project had been on the “up-and-up;”

consequently, he could not give any credence to the government conspiracy theory.

When asked about Olson’s remarks, Dr. Buhl said he remembered speaking to her about six months ago, and to the best

of his knowledge, had related substantially the same information to her as he had to me.

I also contacted officials at El Paso Natural Gas and requested them to furnish me with a summary of Operation Gas

Buggy, which they did (see appendix). It should also be noted that of the 90 mutilations that have been reported in

New Mexico through May 1979, only 7 occurred in Dulce. In addition, it should also be noted that Dulce is not

located within the site of project Gas Buggy. Rather, this site is approximately 25 miles southeast of Dulce — an

hour’s ride over dirt roads.

In addition to these theories of biological experimentation, another explanation for livestock mutilation is that

cattle are being mutilated to determine whether there is oil or uranium deposits beneath the ground. The rationale

behind this theory is that these deposits may leave certain traces in the grass eaten by the cow, which will

subsequently turn up in the animal. This theory was discussed by an individual, presumably a scientist, on a

television program narrated by Loren Nancarrow, which appeared August 23, 1979, on Channel 4. During the program,

the alleged scientist made the following observations;

“If uranium is in the soil because of some deposit lower down, plants could take the uranium up, accumulate it

in the tissues and thereby cattle feeding on the plant could accumulate uranium again in their bodies.

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

looked at the plants themselves. I am not aware of research which has looked at animals, although animals can

accumulate some elements to higher levels than plants can, so it’s theoretically possible.”

Nancarrow then made the following observation;

“Incidentally, we’ve learned that investigators are taking this theory quite seriously and that they have some

good leads in that direction.”

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

To evaluate this explanation, I contacted experts from several different fields. Although their replies differed

depending on their particular area of expertise, they all agreed that the theory was “ridiculous” to quote the term

used by one engineer.

For example, on October 3, 1979, I contacted Dr. Franklin M. Orr, senior engineer at the Petroleum Recovery

Research Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, and asked him to comment on the oil

exploration part of the theory. Dr. Orr pointed out that deposits of oil and gas in New Mexico are from 3,000 to

5,000 feet below the surface, and would not in any way be reflected in the plant life. Dr. Orr also stated that

there were many more sophisticated methods, including seismic and geologic techniques, which could be employed to

determine the location of deposits. Dr. Orr further noted that if the theory had any validity at all, the plants

contaminated by oil would have a bad taste and thus would not be eaten by livestock.

In a letter dated November 2, 1979, Mr. G. R. Griswold, president of Chapman, Wood and Griswold, Inc., Mining

Engineers and Geologists, Albuquerque, New Mexico, made the following comments:

“I have studied your letter of October 19 and have discussed the theory with several colleagues. The consenus is

that trace elements of minerals are present in all living organisms, but the pinpointing of the source of these

elements as to a specific area would be most difficult, if not impossible. A great deal of scientific data has

been developed in the field of trace mineral elements in plants, trees, animals and humans.

“It is my opinion that responsible corporations and individuals would not resort to mutilation of animals when

searching for hydrocarbons, uranium, or other mineral deposits, as it would be very inefficient compared to

geochemistry, geophysics and applied geology. An animal would graze over thousands of acres in its lifespan and

pinpointing the source area of trace minerals found in animal tissue would be next to impossible.”

Mr. Griswold, who has a M.S. degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Utah, has been a registered

professional engineer and land surveyor in New Mexico since 1938.

The following letter was received from Ms. Helen L. Cannon, who is employed by the Geological Survey, United States

Department of Interior in Denver, Colorado:

“I have received your inquiry regarding the possibility that the cattle mutilations in New Mexico might be

related to prospecting for oil. In my opinion, there would be no reason to analyze parts of cows in a search for

oil or metals when samples of soil or grass that the cows eat would be far easier and quicker to collect.

Furthermore, hydrocarbons have not been found to accumulate in grass nor would they accumulate in organs of the

cow. Metals may accumulate in vegetation rooted in mineralized ground and plant analysis has been used as a means

of prospecting.”

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

“I can’t find much about the theory that cattle mutilations’ are a means of geochemical sampling to lend it

any credibility.”

If livestock are being mutilated for experimental purposes, as many people believe, the next logical question is

“‘who are performing these tests?” Some of the more vocal investigators claim that the government is behind both

these incidents. The strongest supporting argument for this theory is that “anything this big and this sophisticated

has to be done by the government.” It is never explained why the government would not purchase its own animals or

why after lifting them and carrying them off to the place of surgery, the government would risk further detection by

returning them to the area of discovery.

Surprisingly, such a theory is advocated by several New Mexico officials, whose opinions have been broadcast

through the media. On August 20, 1979, as part of the same series on cattle mutilations mentioned previously, Loren

Nancarrow showed a news clip of an elected law enforcement official, who said he believed that the military might be

involved in cattle mutilations. Since all interviews on that program had been reduced to a 15-second news clip, I

thought that supporting data for this statement may have been furnished in the part of the clip not shown to the

public. With this in mind, I sent a letter to the law official requesting that he supply me with the data he used to

support his statement. This letter has gone unanswered.

The government conspiracy theory is also implied by certain statements made by the police officer from Dulce. In an

article appearing in the Boulder Monthly, this officer accuses Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of deliberately

withholding the results of tests conducted on samples he had submitted from mutilated livestock. He also voices his

suspicions of the conclusions reached by LASL that the samples he had submitted from a mutilated bull found April

24, 1978, may have been contaminated.

We were really careful. We wore gloves and kept it clean. They put that in the newspaper, too, that we

contaminated them and froze them. They made us look like fools. It just makes me madder than hell s7 Perkins 1979: 43 .

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

To investigate these claims, I contacted LASL. The officer’s suspicions, I soon learned, were totally unwarranted.

The laboratory had indeed submitted the results to the investigator. These results, however, were inconclusive. The

report states that clostridium, a type of virus responsible for such diseases as blackleg and red water, was found

in the heart chambers of the animal. However, this substance, I learned, can invade the tissues as the result of

postmortem contamination of the carcass. Such a statement need not imply contamination by persons submitting the

samples, for clostridium can invade a carcass 24 hours after an animal dies.

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

results. Nevertheless, they may provide the basis for an informal opinion. The scientist who performed the test on

the bull said he thought that the animal had probably died of blackleg. However, since the lab results were hot

completely positive, the results stated in the official report were “inconclusive.”

Elsewhere, this same investigating officer has made statements to the effect that this laboratory may be part of

the conspiracy behind livestock mutilations. That LASL officials would be upset by such statements is

understandable, especially in view of the many hours of time and expertise they have generously donated in analyzing

specimens from suspected mutilation cases. LASL has been performing this service since 1975, in response to a

request by the governor of New Mexico. The initial agreement was that all results be submitted to the New Mexico

Livestock Board — an agreement still honored today. However, upon request, LASL will submit its findings to other

agencies.

This same officer has also suggested a possible link between livestock mutilations and the CIA. The incident which

allegedly provided him with the necessary evidence was a UFO sighting made in northern New Mexico in April 1979 (see

Chapter Two for specific details). This sighting, as you may recall, involved an unidentified aircraft which was

allegedly surprised while spotlighting a herd of cattle near Lumberton. According to the newspapers, immediate

investigation was instituted by local. officials, who subsequently learned that the Air Traffic Control Center in

Longmont, Colorado, had spotted an aircraft flying south at an altitude of 5,1800 feet, at a speed of approximately

300 miles per hour. The traffic controllers lost the radar blip approximately 20 miles north of Albuquerque.

It is not clear whether flight records were checked or if additional information was provided by air traffic

control, but the official investigating this incident later learned that a plane had arrived in Albuquerque from

Durango, Colorado, during the time in question. This aircraft was identified as a company-owned plane belonging to a

New Mexico based mining company. It was then learned that one of the owners of this company is a world famous

balloonist. Further investigation revealed that the balloon used by this individual was apparently designed and

built in South Dakota by a person who may have also designed a balloon for the CIA. Although no cattle mutilations

were reported on the night this incident took place, a rumor was circulated that a connection between the-CIA and

cattle mutilations had been established.

To interpret this incident, I subsequently interviewed the pilot of the aircraft, who said that he had indeed flown

from Durango to Albuquerque in a company-owned Beach Bonanza the night in question. However, he said that he flew at

an altitude of 11,500 feet and that the closest he got to Lumberton was about 35 miles away. The pilot told me that

he recalled the flight because he had also been interviewed by a police official, to whom he had supplied the same

information just furnished to me.

Although the Rio Grande Sun (1980) has recently printed a denial by the officer who had circulated this rumor, his

statement leaves some room for doubt. An associate of this officer informed me that he (the associate was the one to

first establish a possible connection between the balloon designed and the CIA. He said he subsequently passed this

information on to the officer, impressing on him the need for confidentiality. Despite this fact, the associate said

the officer immediately reported this information to several other people, including a reporter.

In short, the government conspiracy theory, though one of the most highly publicized theories in New Mexico has not

one shred of evidence to support it. The major problem, as I see it, would be the ability of an organization as

large and complicated as the government — with its complex system of checks and balances — to keep such a project

secret. For judging from descriptions in the media, this conspiracy would have to involve personnel from numerous

governmental agencies, including the CIA, the military, and animal diagnostic laboratories across the country. The

ability of people from so many different agencies to maintain, for over five years, the secrecy required to conduct

their grisly experiments would be a phenomenon rivaling that of livestock mutilations themselves.

Equally unsupported by any evidence is the theory that livestock mutilations are performed by some type of exotic

cult like the one suggested in The Mute Strategy, a novel about mutilations in New Mexico .(DeWitt 1979). This

theory, though providing the basis for an entertaining story, has received little publicity in recent years. The

theory of extraterrestrial involvement is somewhat more popular, but again has no evidence to support it.

In addition to these explanations, there are also a few individuals who claim that livestock are deliberately being

mutilated by the ranchers, themselves, in order to defraud their insurance companies. To investigate this theory, I

contacted a number of agents employed by a major insurance company in New Mexico. They were unable to locate any

records indicating that claims had been paid on mutilated cattle.

During the course of my investigation, I soon learned that many of the people who stress the bizarre nature of

livestock mutilations, periodically resort to the following clichÈ when all else fails: “I’ve been a rancher all my

life and I’ve never seen a predator remove organs with such precision.” Many people are under the impression that a

rancher would certainly know the difference between a “mutilation” and a carcass damaged by scavengers. This, I

learned, was simply not true — a fact dramatically illustrated in the incidents I investigated myself.

