I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications. As in why her independent and unrelated subjects reported consistant stories. Why identical triangular marks of exactly the same size were found on the bodies after a dream state experiance. Why her whole family and anyone they associated with suddenly found themselves in the same phenomena. Mental abberration is not contageous.

I have an older brother in an asylum. His condition was evident from birth and was degenerative. Six boys and two girls in my family and guess what. None of the rest cought his condition. Nor did any of us believe his hallucinations or fantasy either. And being of a real disorder, it didn't involve aliens.

Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive. Excuse then established not to read and study the work, just to research and debunk the author.

I focused on her work. You focused on the source, as you point out that you know more about her than I do, and use this as excuse to ignore her work. Again it degenerates into debunking bart for being unscientific and of questionable motive, ignoring the issue.

You become quite predictable.