I singled out that part of the study, most of which is excellent by the way, as the most relevant test of Philip Klass's observation that Leo Sprinkle's abductees report kinder, gentler aliens than Budd Hopkins. He felt it was not coincidence that the personal beliefs of the investigators seemed to color the experiences of their subjects. While Bullard cites Klass's opinion as what is under test, he seems to forget the specifics of what Klass says as the argument goes along and ends up fighting against some exaggerated position that no skeptic I know of ever advanced. Bullard's data replicates what Klass says and the central pragmatic issue of whether it is advisable to point abductees to positively-minded investigators is demonstrated as prudently correct. It appears to be that he regards the puzzles in the data as so paramount that they vitiate any claim for a real investigator effect.
Some details are completely unaffected by the attitude of the investigator.
Though fair enough as a question of what is involved in a full portrait of the abduction phenomenon, the fact remains that the data does not contradict the specific claims that have been made by the critics he cites. It would be interesting to know how many readers of this study accept Bullard's conclusion without looking at the table of results. The main reason I bothered to double-check things was because the two lines I quoted seemed too unlikely. One can't read the UFO abduction literature without seeing the hand of the investigator is all too visible. She attends a meeting between her boyfriend and Budd Hopkins and is eventually regressed, yielding an experience involving needles in her nose and vagina.