In each case, the rancher summoned me to the scene, believing that there was something peculiar about the damage

done to the carcass of their animal that required further investigation. In each case, as I demonstrate in the

following chapter, the damage was clearly done by predators or scavengers.

Moreover, when brought to their attention, several ranchers agreed with me that the cuts on the carcass were

actually quite jagged and rough. When asked why they requested an investigation, they usually replied that they had

read about livestock mutilations in the paper and wanted to make sure that this wasn’t one of them. I would also

like to point out that merely spending of time on a ranch or farm does not make one an expert in animal husbandry or

forensic pathology. Such expertise requires extensive training at the college level.

Summary and Conclusions

In my evaluation of the 90 previous New Mexico cases, I found nothing in the official reports to indicate that the

animal was mutilated by any agents other than predators and scavengers. Available evidence strongly suggests that

those animals died from natural causes or common injuries and were subsequently ravished by scavengers.

As I have shown, there is simply no concrete evidence to support the theory that mutilations are being conducted as

experiments by highly skilled individuals using precision instruments. The facts cited to support this belief are at

best questionable, and in many cases involve incredible flights of fantasy, as in the three tests whose findings

supposedly established a link between mutilations, UFOs and high levels of radiation.

In the following chapter, I present the results of the investigations conducted in New Mexico during the course of

Operation Animal Mutilation. The evidence presented in each case provides further support for the conclusion that

the vast majority of livestock mutilations are caused by nothing more mysterious than nature’s own ecologists hard

at work.

Chapter 4 — Investigation of Recent New Mexico Cases (1979–1980)

During the course of my year-long investigation, 27 mutilations were reported in different parts of the state. Almost

all of these incidents were investigated within the framework of Operation Animal Mutilation. Twelve cases were

handled primarily by officials from the New Mexico State Police, the New Mexico Livestock Board, the New Mexico Game

and Fish Department, the United States Forest Service, and county sheriff’s departments, who communicated their

findings to me.

I personally conducted on-the-scene investigations of the remaining 15 incidents. For each of these incidents, my

first objective was to determine the probable cause of the mutilation. Since the major difference between animal and

human-induced mutilations is that the latter entails the surgical removal of bodily parts, it was necessary that this

criterion be met before a verdict of human-causation could be established. If such a verdict was reached, my next

objective would have been to determine the cause of the animal’s death.

However, if close examination of the lesions revealed jagged edges, torn tissues, or tooth marks, I would be forced

to conclude that the damage had undoubtedly been inflicted by animals and birds. If such a conclusion was reached, as

was the case in all 15 of my investigations, then I saw no reason to determine the cause of death.

Perhaps an analogy will help clarify my reasoning on this matter. During my career as an FBI agent, I investigated

many major crimes, including bank robberies. On such occasions, good investigative procedures normally entailed a

complete processing of the bank for evidence, including the dusting and lifting of finger and palm prints. However, if

upon arrival at the bank, I discovered that no robbery had occurred but that the bank alarm had been activated by

mistake, further investigation would have been unnecessary and wasteful. A similar case can be made for suspected

mutilations. If it can be shown that no “mutilation” (human-induced) has occurred, then it would be unnecessary as

well as wasteful to try to determine the cause of death.

At the outset of this investigation, I had no preconceived opinions on how it was going to turn out, and anticipating

some very challenging crime problems, I sought assistance from the experts in specific fields. I immediately received

the assurance of full cooperation from Don Hannah, director of the New Mexico State Police Crime Laboratory. I knew

from past experience that he had a group of highly qualified experts in many fields, along with the mobility necessary

for this investigation.

I also was assured complete support from Dr. James Weston, chief medical investigator for the state, who agreed, if

requested, to fly an investigative team of medical investigators to any scene and conduct a regular homicide-type

investigation for this project. Dr. Clair Hibbs, director of the newly formed State Veterinary Diagnostic Service,

also stated that when available, he would be willing to join this team of medical investigators and lend his expertise

in the field. I likewise received offers of support from many experts connected with the University of New Mexico, who

were willing to travel to the scene to contribute their services if needed.

However, I assured all these professionals that since I fully recognized the value of their time, and was well aware

of their demanding schedules, I would at no time waste their talents or their time to merely put on a facade. On the

contrary, I advised them I would first make every effort to visit a scene, and then call upon their expertise only

when needed. I explained that this had been my working relationship with the experts associated with the FBI

Laboratory for the past 28 years, and could see no reason to alter the policy.

As will be revealed by my comments and photographs concerning the following incidents that I investigated, at no time

did I feel the need to request on-the-scene participation from these experts. I did, however, consult with many of

them and sought their advice and guidance during the course of this project. I hereby acknowledge a full measure of

gratitude for their splendid cooperation.

In the pages that follow, the 15 incidents I personally investigated are described first. During these

investigations, I took over 250 sharply-defined slides, using an Olympus OM-10 camera. These slides are now maintained

in my files. Some of the more pertinent ones have been reproduced into black and white photographs, and are included

in this report to provide visual evidence of particular points. The chapter concludes with a description of the 13

incidents investigated for this project by other agencies.

On-The-Scene Investigations

Incident No. 1 — June 21, 1979 — Coyote

As a result of information furnished by the New Mexico State Police, I investigated a reported mutilation in the

Carson National Forest near the Coyote Ranger Station. I was accompanied by Bruce Higgins, a forester with the

National Forest Service.

The animal — a mature, white-faced heifer — was found lying on its right side. I observed that the entire rear end

as well as the underside of the body was missing. The left ear and left top portion of the lip had likewise vanished.

However, the right ear, which was on the protected or underside of the animal, was still intact and bore a Forest

Service Tag No. 605.

A normal distinctive dead odor prevailed and numerous flies were noted. No signs of a struggle were indicated, and

the legs of the animal appeared to be intact. Other cow and deer tracks were noted in the immediate vicinity of the

carcass.

Figure No. 1 & 2 - Coyote, June 21, 1979

Figures No. 1 and No. 2 show the animal when it was first found and reported as a mutilation. That the

damage revealed in these photographs could be described as “surgical precision” is the epitome of suggestive thinking.

However, last year I attended a conference in which a slide depicting similar damage was shown by an official as

evidence of the unparalleled surgical skill with which these mutilations are performed.

Figure No. 3 - Coyote, June 21, 1979

Figure No. 3 shows that it is the exposed parts of the animal — in this case the left ear, left eye, and

upper lip that are missing. Forest Service tag no. 605 can readily be seen affixed to the right or protected ear,

which remains intact.

In conclusion it is quite obvious that the carcass had been damaged by scavengers, which had attacked the most

accessible parts of the animal. As the photographs indicate, the cuts were quite jagged. This verdict is further

supported by the discovery of bird defecation on both the carcass and on a nearby log. When we arrived at the scene, a

buzzard was spotted on the branch of a tree immediately above the dead animal, and buzzard feathers were found in the

area. In addition, small pieces of white hair, which appeared identical to the hair on the carcass, were plainly

visible in the buzzard defecation on the nearby log.

Incident No. 2 — June 29, 1.979 — T-Bone Ranch, Hopewell Lake

On June 29 I was horseback riding in the T-Bone Ranch area of the Carson National Forest. Accompanying me were Forest

Supervisor Jack Crellin, Dr. Howard Smith of Roswell, and several other people, including some forest employees.

During the ride we discovered six dead cows, all of which had recently died from larkspur poisoning. We noted that

larkspur was abundant in the area. In fact, it had plagued a good portion of northern New Mexico that spring because

of an unusually heavy rainfall. We observed that the carcasses were covered with bird defecation. In addition, coyotes

were seen in the area as we rode through.

Photographs of one carcass were taken at this time by Dr. Smith. Then at my request, Forester Bill Wright returned to

this same isolated spot three days later (July 2) and rephotographed the same carcass. Some very interesting

observations can be made from the following four photographs:

Figure No. 4 - T-Bone Ranch, June 29, 1979

Figure No. 4 is a photograph taken June 29. It clearly shows that the animal died with its tongue protruding and ears

intact. The protruding tongue is important, for during this investigation I have encountered statements, attributed to

certain unidentified veterinarians, that no animal could open the mouth of a carcass to remove the tongue. But as this

photograph shows, the explanation is really quite simple, since it is not unusual for an animal to die with its tongue

protruding, especially if it has been poisoned. This photograph also shows a circular spot to the left of the mouth,

which appeared to be blood and other body fluids that had drained from the mouth.

Figure No. 5 - T-Bone Ranch, June 29, 1979

Figure No. 5 taken July 2 shows the same animal, but as you can see, both the tongue and right ear are

missing. Also note that the spot is no longer visible a fact that could give rise to the statement that no blood is

found at the scene of a mutilation. It is my observation that the amount of visible evidence present and the amount of

damage done greatly depend upon how much time has elapsed before the carcass is discovered, and which animals have had

access to it.

Figure No. 6 - T-Bone Ranch, June 29, 1979

Figure No. 6 taken June 29 of the same animal shows the anus area beginning to puff out as the result of the

formation of gasses inside the carcass and the relaxation of muscles as a result of death. This area as you can see,

is now a readily accessible target for scavengers.

Figure No. 7 - T-Bone Ranch, June 29, 1979

Figure No. 7 taken July 2 of the same animal reveals a circle beginning to form at the anus area. This

portion of the animal is now being decimated by nothing more than the common blowfly. However, this effect is readily

shaping up to what could have later been described as a “cored rectum.”

In conclusion, this case was especially interesting and important since it resulted in a series of photographs that

provide a “before and after” comparison — a visual proof of scavenger-induced damage. This is another example, not of

some bizarre intrigue, but of nature’s ecologists performing their daily tasks on animals who had obviously died from

larkspur poisoning. As the supervisor of the Carson National Forest points out, anytime northern New Mexico has a

spring characterized by an unusual large amount of rain, there will be a potential larkspur problem in that part of

the state.

Larkspur, however, is just one of more than one hundred plant species in New Mexico that are poisonous to livestock.

Information on these potentially dangerous plants is provided in a pamphlet published by the Cooperative Extension

Service of New Mexico State University, from which the following excerpt is taken.

