Sunday, January 2, 2011
Cuneiform Object Found on Malta
This artifact was likely a gift
if anything to an important shrine. What
it does is clearly confirm the existence of active sea travel between the
Levant and Malta which is a
natural stopover on the way to Gibraltar . The time was during the posited heyday of the
Atlantean trade empire that we have shown to be operational throughout both the
Atlantic littoral and the Mediterranean littoral for a period of around two
thousand years ending abruptly with Hekla in
1159BCE.
Please note that the high period
of the empire likely was during the last five centuries and that it was a
maritime trade driven system completely unlike any land based empire of the
time, such as existed and those were scant, and operated on a common currency
using copper ingots and a palace based factory system such as exemplified by
Crete and Mycenae.
Unfortunately it appears that
cuneiform tablets were not used by this empire, or we would have an
imperishable record of their actual sites.
Instead we have stone works wherever they prospered.
Rare Cuneiform Script Found on Island of Malta
Thu, Dec 22, 2011
A small-sized find in an ancient megalithic temple stirs the
imagination.
Excavations among what many scholars consider to be the world's oldest
monumental buildings on the island
of Malta
Led by palaeontology professor Alberto Cazzella of the University of Rome Nippur
The location of the find makes it the farthest west the ancient script
has ever been discovered, raising questions about how it ended up in the remote
location. Some scholars theorize that the inscribed stone was likely
looted from the temple of Nippur during military conflict and then transported
westward through an exchange of hands by Cypriot or Mycenaean merchants,
thought to have had trading relations with the central Mediterranean at the
time.
Moreover, because cuneiform-inscribed agate would have been considered
highly valued during the late Bronze Age, its presence within the Tas-Silg
sanctuary, according to some scholars, suggests that the sanctuary had a much
wider significance than for those who lived on Malta Mediterranean during the Phoenician and Roman eras.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Kissinger Tapes
During his tenure,
Kissinger provided an activist leadership in foreign policy that appeared to be
progressive at the time. I have rarely
felt that way since. Yet in terms of
success, I am a far less comfortable.
Ending the China
nonsense ranks as an outbreak of common sense to be compared to the present
relaxing of relations with Cuba Vietnam
I thought the man
insightful. Now that appears to be in
question from any review of the tapes.
If he was, it is apparent his boss was not up to it and he failed to
share those gems. He comes across as
another inner circle messenger relaying the better ideas to the emperor. Maybe I am harsh, but I am disappointed in
both men.
I am more
disappointed in Nixon. To live and
breath anti Semitism as he does reveals an unexamined live not worth
living. Kissinger may have breathed the
fumes too much, but Nixon was the smoke machine.
There is nothing
more intellectually juvenile than rationalizing ethnic position as something to
be exalted. The corollary of that is the
denigration of any competing ethnic group and by natural default Judaism. A moments critical examination reveals the
folly and wrongness of such a position and that is normally enough for the
strong minded to guard against such nonsense and to cleanse such thinking from
ones baggage. Unfortunately there are
the rest and a few do find themselves in positions of power.
Kissinger’s garbage
mouthing may have arisen in the atmosphere but is usually far better guarded
against. For the balance, and I have not
waded through the material because I do not wish to, we have a lesser man.
Mr. Kissinger, Have You No Shame?
Ignore
the recent excuses. Henry Kissinger's entire career was a series of massacres
and outrages.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Dec. 27, 2010, at 12:37 PM ET
Henry
Kissinger Until the most recent release of the
Nixon/Kissinger tapes, what were the permitted justifications for
saying in advance that the slaughter of Jews in gas chambers by a hostile
foreign dictatorship would not be "an American concern"? Let's agree
that we do not know. It didn't seem all that probable that the question would
come up. Or, at least, not all that likely that the statement would turn out to
have been made, and calmly received, in the Oval Office. I was present at
Madison Square Garden in 1985 when Louis Farrakhan warned the Jews to remember
that "when [God] puts you in the ovens, you're there forever," but condemnation was
swift and universal, and, in any case, Farrakhan's tenure in the demented fringe
was already a given.
