The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies (14 page)

These knowledgeable people have become shy of answering questions from newsmen because of the Popular beliefs that have been reinforced by speculation of eerie or devilish theories by powerful public news media.

It’s probably simply a case of the newsmen not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

Explanations for the Phenomenon

If there is no concrete evidence to support the claims that thousands of livestock have fallen victims to “classic mutilations,” then how does one explain the livestock mutilation phenomenon. Again, although the answer to this question falls outside the framework of this project, I would like to briefly review some of the explanations offered by others interested in this phenomenon.

A possible explanation for at least some of the interest in livestock mutilations is offered by Tom Adams (1979–80) in the January issue
of Stigmata,
a newsletter devoted to the continuing investigation of livestock mutilations.

Among items that are rumored to be in the works, however tentatively: an anthology of commentary on the mutilation phenomenon; a bibliography of published materials; a fund for research and investigation; an in-depth documentary by a Colorado TV station, a program which may or may not be circulated to other TV stations around the country.

We wish we had a dollar (no, make that an ounce of gold) for every writer we’ve heard of within the past few years who promised (or threatened) to turn out a serious book on mutilations.

Although the profit motive cannot be entirely discounted, the livestock mutilation phenomenon is much too complex to be explained solely on this basis. Another possible explanation is offered by Burton Wolfe (1976) in an article entitled “Demystifying all the Satanic Conspiracy Stories on the Cattle Mutilations”, which appeared in the May 14, 1976 issue of the
San Francisco Bay Guardian.

Wolfe attributes the cattle mutilation phenomenon to a hoax originally perpetrated by an astrologer named Dan Fry, host of a radio program in Minnesota called the
Cosmic Age.

According to Wolfe, about two years ago Fry announced on his program that cattle were being mutilated “either by some weird satanic cult or supernatural creatures arriving on the range in UFOs.”

Fry, apparently intending his comments as a joke, was alarmed at the impact they subsequently had on ranches and farmers.

Suddenly, farmers in Minnesota accustomed to finding dead cows with parts severed by predators began attributing the scavenging to satanists and UFO creatures. Through the mass communication media, including the Associated Press and such esteemed newspapers as the
Houston Post,
the story was disseminated to millions of people in hundreds of Midwestern cities. Reporters began to vie with each other for the most sensationalized version of how mysterious creatures from UFOs or stealthy night figures from satanic cults were mutilating cattle.

Alarmed by the results, the astrologer appeared on a number of radio and television shows “in an effort to abort his prank before the press created still more mass hysteria with it.”

“‘Man, there weren’t any cattle mutilations,’ Fry explained in a typical appearance on a Texas television talk show in March 1975. ‘I just started these rumors as a joke.’”

Whether or not you accept Wolfe’s explanation for the origin of the mutilation phenomenon, his observations about the role played by the media are quite revealing. Similarly, my own investigation has clearly shown that the media has played a very important role in promoting both the livestock phenomenon and the lore surrounding it.

The Truchas incident, as discussed in Chapter Four, is a classic example of how a newspaper not only can distort the facts, but also can deliberately choose to ignore them in the face of a more sensational story. This incident, as I have noted previously, would undoubtedly have gone down in history as another “classic mutilation,” if I had not investigated the case myself. My own investigation, as I have shown, clearly indicated the animal had died of natural causes and had subsequently been eaten by dogs and other scavengers. Although the reporter was later made aware of the many inaccuracies contained in her articles, she never printed a retraction.

A similar incident also occurred in Roswell. However, in this case the reporter did print a retraction. On October 29, 1979, the
Roswell Daily Record
(1979a) printed an article entitled “Mutilated Cow Found”. This story, which describes a cow reportedly found dead and mutilated in Carrizozo, contains the following quotes, both of which were erroneously attributed to me: “‘It is definitely classified as a mutilation, but it does not hold true to form as a mutilation as are on our records,’ said Kenneth Rommel, director of the New Mexico animal mutilation project. ‘The difference is that the eyes and tongue were left intact on the animal,’ he explained.”

I have no idea where this quote came from, for I certainly did not make it. On November 9, 1979, I sent a letter to the
Roswell Daily Record
informing them of this inaccuracy.

This quotation is in error. I have not made any statements since the beginning of this project that would authenticate in any way any reported cattle mutilations. My policy in regards to this investigation has been to not give out any incorrect, or misleading information. I would appreciate it if you would make a correction in your newspaper.

The
Roswell Daily Record
(1979b) did publish a correction on November 11 issue in an article entitled, “It Wasn’t a Mutilation”.

The role played by the media in both sensationalizing and promoting the livestock mutilation phenomenon has also been noted by Dr. Nancy H. Owen (1980) in her study of mutilations in Benton County, Arkansas. Similarly, Dr. J. M. Tufts, whose role in unraveling the Elsberry, Missouri fly mystery which was just discussed, makes the following observation: “After all was said and done, it was obvious that Channel 2 News was more interested in creating an exciting story than in shedding any light on the occurrence of a few dead cows.”