“Most poisonous plants on New Mexico ranges are native. Usually, livestock graze them only when more desirable

species are scarce or when watering facilities are not adequate. A lack of minerals such as salt or phosphorus may

cause animals to graze plants they would not usually eat. Some poisonous plants such as lupines, locos, and larkspur

‘green up’ early, and animals craving green feed may graze these poisonous plants to satisfy their need. A few

poisonous species, like these, are relatively palatable” (Gay and Dwyer 1967: 1).

Incident No. 3 — July 3, 1979 — Lindrith

The New Mexico State Police informed me that they had received a report of a livestock mutilation on July 3 in the

Lindrith area. I learned that at approximately 10:45 a.m. on that date, a seven-year-old heifer weighing approximately

850 pounds, had been found dead by its owner.

The owner subsequently contacted the local livestock inspector and reported the incident as a mutilation. The owner

stated he was not certain when the heifer died. However, he noted that about two days before the carcass was

discovered, he had been through that area and had not seen the animal.

I conducted an on-the-scene investigation of this incident. The carcass was lying on its back with its head facing

north — the same position in which the animal had been discovered. Damage had been done to both the udder area and

the anus region, which contained a hole approximately four inches in diameter. The eyes, lips, and tongue, however,

were intact.

There was abundant evidence of scavenger activity. Not only was bird defecation evident on the carcass, but also the

owner told me that when he first found the animal, he noticed ravens nearby. He immediately left the area to inform

his wife of the animal’s death. When he returned to the carcass, he saw a coyote, which he shot and killed.

A livestock inspector also arrived at the scene and concluded that the damage to the carcass was totally consistent

with scavenger activity. However, he did comment that he had never seen a cow die lying flat on its back. Although

that position may not be common, it should be noted that there are no set rules or findings concerning the position in

which an animal must die. Moreover, veterinarians have advised me that when an animal begins to bloat after its death,

the carcass has a tendency to turn toward the back. Cattle dying from anthrax also have a tendency to die with their

feet straight in the air, according to Dr. Robert Pyles, veterinarian for the New Mexico Livestock Board. Dr. Pyles

did point out, though, that anthrax had not recently been observed in New Mexico. A few weeks later, however — on

July 27 to be exact — an anthrax epidemic was reported in Union and Colfax Counties.

Figure No. 8 - Lindrith, July 3, 1979

Figure No. 8 shows the position in which the animal was found. Bird defecation is apparent on the

carcass.

Moreover, one can see by the way the entrails are hanging out of the open body cavity that scavengers are a much more

likely culprit than “highly skilled surgeons.” The stain on the ground near the rear of the carcass has been made by

fluids draining out of the body.

Figure No. 9 - T-Lindrith, July 3, 1979

Figure No. 9, which was taken after the carcass was rolled over, clearly shows the entrails hanging out of

the body cavity as well as the rough and torn damage sustained in the anus region. Again, the body fluids from the

carcass are very noticeable. lead this carcass been discovered several days later, the stained area would either have

evaporated or been licked clean by scavengers, as was the case in the Coyote incident. It is easy to understand why

carcasses found in such a condition are often reported as being “devoid of blood.”

In conclusion, the facts presented in the preceding discussion all lead to one verdict — that the carcass was

mutilated by scavengers. Not only were birds and coyotes at the scene, but the damage done to the carcass was

obviously rough. As in keeping with the objectives set out earlier, I have not tried to determine the cause of the

animals death. However, I think the possibility of a lightning kill, which is quite prevalent among livestock, should

be considered in this incident.

Incident No. 4 — July 8, 1979 — Tierra Amarilla

On July 9, a rancher appeared at the district attorney’s office in Espanola and reported that on July 8 he had found

one of his cows dead and mutilated in the Tierra Amarilla area. The owner claimed that the animal’s uterus, bladder,

tongue, and eyes had been “surgically removed,” and that he wanted the incident investigated.

I then went to Tierra Amarilla with the owner, who informed me that he had been in the ranching business his entire

life. He also told me that this was the second animal he had lost to a mutilation.

When we arrived at the scene, the cow was lying on its left side approximately 2/10 of a mile from Highway 64 and 30

yards from a stream. Its head was facing in a northwest direction. The tongue and right eye were missing, and

considerable damage had been done to the udder and anus areas. The extreme end of the animal’s tail was missing.

However, approximately 15 yards from the carcass, I discovered some hair which appeared to be identical to the

remaining hair on the animal’s tail.

There were numerous flies and maggots on the body, which also had the normal odor of decay. When the carcass was

rolled over, the right eye was still intact, but was in the process of being eaten by maggots. I also observed several

different birds of prey in the area.

After examining the carcass and noting the jagged and torn appearance of the injuries, I asked the owner whether he

really thought the damaged areas could be described by the term “surgical precision.” He replied that the damage did

appear “a bit rough.” I then asked where he obtained the term “surgical precision,” and he said it was commonly used

in the newspapers.

It is of interest that during our discussion, the owner immediately eliminated the possibility that the carcass had

been damaged by coyotes. He based this belief on the fact that in his experience as a rancher he had observed that

coyotes go to the throat to make a kill. As a result of extensive reading about sheep kills in Montana, I knew that he

was right regarding coyote predation on sheep.

Figure No. 10 - Tierra Amarilla, July 8, 1979

I then asked him how long he had been raising cattle. He replied, “about five years.” He said that prior to

this, his entire experience had been in the sheep raising business. We then discussed the possibility of a coyote

acting in a dual role — as a predator when killing smaller animals such as sheep, and as a scavenger when feeding

upon the carcasses of larger animals such as cattle.

Figure No. 10 reveals the rough and jagged damage in the vicinity of the udder. it also shows a sizeable amount of

bird defecation in this area.

Figure No. 11 - Tierra Amarilla, July 8, 1979

Figure No. 11 discloses streaks of bird defecation on the carcass, and also illustrates the rough and torn

jagged damage in the anus area.

Figure No. 12 shows a small dog which accompanied me on this investigation. He is obviously unconcerned — a fact

which is not consistent with the belief that animals always circle at a safe distance from a mutilated carcass.

Figure No. 12

In conclusion, after sifting through the evidence, I found nothing unusual in this particular case to set it

apart from the previous investigations. The rough damage to the carcass, including the typically missing eye and

tongue,, again point to coyotes, birds, and maggots as the “mutilators.” However, it is readily understood why the

owner’s initial reaction involved those words “surgical precision.” The power of the printed word — especially when

repeated over and over — cannot help but influence one’s thoughts. Although the cause of death was not determined,

the owner informed me that the cow was due to have its first calf in August — a very critical time for any

bovine.

Incident No. 5 — July 21, 1979 — Truchas

Incident No. 6 — August 16, 1979 — Questa

This investigation was originally initiated by Captain Robert Carroll of the New Mexico State Police (Criminal

Investigation Division) after receiving the following information. On August 16 at approximately 2:30 p.m., several

young men were riding motorcycles near Pueblito Cemetery, northeast of Questa, when they discovered the carcass of a

steer which they believed had been mutilated. The animal was later described as a whitefaced Hereford, approximately

six months old and weighing between 350-400 pounds.

The initial on-the-scene investigation was conducted by Captain Carroll, who was accompanied by Arthur Craig of the

New Mexico State Police Crime Laboratory. Don Gibbs, a New Mexico Livestock Board inspector, was also on the scene.

The hide and hair under both the neck and lower jaw were reported missing as was a patch of hide, approximately 14

inches long, between the rear legs. The udder area had also been damaged. There was bird defecation on the carcass and

canine tracks were seen in the immediate vicinity. Further inspection revealed teeth marks inside the muscle tissue as

well as on the hide. The police took photographs, two of which are reproduced here.

Tire tracks were also observed at the scene. Based on a reconstruction of events, Captain Carroll and Inspector Gibbs

concluded that a vehicle had driven into this isolated place and deposited the animal there. With this possibility in

mind, the carcass was thoroughly examined again and what appeared to be green paint was found on the hide. Acting on

this information, Inspector Gibbs instituted a search for the owner of the animal, who was located on August 28.

Inspector Gibbs interviewed the owner, who stated that around August 14, he was up on his forest allotment. While

there he found his calf, which appeared to be very ill. The animal was running a high fever and its tongue was badly

swollen. The owner said he then brought the calf down to his ranch in Questa, where it died the following day.

Thinking the calf might have contracted a contagious disease that could infect the rest of the herd, the owner hauled

the carcass to an isolated area and deposited it there.

Following the initial investigation by the police and livestock inspector, I conducted my own investigation, The next

day I arrived on the scene but was hampered by rain. Two weeks later I returned and took some photographs, two of

which are reproduced here.

Figure No. 22 shows the very jagged edges of the damaged udder area.

Figure No. 23 reveals the damage to the jaw bone area.

Figures No. 24 and No. 25 were taken approximately two weeks later, disclosing all that remains of the carcass — the

head and a piece of hide.

In conclusion, based on an interview with the owner, it is quite obvious that the calf had died of natural causes.

The evidence at the scene clearly indicates that the mutilation was caused by canines, either dogs or coyotes, who

were further assisted by birds. It should be noted that the damage done to this carcass, particularly in the udder

area and jaw bone, is very similar to what is so often reported in the so-called classic mutilation.” Also, as in many

“classic mutilations,” pieces of hide were missing from the animal.

During the course of the investigation, a deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and immediately declared to all present

that this was a “classic mutilation.” He then said he had viewed other “classic mutilations” in Colorado and thus knew

this was definitely one of them. Naturally this raises some doubts as to the soundness of previous observations he has

made in that state. In fact, how many other similar and questionable verdicts have been made throughout the cattle

raising states by those who believe they are witnessing, or are experts concerning “classic mutilations?”

Incident No. 7 —.September 13, 1979 — Truchas

On September 13 at 12:30 a.m. the state police informed me that a cattle mutilation had been reported in the Truchas

area. I telephoned the owner, who told me the animal had been found dead and mutilated at 9:30 p.m. the previous

evening.

I immediately traveled to the scene and discovered a female bovine, between three and four years old, lying on its

right side. The anus area was missing and there was a hole in the udder where a nipple had been removed. In addition,

part of the tongue was gone, both eyes had been partially removed, and a three-inch patch of skin was missing from the

belly area. A large quantity of blood had settled in the carcass. I also found bird defecation on the body.

Because it was still dark, I decided to resume the investigation later that morning. This time I was accompanied by

Henry Guillen, New Mexico Livestock Board inspector; Cipriano Padilla, district attorney investigator; the owner of

the animal and his son. Upon arrival at the scene, we observed six turkey vultures on the carcass. They immediately

took flight. In addition to this dramatic evidence of scavenger activity, canine defecation was also found near the

body.

