Project Stigma represents an on-going
probe into the relentless wave of animal
mutilations and mutilation-deaths, and is an
attempt to coordinate and assist in infoma -
tion-gatheHng activities on the part of the
pertinent and responsible investigative
agencies and individuals ,
NUMBER TWO MARCH 1978
EDITORIAL:
STIGMATA #31$ scheduled for publication
no later than May 1, 1978* To receive a
copy* send a self-addressed, no. 10,
stamped {13<) envelope (SASE) to:
PROJECT STIGMA - P.G, Box 1094
PARIS, TEXAS 75460
STIGMATA will hopefully be utilized as a
forum by the readership* Communication a-
mong those seeking answers is imperative.
Space limitations may prevent us from
publishing everything we receive, but we
do heartily solicit your comments and
welcome your observations. If you wish
us to keep your name and/or address in
confidence, please advise. We are con¬
tinually seeking raw data, so if you
have information to offer, we hope to hear
from you. We do not believe in asking you
for material if we cannot offer something
in return. If you are interested in estab¬
lishing a data exchange, contact us and
we'll work something out.
Project Stigma has available a one-page
animal mutilation report form, which has
served to consolidate data and to sup¬
plement law enforcement reports and the
like. To obtain 3 copies of this form,
send a SASE (as above, 13c stamp) to
the address above. If you have a mutila¬
tion report, we would encourage the
readership to use this rudimentary form.
THE CATTLE REPORT is the first publica¬
tion to be devoted entirely to the muti¬
lations investigation. The subscription
rate for 5 issues Is $6.00 or $750 for
Federal Intelligence Agencies, THE CATTLE
REPORT is edited by renowned poet* Fug
and Manson chronicler Edward Sanders and
is available from:
THE CATTLE REPORT
P,0, Box 729
Woodstock, N. Y, 1249S
IS THERE A 11 LINK" BETWEEN MUTILATIONS AND UFOs?
As we stated In STIGMATA #1, we have no "pet
theories to promote. We are awaiting conclusive
data (or at least reasonably compelling data).
We are open to virtually any and all possibilities
regarding mute-causation. If for no other reason,
there ia the following to consider: it is our o-
pinion that the perpetrators of the mutilations
are accomplished and adroit enough at what they
are doing that they possess a high capability for
deception; that they can make us believe just a-
bout anything about them. So, to Jump to unwar¬
ranted conclusions about the nature of the phen¬
omena and the rationale of the mutilators could
merely be "playing into their hands". With Mr,
Spock's indulgence, there is no law against spec¬
ulation, and it can even prove profitable, but
let us allow the evidence to draw its own con¬
clusions - eventually.
Since the mutilation death of Snippy the Horse in
Colorado in 1967, a relationship between UFOs and
the occurrence of mutilations has been postulated,
however haphazardly. It can be said that, indeed,
UFOs have been reported in or near areas where
animal mutilations have occurred, and on some
occasions at the same time. What does this mean,
if anything? Can we be justified in considering
that UFOs may be directly involved in the mutes
or Is this being a bit presumptuous? Well, as we
shall consider below, it occurs that others may
already have preceded us in presumption.
An examination of the particular and very pertin¬
ent mute incidents will not be ignored; but it Is
felt* at the outset, that we should scrutinize
the philosophy of our methodology. We therefore
address ourselves to what we feel is a case-in-
point: the question of a UFO/mute relationship.
We direct the reader to a "guest editorial" in
the July ]976 issue of the newsstand publication
OFFICIAL UFO (Countrywide Publications, Inc,;
257 Park Avenue South; New York, N.Y. 10010).
At that time, OFFICIAL UFO was a reasonably res¬
pected magazine which represented a more-or-lesa
sober and factual approach to the popularization
of the UFO enigma.
(Continued on Page 2)
STIGMATA c Copyright 197B by
Thomas R , Adams
5
STIGMATA
Page 2
EDITORIAL
Although It hag received considerable justified criticism since them, in }976 # under the
editorial leadership of Bernard O’Connor, OFFICIAL UFO exemplified, while not necessarily
scholarship, at least sincerity.
The author of the editorial Is Kevin Randle, a writer and field investigator for the res¬
pected Tucson-based Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, Mr. Randle writes that he
has "seen no evidence that links UFOs to cattle mutilations 11 and he sees "no reason to
make the connection"*" He additionally feels that the "burden of proof" Is not on those
saying there is no such connection, "but on those claiming the link".
Why must there even be a "burden of proof"? If we cannot at a given moment say that we
have conclusive proof that UFOs (or the occupants thereof) are responsible for mutilating
animals, does some kind of automatic quantum leap In logic justify the assumption that
UFOs are not involved in the mutilation of animals? If 1 cannot, at present, prove that
there is a definite and incontrovertible "link" between UFOs and the mutes, does this re¬
quire a statement to the effect that this link, therefore, does not exist?