Now,
however, it seems we do know the excuses and the rationalizations. Here's one, from David Harris of the American Jewish
Committee: "Perhaps Kissinger
felt that, as a Jew, he had to go the extra mile to prove to the president that
there was no question of where his loyalties lay."* And
here's another, from Abraham Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League: "The anti-Jewish prejudice which permeated the
Nixon presidency and White House undoubtedly created an environment of
intimidation for those who did not share the president's bigotry. Dr. Kissinger
was clearly not immune to that intimidation." Want more? Under the
heading, "A Defense of Kissinger, From Prominent Jews," Mortimer
Zuckerman, Kenneth Bialkin, and James Tisch wrote to the New York Times to say
that "Mr. Kissinger consistently played a constructive role vis-à-vis Israel both as national security adviser and
secretary of state, especially when the United
States extended dramatic assistance to Israel
But
Kissinger didn't say something cold and Metternichian to the effect that Jewish
interest should come second to détente. He deliberately said gas chambers! If we are going to
lower our whole standard of condemnation for such talk (and it seems that we
have somehow agreed to do so), then it cannot and must not be in response to
contemptible pseudo-reasonings like these.
Let us
take the statements in order. Harris and Foxman at least assume what we know
for many other reasons to be true: Richard Nixon was a psychopathic
anti-Semite. Is Kissinger so base as to accept their defense—that he was
cringing before a Jew-baiter? Surely this, too, is "hurtful" to him
(the revealing term he employs for reading criticism of his words rather than
for their utterance)? He declines even to discuss the subject, though it has
come up on countless previous Nixon tapes. The difference on this occasion is
stark: The other recordings have Nixon giving vent to his dirty obsession while
Kissinger makes fawning responses. This time, it is Kissinger who goes as far
as any pick-nose anti-Semite can go.
And Nixon doesn't bother to grunt his approval. Not even he demanded so much of
his eager toady. Of the Zuckerman-Bialkin-Tisch school of realpolitik, nothing
much needs to be said. They refer to the "shock and dismay of some in the
Jewish community"—as if only that community was entitled to shock or
dismay—while quite omitting even the usual formality of expressing any
disapproval of their own.
To them, pre-approval of genocide, offered
freely to a racist crook, is forgivable if the speaker is otherwise more or
less uncritically pro-Israel. Add to this the other excuses of Jewish
officialdom—that the pre-approval is also excusable when used to appease the
evil mood swings of a criminal president—and you have the thesaurus of
apologetics more or less complete. Kissinger's own defense—that pre-approval of
gas chambers was his thinking-aloud dress rehearsal for an "appeal to
Sens. Javits and Jackson"—is of course unique to him.
So our
culture has once again suffered a degradation by the need to explain away the
career of this disgusting individual. And what if we did, indeed, accept the
invitation to "remember the context of his entire life"? Here's what
we would find: the secret and illegal bombing of Indochina, explicitly timed
and prolonged to suit the career prospects of Nixon and Kissinger. The pair's
open support for the Pakistani army's 1971 genocide in Bangladesh
"Yahya hasn't had so much fun since the
last Hindu massacre."
Kissinger's
long and warm personal relationship with the managers of other human abattoirs
in Chile and Argentina, as well as his role in bringing them to power by the
covert use of violence. The support and permission for the mass murder in East Timor , again personally guaranteed by Kissinger to
his Indonesian clients. His public endorsement of the Chinese Communist Party's
sanguinary decision to clear Tiananmen Square
in 1989. His advice to President Gerald Ford to refuse Alexander Solzhenitsyn
an invitation to the White House (another favor, as with spitting on Soviet
Jewry, to his friend Leonid Brezhnev). His decision to allow Saddam Hussein to
slaughter the Kurds after promising them American support. His backing for a
fascist coup in Cyprus West Bank and go for all-out
repression. His view that ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia
We
possess a remarkably complete record of all this, in and out of office, most of
it based solidly on U.S. Bangladesh
To
permit this gross new revelation to fade, or be forgiven, would be to devalue
our most essential standard of what constitutes the unpardonable. And for what?
