At least, when critiques can quite easily be answered from different protocols, a few extra measurements, whatever, it is surely worth doing that?
It’s clear we will never agree.
I don’t consider critiques based in the view that the phenomena is impossible to be valid. You insist in saying “I don’t think is impossible” but you act as if the corpus of evidence is erroneous because it doesn’t align with your worldview.
The evidence is enough for anyone reasonable.