Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Cow Mutilations in Eastern Plains of Colorado


WisdomGarden

Recommended Posts

white unicorn,

I have tested several theories of shooting flammable items including gasoline, diesel fuel, ether, methane, oxy acetylene mixes and have never been able to successfully ignite any compound at 50 feet.  This using a 300 h&h, 300 weatherby , 22,250 round, 223 swift, 12 gauge shot gun (high brass), 3006, 270 and several high powered hand guns including the desert eagle.  It would be amazing if you could shoot a cow and ignite the methane gas in the stomach.  What caliber of shell were you using?   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
20 minutes ago, I'm JHWH study said:

white unicorn,

I have tested several theories of shooting flammable items including gasoline, diesel fuel, ether, methane, oxy acetylene mixes and have never been able to successfully ignite any compound at 50 feet.  This using a 300 h&h, 300 weatherby , 22,250 round, 223 swift, 12 gauge shot gun (high brass), 3006, 270 and several high powered hand guns including the desert eagle.  It would be amazing if you could shoot a cow and ignite the methane gas in the stomach.  What caliber of shell were you using?   

I've just got to say, this is the first and only post I've read on this thread. Frankly it has me intrigued to learn what led up to it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I want to thank everyone for their learned opinions.  I was hoping to begin a dialog concerning this and other illogical and strange occurrences.  I believe that we are heading In that direction. 

I asked a few questions and nothing was answered. Therefore I know that this is not heading in any direction other than down the path of pointlessness.

Here is what is known:

1. The number of cattle deaths has been greatly inflated.

2. Tests show that the sort of events people call cattle mutilations are consistent with natural processes.

Consider the following statement:

Quote

I don't ever remember seeing a predator eating an eye or the tongue on one of these carcasses. There is a possibility  that they did eat the lips but that's doubtful.  I think most predators would open up the softer part of the cow to get to the heart, liver, kidneys etc.

This is just conjecture and is not supported by those that have watched natural processes occur. When simple issues are seen to be incorrect it is likely that more of the posting is also incorrect.

When you ask " Let's say that what I am reporting to you is credible information " I say no. This is not looking credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I'm JHWH study said:

white unicorn,

I have tested several theories of shooting flammable items including gasoline, diesel fuel, ether, methane, oxy acetylene mixes and have never been able to successfully ignite any compound at 50 feet.  This using a 300 h&h, 300 weatherby , 22,250 round, 223 swift, 12 gauge shot gun (high brass), 3006, 270 and several high powered hand guns including the desert eagle.  It would be amazing if you could shoot a cow and ignite the methane gas in the stomach.  What caliber of shell were you using?   

First up, I'd love to see the videos you took of these experiments..  However...

Second up, while I agree with your statement (I won't make any similar grand claims about testing this myself, I've merely seen the Mythbusters coverage..), you need to think this through fully, as an investigator would.  Who said the bullet needed to be the ignition source?

If you were an enterprising soul with time on your hands and the ability to lateral think (aka 'farmer' / 'farmhand' or just 'rural dweller' or really anyone..), you would merely take a lighter or other ignition source.  With a bit of practice, perhaps including placing the lighter in advance near the aiming point, it would not be that difficult, and may even be 'entertaining' for those of that mindset.

 

This quick dismissal of ideas without considering them thoroughly, is the hallmark of those with minds already made up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereologist,

I was wondering what kind of stereo you might recommend?  Do you favor the Bose technology?  I am assuming that you understand the meaning of you your screen name.  I might add that it is an interesting one.  It would seem that there are a great many inferences in your field of study.  I have an understanding of how this works in the medical field.  I hope I am assuming correctly that I am conversing with someone that has an elevated intellect.

Here is what is known.

