I really wanted an honest evaluation of her work and its implications.
Reconcile that statement with your misrepresentation of her qualifications and her credentials. Why would you misrepresent something you wanted evaluated honestly?
Instead of evaluationg her research on its evidence and conclusions, she was classed as woo woo and impuned as to motive.
No. I looked at her work and approach. I noted that she collected evidence of some effect, then simply speculatively attributed it to the actions of space aliens for which she admitted there was no evidence.
That is her line of reasoning, and it's indefensible. On that basis it was rejected.
In wondering why someone would make such a blatantly illogical statement, we note that there is a motive -- attention and money from UFO enthusiasts -- that also might explain her actions. And we find plenty of evidence for that motive. I find no evidence that her actions were the result of a desire to do good science.
I focused on her work.
You focused on her conclusions because they told you something you wanted to hear: that the government was covering up evidence of alien abductions about which they could do nothing.
You focused on the source...
No. You focused on the source, trying to establish her as a "well-educated" conscientious researcher who was not supposedly bothered by partisan or ulterior motives. You said her qualities as an "educator" validated the approach and conclusions.
We noted that your hype about the properties of the source was misplaced -- she was not properly credentialled. We then pointed out that the actual claims and methods she employed were also flawed, regardless of the nature of the source, and that you had misrepresented those too.
You become quite predictable.
That's because I am consistent.
|