One of the most extensive studies done on the relationship between the media and livestock mutilations was conducted recently by Dr. James R. Stewart, associate professor of sociology at the University of South Dakota. In an article entitled “Collective Delusion: A Comparison of Believers and Skeptics”, Dr. Stewart (1980) traces the history of livestock mutilation reports in two adjacent states – Nebraska and South Dakota. He goes on to show that there is a positive correlation between the number of reported incidents in a prescribed area and the number of news inches devoted to livestock mutilations by the media.

Another interesting point made by Stewart is the role played by law enforcement personnel in promoting the phenomenon.

Local law enforcement personnel have little, if any, experience in determining causes of cattle deaths. Consequently, they were inclined to adopt the farmer’s explanations in the absence of any solid refuting evidence of their own. The same was true of some local veterinarians. Rarely do they examine dead cattle; instead they are usually asked to treat living animals.

Stewart also presents convincing evidence to support his conclusion – that the episodes just discussed represent a classic case of mild hysteria. However, as Stewart points out, not everyone in these two states believed in livestock mutilations, even in the height of the “hysteria.” Curious as to the types of individuals likely to be “believers,” Stewart and his students interviewed approximately 800 adults. His findings are summarized in the following quote:

Females, persons with lower educational levels and lower socioeconomic groups seem to be more prone to subscribe to a bizarre explanation, – while males, higher educational level groups and high socioeconomic groups seem to be more reluctant to adopt the unusual explanation and are more likely to attribute cause to a natural explanation.

Recommendations

One major objective of this project was to make recommendations to the law enforcement community. Since my investigation revealed that the vast majority of reported mutilations are not a law enforcement problem, my first recommendation is that no additional money be spent to fund law enforcement investigations of this phenomenon. It should be noted, however, that this conclusion does not apply to other types of investigations, for I believe that useful and revealing studies can be done by anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and other behavioral scientists.

Although I believe that most reported mutilations are caused by predators and scavengers, this does not mean that you, as a law enforcement officer, might not be summoned to investigate a suspected mutilation. In the event that this occurs, you should conduct an investigation that is sufficient to determine if the facts, as alleged, are in violation of a particular state statute, such as unlawful killing, unlawful butchering, or stealing of animals.

If so, you should conduct a logical investigation to collect evidence and testimony to support a successful prosecution of the individuals involved.

If not, you should investigate the incident no further. For example, you would not conduct a homicide investigation after it had been established that the individual had died a natural death or had committed suicide. The same reasoning should be used in investigating livestock mutilations.

Don’t use terms such as “surgical precision,” which are conclusions. Stay with the facts, let the laboratory experts make conclusions. Also, don’t be misled by statements made by non-authoritative sources, for as Adolf Hitler once said: “Tell a lie enough times and it will be believed” (KAFE, April 23, 1980).

While I would hesitate to classify these colorful reports as deliberate lies, nevertheless the principle remains the same. Constant repetition of even some of the most sensational conjectures may eventually be accepted as truth. Perhaps Dr. Samuel Johnson expressed it best when he said: “It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.”

It is my sincere hope that the conclusions reached in this report will help those engaged in the cattle industry and others to put behind them the rumors, theories and fears that some highly organized criminal activity or extraterrestrial conspiracy is responsible for these mutilations. If this yearlong investigation has achieved this one result, then all of the time, effort, and research will have proved most worthwhile.

However, I tend to agree with the following observation made by Dr. Stewart in a letter which he sent to me dated May 13, 1980: “The efforts of knowledgeable experts hopefully will provide a rational explanation for this bizarre episode. Unfortunately, the histories of similar events show that reasonable, scientific explanations may deflect or deter, but never completely eliminate the fantastic explanations that gullible, naive persons adopt.”

LE CERCLE

“The Circle” is an offshoot of the infamous Bilderberg group, but whereas Bilderberg jaws “The Circle” wars. Ultra-secretive and ultra-conservative, The Circle was founded in the 1950s by the French former prime minister Antoine Pinay (hence the organization’s original name of “The Pinay Circle”) together with the French lawyer and Nazi collaborator Jean Violet. The Circle directed its early efforts towards the creation of a unified Europe, drawing together leading politicians from the recently warring states, including German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and French PM Robert Schuman. However, The Circle more and more came to see its role – especially after the
événements
in France of 1968 – as fighting communism and promoting a right-wing political order within the various states of Europe. This vision entirely overlapped with that of the CIA, who became major funders of The Circle. Ties between the CIA and the Circle are tight. According to Professor van der Pijl’s study
Transnational Classes and International Relations
, a two-day conference of The Circle in Washington DC was attended by a former CIA official who had played a leading role in Operation Gladio, the “stay behind” network of anti-Communists prepared to rise against a left-wing government in Italy. The Circle’s appetite for getting its hands dirty should not be underestimated. Circle chairman Brian Crozier used his private National Association of Freedom to smear British PM
Harold Wilson
as a KGB puppet, while across
La Manche
, Circle members in the state’s Service for External Documentation and Espionage spread disinformation about socialist presidential candidate François Mitterrand in the 1980s. (When in the Elysée Mitterrand took his revenge by closing the SEDE down.) Van der Pijl asserts that The Circle “envisaged use of provocative terrorism in Germany” to bring controversial Bavarian rightist Franz-Josef Straus to power. More controversially yet, critics of The Circle have alleged that its members in the Swedish intelligence service SAPO, assassinated Sweden’s socialist prime minister Olof Palme.