1,  The number of cattle deaths has been greatly deflated.  I am guessing that you are not an expert when speaking to the amount of cattle deaths on the continent.  You have made a decision to rely on some statistics that would show you that this is the case without verifying the voracity of there findings based on an incomplete report of said cattle deaths.  If we simply take the 2010 report of  10,000 deaths which is a low representation of the actual number reported and multiply that number by the 40 plus years that this has occurred you would have around 400,000 unexplained cattle deaths.  This is only for the United States and there is evidence that this also happens in Canada and Mexico for which I have no numbers to relate and neither do you.  Do you think that based on land mass used for cattle or the simple probability that we could expect 20% or more in those other areas?  Given that amount we would be looking at approximately 500,000 unexplained deaths.  Now let us factor in that at least 50% if not more are not reported.  We can argue this point but I believe if there were statistical information, which there is not this number would be even higher.  Statistically crime is not reported unless there is an expectation that the criminals will be brought to justice.  I have no knowledge of anyone being brought to justice for these crimes.

2.  Tests show that the sort of events people call mutilations are consistent with unnatural processes.  Do you believe that this is a statistical anomaly?  Thousands of experienced ranchers can now no longer discern between cattle that have died of natural causes and those that have evidence or strange or unlikely deaths?  Our American ranchers didn't pay attention to how their cattle died and rotted before and this topic is just based on the ignorance and superstition of a bunch of conspiracy seeking grass roots kind of guys?  What kind of tests were done, because I know ranchers that skinned these animals looking for blood and they also tried to replicate the type of incisions that were made to remove there genitals?  What they found was that there were no needle sights in the epidermis which would leave a bruise under the skin to remove the blood and the incisions were at the very least surgical in. precision.  This is obvious in the pictures that I have.

 The word conjecture would mean an opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information.  I submit to you that I have seen cattle die and then be reduced to bones by natural processes and so have all of the other ranchers that were alarmed by this occurrence.  These cattle deaths are not natural.  There is no explanation for the deaths and that is why they are called unexplained.  They were not struck by lightning, killed by a predator, killed by a snake bite, killed by poison, killed by gunfire, killed by another cow or died of boredom.  Cows are killed and before there is a chance for predators or flies to disturb the scene they are found by ranchers.  When they are discovered they have already mutilated and these are the only injuries.  It's in-credible! (notice what I did there?)

ASKED AND ANSWERED

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChrLzs,

I was just speaking from experience,  We couldn't get an explosion or even combustion trying those guns I listed firing them into several containers of extremely flammable substances.  This is why I asked for more information.  Also the lack of oxygen in the cow would make combustion problematic.  I don't have a closed mind, just wondering how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I'm JHWH study said:

Stereologist,

I was wondering what kind of stereo you might recommend?  Do you favor the Bose technology?  I am assuming that you understand the meaning of you your screen name.  I might add that it is an interesting one.  It would seem that there are a great many inferences in your field of study.  I have an understanding of how this works in the medical field.  I hope I am assuming correctly that I am conversing with someone that has an elevated intellect.

Here is what is known.

1,  The number of cattle deaths has been greatly deflated.  I am guessing that you are not an expert when speaking to the amount of cattle deaths on the continent.  You have made a decision to rely on some statistics that would show you that this is the case without verifying the voracity of there findings based on an incomplete report of said cattle deaths.  If we simply take the 2010 report of  10,000 deaths which is a low representation of the actual number reported and multiply that number by the 40 plus years that this has occurred you would have around 400,000 unexplained cattle deaths.  This is only for the United States and there is evidence that this also happens in Canada and Mexico for which I have no numbers to relate and neither do you.  Do you think that based on land mass used for cattle or the simple probability that we could expect 20% or more in those other areas?  Given that amount we would be looking at approximately 500,000 unexplained deaths.  Now let us factor in that at least 50% if not more are not reported.  We can argue this point but I believe if there were statistical information, which there is not this number would be even higher.  Statistically crime is not reported unless there is an expectation that the criminals will be brought to justice.  I have no knowledge of anyone being brought to justice for these crimes.

