You don't seem to understand the concept of logical arguments, and now you have made an appeal to authority to someone with a PhD in Old English, who collaborates with psychics.

Consider her dilemma as she presents it to be. Where would you suggest she turn to for answers to cope with something that was disrupting her life so profoundly?

Consider that the source of disruption had so much power over perception that it seemed to make her percieve whataver it wished. When she sought help from traditional sources she encountered only skeptics and dismisal.

Being the phenomena had such a profound control over psychic perception, where should she explore an explenation.

You also assume her collaberation with a psychic as damning without considering the merits? BS She chose this as a case study because the psychic was as powerless as anyone else. It clearly established that the phenomena was outside the psychic influence. Psychic, college professor, redneck or educated. The phenomena is not limited to any group or qualification.

You base the merit of the information on your assesment of me. That isn't science, thats denial pseudoscince.

Also I find as sgnificant the beginning premise and conclusion of any scientific study made is the same. Defense significance.

And that argument clearly fails by definition. That the phenomena is growing in scope, profoundly disrupts peoples lives, leads many to believe the government as co-conspiritors, severly modifies peoples belief systems, and disrupts their lives leading many towards stress and psychotic breakdown.

Just by virtue of its impact on society it is of defense significance regardless of the underlying cause.

Sorry I disturbed you. Put your head back in the sand. We are being farmed by an entity of such technological superiority that our government is as powerless as its citizens. Denial and cover up is the only mechanism governments have found to mantain any semblence that they are in control of our defense.

At least Karla Turner found a coping mechanism and established an emotional stance that was diruptive of the illusion the entities try to cast over their subjects. Anger seems to be an emotion that makes it more difficult for the entities to keep virtual reality illusions intact.

Finding something that makes a difference. How is that not science?