You haven't established that it is invalid.
That means it is also incumbent upon YOU to establish the scientific validity of the claims you are making. So far you haven't. And when pressed on it all you seem capable of producing is (1) Ad hominem attacks against Tueller, and (2) Ad hominem attacks against Dr. Lewinski, all from some internet tough guy who is an uncredentialed hack hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
You haven't established that it is invalid.
Since I'm not relying on the Tueller Drill to make my point, that's not my obligation. You on the other hand have asserted that it is scientifically grounded, although the best you can do to back that assertion is a non peer reviewed study from a hack on the police payroll who bought himself a Ph.D. on the itnernet. That makes your argument thoroughly unsubstantiated.
Ad hominem attacks against Dr. Lewinski, all from some internet tough guy who is an uncredentialed hack hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
Speaking of ad hominems, fallacy boy, you're just full of them today!
At least when I say Lewinski's an uncredentialed hack with an internet degree I can back that up with fact. Face it. You're just pissed that I exposed your "expert" as a fraud.