2.  Tests show that the sort of events people call mutilations are consistent with unnatural processes.  Do you believe that this is a statistical anomaly?  Thousands of experienced ranchers can now no longer discern between cattle that have died of natural causes and those that have evidence or strange or unlikely deaths?  Our American ranchers didn't pay attention to how their cattle died and rotted before and this topic is just based on the ignorance and superstition of a bunch of conspiracy seeking grass roots kind of guys?  What kind of tests were done, because I know ranchers that skinned these animals looking for blood and they also tried to replicate the type of incisions that were made to remove there genitals?  What they found was that there were no needle sights in the epidermis which would leave a bruise under the skin to remove the blood and the incisions were at the very least surgical in. precision.  This is obvious in the pictures that I have.

 The word conjecture would mean an opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information.  I submit to you that I have seen cattle die and then be reduced to bones by natural processes and so have all of the other ranchers that were alarmed by this occurrence.  These cattle deaths are not natural.  There is no explanation for the deaths and that is why they are called unexplained.  They were not struck by lightning, killed by a predator, killed by a snake bite, killed by poison, killed by gunfire, killed by another cow or died of boredom.  Cows are killed and before there is a chance for predators or flies to disturb the scene they are found by ranchers.  When they are discovered they have already mutilated and these are the only injuries.  It's in-credible! (notice what I did there?)

ASKED AND ANSWERED

 

Stereologist has nothing to do with stereos or audio equipment. Clearly, you do not know the meaning of my screen name. Stereology is described here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereology

1. You make every effort to greatly inflate numbers because they show your claims to be too high. I find your numbers game simply useless. The simple fact is that the reported numbers show your claims are substantially off. Your suggestion that crimes are not reported "unless there is an expectation that the criminals will be brought to justice." is another claim which is not supported. I do not find anything you posted compelling other than repeating the known numbers showing our claims is far off the real mark.

2. Tests show that cattle mutilations are consistent with natural events. I posted a link showing that is the case. You have posted nothing but opinion which has been shown to be wrong. The rest of your post is simply an appeal to incredulity. It fails.

Your argument is based on a personal anecdote which cannot be checked. What can be checked are reports and those reports have been compared to natural processes.

Thanks for answering but I find that these cases are natural events.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereo man

 

I absolutely know what a stereologist is and that was the reason for the medical reference above.  I don't need the link. Sorry you think so little of my thoughts on the subject. Any thoughts on my screen name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I'm JHWH study said:

Stereo man

 

I absolutely know what a stereologist is and that was the reason for the medical reference above.  I don't need the link. Sorry you think so little of my thoughts on the subject. Any thoughts on my screen name?

This has nothing to do with the thread, but do you understand that stereology has limited application to medical issues?

What we are looking for is evidence to support your claims. That has not happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, I'm JHWH study said:

 Most ranchers do not report these incidents to the Sheriff or any other official.  There is no insurance for loss of cattle as they are often struck by lightning or killed by other animals or city folk who would like a freezer full of meat.

Sorry to snip the rest of your commentary, but I wanted to address this. Someone had asked if cattle are insured, and above you said there is no insurance for loss of cattle.

There is indeed insurance for cattle, it's livestock insurance. There's different kinds of coverage- a farmer can choose to cover individual animals, or a blanket policy for the whole heard, and there's even uninsured livestock clauses on some farm policies that can cover accidental death like the animal being struck and killed by a car or an accidental hunter shooting that can provide some accidental coverage even if the farmer opts not to have livestock insurance. It is an optional insurance though, there isn't a requirement to have that specifically. A lot of farmers feel the additional cost isn't worth it, just like some homeowners opt not to have additional flood insurance on their homes. But some do have the coverage, and yep, it can even cover lightning strikes. This article is from earlier this month out of Missouri, where a farmer lost 32 cows due to lightning strike, and had some insurance coverage for it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lightning-kills-32-dairy-cows/

I'm not sure why folks in your area wouldn't report livestock predation. I get not reporting it to the sheriff, it's not a human crime. But not reporting it to the DNR, or NASS or APHIS, or even with the local vets is a bad idea- because there might be a dangerous animal preying on livestock, and folks usually like to know about it and put a stop to it.

