George,

 

It has taken me a few weeks to reply to your message but here is my long answer on animal mutilations.  First, thank you for expressing your interest in my work and sharing your experiences on this same topic.  I can honestly say that I have been aware of the animal mutilation phenomena for over 40 years when the first case to gain wide media coverage was reported in 1967.  Having limited opportunity to conduct my own research, I settled for reading written accounts and reviewing photographic evidence of the phenomena that was collected by others.  When the “official” US Government answer consisting of natural predation followed by bloating and subsequent buzzard/blowfly clean-up was advanced, I accepted this analysis.  When later claims of poor ranching practices was suggested, that made sense too, and the mystery was now solved to my total satisfaction.

 

Then, 35+ years later, I started reexamining animal mutilation cases using the power of the internet.  After looking at a great many photographs of mutilated animals (yuk!) one type of commonly reoccurring tissue injury caused me concern, regular appearing elliptical wounds on just one side the animals face beginning under the ear and exposing the entire Maxilla and Mandible (upper and lower jaw bones, respectively).  Seeing very similar tissue damage in bovine, equine, deer, and human (the Brazil autopsy photo’s), and just one side should give anyone pause.  Why would this type tissue damage be present on so many animals and why typically only one side?  The conventional explanation of dehydration and subsequent tissue contraction is an unlikely answer for confirmed fresh kills.

 

During graduate school, I had the good fortune of regularly conversing with a anthropology doctoral student.   We shared many great discussions including how analysis of bones and teeth can reveal a wealth of information about the life of a specific animal.  After recalling these conversations it all finally made sense; the tissue was removed to determine the animals age and diet.  The anthropologist must examine tooth wear and tooth damage to estimate age and tooth shape/jaw structure to determine its normal diet, a procedure easily accomplished with the tissue removed.   No weirdo, satanic cult, or black helicopter spook would care about the age of an animal, only someone collecting scientific data would have any interest in this information. 

 

The coincidence does not end here.  Another common mutilation characteristic is the removal of a single ear.  Today, our scientific community has adopted the ear as a preferred source to obtain fibroblast cells for cloning and genetic information preservation.   Put cloning and ear into Google and scientific paper after paper is found describing the cloning sheep, cows, dogs, etc. all from cells that were obtained from the ear.  The inner ear tissue of most animals has proved to be an excellent source of high quality genetic material because of the high cell division rate and fibroblast density compared to other skin locations.  Also, the ear’s location away from the animals main body reduces the rate of cellular degradation after death and high quality genetic material can be obtained even 24 hours after death.  It is common practice within our scientific community today to harvest the entire ear and place it in cryogenic store for future research. Once again, no weirdo’s, satanic cults, or black helicopter spook’s would care about cloning, only someone collecting genetic information in support of an experiment would need this information. 

 

Many animal mutilations do not show these characteristics and I suspect that just like UFO sightings where only about 1 in 10 are true unknowns, only a subset of the 10,000 animal mutilations recorded in the last 50 years are true mutilation cases.  But I have shared here for the first time I am aware, readers please correct me, sound scientific reasoning behind specific mutilation characteristics; I suggest someone is collecting differentiating information on the animal subjects used in their experiments.  Many laboratory studies over the years have found unexpected chemicals or high concentrations of expected compounds in the animal organs suggesting the animal was part of an experiment.   Within this context, collection of animal age and genetic information would be a normal part of experimental research.  

 

The animal mutilation story has many unsolved mysteries but I hope my logic here finally explains two common characteristics.  Working as a scientist for more than 20 years, I understand the great importance of peer review.  It is very unfortunately that fear of ridicule surrounding this and similar topics disrupts the normal scientific process.  It is my hope that the esteemed members of ARUFON will satisfy the peer review requirement through their critical examination of my analysis.  I would also be interested in hearing from ARUFON members with many decades of historical knowledge as to the prior existence of any anthropological or genetic arguments for animal mutilations.

 

73, Chris

KC0VER