Mr, Randle proceeds in his argument to recognize that "there is no conclusive proof that
UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft". This is convenient to know, and it may or may not
be true, but the notion seems somehow irrelevant to the central question of the editorial
(not to mention this editorial),
It is assuredly untrue that "each objective Investigation has destroyed the link to UFOs",
Many cases which have been examined through unjaundiced objective analysis exhibit data
which at least leaves open the possibility that UFOs or some element of "The Paranormal"
is involved. And, after all, we can advocate little more than a recognition of possibili¬
ties ("Think of everything t and believe nothing"),
Mr, Randle relates the occurrence of an Incident in which the mutilation of a bovine in¬
volved the cutting or removal of only an "ear and part of a lip". After indicating that
UFOs which were reported relevant to the case "were Jupiter", he then concludes that
"there were no UFOs and no mutilation."
A mutilation is a mutilation is a mutilation. If the above animal was truly mutilated
by other than "natural" means, the fact that no more than the lips and an ear were affected
does not necessarily invalidate the extramundane legitimacy of the incident. While many
animals have suffered gross excision of sexual organs, excretory organs, tails, udders
and other parts, in other incidents only one or two parts or organs have been violated,
such as one or both ears, the tongue or lips.
We would agree with Mr, Randle In that settling on a conclusion or even on some less-
than-conelusive hypothesis and seeking data and molding findings (however unconsiously)
to "fit" the preconceived supposition is not conducive to a valid objective examination.
It is not required that we should now decide whether UFOs and mutilations are somehow
connected. What is required by prudent reasoning is that we gather data and truly ob¬
jectively analyze and examine the Information, realizing that any perfect or "absolute"
objectivity Is likely out of reach. With any luck at all, the evidence will eventually
warrant conclusions.
Additionally, we can find agreement with Mr, Randle’s assertion that the presence of UFOs
near mutilation sites does not in itself prove there is a "link". Surely, then, he would
also concede that it algo does not negate thig link. And, even if there is such a re¬
lationship, we cannot now know If it is direct or Indirect,
It should be noted that there Is ample evidence to indicate that humans have conducted
some mutilations, both of animals and of people. It should also not be necessary to men¬
tion that this fact does not preclude other-than-human Involvement in other mutnations+
(Continued on Page 3)
6
STIGMATA
Page 3
EDITORIAL continued
In a workshop session at a national and in¬
dependent UFO conference in Fort Smith, Ark¬
ansas in October 1975, Mr, Randle supposed
that an occult or pseudo-Satanic organiza¬
tion caused the few mutes which he accepted
as valid or authentically non-natural. He
was also of the opinion that they at times
utilized a helicopter. Regardless of the
seeming improbability that any "cult 11 has
the means, facilities, finances, personnel
and organization to perpetrate this virtual
crime-of-the-century, there have been ac¬
counts of many of the renowned "mystery
helicopters" at one time In some mutilation-
infested areas.
Some will likely consider our ideas here to
be wishy-washy and uncertain. We, of course,
prefer to think of our approach as judicious¬
ly objective. There are those, then, who
would consider Hr. Randle to be merely M o-
pinlonated"; others might think his position
unreasonable or, again, presumptuous. We
have not intended this as a personal dia¬
tribe against Hr. Randle; but we do oppose
his publicly-stated convictions as regards
the animal mutilations, a realm for which
we do not claim to lack strong feelings.
Some investigators who have probed deeply
enough into the mutilations have noted that
there would appear to be - by accident or
design - a bizarre and at times almost syn¬
chronistic aura, a sometimes unsettling
paranormal quality which seems to linger at
the periphery of the miiHations phenomenon
- or is it at its core?
Is it "saucers, satanists, or CIA?": All
have received accusing glances as the muti¬
lations investigation has proceeded. The
"answers" may lie with any of these - or
with all - or with none. There is a subtle
complexity which prohibits the mute pheno¬
menon from being as simple as some observers
would have us believe.
The point to be made from this critique of
Mr. Randle*s assertions is that it is still
possible that there may indeed be some sort
of UFO/mute link, however direct or indir¬
ect. The question simply cannot be resolved
with the current lack of definitive "evi¬
dence" , It also occurs to us that, while
we’re at it, it would be nice to know just
what UFOs are, as though this entire affair
needed further complication. We will
reiterate that we do not necessarily "be¬
lieve" in the UFO/mute link. Belief,
after all, seems irrelevant. Data is of
preeminent priority.