The city folk part just made me giggle. I'm not sure how many city folk are willing and able to steal or slaughter a cow on the spot and also process it for the freezer. Most people don't know how to break down a whole tenderloin, let alone a whole cow. And I just can't imagine shrugging off a missing cow as just some city folk wanting meat. Especially since there is a problem with cattle theft that does get reported and is a big deal that folks should call in the sheriff over.

And something not mentioned yet really, but very important to some reporting or not about cattle deaths. Taxes. It can depend on the age and source (if purchased or farm born) and the use of the animal how it gets recorded, but they are recorded through a farmers taxes. Farm born calves can be a big exception since they aren't claimable at birth- but then most cattle mutilations aren't on new calves, they are on full grown animals. By the time a calf is grown up, there's things like vets bills and supplies to be tracked and inventory accounting of the animals themselves. There's a whole form for "casualties and thefts" for this sort of thing. Even if a farmer might shrug off that cow as lightning, predation, or city folk and not report it to the sheriff or any other official sources, you bet the IRS will know about it, and the farmer is very unlikely to shrug off the fiscal loss or tax responsibility.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rashore said:

Sorry to snip the rest of your commentary, but I wanted to address this. Someone had asked if cattle are insured, and above you said there is no insurance for loss of cattle.

There is indeed insurance for cattle, it's livestock insurance. There's different kinds of coverage- a farmer can choose to cover individual animals, or a blanket policy for the whole heard, and there's even uninsured livestock clauses on some farm policies that can cover accidental death like the animal being struck and killed by a car or an accidental hunter shooting that can provide some accidental coverage even if the farmer opts not to have livestock insurance. It is an optional insurance though, there isn't a requirement to have that specifically. A lot of farmers feel the additional cost isn't worth it, just like some homeowners opt not to have additional flood insurance on their homes. But some do have the coverage, and yep, it can even cover lightning strikes. This article is from earlier this month out of Missouri, where a farmer lost 32 cows due to lightning strike, and had some insurance coverage for it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lightning-kills-32-dairy-cows/

I'm not sure why folks in your area wouldn't report livestock predation. I get not reporting it to the sheriff, it's not a human crime. But not reporting it to the DNR, or NASS or APHIS, or even with the local vets is a bad idea- because there might be a dangerous animal preying on livestock, and folks usually like to know about it and put a stop to it.

The city folk part just made me giggle. I'm not sure how many city folk are willing and able to steal or slaughter a cow on the spot and also process it for the freezer. Most people don't know how to break down a whole tenderloin, let alone a whole cow. And I just can't imagine shrugging off a missing cow as just some city folk wanting meat. Especially since there is a problem with cattle theft that does get reported and is a big deal that folks should call in the sheriff over.

And something not mentioned yet really, but very important to some reporting or not about cattle deaths. Taxes. It can depend on the age and source (if purchased or farm born) and the use of the animal how it gets recorded, but they are recorded through a farmers taxes. Farm born calves can be a big exception since they aren't claimable at birth- but then most cattle mutilations aren't on new calves, they are on full grown animals. By the time a calf is grown up, there's things like vets bills and supplies to be tracked and inventory accounting of the animals themselves. There's a whole form for "casualties and thefts" for this sort of thing. Even if a farmer might shrug off that cow as lightning, predation, or city folk and not report it to the sheriff or any other official sources, you bet the IRS will know about it, and the farmer is very unlikely to shrug off the fiscal loss or tax responsibility.

 

Thanks rashore, the city-folk stealing meat thing seemed odd to me as well but I am not familiar in any way with raising cattle so didn't bring it up.  You seem familiar with the industry so what are your thoughts on cattle mutilations?  Are they as widespread as suggested and happen overnight, in  matter of a few hours really, as posted here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Thanks rashore, the city-folk stealing meat thing seemed odd to me as well but I am not familiar in any way with raising cattle so didn't bring it up.  You seem familiar with the industry so what are your thoughts on cattle mutilations?  Are they as widespread as suggested and happen overnight, in  matter of a few hours really, as posted here? 