For the reputation of a man who turns out to be not even a Holocaust denier but
a Holocaust affirmer. There has
to be a moral limit, and either this has to be it or we must cease pretending
to ourselves that we observe one.
Update, Dec. 29, 2010: The American
Jewish Committee believes that the quote from executive director David Harris
that appeared in the New York Times misrepresents the AJC's
position. You can read Harris' full statement here.
Christopher Hitchens responds: It's a little silly to
attack any excerpt or quotation for being "out of context," since an
excerpt or quotation is an extract by definition. The compact that a
writer/reporter makes with the readership is the implicit promise to ensure
that the extract does not give a misleading impression of the whole.
David Harris wrote or spoke 90 words on the
subject of what I'll neutrally call Henry Kissinger's indifference to gas
chambers. Of these words, 49, or almost half, were devoted to a loose
speculation that blamed Richard Nixon personally, or his
"administration" impersonally, for causing Kissinger's views to be
uttered. Of those 49 words, I cited 30, or one-third. Without disrespect to Mr.
Harris, I think few would disagree that they were the most "quotable"
ones. They also conveyed the evident purpose of the statement, which was to
redirect attention to Kissinger's boss and frequent co-conspirator. Were it not
for this, there would have been nothing in the statement worth citing at all.
(I do not know, but would be interested to discover, whether the AJC has
criticized the New York Times for making the same decision and failing to give
Harris' statement in its entirety.)
I did not suggest that the AJC failed to
register any criticism of Kissinger. Indeed, were they not so eager to wrench
my own words from their "context," they would notice that I took care
to specify that only Mortimer Zuckerman and his co-signers were in such a rush
to exculpation as to omit that formality. The opening of the Dec. 11 press
release speaks of the AJC being "dismayed" by gas-chamber talk, and
Harris goes so far as to describe it as "chilling." My article, which
concerned the mutedness of so many responses, might have been strengthened if I
had had space to include these ringing expressions, too.
The last sentence of Harris' statement states
that "it's hard to find the right words" in which to express
condemnation (of the "remarks," rather than their author). Perhaps
for him it is. When he finds the right words, I shall be happy to draw
attention to them.
(Return to the
original sentence.)
From the American Jewish Committee: If there was
ever a textbook example of a straw man argument, it is Christopher Hitchens'
misrepresentation of AJC's response to the outrageous Kissinger-Nixon tapes.
Christopher denies suggesting that AJC failed
to register criticism of Kissinger. But in his article, he kicks off his litany
of "rationalizations" with a quote from our own David Harris, who was
twice detained by the KGB because of his 15-year activism on behalf of Soviet
Jews. Later on, he refers to Harris' comments as a "defense."
They key point is this: Before Harris
speculated over the reasons for Kissinger's remarks, he stated, "That a
German Jew who fled the Nazis could speak of a genocidal outcome in such
callous tones is truly chilling." That is an unambiguous condemnation, and
one we stand by.
Additionally, we expressed our revulsion at
the graphic language concerning "gas chambers." Christopher was also
struck by this, though he does not credit us for sharing both his observation
and reaction.
Whether Kissinger experienced heightened
anxiety by dint of being a Jew serving a President who clearly loathed Jews is
a subsidiary factor here. What matters for AJC— an organization that helped
spearhead the Soviet Jewry campaign, and one that, for decades, has worked
tirelessly on the issues of Holocaust commemoration and memory—is that
Kissinger's comments were shameful and disgraceful.
Christopher condemns those comments as part of
his personal campaign against Kissinger. We condemn them because they touch
upon the core of our very institutional being.
From Christopher Hitchens: Well, first let's be generous.
"Shameful and disgraceful" are much less ambivalent than
"dismaying" or "chilling" and seem intended to express real
condemnation of the offender (which the preceding more neutral terms were
designed to avoid doing). So I don't think that this has been a waste of time.