Since the carcass obviously contained a considerable amount of gas, Inspector Guillen asked the owner if the cow had

been vaccinated against blackleg — a type of clostridial infection that produces an acute, febrile disease in cattle.

The owner replied that none of his cows had been vaccinated against blackleg, and that this was the second cow he had

lost this summer. Inspector Guillen then advised the owner to have his stock vaccinated since other cows in the area

had recently died from the disease.

Several days after my investigation, the owner contacted me and reported that on September 14 he had found another

cow dead. He said he immediately took the carcass to a veterinarian in Espanola, who diagnosed the cause of death as

blackleg. The owner also informed me he had immediately instituted a vaccination program for the rest of his herd.

Figure No. 26 shows bird defecation near the left eye, which is missing.

Figure No. 27 shows the damage inflicted on the rear end of the carcass as viewed from a distance of approximately

six feet.

Figure No. 28 shows a close-up of the same damage.

Note the extreme jaggedness of the cut in the 12 o’clock position. This picture illustrates how difficult it is to

accurately assess the nature of a mutilation on the basis of a distant photograph.

Figure No. 29 shows the udder area, from which a nipple has obviously been removed.

In conclusion, the damage inflicted on this carcass is similar to that found on other carcasses— with one exception.

We arrived on the scene before the entire udder was taken. As noted previously, the entire investigative team observed

six vultures working on the carcass, and the resulting damage has been graphically revealed in the photographs. I have

additional slides on file which show the carcass with its ear and tongue partially removed. Once again I wish to

stress the point that the amount of damage done to a carcass depends on what time the investigator arrives at the

scene and which scavengers are in the area.

Incident No. 8 — September 14, 1979 — El Cerrito

This investigation was initiated following a telephone conversation September 17 with a rancher whose bull had been

found dead three days earlier on his property at El Cerrito. The owner said he thought the animal had been

mutilated.

He said he found the animal lying on its right side, approximately 25 yards from the road and 150 yards from his

house. According to the owner, the animal was last seen alive on September 12. He then described the damage to the

carcass, which consisted of a hole in the anus, approximately three inches in diameter; a partial loss of the tongue;

and the removal of the penis and testicles.

I conducted an on-the-scene investigation September 17, accompanied by the owner. When I approached the area, crows

were visiting the carcass. There was bird defecation on the animal as well as numerous flies, and the carcass had an

extremely foul odor.

I observed blood stains on the mouth of the animal and on the ground below. The damage to the carcass was exactly as

the owner had described it. However, as in past examinations, the damage was noticeably jagged to the naked eye and

even more so when viewed through a magnifying glass.

Other than bird defecation, there was no obvious evidence to indicate the presence of other scavengers. But the owner

said there had been a lot of rain when the carcass was found, which he felt would have obliterated any animal

tracks.

He further stated that when he first found the body it had possessed a very strong sulphur smell similar to the odor

of a rotten egg or the smell produced immediately after a match is struck. However, when I examined the carcass, this

odor was no longer present.

The owner also told me that the day following his discovery of the carcass, it was examined by Frank Gallegos, a New

Mexico Livestock Board inspector assigned to the Las Vegas area. On September 19, I interviewed Gallegos, who told me

that he had examined the bull on September 15. He said by this time the bull had already been dead for several days,

He examined the animal for gunshot wounds but could not find evidence to suggest it had been shot. However, the tongue

was partially gone and flies were working on the anus, In addition, the penis and scrotum were already missing. He

also pointed out that the carcass had a decisive rotten odor which he said was the normal odor for dead cattle.

Curious about the origin of the sulphur smell, I contacted several of the veterinarians who have been serving as

consultants on this project. They were unable to come up with a logical solution. On May 6, 1980, I contacted Dr. J.

Sherrod, D.V.M., Valverde Animal Clinic, Cortales. He explained that this odor is very common when a bovine dies lying

on its right side. The rumen then has a tendency to vent to the outside and — depending on what the animal has been

eating — a definite sulphur odor may be noticeable. Dr. Sherrod noted that some of the grazing plants in New Mexico

typically produce such a reaction. He also pointed out that this condition is unlikely to occur if the animal dies

lying on its left side.

Figure No. 30 shows the area of the penis, and again the jaggedness is very noticeable.

Figure No. 31 shows the anus area and likewise reveals the jaggedness of the damage.

In conclusion, there is no evidence here, whatever, to link this mutilation to “strange and mysterious

circumstances.” The damage to the carcass was probably inflicted by the crows which were prevalent at the scene. Birds

appear to be among the first arrivals to feast upon a dead animal, and seem possessed with ravenous appetite that can

soon wreak a surprising amount of damage to a carcass.

This particular case also shows that there is usually a logical, common sense solution to even the most puzzling

aspects of a mutilation case. While a more imaginative, headline-seeking investigator might have sought to link that

strong sulphur odor to some mysterious or occult happening, the answer turned out to be a very natural and logical

one.

Incident No. 9 — September 15, 1979 — Tome

On September 15, the state police in Socorro advised me t hat a cattle mutilation had just been reported in the Tome

area. I conducted an on-the-scene investigation that day. Tom Brinkley, an inspector for the New Mexico Livestock

Board, was also present. The victim — a Holstein heifer, 15-16 months old — was lying on its left side in a pasture

approximately 200 yards east of Highway 47. It was facing south. The heifer was last seen alive September 14 at 10

a.m.

The damage to the carcass consisted of a very jagged hole,. approximately eight inches in diameter, in the anus area.

on the right side of the udder was a small puncture hole, and the right eye was missing. The end of the tongue had

been removed,, leaving very rough, jagged edges.

The pasture was extremely muddy and contained numerous cow tracks, which was understandable since there were

approximately 25 head of cattle in the pasture where the carcass lay. In addition, there was defecation on the

carcass. Inspector Brinkley concluded that the carcass had been damaged by scavengers — an opinion with which I

concurred after examining the animal.

The owner advised us that he had been trying to contact his veterinarian so that the cause of the animal’s death

could be determined. The owner later advised that the carcass was examined by Dr. Cole of the Rio Bravo Animal Clinic

on September 15, 1979. Tissue samples were taken by Dr. Cole, who forwarded them to the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory

in Albuquerque for examination.

On October 2, Dr. Clair Hibbs, director of the New Mexico Animal Diagnostic Laboratory, submitted the following

report based on an examination on tissue samples: Clostridium was found in the tissue samples, but no positive cause

of death could be determined. The lesions described by Dr. Cole were in all probability caused by magpies.

Figure No. 32 shows the damage to the rear portion of the carcass. Note how jagged the opening is.

Figure No. 33 shows that one of the nipples has been removed from the udder, similar to the previous Truchas

incident, in preparation, in my opinion for the removal of the entire udder.

In conclusion, once again, the evidence discovered in this Particular case tips the scale in favor of the verdict,

scavenger-induced damage — a verdict shared by Inspector Brinkley and Dr. Hibbs.

Incident No. 10 — September 27, 1979 — Medanales

I initiated this investigation after receiving a telephone call on September 27 from the state police in Espanola,

who said that a possible mutilation had been reported to them at 8:15 p.m. by an individual residing in the medanales

area.

On September 28 I conducted an on-the-scene investigation. Accompanying me were district attorney investigator,

Cipriano Padilla, and the owner of the dead animal. The alleged victim was a three to four-year-old female bovine,

weighing approximately 600 pounds, who had calved within the last month — as previously noted, a very critical time

for a cow. The owner said. the animal was last seen alive approximately ten days before it was found. The animal had

been dead for at least two days at the time it was discovered.

The carcass was found lying on its left side. The right eye, the end of the tongue, the udder and all but one teat

were missing. The anus area had also been damaged. When the carcass was rolled over, the left eye was still intact, as

was one teat, which had been under the carcass. The underside of the carcass at the mouth area was stained with blood.

In addition, a considerable amount of blood had drained onto the ground. There was bird defecation on the animal, and

the owner said he had seen magpies on the carcass when he found it. During our investigation we also observed crows

and vultures in the vicinity.

Figure No. 34 shows the carcass from the rear position. The photograph was taken approximately eight feet away,

giving the impression that the damage in the anus area was fairly smooth. Bird defecation can also be seen on the

carcass.

Figure No. 35 is a close-up of the anus area. Here the roughness and jaggedness of the damage is much more

discernible.

Figure No. 36 discloses the damage to the udder area.

Figure No. 37 shows the teat and nipple, which were still intact when the carcass was rolled over. I suggested this

is a strong indication of scavenger damage since that teat and nipple were not accessible to scavengers because of the

position in which the animal died.

In conclusion, the investigative team decided that all the damage was consistent with what one would normally expect

from scavengers. Also, there was bird defecation on the carcass, and magpies had been observed on the body the day it

was found. The photograph sequence reveals once more why distant photographs are not reliable when trying to make a

case for “surgical precision.” It is only when an area is examined close-up that the jaggedness of the cuts becomes

apparent. Although the cause of death was not determined, the owner said none of his 30 head of cattle had been

vaccinated.

Incident No. 11 — October 8, 1979 — San Lorenzo

Mel Sedillo of the New Mexico Livestock Board contacted me on October 9 and stated that a cattle mutilation had been

reported in the San Lorenzo area. An on-the-scene investigation was conducted that day by myself; Henry Torres,

inspector for the New Mexico Livestock Board; and Richard Montoya, deputy for the Grants County Sheriff’s office. The

owners of the animal were also present.

The dead animal was a four-year-old female bovine, which had been found lying on its left side. The animal was last

seen alive several days before. As in other cases, it had recently calved. Its right eye and udder were missing, and

there was a hole, approximately six inches in diameter, in the anus area. The carcass appeared to be in a very

advanced stage of bloat. Bird defecation was also observed on the animal, and canine tracks were discovered in the

immediate vicinity.

Figure No. 38 shows the tongue intact but protruding, making it a very accessible target. As stated previously, it is

not unusual for an animal to die with the tongue in this position.

Figure No. 39 shows the damage in the udder area and clearly reveals the jaggedness of the destruction, particularly

in the 5 o’clock and 11 o’clock areas. The carcass also bears evidence of a skin disorder known as scabies, which

could be misinterpreted as burn marks.

Figure No. 40 is a close-up of the badly damaged anus area. The dark portions are dry blood, which also could be

misinterpreted as burn marks. The jaggedness of the cut is very noticeable.

