Surgical precision - what does it mean?

[stereologist]

There are plenty of articles about animal multilations that claim some sort of surgical precision. It is not defined in the article, but allows the reader to make up whatever they want in their minds. It's a common fringe tactic. It was done with objects on Mars. The claim was "look at all of the infrastructure". "What are you referring to?" is my question.

Let's see if we can determine if there is a definition and if so is it something other than what our imaginations want it to be. I posted a question in a thread in the UFO forum and finally received one answer. That answer seemed to be personal opinion and not based on a definition from a primary source.

It is also clear that site rules state that gruesome images should not be posted and links to gruesome images should not be posted. To avoid this it is important to use links that do not use gruesome images. If those cannot be found then provide instructions on how to specifically find specific articles that are used. 

For example, I will reference a source at 

The link is to a blog about UFO issues. Click on the March link at that site to read about a rating system proposed by someone that has first hand knowledge of these cases. I will use the term post mortem injuries instead of mutilations because that is a more accurate description and lacks the connotations in the term mutilations.

Type A - post mortem injuries due to carnivorous birds or scavenger birds

Type B - post mortem injuries due to carnivorous predatory mammals

Type C - post mortem injuries due to humans

This article does provide an extensive list of possible agents:

• Government agents including MIBHs
• ETs
• Possible extra-dimensional hunter
• Crypto predator such as BF, vampires, chupacabra
• Satanists or cultists
• Criminals such as rustlers

Disclaimer: The March link contains two mildly graphic images. There are many photos of possible animal agents and a person from the Skinwalker ranch.

[stereologist]

What makes people so sure that there are Satanists or aliens making odd post-mortem injuries? It seems that there is a complete lack of evidence and thus it must be true. For those seeing the fingerprints of Satan everywhere, what is the evidence? For those seeing aliens here, aliens there, aliens everywhere, what is the evidence?

It seems to be that there are injuries that are post-mortem that signal that it is some unusual cause. These injuries are labeled as being surgically precise. So what does that mean? I like to think of a surgery as being a gentleman’s knife fight. The surgeon stabs you, but does it politely.

Surgeons stab you with the idea of limiting damage as they gain access to the place at which they intend to alter the body. They cut around nerves and major blood vessels. They avoid cutting into hard to heal areas. Is that happening here with these post-mortem injuries?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I won't even attempt to explain it because I know how you argue. Why don't you ask the experts that used that descriptor.

There have been thousands of investigations launched by local police, county sheriffs, and state police, and also, many state funded labs such as Colorado State University that determined the surgically precise cuts, not to mention the ranchers themselves and individual investigators like Linda Moulton Howe and Chuck Zukowski that have been investigating cattle mutilations for decades.  Those people were hands on. Ask them. Why do you have a hard time with their description when body parts like - say, a tongue are cut perfectly straight out of the mouth sans bleeding? 

And BTW, the above people are not employing as you describe, "a common fringe tactic".  They are doing their best to describe the manner in which cuts to animal creatures appear to be. Cut shapes also include triangle, square, and oval, all cut with precision. Don't ask me to prove it, ask the experts, whose word I take for it, seeing as though the descriptions are universal amongst hands-on people. 

Speaking of which, you have never been hands on so why do you call these people "fringe"?  You are the fringe, if you deny these things without so much as one hands on inspection. 

You seem to have this problem with thinking that you can "debunk" the experts from your desktop. What a hoot.

[stereologist]

22 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I won't even attempt to explain it because I know how you argue. Why don't you ask the experts that used that descriptor.

There have been thousands of investigations launched by local police, county sheriffs, and state police, and also, many state funded labs such as Colorado State University that determined the surgically precise cuts, not to mention the ranchers themselves and individual investigators like Linda Moulton Howe and Chuck Zukowski that have been investigating cattle mutilations for decades.  Those people were hands on. Ask them. Why do you have a hard time with their description when body parts like - say, a tongue are cut perfectly straight out of the mouth sans bleeding? 

And BTW, the above people are not employing as you describe, "a common fringe tactic".  They are doing their best to describe the manner in which cuts to animal creatures appear to be. Cut shapes also include triangle, square, and oval, all cut with precision. Don't ask me to prove it, ask the experts, whose word I take for it, seeing as though the descriptions are universal amongst hands-on people. 

Speaking of which, you have never been hands on so why do you call these people "fringe"?  You are the fringe, if you deny these things without so much as one hands on inspection. 

You seem to have this problem with thinking that you can "debunk" the experts from your desktop. What a hoot.

You've used the expression in your own writing and yet you seem unable to know what it is that you wrote.

Please provide evidence that any of these groups: "local police, county sheriffs, and state police, and also, many state funded labs such as Colorado State University" used the phrase "surgically precise cuts". 

Your claim that some sensationalist like Linda Moulton Howe might have used the term is possible. You used term and yet you seem unable to tell anyone what it means.

The use of the terms that allow people to think whatever they want to think is a common fringe tactic. If they wanted to describe what they mean by this then they would tells us what this phrase means. As I have already pointed out it could mean many different things.

So now you want to spew more of your unsupported ideas and refuse to back up your comments. That could very well be because they are malarkey that you've made up. I think that is a strong possibility.

Here you suggest I've never been hands on, yet you are not hands on either and want to pretend that some fringe idea has merit. You are being typically laughable by suggesting that your opinion which is definitely not based on hands-on is of value.

The simple fact is that the experts are already listed such as Rommel and the 8 diagnostic labs Rommel used that state that this is all malarkey.

If you have expert information to provide then do so.

[stereologist]

There are plenty of claims of thousands, like 10 thousand recorded cattle with inexplicable post-mortem injuries. The question is where did this number come from? It doesn’t appear to have a real source. It appears to be made up.

If it appears in a report what is the basis for these numbers?

The one report covering a lot of cases was Rommel's report to the FBI, but that report does NOT have 10 thousand recorded cattle with inexplicable post-mortem injuries.

Where does this number come from? 

I suspect it is a factoid.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid

[stereologist]

Here is a question for the believers. I reposted the question from another thread where I received a single answer.

Q: The claim of surgical precision is based on:

1. The cuts were incredibly linear
2. The cuts went around major blood vessels
3. The cuts were in places a surgeon would use to enter a body minimizing harm to the patient
4. The tell tale 'z' marks seen in surgical cuts
5. All of the above

Earl.Of.Trumps gave this response:

It means cut with no jagged edges, as if cut by some cutting machine or laser. happy?

I suppose this is a refinement of answer 1.

[rashore]

Please do not start new threads to carry on threads that have been closed.

Thread closed.