First let me try to answer you question as I understand it. Relevence of work:

A person involved in the abduction experiance with a background as an educator. She attempted to document events as they occured and understand what and why of the phenomena. Being a part of the phenomena and not a researcher seeking to prove a point. She rejected and debunked the new age aproach of other researchers who sought a pre concieved meaning.

While the evidence is largely ancedotal, as she states, there was some physical trace evidence she documented as it occured. If you have any desire to understand the phenomena at all, then her unique perspective is a look inside the experience.

That the phenomena is real is undeniable, estimates are that four million people are affected in some way. Denying the existance and rubber stamping it as not scientificly quantifiable is not an understanding of why it is occuring.

Is it cultural, attention seekers, mental aberration, childhood fears expressed into adulthood, or a manifestation of some external stimulus. A look inside the experiance from someone with an educator background may yield some insight into explenation.

Unless you reject the premise of Clarke that any sufficiently... then it should be considered a possible example of how such technology would exhibit itself. Without evaluation or considering alternative explenation you immediatly class it as to what it cannot be. You make a statement of conclusion and offer no support for it.

Her work is a look at what documented evidence is available. You offer explenations that are largly ancedotal as well. Or class it as what it cannot be without any supporting argument.

Further you have exhibited the very reason why much of the ley community discounts science on this subject. You impune the person presenting the case, refuse to evaluate the work, and cite the motive of the source without proof of such motive.