reply to post by dejarmaX
Why is it most every time I spill my speal about the development of methodologies through persistence with trial and error, it always seems to be met
with "it can't be done", "'they' are too advanced", "aliens won't fall for that"?
This is bothersome. It's defeatist.
Has anyone considered the aspect of the equation that the fact people are reporting abduction events (if these are real physical events) is evidence,
if only circumstantial, that these aliens (if there are such a thing) have already made mistakes?
If there are aliens and they're doing everything in their power to cover up their activities, they've done a really sloppy job.
They sport scars.
They claim implants.
Many suffer from varieties of unexplained illnesses and some have even been claimed to have died from the effects of these supposed mystery illnesses.
If there are aliens, and they're trying to be sneaky, they're doing a really sloppy job of it.
Sloppy = chances for us to exploit said sloppiness.
All we require is persistence, and just a little bit of ingenuity.
Try, try, try, and try again, and then keep on trying.
All we need is just ONE win while we're trying, to collect good data.
If aliens are real, then they need to win every single time, and from the very fact that we even know/suspect something is going on, such demonstrates
a sloppiness, failure, or inability to do better.
If they can't do any better at being sneaky, then, it really shouldn't be too gawdawful a task to trip that nonsense up with persistent inquiry.
Still, all I seem to ever hear is laziness, defeatism, talk that seems more like pomp-poms for the aliens than anything constructive towards designing
methodologies or alternatives for finding definitive answers to this question.
Sure, if 100 abductees are monitored and it turns out all 100 of them are simply mental cases, then data would support the psych paradigm. That does
not, however mean the study should stop there. monitor 100 more, and/or continue monitoring the previous 100.
Is the shrinky dink head case aspect a result of the abductions, or are the abductions a 'result' of the shrinky dink head case aspect?
Vet candidates for monitoring based on historical reporting demographics and frequencies of physical abduction cases.
Young women, according to some reports, for instance, seem to be prime candidates for forced rape and impregnation where a later abduction then
forcibly removes the forced impregnation fetus around the 1st trimester.
Waiting around to catch aliens on video might not be the best approach when you could sponsor protective custody in a controlled access facility with
the best of health care for young women claiming to have been forcibly impregnated by aliens.
Sure, there will be nut cases, but, bring an alien human hybrid to term, and out pops some kid with wrap around black eyeballs then you've got a
definite hmmmm. If kid pops out and all hair and blood samples (taken without harm to child regardless of appearance) test normal human, then,
you've got another other hmmmm.
Thus there, you've got TWO options to approach this question. camera trap active abductees, and protect the women claiming forced alien impregnation
from being abducted 'again' for a chance to look see at what comes out the other end of the 9 months (responsibly and ethically).
If you're going to say it can't be done, or some other defeatist phraseology, keep it to yourself. It's been said before all too often.
contribute a solution; something better, or another other alternative that can bring about definitive 'proof' better than these.