reply to post by Blaine91555
"When I look at the photo's posted by John I see the same things I've seen on every carcass of a dead cow I've ever seen more or less." Wow - You
must have been present at a lot of classical mutilation sites. May I ask which one and what evidence did you have analyzed?
As far as experience goes - Both the rancher and sheriff have lived the ranching area for most of their lives. The two of them have dealt with
numerous animal range deaths before. They know what predation looks like. They are experienced wildlife observers. To insist that these are simply
normal animal deaths and carcass decay is insulting to the men and women men who work their whole lives on ranches and/or law enforcement. Your
statement is ridiculous and almost unworthy of a response.
To say that the rancher would financially benefit by saying that his cow was killed by humans is not true. There is no livestock insurance that covers
mutilations. Quite contrary to your statement, if a rancher loses livestock to wolves, there are avenues of financial compensation. Both these
individuals are targets for ridicule, such as that that you present here.
AS far as bloating being evidence of an old carcass - Extreme bloating occurred almost immediately after death. The flesh was still wet when the cow
was discovered the morning after it was killed and it immediately bloated, some ranchers observed that it was far more than usual.
Animal bites? No way! Ask any rancher or wildlife expert and they will tell you the same thing: Even though an animal carcass has been handled by
humans, predators will still feed on the flesh. Try it for yourselves. Take a piece of meat, handle it all you want, then throw it to a wild predator
- I guarantee you that they will eat it when you are not around. To say otherwise is ignorance of animal behavior or a purposeful attempt to mislead
the public.
Some of the photos that I have shown were taken some three weeks after the cow was discovered. The photos taken by the sheriff and his deputies
clearly show a clean line of termination where flesh was taken from the cow. It would be best of you opinions were based on the original, one day old
law enforcement images, not those taken later on.
When an animal such as a wolf eats, it doesn't use a knife and fork! It bites, pulls, tears, shreds and rips apart the flesh! We've all seen it on
TV in shows like the National Geographic or on the Nature Channel. Even when it is predator related tearing, the wounds never retreat beyond
recognition to a clean, line with no interior scrapes, nicks, breaks or teeth marks.
The three scientists from the ranching area of Florida, that the Discovery channel arranged to have look at the samples, have all reported that the
original incisions were not made by animal predators. As experts in biology and animal behavior, their observations would be more technically
accurate than those of the average layman.
Additionally, the sheriff and rancher said that when they found the cow, only hours after it had been last seen, the cuts were still fresh and wet.
There was no time for the tissue to recede due to normal decay or dehydration.
Your comments about soft tissue entry by normal predator action is correct. Eyewitnesses living around the remains of this cow, however, report that
no predators would eat this carcass for many months after it was discovered, PERIOD! This is anomalous wildlife behavior and it has never been
explained, even people trying to debunk this mysterious activity.
In closing on this post, it should be pointed out that the veterinarian who performed the necropsy on cow # 62, and the three scientists that analyzed
the tissue samples, have investigated many predation cases before. Given their education's and accumulative experience in the field of biology and
animal behavior, their observations would be considered expert testimony in a court of law. Could the same be said of someone looking at photos on the
internet? No offense intended here, but it's a good point.
Obviously, you have all the answers and are working hard to debunk classical animal surgical operations. It sounds like you are a candidate for Phil
Class's position in the UFO-Mutilaltion mystery community. Individuals like yourself are obviously smarter and more skilled in forensic science and
first hand observations than law enforcement and biologists. How silly of researchers like Linda Moulton Howe, Christopher Obrien to be chasing around
eaten animal carcasses for reasons of celebrity! How remarkable - We must be idiots because we have never spoken to someone as rational, clear headed
and experienced in animal deaths as yourself. Bravo for you!
BTW: As far as "Whaa's" posted question about the lack of blood on scene - The wolves must have used a straw while they sipped and dinned in the
moonlight! What clean table manners!