Rationalization is a fairly objective
word, calling attention to a novel or plausible attempt at an explanation of
something, while expressing doubt as to its motives. In retrospect, perhaps the
AJC would rather have concentrated their attention on the chief figure in this.
(I lazily said that "almost half" of Harris' words on Kissinger were
directed at Nixon; in fact it was rather more than half.) So I must still
insist that a lot of the "straw" was already on the scene when I got
there.
Talking of stray straws, this is the second
time we are told that Harris was detained for his exemplary work for Soviet
Jews. But I fail to see quite what bearing it has. I was inconvenienced myself,
for the same reason, by the Yugoslav police during the post-Helsinki summit in Belgrade
It's perfectly true that I have been writing
for years that Henry Kissinger has the mind and the record of a psychopathic
criminal. It's also not the first time that I have written about his collusion
with Nixon in the mouthing of anti-Jewish obscenities. But on this occasion, as
I tried to point out, it was he who was the initiator and who went as far as
any racist could go. That fact seemed to me to call for more than a routine
comment—or a comment that occurred in Paragraph 4 of a four-paragraph
statement.
I don't see that this focus entitles anyone at
the AJC to imply that I am less revolted by gas-chamber talk than they are or
that my individual revulsion is weaker than their "institutional"
(somehow an odd choice) form of it. It's certainly not the first time that I
have written about anti-Semitism as a lethal poison in its own right, and by
whomsoever expressed.
Possibly the AJC still feels that its original
statement said all that was needful. Something in the tone of this exchange,
however, hints to me that they feel they could and should have done better.
Which they now have. At any rate, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify
my own position.
BP Oil Slick Buried on Sea Bed
The take home here is that the
oil spill has left the water column and has settled into the sediments on the
sea bottom to depths not exceeding several centimeters. Since no natural sediments saturated in oil
are observed, although ample opportunity for their occurrence exists, it is
reasonable that this layer will be consumed within even a couple of years
though no one actually knows. Or if they do, they are not saying.
Whatever the length of time
involved, the bulk of the damage is now constrained to the sea bottom itself
and will eventually clean up. This item
beats the drums of outrage a bit, but the alternatives were even more unimaginable.
It all ends with a whimper. The real achievement was that the well was
plugged before it was cut off with a relief well. We now know how to tackle the problem and we
hope never see it again. Recall these dispersants
were created because of certain previous disasters.
The good news is that we were
able to engineer a solution on the fly one mile down to the sea bed.
The Oil Slick BP Tried To Hide Has Been Discovered In
Thick Layers On the Sea Floor Over An Area of Several Thousand Square
By Washington
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22487
BP and the government famously
declared that most of the oil had disappeared.
But as I've noted, as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.
But as I've noted, as much as 98% of the oil is still in the ocean.
I have repeatedly pointed out that BP and the government applied
massive amounts of dispersant to the Gulf Oil Spill in an effort to
sink and hide the oil. Many others said the same
thing.
BP and the government denied this, of course.
But the oil is not remaining hidden.
Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal noted on December
9th:
A university scientist and the federal government say they have found
persuasive evidence that oil from the massive Gulf of Mexicospill
The new findings, from scientists at the University of South Florida
***
Scientists who have been on research cruises in the Gulf in recent days
report finding layers of residue up to several centimeters thick from what they
suspect is BP oil.
The material appears in spots across several thousand square miles of seafloor, they said. In many of those
spots, they said, worms and other marine life that crawl along the sediment
appear dead, though many organisms that can swim appear healthy.
***
Tests now have started to link some oil in the sediment to the BP well
could add to the amount of money BP ends up paying to compensate for the
spill's damage.
***
The test results
also raise questions about the possible downsides of the government's use of
chemical dispersants to fight the spill.
***
Under federal direction, about 1.8 million gallons of dispersants were
sprayed on the spilled oil in an effort to break it up into tiny droplets that
natural ocean microbes could eat up. At the time,
officials said the dispersants shouldn't cause oil from the spill to sink to
the seafloor. However, more recently, a federal report said dispersants may have helped
some spilled oil sink to the sediment.
Scientific teams have reported in recent months finding a strange
substance on the Gulf floor, in some cases as far as about 80 miles from BP's
ill-fated Macondo well, which blew out in April and spilled an estimated 4.1
million barrels of oil into the Gulf before it was capped.
***
"The chemical signatures are identical," said Mr. Hollander,
who found the contaminated samples in an area of the Gulf floor off the Florida
The federal government also has found oil matching Macondo oil in Gulf
sediment, Steve Murawski, a top National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration scientist, said in an interview. He declined to disclose
how much sediment contamination the government found, or exactly where in the
Gulf it was, saying experts still are analyzing the test results.
***
Samantha Joye, a University of Georgia oceanographer, also
has found what she believes to be evidence of BP oil in Gulf sediment. She is
awaiting lab results tracing the chemical fingerprints of sediment samples she
took.
On a research cruise in the Gulf that ended Friday, she saw worms that
crawl along the Gulf floor "just decimated," she said. But eels and
fish, which can swim away, often appeared fine, she said.
The Journal noted on December
18th:
Oil from BP PLC's blown-out well has lodged in the sediment of the Gulf of Mexico at levels that may threaten marine life,
according to a federal report released Friday.
***
There is no practical way to clean up the spilled oil that has settled
deep in the Gulf, officials said, adding that microbes in the water could eventually eat it up.
The massive application of dispersants to hide the amount of oil
spilled has caused major problems to the Gulf:
- The use of
dispersants prevented clean
up of the oil by skimming, by far the easiest method of removing oil from
the water
- Dispersants make
the toxins in crude oil more bioavailable to sealife,
and scientists have found that applying Corexit to Gulf crude oil
releases many times more toxic
chemicals into the water column than would be released with
crude alone (and see this)
- Dispersant might
have caused some of the chemicals in oil to become airborne (and
see this and this)
- The crude oil
which does not become aerosolized sinks under the surface of the ocean,
and can delay the recovery
of the ecosystem by years or even decades (see the Wall Street Journal
article quoted above)
- The overwhelming majority of
studies find that dispersants slow the growth of oil-eating microbes
- Dispersants
may bioaccumulate in seafood
- Blood tests
show elevated levels of toxic
hydrocarbons in Gulf residents
Extend-And-Pretend Will Fail
As I noted in May -
shortly after the spill started - the responses of the government to the Gulf
Oil spill and to the financial crisis are remarkably similar, as both have focused on covering up the
problems, instead of actually fixing them. Because the financial system was
never really reformed, the next financial shock will send the economy reeling.
Because the oil was never properly cleaned up, the next hurricane will
stir up immense quantities of oil now lying on the sea floor.
Extend-and-pretend is being attempted in both cases, and - in both
cases - it will fail, because nothing has been fixed, and the fundamentals can
only remain hidden for so long.
Moreover, in both cases, the government used "highly toxic"
measures to try to hide the real problems. The government has used
"emergency measures" and virtually all of its resources to prop up
the giant banks instead of using the proven methods of restructuring insolvent banks and
prosecuting the criminals who
caused the crisis, which has caused major problems for the real
economy.
Similarly, the government applied close to 2 million gallons of highly
toxic dispersant to hide the amount of oil instead of using it's resources to
deploy tried-and-true clean up methods, which has caused significant problems for
the Gulf.
Finally, new and potentially bigger crises will take place, because
regulation hasn't been put in place to prevent them. Regulation of the
financial system - including international agreements like Basil III - have been gutted (and
see this). And as Time
magazine notes:
Congress never managed to pass legislation that would have overhauled
drilling safety.
Chupacabra in the Argentine
In this report we again have the dominant theme of
blood consumption. I really would like
to see a victim autopsied in order to prove that the blood has been
extracted. It seems likely, but all the
related evidence appears to change from one geographical region to the next.
We have prospective vampire bats in the other
examples, but here we get large bird tracks.
Or possibly, the victims were felled at night and the vultures arrived
at dawn to check out the situation and tore off some meat.
A vampire bat would alight on the animal and draw
blood from the neck in the case of a sheep and from the arteries feeding the
udder in the case of a cow.
Later predation by other scavengers could well
explain the remaining evidence in all cases.
With the blood extracted, the meat taken would be bloodless and there
would be little mess. Yet the oddity
could discourage predators from continuing their meal. I notice that no one claims that flies stayed
away.
The only creditable (by that I mean biologically
possible) explanation that fits the blood taking is a large nocturnal vampire
bat as large as any large bird that lives of taking large animals at night.
It explains cattle mutilation particularly and all
these other cases we have seen. Tissue
harvesting is consistent with other predation by scavengers who nibbled and
left. That soft tissue was typically taken
is merely what normally happens first.
It is unusual for the carcasses to be found early. That they exist at all is because the
scavengers lost interest.
A large vampire bat can alight on a large animal
and go immediately for a key blood vessel like the jugular vein. The victim would quickly lose consciousness
and collapse in seconds as the animal’s heart pumps the blood directly into the
Vampire. It would all be over in a
couple of minutes.
This shows us that a well fed bat needs ten sheep
or a single cow at one sitting.
Of course only what we can call the expulsion
fraction actually gets taken as the animal is quickly shutting down. Thus we are likely looking at a feeding
providing around a total of ten or more pounds in total which fits the likely
needs of a thirty pound bird and its carrying capacity. This may also last it quite some time and it
may not need to feed again for week or so.
Chupacabras
Attacks in Argentina
Forteans
chronicles (english)
Dimanche
12 Décembre 2010
Lu 141
fois
On few
occasions in this investigation have we had all of the elements on hand to
finally reach some conclusions on this phenomenon. First, to bring our readers
up to speed, we shall provide you with backup information on the story.
News Item
From the Misiones Media:
Ten sheep were mortally attacked in recent weeks in a livestock
farmer’s field in this locality, according to eyewitness information presented
to the Sheriff’s office, the body that has been investigating the strange event
that has shaken the residents of this rural area.
Since the attacks occurred on two occasions and always at night, the caretakers, farm employees and Police officers have set up a rotating watch against the possibility that the strange animal may reappear again. It left sufficiently clear prints to increase suspicions that the police prefers not to encourage for the time being.
Since the attacks occurred on two occasions and always at night, the caretakers, farm employees and Police officers have set up a rotating watch against the possibility that the strange animal may reappear again. It left sufficiently clear prints to increase suspicions that the police prefers not to encourage for the time being.
Jose Fraga, owner of the field and the animals, decided to report the happenings to the Police, and while he wanted to file a complaint, the authorities made him desist for the time being, saying “against who would the complaint be filed?” according to clarifications issued by the police department.
Fraga explained that near one of the pens in his field, he found a large, deep footprint with three long toes.” Like that of a bird, but somewhat larger,” he said, and with regard to the injuries to the animals’ bodies, he added: “The all had bite marks on their necks.”
Andres Gonzalez, Sheriff of Campo Viera, confirmed that the attacks occurred twice and that “it is truly remarkable that the animal did not devour any of the sheep. It merely killed them by biting their necks, and blood was only found in that area of the body.
here was nothing found in the rest of their bodies.”
The sheriff noted that he had gone to Fraga’s field in person with others to see the event for himself. “Sheep carcass samples were removed, because there were traces of mucus and its possible to determine what attacked these creatures, and we will know in a few days,” he explained. “Many people are saying other things, but we have to wait and avoid jumping to conclusions. We really don’t know what it may be, because a puma or a yaguareté would’ve devoured one of the animals. But in this case there are 10 dead sheep and none of them were touched, only to slay them...” said González.