Figure No. 41 is also of the anus area, but after the animal has been rolled over. This shows the same damage as

revealed in Figure No. 40, but now the jaggedness is much more noticeable. Once again, this demonstrates that care

must be taken when making conclusions based on photographs.

During the course of the investigation, the owner told me she had reported the incident as a mutilation because of

what she had read in the newspapers — particularly the coverage afforded the cattle mutilation conference that took

place April 20 (1979) in Albuquerque. However, in the opinion of both Inspector Torres and Deputy Montoya, the damage

to the carcass was totally consistent with what one would expect to find from normal predator and scavenger activity.

The writer, after viewing the damage and weighing the evidence provided by the bird defecation and canine tracks,

agreed with their opinion.

This particular case might prompt the question — “Why is it that while considerable damage was inflicted elsewhere,

the tongue, an extremely accessible target, remained intact?” Once again, the amount and type of damage depends on

when a person arrives on the scene, and which scavengers are in the vicinity. Much also depends on the behavior of

these scavengers.

For example, birds would not be feeding on the carcass at the same time that canine scavengers are eating their

fill.

Incident No. 12 — November 5, 1979 — Bernalillo

On November 5, the New Mexico State Police informed my office of a possible mutilation that had been reported that

day by a Bernalillo rancher. The resident claimed she had found her two-year-old, home-bred heifer dead and mutilated

the previous day. Prior to that time, she said her animal had been fat and in good health.

I conducted an on-the-scene investigation November 5, accompanied by the owner and her son. The carcass was lying on

the left side with its head facing east. It had been dead approximately three days. The udder, anus area, and the

right foreleg were badly damaged. The eyes and ears, however, were intact. I observed that the blood was pooled in the

carcass.

No animal or bird tracks were visible. However, the ground was such that tracks would not have been readily

observable. Also, the carcass was lying in a heavily shaded area. There was no evidence of visitation by birds, which

perhaps explains why the eyes were still intact.

The owner’s son said he had contacted an inspector from the New Mexico Livestock Board, who advised him that the

animal had probably died of blackleg. The son also stated they had lost a two-year-old heifer approximately two weeks

ago. He reported that at that time, he had seen adults carrying rifles in the area. He also said he had observed dogs

and coyotes work on the heifer, which had been found with 150 yards of the animal now being investigated.

The owner added that the herd had not been vaccinated against blackleg since her husband’s death several years ago.

The owner’s son, however, said he was rounding up the herd and transporting them to another area to initiate a

vaccination program.

Figure No. 42 illustrates the damage done to both the right foreleg and the udder area.

Figure No. 43 is a close-up of the foreleg area, revealing the jaggedness of the damage, particularly in the 12

o’clock position. It also shows the exposed bone.

Figure No. 44 is a close-up shot of the udder area. The jaggedness of the damage is clearly shown.

In conclusion, this case can best be described as another “classic” scavenger-induced mutilation. The animal probably

died of blackleg, the carcass subsequently being damaged by animals. The jaggedness of the cuts certainly supports

such a conclusion as does the fact that two weeks earlier canines were seen in the vicinity feeding on another

carcass.

Incident No. 13. — November 17, 1979 — El Rito

On November 17 at 9:30 a.m. Henry Guillen, New Mexico livestock inspector, advised me that a cattle mutilation had

been reported to him that morning at El Rito.

I conducted an on-the-scene investigation that day. The animal was a three-year-old female bovine, which weighed

approximately 1,000 pounds. It had been found dead the previous afternoon at 4:30 p.m. The animal was lying on its

left side. The only damage I observed was a hole, approximately five inches in diameter, in the anus area. The rest of

the animal was intact, including the udder. Blood had drained from both the anus area and the mouth to the lower part

of the carcass.

Inspector Henry Guillen examined the animal and said it showed signs of blackleg. He then cut its leg to show the

owner the bubbles characteristic of blackleg. The owner said he had not vaccinated his cattle against that disease

this year.

There was bird defecation on the carcass. Also, on the ground nearby was a ham bone, which the animal’s owner

identified as one he had recently given his German Shepherd dog. The owner also said there are numerous coyotes in the

area, which can be heard every night. Of interest is the fact that the udder had not been touched. The animal was not

lactating and according to New Mexico Game Department records, the vultures had recently departed the area for the

winter. Whether or not this is significant is not known.

The carcass was revisited on two more occasions, and severe additional damage was noted to the carcass each time.

Figure No. 45 which was taken at a distance of six to eight feet, shows the damage to the anus area. Noticeable blood

stains near the anus area are visible where body fluids have drained.

Figure No. 46 is a close-up of the same area and clearly depicts the jaggedness of the wound, particularly at the 12

o’clock position and along the entire lower left side.

Figure No. 47 which is especially revealing, shows the same damage after the animal was rolled over. Canine mouth

marks are clearly visible along the entire upper right edge of the cavity.

Figure No. 48 is very pertinent to this entire project. It illustrates a surgically precise cut, which was made with

a surgeon’s scalpel by Cattle Inspector Guillen when he was revealing the symptoms of blackleg to the owner. One

should keep in mind the appearance of this incision when viewing photographs of damage reportedly done “with surgical

precision.”

In conclusion, the evidence uncovered in this incident is very revealing. The animal had obviously died of blackleg.

The bird defecation on the carcass, the canine mouth marks along the upper right edge of the cavity, and the dog’s ham

bone laying nearby provide a clear indication of how and by whom the carcass was damaged.

The photographs are also of interest. When viewed from a distance of six to eight feet (Figure No. 45), the damage to

the anus area could almost be described as a perfect circle. However, when this same area is photographed, with

magnification, at a closer proximity (Figure No. 46), jagged and torn edges can readily be observed. When the carcass

is rolled over and the same area photographed again (Figure No. 47), mouth prints are visible, which indicate that the

family dog was doing more at the carcass than merely dropping its ham bone. The dissimilarity between these cuts and

the one made by Inspector Guillen with a scalpel are clearly evident in Figure No. 48. A close-up examination reveals

a world of difference between this smooth, precise, uninterrupted incision and the type of “cut” revealed in the

close-up photographs of the damaged anus.

Incident No. 14 — December 4, 1979 — Cordova

Although this incident was not reported as a mutilation, it is of special interest to the project because of the

damage to the carcass. The animal was owned by a rancher from Cordova, who had noticed that his cow had not been

coming to feed for several days. Instead, the animal remained in a shaded area, which was readily visible to the

owner. On December 4 at 8 a.m. the owner discovered the animal had died and that the anus area had been removed in a

nearly-perfect circle. Having heard about my project from his son, who is an Indian tribal police officer, the owner

contacted me to see if I would be interested in observing the animal.

Shortly afterwards I went to Cordova accompanied by Dr. Philip Shultz, a retired Santa Fe surgeon; Cipriano Padilla,

district attorney investigator; and Henry Guillen, livestock inspector. In the presence of the owner and his son, we

examined the animal, which was a female bovine approximately five years old. It was lying on its left side about 75

yards from the ranch house.

There was a five to six-inch circular hole in the anus area. One common characteristic of the so-called “classic

mutilation” is the perfectly cored anus. This anus certainly appeared to fit that description. However, the evidence

points to scavengers rather than skilled surgeons as the parties responsible for the damage, for although the incision

seems to be very smooth when viewed from a distance of six feet, closer inspection reveals that the edges of the out

are actually quite jagged, particularly in the 7 o’clock position. Moreover, coyote droppings were found near the

carcass. According to the owner, coyotes are quite prevalent in the area as are wild dog packs.

Evidence found at the scene indicated the animal had suffered from diarrhea. Judging from the dark color of the

stool, it also had been hemorrhaging internally. A blood sample .was taken from the exterior jugular vein by Dr.

Shultz. In an effort to help the owner, this specimen and a skin sample, together with other evidence collected at the

scene, (i.e. blood stained leaves) were taken to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) for analysis.

Although unable to determine the exact cause of death, LASL in a letter dated December 7, reported that the leaves

and droppings contained blood, indicating the animal had suffered from a severe bloody diarrhea. Inspector Guillen had

previously suggested that red water — a type of clostridial infection known as bacillary hemoglobiuria — could have

been the cause of death, since other cases had recently been reported in the area. Unfortunately, LASL was unable to

test for clostridium perfingens, as the facilities were temporarily unavailable. However, a chemical analysis of the

blood sample was conducted in their conventional proximity screen for 52 agents. The results were negative. In short,

there was no evidence the animal had been drugged.

As a result of these tests, LASL concluded that the animal, which had obviously been ill for some time, had probably

died from a massive infection. They also maintained that the carcass had probably been damaged by ravens, magpies, and

other scavengers, for the skin sample had obviously been torn. However, there were no teeth marks found in the

specimens submitted.

Figure No. 49 was taken at approximately six feet from the carcass and shows a hole that could easily be described at

this distance as a perfect circle. It should be noted that a collection of blood has drained into the lower portion of

the cavity.

Figure No. 50 is a close-up shot of the same area taken with a macro lens. As is evident in this picture, the edges

of the circle are actually quite jagged. In addition, one can see a small portion of its innards hanging over the edge

of the circle,, which is certainly a far cry from the surgical precision so often attributed to such cuts.

In conclusion, this case again emphasizes the fact that a carcass viewed at a distance appears quite different from

one viewed at closer range. As Figure No. 49 so graphically illustrates, it can easily be understood why a person

viewing the carcass from a distance of several feet might describe the damaged anus as a feat of “surgical precision.”

Closer inspection, however, would certainly negate this conclusion. In short, both the evidence at the scene and the

tests performed by LASL clearly indicate that the animal had died from natural causes and was subsequently damaged by

scavengers.

Incident No. 15 — January 25, 1980 — Tijeras Canyon

On January 30, 1980, Dr. Clair Hibbs, director of the Animal Diagnostic Laboratory, informed me that a mutilation had

been reported in Tijeras Canyon.

I immediately contacted the owner of the animal, who stated that at 2 p.m. on January 25, he had found his

two-year-old Holstein heifer dead in a pasture, located approximately 200 yards from his house. He said there was a

hole, 8 inches in diameter, in the rear end of the animal, which was lying on its left side. The animal was last seen

alive the night of January 24, when she was fed. According to the owner, the cow was healthy, but had not been

vaccinated against blackleg.