I think losses are probably fairly accurate as reported overall in the official reports. It's part of the business. Taking some math from JHWH..

Quote

If we simply take the 2010 report of  10,000 deaths which is a low representation of the actual number reported and multiply that number by the 40 plus years that this has occurred you would have around 400,000 unexplained cattle deaths. Do you think that based on land mass used for cattle or the simple probability that we could expect 20% or more in those other areas?  Given that amount we would be looking at approximately 500,000 unexplained deaths.  Now let us factor in that at least 50% if not more are not reported. 

So, let's say loss claim per cow is 100 bucks. This isn't accurate since claims can be much bigger, but makes my math easier. That first bump up with 400,000 to 500,000 is 100,000 head not being reported in losses in the business. That's $10,000,000 dollars worth of claims farmers didn't bother to file? Now let us factor in at least half aren't even reported? 800,000 to 1,000,000 head then. An additional $40,000,000- $50,000,000 that would go unclaimed if I got my zeros right :)

Farmers have to deal with these types of reports and processes with not dealing with livestock too. Like buildings and equipment, and plant farmers have to deal with it too just as much as the livestock farmers do. Their crop stuff is formatted a bit differently than livestock obviously. There's just some business sense that isn't being applied when folks say that farmers under-report their losses. So for the accuracy of overall losses being reported- yes, I think those deaths are really as widespread as they seem over the 40 plus year stretch being noted.

What I think is behind the cases that are classically cited as cattle mutilations? A variety of things. Sometimes people do really go out and do such things. Out of Kiowa County in 2003 someone was shooting cows- perhaps this is where the notion that maybe city folks are trying to stock their freezers? http://newsok.com/article/1942039

There have been spats of deaths- this article is from Montana 2001, and refers back to cases from the 70's. An item of fun- one full grown steer was valued with a loss claim of $850.00. Way more than the 100 bucks I used for easy math. Bumps those multi-millions of claims more into billions land. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/us/unsolved-mystery-resurfaces-in-montana-who-s-killing-cows.html?mcubz=0

I think some cattle deaths that may have been more mysterious in the past are probably more explainable now- but the time long past for checking the records about it really. Some of the more recent things have been stuff like prussic acid and nitrates. Some information about that: https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/07/09/what-we-know-about-the-mysterious-cattle-deaths-in-central-texas/

http://www.southeastfarmpress.com/livestock/common-causes-unknown-cattle-deaths

Stuff like that is also why it's just good business for reporting losses- sometimes new stuff turns up that can seriously affect a business.

Predation is a part of the reports IMO. Just like critters get mis-ID'd into cryptids, and flying stuff turns into UFO's- some predations get mid-ID'd. This isn't about just cattle and their predators, but it is a nice little guide for overall livestock predation: http://icwdm.org/inspection/Livestock.aspx

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, rashore said:

I think losses are probably fairly accurate as reported overall in the official reports. It's part of the business. Taking some math from JHWH..

So, let's say loss claim per cow is 100 bucks. This isn't accurate since claims can be much bigger, but makes my math easier. That first bump up with 400,000 to 500,000 is 100,000 head not being reported in losses in the business. That's $10,000,000 dollars worth of claims farmers didn't bother to file? Now let us factor in at least half aren't even reported? 800,000 to 1,000,000 head then. An additional $40,000,000- $50,000,000 that would go unclaimed if I got my zeros right :)

Farmers have to deal with these types of reports and processes with not dealing with livestock too. Like buildings and equipment, and plant farmers have to deal with it too just as much as the livestock farmers do. Their crop stuff is formatted a bit differently than livestock obviously. There's just some business sense that isn't being applied when folks say that farmers under-report their losses. So for the accuracy of overall losses being reported- yes, I think those deaths are really as widespread as they seem over the 40 plus year stretch being noted.

