Please explain why these works should appeal to the skeptic as a scientific or scholarly approach to abduction.

Being an educator with a phd she took an approach of accepting nothing on face value. If you don't want to read the books you can watch the 4 segment 2 hour vid.

1. She states you can accept nothing on face value.
2. She attempts to correlate stories looking for facts.
3. She stipulates who the manipulators are is unknown, aliens assumed as possible source but not proven.
4. If you listen to her lecture she makes her approach and relevence clearer than I can.

Watch the first one, find nothing relevent then don't watch the rest. I discovered her work about 4 days ago. I am researching the subject because I know so little about it. So I thought I would check and see what had been discussed here, as well as other forums.

I found her approach remarkable because;

So much of what I have started to read I put down quickly. It became obvious many researchers were cherry picking the facts to fit their agenda.

She took the approach of censuring nothing, accept nothing on face value, correlate simularities. She was a critical thinker who tried at first to reject where the investigation was taking her. She tried to find it all was explainable as a mental condition, but found the truly mentally ill people in treatment or institutions did not exhibit anything even close to what the abduction people reported.

I did not start this post, make no claims, have no need to defend.

I just suggest that she takes a science minded approach, which many authors clearly do not. If you have an opinion, make it an informed one and evaluate her lecture video. She pretty much summerizes her thoughts there. She offers what thoughts can be directed towards the abductors as a defense. Points out how the abductors play into the belief systems of the abducted. Points out the alien or government connection is not proven.