The owner also told me that an inspector from the New Mexico Livestock Board had examined the animal on January 26

and had indicated to the owner that it had probably died of blackleg, the carcass subsequently being damaged by

animals. The owner noted there are coyotes in the area. He also pointed out that his neighbor has three dogs — two

German Shepherds and one St. Bernard. However, he said that in his opinion, these dogs would not have hurt the cow,

since they were accustomed to playing together. The owner further stated that there appeared to be no bird defecation

on the carcass nor any tracks nearby. However, he pointed out that the ground was frozen and therefore tracks would

not likely be left.

The owner further stated that he had been told that blackleg was not prevalent in the winter, and therefore he

discounted the livestock inspector’s observations. Consequently, he immediately butchered the animal, kept the choice

cuts for himself, and distributed the balance of the meat to his neighbor to be used as dog food.

As soon as I learned of this development, I contacted Dr. Hibbs and told him the owner had butchered the animal. Dr.

Hibbs advised that the owner had been misinformed about blackleg, which can occur any time. Dr. Hibbs then contacted

the owner and advised him about the danger of blackleg. He warned the owner that since the animal’s death had not been

diagnosed, the meat should be destroyed.

On February 41 Dr. Hibbs told me he had discussed the entire situation with the owner, and had learned that the

animal in question had been consuming a lot of leafy green alfalfa. Dr. Hibbs said he now believed the cow may have

died of bloat. This observation is particularly interesting in view of the fact that both the owner and his neighbor,

on witnessing the butchering of the animal, observed that its stomach was full of alfalfa.

Other Investigations

The following incidents were investigated primarily by officials of the New Mexico State Police, the New Mexico

Livestock Board, and county sheriff departments, who communicated their findings to me as part of their participation

in Operation Animal Mutilation.

Of these 12 incidents, 5 were immediately resolved by the investigating officer upon arrival at the scene. The first

incident was reported on August 13 to the state police in Socorro. It was investigated by Officer Mike Martinez of the

New Mexico State Police, who attributed the mutilation to obvious scavenger damage.

The next two incidents occurred in Truchas and were reported to the state police in Espanola on September 28,

These cases were investigated by Inspector Henry Guillen of the ,New Mexico Livestock Board. He diagnosed the cause

of death as red water and claimed that no mutilation had occurred. The information on each of these three incidents

was transmitted to me via state police radio. I received no additional reports.

The last two cases were also immediately resolved at the scene. The fourth incident occurred in the Belen area and

.was reported to the New Mexico Livestock Board on May 8, 1980. Livestock Inspector Joe Jackson investigated the

suspected mutilation. He concluded that the animal had obviously been butchered at the scene for particular cuts of

meat.

The last incident involved the suspected mutilation of two elk in the vicinity of the Pecos Ranger Station. This

incident was reported on May 13, 1980, to the New Mexico Game and Fish Department. Upon investigating the alleged

mutilation, Game Officer John Miles determined that the two animals had been killed by lightning, their carcasses

subsequently being damaged by scavengers.

The remaining incidents will be discussed in the pages that follow. In virtually every instance, the investigating

officers reached the same verdict that my own on-the-scene investigation produced — damage by predators and

scavengers.

Incident No. 21 — June 18, 1979 — Malaga

On June 18 at 7:30 a.m., nine animals were reported dead in the Malaga area. The owner also told officials at the

Eddy County Sheriff’s office that some of the animals had been mutilated.

On-the-scene investigation was conducted by Deputy Tommy Box, who reported finding two dead pregnant nanny goats, one

dead kid goat, and six dead chickens. All of the animals were discovered in the pen in which they lived. One of the

goats was missing a teat. It had puncture wounds on its throat, and a 17-inch circle of hide was missing.

Deputy Box said the scene had been completely disturbed, since the carcasses had already been taken to the dump.

However, he observed there were tracks in the pen, which he believed were made by a mountain lion. The deputy

concluded that the damage had probably been done by a mountain lion, since these predators are not uncommon in the

area. The number of animals killed, all of which were in a penned area, and the type of damage done is totally

consistent with the normal behavior pattern for mountain lions.

Incident No. 22 — October 11, 1979 Dulce

On October 11 at 8:45 a.m., Officer Gabe Valdez of the New Mexico State Police contacted the district attorney’s

office in Espanola and told the assistant district attorney, Sam Quintana, that a “classic” mutilation had occurred in

Dulce the night before. (Don Hannah of the New Mexico State Police Crime Laboratory later reported that Officer Valdez

had told him the .incident had occurred the previous weekend.)

Quintana informed Valdez that I was in Silver City investigating another cattle mutilation, but that he would furnish

the information to coordinating secretary, Diana Moyle. Moyle then contacted me and I instructed her to immediately

call the state police crime laboratory and request that personnel be sent immediately to Dulce to assist in the

investigation. I felt such an action was warranted since Officer Valdez had determined the mutilation was a “classic.”

I then proceeded to the scene at Dulce, accompanied by district attorney investigator, Cipriano Padilla.

While I was enroute, Officer Valdez contacted the coordinating secretary and told her he had learned that I and

personnel from the state police crime laboratory were on our way to Dulce. Valdez said that the owner of the mutilated

animal did not want the crime laboratory nor any investigative team headed by me to enter her property to conduct an

investigation for fear of publicity. The officer said he had just contacted the state police crime laboratory and had

cancelled their trip. He advised Moyle to radio this information to me. After learning about the change in plans, I

decided it best to cancel the proposed investigation.

Four months later, during a conversation with Officer Valdez on February 26, 1980, he referred to this incident and

again stated that the owner had not wanted the mutilation investigated. I consider it unfortunate that the owner’s

fear about publicity led her to reject our offer to investigate the incident. I thought it was generally known that I

was not releasing any information to the media concerning any investigation I was conducting.

Interestingly, in regards to the media, Officer Valdez has been one of the more outspoken individuals on cattle

mutilations. He has taken a special interest in this mutilation phenomenon, and is probably one of New Mexico’s

foremost proponents of the theory that many of these cattle deaths and subsequent mutilations are engineered by

humans. His articulate reports have frequently captured the favor of the press, which places a premium on

attention-getting news.

During our conversation, Officer Valdez stated that since my project began, he has investigated several other

reported mutilations. However, since none were “classic mutilations,” he decided not to report them to me. However, he

assured me that if he learned of any other mutilations that appeared to be “classic” cases, he would immediately

protect the crime scene and contact, me so that I could conduct an investigation.

It should also be noted that during this interview, Valdez admitted to me that he realized that a tremendous amount

of misinformation has been circulated regarding cattle mutilations. Nevertheless, he stated he was certain that the

ones that had occurred in Dulce were all “classics.” This is a strange comment coming from an individual who, at

Senator Schmitt’s hearing, had testified that there had been 90 cattle mutilations in New Mexico. Officer Valdez then

said he would furnish me with all the information he had collected on cattle mutilations in order to assist with this

project. To date, not one piece of material has been received.

Incident No. 23 — October 15, 1979 — Jordan

This investigation was initiated following a report to the New Mexico State Police of a possible mutilation in the

Jordan area. On-the-scene examination was conducted by Captain Carroll of the New Mexico State Police. Accompanying

him were Officer Leonard Elis of the New Mexico State Police in Melrose, Inspector Ray Hester of the New Mexico

Livestock Board, and Joel Garrett of the Quay County Sheriff’s office in Tucumcari.

The animal in question was a 16-month-old heifer calf, which weighed approximately 700 pounds. The carcass was found

lying on its left side about 50 yards north of a roadway. The animal was last seen alive on October 11. It had been

found dead on October 15, but was not reported to authorities until October 18. The carcass was in an advanced stage

of bloating. The anus and udder areas were damaged as well as the mouth, nose, and left ear.

The investigators concluded that the damage, which indicated irregular tearing, was totally consistent with normal

predator and scavenger activity. Bird and canine defecation as well as canine tracks were observed near the carcass.

Domestic dogs, who lived at a farm one-half mile east of the carcass, had been seen by their owner going to and from

the dead animal.

Upon examining the carcass the investigators found a round hole, approximately three-eights inch in diameter, in the

neck. When a wire was placed in this hole, an entrance and exit wound were discovered. These wounds, together with the

projectile pattern, indicated the animal had probably been shot. it should be noted that during this period of time

there had been antelope hunting in the area. Subsequent interviews revealed that hunters had indeed been operating in

the vicinity. The investigators thus concluded that the animal had been shot, the carcass subsequently being damaged

by scavengers.

Incident No. 24 — October 27, 1979 — Carrizozo

On October 27 at 9:30 p.m., I was advised by Deputy William Hasenbuhler of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s office, that

he had investigated a cattle mutilation in Socorro County that day. Although the carcass had reportedly been found

before 10 that morning, the sheriff’s office had not been notified until approximately 5:15 p.m.

According to Hasenbuhler the animal was a 10 to 14-year-old cow and weighed between 900 and 1000 pounds. The animal

had been, dead for about two days and had a decided odor. The carcass was lying on its right side, and the left eye,

according to Hasenbuhler, looked like it had been pecked out by birds. A piece of hide, 2-1/2 square feet in size was

missing, as was the udder. The anus also “appeared to have been eaten by predators.” In addition, the rear portion of

the carcass “had been eaten to such an extent that the hip was out of the socket.” The tongue, however, was

intact.

Deputy Hasenbuhler said that when he arrived on the scene, he had observed an eagle on the carcass. He also reported

finding canine tracks in the immediate vicinity and bird defecation on the body. The deputy pointed out that the area

where the carcass was lying has a heavy population of black ravens. According to him, the vultures had apparently

departed for the season, and the area is not frequented by magpies.

Incident No. 25 — November 7, 1979 — Ojo Caliente

On November 9, the superintendent of Carson National Forest informed me that a soil scientist assigned to that forest

had, discovered a dead bovine heifer near Ojo Caliente. The animal, which weighed approximately 600 pounds, was lying

on its right side. Its head was missing and there was a five-inch hole in the anus area. The soil scientist estimated

that the heifer had been dead for approximately two days.

I immediately contacted Ray Brown, the district ranger for this area, who told me he was familiar with the carcass

and had first seen it on November 3 and again on November 6.. Brown said when he first saw the animal its head and

udder were still intact, but the eyes and anus were being pecked out by birds, whom he personally observed working on

the carcass.

In conclusion, most of the damage to the carcass was undoubtedly inflicted by birds, who were actually seen on the

animal. One can only speculate as to what happened to the head, especially since it was still intact when the carcass

was first observed. However, it should be noted that the skulls of bovine animals are commonly used as yard

decorations by people wishing to create a Southwestern decor. In fact, the current prices for such skulls range from

$50 t o$ 75, depending on where they are purchased.

