Cattle Mutilations
Operation Moo
Operation Moo Article titled "Operation Moo" blasts Linda Howe,
claims birds explain this bizarre phenomenon! February 1, 1997 Cattle mutilations are a continuing puzzle, as shown by researcher Linda Moulton Howe. This new attempt to make these strange finds seem mundane, and nothing to be concerned about is interesting for both its style (making a big joke out of the phenomenon) and the magazine it appears in; a magazine for fashion conscious men who presumably have some brains as well. Will they see past the obvious bias of this strange piece of literature? Let's hope so.In a surprising move which appears to be a classic case of debunking (disguised by an outward appearance of objectivity, as usual), Gentleman's Quarterly, in the February '97 issue, printed a lengthy article which attempts to portray Linda Moulton Howe as a UFO nut who's merely out to fleece the public, while the poor, strangely
mutilated cows (over10,000 of them) are the victims of attack by
scavenging birds and insects, of all things.
The author, Jack Hitt, claims to have done more research into the bizarre mutilations more than just about anybody. He claims to have spent much time reading about the subject on the Internet, watching the video documentary by Linda Howe (A Strange Harvest), and even reading her books. On top of all that, Mr. Hitt says he actually visited the site of a mutilated cow and saw the strange wounds with his own eyes.
Yet, in spite of all this in depth exposure to this
increasingly puzzling phenomenon, the author of that article
concluded that a former FBI agent, Ken Rommel, who had spent some
time looking into the mutilations, was on the right track when he
concluded that the mutilations were basically caused by scavenging birds, pecking away at the exposed soft tissues (eye, tongue, rectum, etc.). The author seemed to have no quibble with Mr. Rommel's notion that the smoothness of the "incisions" is produced as a result of post mortem gas production in the cattle's bodies, "stretching the tissues." Rommel believes that people who think there are more complex reasons for the cattle mutilations such as aliens monitoring contaminants and looking at genetic material (as a number of UFO abductees have been told or shown, according to Linda) - are basically people who "lead very dull and boring lives". . . who "get together and lie to one another."
Superficially, that all sounds reasonable enough (as intended, no doubt), but what about the anomalies that were never mentioned in the entire article, such as the heat cauterization of the incisions (amounting to several hundred degrees)? Why leave out the specific points that make theories about scavenging birds clearly ridiculous?
Part of the explanations given in the article is that the cows die of various mundane causes (such as eating poisonous plants) and the the body then lays around for days, giving the birds a chance to feast on "soft tissues."
Does that explain the case at left, from Sterling Colorado in 1976, in which the cow was found within hours of death, still warm to the touch, with some teeth and jaw bone smoothly, removed by unknown means? The eye was removed, too, along with a ring of tissue surrounding the eye - with a smooth round cut, and no blood. The tongue was removed and all that remained was a smooth vertical cut, deep within the throat. Photo by Logan County, Colorado Sheriff Tex Graves.
In a photograph from 1993, taken by Fyffe Alabama Police Officer Ted Oliphant, there is no evidence of scavenging birds, but rather a precise oval incision which removed the udder while leaving the underlying tissues untouched. The entire
operation was bloodless.
Both of these photos are from Linda Howe's book, Glimpses of Other Realities, which contains many more details like these which the bird explanation does not fit.
Why did this article in GQ leave out photos of actual mutilations, and instead, began the article with a splashy full page cartoon, showing hypnotized cows being floated up into flying saucers? (See a small portion of it, by Dynamic Duo Studio, at the top of this article.) It's a pretty interesting piece of art, but not as informative as real photos. Do they think that this phenomenon is funny? Or are they hoping people don't take it seriously? Also note that it shows the beams as being green (typical Hollywood notion), while in reality, they are almost always described as being blue.
Lastly, why did Mr. Hitt portray Linda Moulton Howe as a woman who's getting rich off her books and videos (by tabulating the $600,000 in gross revenue she may have generated)? He must have known full well that the books Linda's "getting rich" off of, selling for $39.95, actually cost her $40.00 to print - leaving her with a 5 cent loss for each copy sold (not to mention the cost of doing the research and creating the book in the first place)! I'll bet Mr. Hitt got paid pretty handsomely for the GQ article, though.
If you'd like to tell Gentleman's Quarterly what you think of their article, and the important phenomenon that Linda Howe is trying to uncover, write to the editor:
Gentleman's Quarterly Linda M. Howe , the premier cattle mutilations researcher, can be reached at LMH Productions, PO Box 538, Huntingdon Valley PA 19006
Linda Moulton Howe is the main cattle mutilations researcher. Linda Howe Productions publishes books and videos on cattle mutilations.
by Mark Williams
350 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
