How so? It was published in peer-reviewed journals. The modern debunker was unaware of the previous experiments, and they messed up the protocol, so their debunkings are illegitimate. What's dubious about it?
BTW, that last question would be better answered with a comment that has an actual argument rather than a bare assertion with no evidence, or moderation. Facts are facts. They don't give a shit which arrow you click.
You pointed to a previous discussion, about a point on which there was disagreement, and then said, "tl;dr - the side of that argument that I was on is right."
That's not a good summary of what you linked to.
Actually, it is, because I was right. At least nobody tried to make a rebuttal.