Incident No. 26 December 24, 1979 — Malaga

On December 24, Deputy Tommy Box of the Eddie County Sheriff’s office conducted an on-the-scene investigation of a

400-pound yearling steer, which had been reported dead and mutilated. On December 27, Deputy Box returned to the scene

accompanied by Sgt. Bob Dodgin of the New Mexico State Police and Morgan Bates of the New Mexico Livestock Board.

The animal was lying on its right side. Its anus area was damaged and there was a large opening in its left side.

Although the investigating officers believed this area had been cut, the edges were very jagged. The animal’s stomach

was laying on the ground a few feet in front of this opening. When the carcass was first examined by Deputy Box, a

three-inch piece of meat was also found on the ground a few feet behind the animal.

Although both the owner and Deputy Box believed the calf had previously been healthy, a necropsy performed at the

scene by Dr. Dean Reynolds revealed lesions on its lungs, which were diagnosed as two-week-old pneumonia. Dr. Reynolds

concluded the animal had died from pneumonia. However, he said he could not explain the missing rectum or the cavity

in the side of the animal. In his report he states that “it looks like someone is playing games after the calf

died.”

This animal, like the one described next in the Loving incident, had recently been brought from Texas. I have been

told that it is not uncommon to find pneumonia in animals that have been recently transported from Texas into New

Mexico, particularly during the winter months.

Photographs of this incident were obtained and have been made part of the project file.

Incident No. 27 — December 27, 1979 — Loving

This investigation was initiated by the New Mexico State Police as the result of a report made by Deputy Tommy Box of

the Eddy County Sheriff’s office. On December 27, Sgt. Bob Dodgin of the New Mexico State Police arrived at the scene.

Accompanying him were Deputy Box and Morgan Bates of the New Mexico Livestock Board.

The animal, a 300-pound heifer, was found lying on its right side. It had been dead between eight and twelve hours.

The soft tissues both above and surrounding the nostril were missing, as was the nostril itself. No other damage was

noted. The feces oozing from the rectum contained blood and mucus, which is obviously one reason why this area is such

a likely target for predators.

The calf appeared to have been sick. In fact, the officers on the scene decided it had probably died of pneumonia.

This diagnosis was later confirmed by Dr. Dean Reynolds, a Carlsbad veterinarian. The calf had just been shipped to

this area from south Texas. In fact, all the calves in this particular pasture were sick and being treated for

“shipping fever” or pneumonia by Dr. Reynolds.

No tracks were observed at the scene, but as the official report points out, this was probably due to the hardness of

the ground and the fact that many cattle had been milling around. However, the report also notes there were several

wild dogs in the area. The officers suspected that the skin an meaty area of the nose had been eaten by scavengers.

They further theorized that something had started eating on the carcass but was scared away at daylight perhaps by

traffic from the road, which tan only a few yards from the carcass.

It should be kept in mind that all of the cases investigated under this project — with the exception of the T-Bone

and Cordova incidents — were reported as mutilations. Furthermore, in the majority of these cases, the term “surgical

precision” was used to describe the damage.

Chapter 5 — Evaluation of Mutilations from Other States

One major objective of this project was to gather information from other states in order to assess the scope of the

livestock mutilation phenomenon. Judging from media coverage, I knew that mutilations had been reported in states

throughout the country. To evaluate these incidents, I contacted the governor of every state requesting information,

as well as nine veterinarians affiliated with eight state diagnostic laboratories.

These include the Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science,

Colorado State University ; Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Iowa State University ;

Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University; Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory,

College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri ; Montana Veterinary Diagnostic

Laboratory; New Mexico Veterinary Diagnostic Service, New Mexico State University ; and

Veterinary Laboratory, South Dakota State University ; and Veterinarian Laboratory, Texas A &

M. The complete reports furnished to me by these laboratories are contained in the appendix.

As in New Mexico, newspaper accounts from these states also tend to stress the bizarre and mysterious nature of

livestock mutilations. Similarly, the data I received from qualified professional investigators and veterinarians,

especially those affiliated with animal diagnostic laboratories, confirm the conclusions I have reached — that the

vast majority of reported mutilations are scavenger-induced.

In three of these states — Colorado, Montana, and Arkansas — the livestock mutilation phenomenon resembles that

described in New Mexico in terms of the large number of reported cases and in the hysteria, and interest these

incidents had generated. In addition, certain incidents reported in these states have contributed substantially to the

lore surrounding the mutilation phenomenon. A fourth state — Oklahoma — is also of interest in that the livestock

mutilation problem was investigated in 1974 by an official task force. I will thus begin my evaluation of

the data obtained from other areas with a discussion of the incidents that have occurred in Colorado, Montana,

Arkansas, and Oklahoma.

This will be followed by a summary of information obtained from the other 19 states which furnished me with data on

livestock mutilations. Seven states never responded to my inquiry. As for the remaining 20 states, the officials I

contacted informed me either that their state had had no mutilations as defined by this project, or that they did not

keep any central statistics on the problem. These states, which will not be mentioned again, include Alaska,

California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York,

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.

Colorado Incidents

Montana Incidents

Arkansas Incidents

Oklahoma Incidents

Incidents Reported in Other States

Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 6 — Conclusions and Recommendations

During the past five years, hundreds of livestock mutilations have been reported throughout the United States. Of the

states affected by this phenomenon, New Mexico has certainly had its share of unusual incidents.

Since 1975 , over 100 mutilations have been reported throughout the state. Ninety mutilations were

reported prior to Operation Animal Mutilation. Another 27 incidents were investigated under this year-long project,

which began May 28, 1979 . Twenty-five of these cases were reported as mutilations. In each of these 25

incidents, as I have shown in Chapter Four , the rough jagged nature of the incisions together

with

the evidence at the scene clearly indicates that the carcass was damaged by predators and/or scavengers. In most

cases, the animal had died first of natural causes.

Shortly after the results of my investigation were released to the press, several individuals have stated that no

classic mutilations had occurred during the course of my project as though this would explain my sincere, but

obviously misguided verdict of scavenger-induced damage. I agree that no classic mutilations have occurred during

Operation Animal Mutilation. However, I would like to know their basis for their statement. More specifically, I wish

to address the following questions to them:

How many of the mutilations that I investigated in this project did they also investigate?

Specifically, which ones did they investigate?

How do these mutilations differ from the “classic” cases with which they are comparing them?

Can these questions be answered, or is their observation just another one of those unsupported statements that I have

encountered so frequently during the course of my project? I cannot answer this, but I can point out the results of my

own analysis of the 90 mutilations reported prior to the commencement of Operation Animal Mutilation.

As I have noted in Chapter Three, a verdict of predator/scavenger-induced damage is clearly indicated in the vast

majority of cases in which sufficient evidence is presented in the report. Even in those few cases in which the damage

was determined to be human-induced, the resulting mutilation bore little resemblance to the “classic” case. In short,

during my investigation of the 117 mutilations that have been reported in New Mexico since 1975 , I have

not found one single case which, after careful scrutiny of available evidence, could be confirmed as a “classic

mutilation.”

Are the conclusions that I have reached unique? To the contrary, the data obtained from qualified investigators and

experienced veterinarians in other states only confirms what I have discovered in New Mexico. In fact, I have found no

credible source who differs from this finding, nor has one piece of hard evidence been presented or uncovered that

would cause me to alter this conclusion. But perhaps it is better to let the experts speak for themselves. The

following statements are excerpts from letters received from veterinarians affiliated with various state veterinary

diagnostic laboratories. The complete contents of these communications can be found in the appendix section of this

report.

It is my opinion that most of these carcass problems occur after the natural death of the animal and predators or

scavengers feed on the remaining loose tissues of the carcass, such as lips, eyelids, and the external genital

organs.

Dr. Harry D. Anthony, Kansas State University

Many animal mutilation reports are a result of false or incomplete information being furnished by the rancher to

law enforcement officers investigating the dead animals, and many times by inexperienced and untrained law

enforcement officers putting down what they see in a manner which tends to be very dogmatic… it appears to be a

quirk of human nature for ranchers not to want to admit that an animal of theirs died either by poisoning or due to

predation.

Dr. S. M. Dennis, Kansas State University

It is the opinion of our pathologists that a fair percentage of animals that come to post-mortem have been eaten on

by birds and carnivorous (animals). This has been observed for many years. It is also the opinion of our

pathologists that the percentage of dead animals that have lost parts to carnivorous (animals) has not increased in

recent years, although the number of clients that believe their animals have been mutilated by humans or some other

unexplained phenomenon have increased.

Dr. L. G. Morehouse, University of Missouri

Dr. William J. Quinn, State of Montana:

“In summary, I believe that the cattle mutilations are due to flesh-eating birds and small mammals and not by an

unknown person or group of persons.”

L. D. Kintner, University of Missouri:

“Surprisingly as it may seem to the uninitiated, many of the scavengers make a clean cut as might be done by a

surgeon with a very sharp knife. In fact, many of the animals that are presented to our postmortem laboratory have

loss of eyes, tongue, anus, and rectum within only hours after death.”

Dr. Roger Panciera, Oklahoma State University:

(Commenting in a special task force report to the governor of Oklahoma in regards to cattle mutilations):

“All Investigations that have been completed have indicated death due to natural causes and death due to disease. In

no case has the observation and opinion of task force indicated man has been a primary factor in death or

mutilation.”

Dr. M. W. Vorhies, South Dakota State University:

“Obviously, we should not dismiss the possibilities of human involvement, but it has been our experience that in all

instances, we could identify evidence of predatory animals being involved in missing parts of animals dying of some

natural causes.

Dr. William Sippel, Texas A & M University:

“In short, we have found no evidence of mutilation by humans of the specimens presented to our laboratory.”

Dr. Robert L. Poulson, Utah Department of Agriculture:

“Livestock mutilations in Utah have been minimal, with the exception of a few cases that were reported which

apparently resulted from natural or disease conditions and later mutilated by pranksters or predatory animals.”

In short, as you can see from the foregoing excerpts, the conclusions of professionals from other states

overwhelmingly corroborate my own findings. They all agree that the carcasses they have examined have been damaged —

by animals and birds rather than highly skilled surgeons. As I have noted previously, in order to eliminate a verdict

of predator/scavenger damage, it must be shown that the incisions in the carcass have been made by a knife or other

sharp instrument. As I have illustrated in Chapter Four, incisions made by scavengers can resemble knife cuts,

especially when viewed at a distance. In those cases in which the cut appears to be smooth, microscopic analysis is

necessary to determine whether or not that cut was made by a sharp instrument. In order for such a verdict to be

reached, microscopic analysis must reveal that the hair follicles have been cut perpendicular to the plain. If this

cannot be shown, then the damage cannot be attributed to humans.

