We'll have to use this case for a thorough examination of the bogus claims.The author of your presumed debunker wrote this:
- The Leiningers have repeatedly denied that their son James was exposed to videos or images of planes on fire or combat scenes prior. Specifically, he allegedly didn’t see such images proximate to his nightmares of being a pilot trapped in a burning plane. This is false, and my paper discloses the sources and their content. These include the content of videos James watched and aviation museums he visited.
No evidence of this was presented. Are we to believe that a two year old watched videos with understanding and visited aviation museums?
Your "debunder" presents a good argument. I would like to watch a debate between him and the parents of this child.
If the parents of this child presented claims that they later counterdicted , this needs to be dated and documented.
(contradicted)