What I think is behind the cases that are classically cited as cattle mutilations? A variety of things. Sometimes people do really go out and do such things. Out of Kiowa County in 2003 someone was shooting cows- perhaps this is where the notion that maybe city folks are trying to stock their freezers? http://newsok.com/article/1942039

There have been spats of deaths- this article is from Montana 2001, and refers back to cases from the 70's. An item of fun- one full grown steer was valued with a loss claim of $850.00. Way more than the 100 bucks I used for easy math. Bumps those multi-millions of claims more into billions land. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/us/unsolved-mystery-resurfaces-in-montana-who-s-killing-cows.html?mcubz=0

I think some cattle deaths that may have been more mysterious in the past are probably more explainable now- but the time long past for checking the records about it really. Some of the more recent things have been stuff like prussic acid and nitrates. Some information about that: https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/07/09/what-we-know-about-the-mysterious-cattle-deaths-in-central-texas/

http://www.southeastfarmpress.com/livestock/common-causes-unknown-cattle-deaths

Stuff like that is also why it's just good business for reporting losses- sometimes new stuff turns up that can seriously affect a business.

Predation is a part of the reports IMO. Just like critters get mis-ID'd into cryptids, and flying stuff turns into UFO's- some predations get mid-ID'd. This isn't about just cattle and their predators, but it is a nice little guide for overall livestock predation: http://icwdm.org/inspection/Livestock.aspx

Thanks for the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys after reviewing all of the evidence and posts it would seem that the most likely conclusion is probably correct.  I can say that I'm a little surprised that there is not more about this but maybe that's because there is not much to it.  I made some assumptions and they are probably incorrect.  I have worked out in my mind how all of these things could have been inaccurate in relation to the information I relayed to you.  There are several other explanations for all of the things that I reported so I felt compelled to make that admission.  I did however, based on my experiences and relationships, try to covey to you what I believe was true and correct.  Regardless of my intent or belief I must agree that the evidence you have provided is compelling and so I retract any statements that I have made that were unfounded.  Which were the majority, if not all of them.  I appreciate your time and thoughts and apologize for any remarks that may have been derogatory in nature.  Idnfwiwlf

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all good JHWH :tu: Cattle mutilations are a weird subject. There have been a lot of different theories and such bouncing around on them for a while, and that will probably continue on for a while. I can understand why it perpetuates- if folks whos daily lives center around these animals and sometimes they are baffled or otherwise can't pinpoint the death and aftereffects when they find an animal in a gruesome state.. That in itself creates some weird, and gets talked about. By the time folks outside those communities pick up the stories, it starts to seem extra strange.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I'm JHWH study we all try to do a good job but it can be difficult. I have seen an animal where I work which I thought was a nutria. Since then I had to wait nearly a year and had 3 more sightings including one today. Sighting 2 was far off but showed the aquatic nature of the animal. Sighting 2 told me for sure I was seeing a nutria. Today's sighting tells me I might have misjudged things and I am seeing a muskrat.

You reported an event. You wonder about it. I experienced an event and I too have to wonder about what I saw. I have suggestions of otter and swimming ground hog as possible issues. Only time and more experiences can work out the issue. Not all of the evidence shores up my idea of nutria. I am thankful I have others making reasonable and alternative proposals.

Just as I have to question some of the things I thought was true you might do the same and decide if the event you experienced might be faulty. Was the head as I thought? Was the size as I thought? Was the tail as I thought? Memories are tricky things to deal with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned more about cattle than I ever thought I would from this thread.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereologist,

I thank you for the insight and appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on perception.  Interpretation of experiences is based on who, how and when you are.     You seem to be a very interesting person and I have read some of your posts.  You have a large presence on this site and I look forward to reading more of your posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merc14,

Thank you for your comments.  I have also read some of your posts and find them informative and interesting.  I hope that doesn't sound presumptuous as I am sincere.  I think I'll be reading and not posting for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.