We would be remiss If we were not to mention
our gratitude to those who responded to our
first issue by sending a self-stamped en¬
velope. We appreciate your interest and are
encouraged by it, A very special thanks is
extended to those who contributed stamps and
cash to further alleviate expenses,
********************* *
We promised in STIGMATA f 1 to make necessary
corrections or additions to our 1977 mutila¬
tion chronology. Three cases to be added
are as follows:
June 1977 - McPherson County, Kansas
December 1977 - Approximately December 20th,
Jackson County, Missouri
December 1977 - Salt Lake County, Utah.
Horse, discovered 12-28-77, Salt Lake
City
We ask readers to advise of further
additions,
**********************
AGREED: SOMEONE IS OPERATING UNDER A DELUSION
We once hoped that sociologists and social
psychologists would examine the mutilations
and its effect on the populace from their
professional perspective. Now we’re begin¬
ning to wonder if that's such a great idea.
An interesting if inherently faulted paper
(29 pp,) has been authored by Mr. James R.
Stewart; Dept, of Sociology; University of
South Dakota; Vermillion, S.B, 57069, The
paper ia titled CATTLE MUTILATIONS: AN
EPISODE OF COLLECTIVE DELUSION and It may
still be available from Mr. Stewart, You
might send him five 13$ stamps to cover his
postage costs.
It should be noted that the pages of STIGMATA
will not be enthusiastically open to debate
on the question of whether there actually are
any "classic", unnatural animal mutilations
occurring. Our primary thrust will be toward
determining who (or what), how and why.
7
STIGMATA
Page 4
MUTE TESTIMONY:
"Our predators do not eat with a knife and
fork 11 *
Sheriff Marvin Quade; Laurence County ,
Missouri; speaking of his conviction that
the mutilations in his county had been done
with knives. Source: Buffalo (Mo.)
Reflex 3 11-6-75+
"...I 1 ve got to say we’re stumped. It’s a
real mystery 11 ,
b Sheriff Marvin Quads again * Source:
St\ Louis Post-Dispatch 3 10-22-75.
“I've been around cattle all my life and I
can Sure tell whether it’s been done by a
coyote or a sharp instrument' 1 ;
Sheriff George Tamell 3 Elbert County 3
Colorado. Source: Kansas Citw Times ,
10-31-75 .
"...it was such an isolated remote area that
it almost had to be someone that knew the
terrain. I didn't go out the same way that
I came In because I wasn't sure of the area
..humans make mistakes. So far whoever is
doing this (mutilations) hasn't made any 11 .
"...if it's a coyote t then he has to be
carrying a very sharp knife 11 .
Sheriff Anton Nowak; Perkins County 3 Neb.
Source: Lincoln Journal (Neb.) 10-11-75 .
**********************
It has been alleged that no one, no "mere
mortal", has witnessed an actual mutilation
occurring or has stumbled onto a site to
interrupt the work-in-progress. This may
yet be true; but mute-site encounters of
various degrees have been reported, and
the elusive mystery helicopters, it is
said, have been chanced-upon by more than
one unwary private citizen.
The problem is that there seems to be little
or no firm substantiation or documentation
to support these stories, some of which
are among' - the more bizarre - and potentially
important - accounts in this field of in¬
vestigation. Further examination of some
of these incidents is underway, however,
and it will be our intention to report upon
these in more detail in an upcoming STIGMATA.
We are interested in information concerning
animal mutilation incidents in which un¬
usual odors have been detected at the mute
site, other than that normally associated
with decomposition.
For instance, in 1975, Deputy David Ellis
encountered an aroma at a site in Gunnison
County, Colorado which reminded him of a
combination of formaldehyde and incense.
**********************
Sometime during the first half of 1977 in
Taos County, N.M,, an insurance claim was
paid to a rancher for the mutilation death
of a cow- a "standard" mutilation, except
for one peculiarity: within a period of 24
hours or less of the cow's death, the car¬
cass changed color, from a reddish-brown to
a cream or dirty-white color.
For years, ranchers in Karnes County, Texas
have been plagued by an affliction apparent¬
ly related to the mining of uranium in the
area. The element molybdenum is brought to
the surface by the uranium miners and nearby
cattle sometimes suffer from molybdenosis or
"moly poisoning", a characteristic of which
is a change in color preceding an almost
certain death. The cattle are known to change
to a "dirty white" or "smoky gray" color.
Unlike the New Mexico case, the Texas cattle
change color before death*
Two mutilations were reported in the moly-
infested area of Karnes County in 1975, but
neither animal exhibited a color change.
Curiously, a large "Moiycorp" molybdenum
mine is located in the northern reaches of
Taos County, New Mexico. We cannot claim a
"connection" here, but we would appreciate
hearing from readers who have knowledge of
color changes in mutilated animals,
**********************
To decompose or not to decompose... a dil¬
emma that has apparently troubled a great
many mutilated animal carcasses. The results
are varied. It has been stated that mute
carcasses decompose very little or very
slowly in some cases, but in others the
situation may be reversed. We will offer
specific examples in our next issue.