Although “surgical precision” is the major criterion used to distinguish scavenger-induced damage from the “classic

mutilations” the latter is also attributed with other characteristics that reportedly set it apart from carcasses

damaged by birds and animals. The other attributes of the classic mutilation, as I will illustrate below, can also be

explained logically.

For example, one major characteristic is the removal of certain types of organs — namely the sexual organs, tongue,

eye, and ear. However, as I have pointed out previously, these are the same organs normally removed by scavengers.

This point is well illustrated by an experiment conducted in Arkansas on September 4, 1979. Officials of the

Washington County Sheriff’s Department, which sponsored this experiment, monitored a calf, which had just died, for

more than 30 hours.

By the time they completed their vigil, the animal’s tongue was gone, its eye removed to the bony orbit, anus

‘cored’, internal organs (intestines, bladder, etc.) expelled, and little blood was evident at the scene. Who were

the mutilators? Blowflies, skunks, and buzzards, who were still feeding on the carcass when the last photographs

were taken September 6 at 11:00 a.m. (Owen 1980: 17).

This experiment also illustrates another point that I have made repeatedly in this report — that the types of organs

removed and the amount of damage done to the carcass depends on when the investigator arrives at the scene and which

scavengers are present in the area.

Another claim made for the classic mutilation is that the animal is devoid of blood. Such a claim is rarely

substantiated by a necropsy report. Rather, it seems to be based primarily on the apparent lack of blood at the scene.

Such a lack, however, is easily explainable, particularly in view of the fact that most mutilations appear to be done

after the animal has died. As noted previously, the blood settles to the lower port of the cavity and coagulates, thus

giving the appearance that the animal is devoid of blood. Any blood on the carcass or on the ground is quickly

consumed by scavengers - such as the blowflies observed in the Arkansas experiment. To quote Dr. L. D. Kintner of the

University of Missouri: “It is the rule rather than the exception for these animals to do a neat job and not leave

either blood or mess at the site of the carcass.”

Also, it seems likely that in a number of alleged mutilations, dried blood found on the carcass has been mistakenly

identified as burn marks, which are occasionally reported in classic mutilation cases. Dr. M. W. Vorhies of South

Dakota University makes the following observations regarding this problem.

Often where the animal has died and the predatory animals have removed parts, there is dried blood on the hair; and

this may appear to some as if the skin or hair has been burned because it will turn a very dark black color when

exposed to the air.

Dr. Clair M. Hibbs of New Mexico State University, when asked to comment about the “mysterious lack of blood at the

scene,” sums up the situation by saying that “these statements are made by unprofessionals who do not have any real

knowledge of what happens after an animal dies.”

A third characteristic attributed to the classic mutilations is the deliberate avoidance of the carcass by other

animals. Although many of the mutilations investigated before Operation Animal Mutilation began are considered

“classic” — at least by some of the more vocal investigators — scavenger activity is cited in a large percentage of

the official reports from this period.

It should also be pointed out that the deliberate avoidance of the carcass by other animals need not indicate

anything mysterious or bizarre about that carcass, for scavengers will tend to avoid livestock which have died from

certain types of diseases such as water belly (Ruolithiasis). Water belly, according to Tommy Thompson of the Nebraska

Department of Agriculture, occurs in a cow when the urinary tract gets blocked. The urine subsequently backs up into

other portions of the body, eventually killing the animal. According to Thompson, an animal which has died from this

condition has such a strong odor that oven scavengers won’t go near the carcass.

Another characteristic closely related to this one is the discovery of dead flies on some of the “mutilation”

victims. In fact, shortly after it was announced that I would direct this project, Bob Erickson, a rancher from

Lindrith, informed me that of his horses had been mutilated. What struck him as so unusual about this incident was

that his horse was covered with dead flies - - a fact which he considered very mysterious and in his mind, tended to

authenticate the mutilation phenomenon. I later learned of a similar case which had been reported June 8, 1978 in

Elsberry, Missouri. Briefly, an animal was found mutilated. Its right ear, right eye, tongue, udder, and reproductive

organs were missing, according to the police report. The report also claimed that the animal’s blood had been removed

and that UFOs had been seen in the area. But what interested me about this particular case was the discovery made by

the investigating officer of dead flies, which were fused to some branches located near the carcass.

The flies, together with the branches on which they were fused, were submitted by personnel from a local television

station to the Ralston Purina Laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri, for examination.

According to the police report (1978), “[they] found [it] to be a fungus which has never before been discovered or

known to exist in the wild. It has only, up to this point, been produced in a laboratory.”

To investigate this incident, I obtained some letters written by Dr. J. M. Tufts (deceased) of the Veterinary

Service Department of the Ralston Purina Company, who had performed the analysis. These letters, which had been sent

to the Center for UFO Studies and a local television station, subsequently dispelled much of the mystery surrounding

this incident. The information contained in these letters is summarized in the following paragraphs.

The flies were identified as the common “black blowfly.” It was determined that they were afflicted by a fungus

belonging to the genus Entomophthora, which is described in Steinhaus Insect Microbiology. This volume includes a

picture of clumps of flies attached to a leaf in a manner similar to that observed in the Elsberry incident.

The flies affected with the fungus attach themselves to branches and leaves in a lifelike manner and often in

considerable numbers. Such flies would normally be attracted in great numbers to a decaying carcass. The disease

progresses very rapidly, within 48 to 72 hours, and may completely replace the flies’ internal structures. The fungus

is also characterized by an adhesive material, which will cause the fly to stick to whatever it lands on. In short,

the fungus could spread very rapidly and kill many flies very quickly, especially when large numbers are attracted to

an area limited to the size of a carcass. Dr. Tufts concluded that the death and peculiar fixation of the flies was

due to a fungal disease to which they are normally subject not to a mysterious unknown organism.

A few other characteristics of the “classic mutilation” also deserve brief mention. One common claim, as noted

previously, is that the night a mutilation occurs, the family dog is unusually quiet. I have no quarrel with this

observation, for as I pointed out in a recent press conference, it’s hard to bark when your mouth is full of fresh

meat.

Another frequently made claim is that the carcass of a mutilated animal decays either very slowly or, in some cases,

extremely rapidly. There is nothing unusual about such an observation, for the rate of decay of a carcass is dependent

upon a number of factors, such as the disease from which the animal died, the temperature, the weather conditions, and

the types of scavengers present in the area. Depending on which factors are present, the carcass may appear to decay

more rapidly or more slowly than normal.

Although not cited as a typically occurring trait, the discovery of drugs in the carcasses of some of the victims

has frequently been cited as proof that these livestock are being killed and mutilated by a highly sophisticated

organization. During the course of my investigation, I have found reports of only five incidents in which drugs were

discovered in the carcasses of mutilated, animals — three in Arkansas and two in New Mexico.

In three of these incidents, as I have noted previously, the substances found in the animals were drugs with known

veterinary use. These include the chlorpromazine found in the mutilated steer in New Mexico; the succinylcholine in

the horse in Arkansas, and the santonin in the yearling steer, also in Arkansas. As I have already explained, there is

reason to believe that two of these drugs had been administered to the animals, possibly by their owners, At this time

I know of no reason why the chlorpromazine was found in the steer, but I have determined, as noted in Chapter Three,

that the animal was on medicated feed.

The other two drugs — mescaline, which was found in a bull calf in Arkansas, and atropine, which was reportedly

found in a New Mexico animal — are substances that occur naturally in plants found in the area. Since cattle are

known to ingest practically anything, the discovery of such substances in the carcasses of dead livestock is certainly

not remarkable.

I would like to remind you that the New Mexico case in which atropine was reportedly found has not been identified

and that the only source to mention it is the same officer that made the statement that chlorpromazine was the first

drug discovered in a New Mexican animal.

To account for the widespread occurrence of these so-called classic mutilations, many theories have been advocated.

During the course of my 12-month investigation, I have encountered most of them. However, it didn’t take me long to

realize that in terms of publicity, the most popular theory in New Mexico was that these mutilations were being

performed by a well-organized, highly sophisticated group who were dissecting livestock as part of a program of

biological and environmental testing. The identification of this group has received less publicity, although

government involvement has certainly been hinted at by a number of investigators, both amateur and professional.

Despite its popularity, I have not found one shred of hard evidence to substantiate this theory. As I have pointed

out in Chapter Three, one would expect that if an organized group such as the government were somehow involved in such

a conspiracy, that there would be at least some information leaks — or perhaps at least one defector who would try to

claim the reward money. For thousands of dollars have been offered by various state agencies for information leading

to the arrest and conviction of persons responsible for mutilating livestock. To date, I know of not one single case

where this money has been claimed. But then again, what use would eagles, crows, and coyotes have for money, when

their food is laying in the pasture — free for the taking.

It also didn’t take me long to learn that of all the theories that have been advocated to account for livestock

mutilations, the predator/scavenger theory was the least popular. Although it was not within the scope of my project

to determine the reason for this, the following observations made in a recent article published in the Portales News

Tribune (1979) aptly express my own thinking on the subject:

“Well, in our opinion, the reason that the simple explanation of these cattle first died of natural causes and

almost immediately attracted coyotes, vultures or ravens, lacks credibility to the public is that they haven’t been

given the evidence which livestock inspectors, veterinarians and experienced cattlemen are ready and willing to

provide.

These knowledgeable people have become shy of answering questions from newsmen because of the Popular beliefs that

have been reinforced by speculation of eerie or devilish theories by powerful public news media.

“It’s probably simply a case of the newsmen not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Explanations for the phenomenon

Recommendations

UFOpedia

Explorer

rommel-operation-animal-mutilation-1980

Kenneth Rommel — Operation Animal Mutilation (Report of the District Attorney, 1st Judicial District, State of New Mexico, June 1980)

Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — A Popular History of Livestock Mutilations in New Mexico (Winter 1975 – Spring 1979)

Chapter 3 — Investigation of Previous New Mexico Cases (1975–1979)

Chapter 4 — Investigation of Recent New Mexico Cases (1979–1980)

Chapter 5 — Evaluation of Mutilations from Other States

Chapter 6 — Conclusions and Recommendations

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks