It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: palehorse23
This is killing me here. Final comment.
About the "absolutely no blood" comment on the animated picture. Have any of you guys ever seen or worked with a dead body? I am not talking about a cadaver either. those are already fixed specimens.
A fresh dead body will always have blood in it. Whether it be in the fatty tissue, the muscle, the vascular system, etc. This guy clearly did not have all of his soft tissues removed. THERE HAD TO BE BLOOD IN THE BODY!!!! Don't take everything you read so literally.
Oh yeah, one last thing. Notice the animated picture says his left eye was removed. Well, when you go down to the first picture, looks like the right eye was removed to me. And the right side of the jaw. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAXXXXXXX
originally posted by: palehorse23
reply to post by Breifne
Sorry, one more thing I just noticed. The autopsy report has a different date than when the article claims. The report says December 26th, 1988. The article says this case happened in 1994.
Sorry folks, disinformation here.
If anyone is interested, I did a full analysis of the photos. U2U me and I will gladly share.
originally posted by: mw
The Guarapiranga Case was solved some time ago and it had nothing to do with UFOs or Aliens. An artcle by Claudeir Covo, co-editor of UFO magazine, Paola Lucherini Covo and Tânia da Cunha can be read, in Portuguese, at the link below. You can translate the article to English at www.systransoft.com...
www.ufo.com.br...
Peter Keyes:
He's on safari. The lions, the tigers, the bears... oh, my!
originally posted by: TheDarkHorse
FUnlike some cattle mutilation cases, this one (or two as the other poster suggests) has other plausible explanations
originally posted by: mbkennel
originally posted by: TheDarkHorse
FUnlike some cattle mutilation cases, this one (or two as the other poster suggests) has other plausible explanations
I'm almost sure I know what the cattle mutilations are. They were government surveillance of the spread of radioactive isotopes which were released in nuclear weapons or other operations in the West, and not publicly disclosed.
Cattle were perfect, because they graze over wide areas and accumulate them in digestive tract. The need to steal cattle from other areas is because they needed them at certain geographical locations.
Everything fits.
So basically it was a CYA/environmental program for some radioactive messes. And they've stopped.