The figure of the Chupacabras began to acquire shape in the locality, and cows exhibiting strange bite-marks were found en in
In the
Ninth Section
Fraga’s field is located in the Ninth Section of Campo Viera, some four
kilometers away from the town center of the locality at the province’s heart,
practically attached to Oberá. Yesterday, Miguel Figueredo – caretaker of the
175 hectare spread – was startled by the events and for the time being cares
for the two sheep and one cow that survived the attack. “The sheep have injuries
to their necks, they’re clinging to life...they don’t drink or eat, they’re in
poor shape. The cow has bites on its teats and I heard over the radio that
other cows had been injured in the same area over in Campo Grande
“It’s as though all of the blood had been sucked out. The vet that came here, cut one of them (the sheep) and not even water came out,” he added without hesitation.
In Fraga’s field, featuring a ranch up high, there are currently 18 sheep and 50 cows, some of them nursing young. “That’s why we’re keeping a night watch with the police, because there are many animals and we have to look out for them.”
Most of the sheep chosen by the so-called Chupacabras were pregnant, increasing uncertainty about the creature that is loose in the area.
Next is
the report by Silvia Perez Simondini and members of the VISION OVNI group
Veterinarian: Arno Stockmanns
Animal Owner: José Fraga
Number of Deceased Animals: Ten (10)
Animals Surviving the Attack: Three (3) Sheep
Carcass Description: Ten (10) Sheep were mortally attacked, with exact incisions in their necks, bodies exsanguinated. The attacker injured two more specimens and a cow’s udders. The strange animal’s attacks were exact in jugular area. In a matter of minutes, it drained the blood from each slain animal.
Crows and caranchos (vultures) fly over the carcasses without coming near the injured parts, as if repelled by something. Other parts of the carcass, however, have been eaten.
A three fingered print was found.
Ants advanced over the sheep carcasses, but turned back upon reaching the neck area.
Antibiotics have been unsuccessfully administered to one of the surviving animals in an effort to halt the infection process: Irondel every 48 hours. Veterinarian Penz from the City of
Based on the photographic material received from the animals’ owner, the following patterns have been identified:
1) Acknowledged bovine cattle mutilations – incision with exposure of the jawbone, removal of tissue, tendons, ligaments and hide. Incision made to the larynx without hyoid bone extirpation.
2) Incision to the animal’s nose area.
3) Marks on the animal’s back with wool removal.
4) Deep incision to the neck area with apparent exsanguination.
5) Lacerations on one specimen’s face.
6) Circular cut with nasal injury in another specimen.
7) Incised cut on the outer ear.
PARTICULARS
1) Well-defined, three-clawed marks were found near the carcasses (similar to those of a very large bird, approximate length of 18 centimeters) which were well-marked due to terrain conditions.
2) Another element observed is the strange behavior of the ants, which invaded the body but died upon reaching the level of the injuries.
3) A deep incised cut on the animal’s hide was found. There is the possibility that the animal was “impaled” to hold it down when producing this cut.
APPRAISAL
This case was consulted with Dr. Alberto Pariani of the National
University of La Pampa, not only with regard to the injuries, but as how best
to work with the surviving animal, which now displays a process of infection
that has not been controlled, despite the veterinarian’s efforts. New
antibiotics were suggested, and we are awaiting reports on their effect.
It should be highlighted that local authorities have behaved hesitantly in this case. We believe this is due to an inability to find a satisfactory conclusion to the events.
It is important that they intervene in the case, since the possibility of catching this creature alive makes it a very important item of research in finding a satisfactory answer through scientific means.
We are trying to find a way of getting the surviving specimen to the
The case remains open, awaiting the conclusions of the forensic authorities of Oberá, which we shall consult if the animals’ owner does not provide us with a reply.
Our thanks to the Community Leader of Campo Viera, Mr. Juan Carlos Rios, and the animals’ owner, Mr. Jose Fraga, for their help and for reporting the case.
(Translation (c) 2010, Scott Corrales, IHU)
Lire la suite: http://www.rhedae-magazine.com/Chupacabras-Attacks-in-Argentina-or-just-a-vulture_a787.html#ixzz18O8XvdFP
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)