AbducteeJournal (@abducteejournal)

Plausible Deniability Boundary. I should have mentioned this a long time ago but better late than never. When I started my research, testing different equipment for efficacy, I noticed they would initially have a strong reaction to whatever I was doing, even cause equipment malfunctions, file corruptions, power outages and software ‘glitches’. But they would only cause those problems with any new equipment a few times before they tended to give up or try a different approach. They could have easily kept causing problems, further discouraging me from using any equipment, broken the equipment or even stolen it so I would have to replace it but I seemed to have found “their” boundary. Here is a great example of their protocol: I was testing a video surveillance software on my laptop that sends footage every minute to the cloud. I set up the experiment to test it around ovulation, also using LH strips to confirm day of ovulation. The first time I tried this software they caused what looked like a software glitch, where 1.5 hrs of footage was missing from the log. Being the first time I tested this software, I just assumed it was a software glitch until I realized that that was the day I had a positive LH strip and after a few days I confirmed that my basal temperature shift also validated the day of ovulation. Of course, being tenacious, I tested the software again the next cycle. Instead of getting the missing footage, I instead had a power outage in my apartment. The software sends footage to the cloud, which relies on the router, which is plugged into the wall. A simple power outage would not only stop the software from uploading footage but shut it down altogether. “They” did this a few times over consecutive cycles. Given that my apartment was the only one having this power outage (I asked several nearby neighbors and even the leasing office if they have had any issues), I decided to test this software at a neighbor’s apartment who was rarely there. Five days before I was set to do the experiment I went into the neighbor’s place to drop their mail off when I found their apartment had no power. I checked the freezer and realized they had all this expensive food in there, so I tracked down the apartment staff. He took me to the meter room and we found my neighbor’s meter locked out, suggesting he wasn’t paying his electric bill. I called the neighbor who called the electric company and not only was his bill up to date but the person on the line said there was no order to shut off his electricity and it was a “mistake”. Yeah, ok. 😂 I of course tested my software at his place, despite the electric shut off, no problems. I then tested it a few times over the consecutive cycles at both his place and my place, no more problems. So it took probably 5 cycles of testing for “them” to give up on messing with that particular equipment. I had hit their plausible deniability boundary 😏. Now if I tested a new equipment, the cat and mouse game would start all over again. This unusual behavior tells me that “they” have strict protocol when dealing with abductees. Stealing or damaging equipment might be “their” last resort but in my experience they never did it, because that would be too obvious and I would just get new equipment. So they would gain nothing from doing that and I would know for SURE they were to blame. Moral of the story here, stay tenacious 💪🏼, power through, don’t give up. They are merely trying to discourage you from trying, but they have a limit as to how many times they will discourage you. Watch “them” have a power trip and prove me wrong 🤣🤣🤣.